The bistander thread

[BroMikey]

Hey Aaron

Great break down of these processes and I'll have to agree. This indeed
is a much deeper subject than most will ever grasp. Turion is doing a
fairlygood job of covering some of the topics.

Yes I'll agree tho I must admit the need to reread this post of yours
again. Sometimes it is easy to forget some of the data gathered over
the years.

What I would like to see is what Dave is talking about and that is caps
powerful to do the same job as a battery. When I came around to learn
splitting the positive every time I got down to the process comparison
with others work I found the battery was acting up. The plate area was
either getting way bigger. Other times must have been a mystery broken
plate that came alive or a sulfated one that suddenly came clean or
stopped working at all.

Since then it has been years of changing the subject to batteries with
little actual data of the process of splitting the positive stuff then
combine that with learning blockades people already have or the
instructors inability, we are talking decades to move forward.

A lead acid battery is impossibly difficult where a super cap might
shorten learning times down to minutes or hours. Many people will
give up after a few days or even years.

Agreed that a battery and the way it works is far more complicated
than the 6th grade level most have to fall back on. Keeping things
simple would be helpful. There is nothing stable across the board
about a lead acid battery found on shelves around the globe. One
battery working right today better not go below 12v or you can expect
trouble.

See? So far all I have talked about is the battery and on and on we
go. There has got to be an alternative for teaching these principles
that gets us away from the anomalies.

Charging a battery with a mysterious quark whoops I mean quirk is
no longer my cup of tea. Sometimes its a necessary evil.

I find that teaching my son about new ideas always ends up back with
babying the battery 90 percent of the time spent (wasted) in home class.

I find myself saying well it should have worked like this every time BUT...

Everybody knows huge amount of energy can be hidden in a battery
so when someone suggests using 1 percent amp draw it becomes hard
to prove anything on a bench.

[bistander]

Potential

BroMikey, this is addressed more to Bistander because he just doesn't get it. Turion might not be using all the accepted terminology, but anyone who is honest or has any common sense can at least comprehend the principles that he is sharing.

The bottom line chemistry of a lead acid battery is that it is a water fuel cell. It all comes down to creating a water molecule or destroying a water molecule.

When you run current through the battery, the sulfate on the lead goes into the solution destroying a water molecule in the process. When you power a load from the battery, you are creating a water molecule as the sulfate goes to the plate.

Neither charging nor discharging adds to takes away from anything in the battery and Turion is correct - charging a battery doesn't fill it with a magical charge that doesn't exist and there is no electricity or charge intrinsic to the chemicals themselves.

When you charge a battery, you don't "charge it up". All you do is separate the internal "charges" of the chemistry to their respective sides - it is just polarizing the chemistry so there is a high and low at the terminals. That's it.

When you discharge the battery, you're not draining anything from it. Part of the dipole's POTENTIAL gets dissipated to a lower potential by any resistance it encounters as that EMF (electromotive force) flows over the wire, which limits that EMF flow to nearly the speed of light. The electrons jump orbit being attracted towards the positive terminal at a rate of a few inches per hour (conduction current).

That resistance from causing conduction current (so-called electrons) to flow is drag from the loosely bound electrons in the copper wire itself and those electrons and it's current flow did not come from inside the battery.

Part of that dissipation of potential energy, which is what work is and is the only real definition of energy, goes to powering the load and part of it depolarizes the chemistry in the battery so when the voltage and load powering capability of the battery goes down, it didn't run out of anything, it just depolarized so the chemistry moves towards equilibrium.

If a battery is "charged" properly, the chemistry is 100% reversible to like new condition on each charge cycle and is why a lead acid battery can have a theoretical infinite life span. Battery chargers should be called battery polarizers because that is an accurate description of what they actually do. Unfortunately, almost all chargers chronically under charge the batteries and this is why they break down and die. Plenty of members here know this to be true.

So where did the EMF come from since it did not come from the chemistry in the battery or any magical charge in the battery that never existed? The conduction current (amperes) came from the copper atoms of the wire outside the battery. The EMF attracts the electrons out of the outer electron field of the copper atoms, which are the most loosely bound toward the positive pole of the battery (Drude gas model - the most accurate and consistent model according to what we do know).

The DIPOLE of the battery caused by the polarized chemistry breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum - that is Bearden's terminology consistent with the quantum view but I dropped my quantum belief quite a while back like a hot bag of poison. In simple terms, it polarizes the aether that is in the vicinity of the poles of the battery terminals.

The voltage potential (first type of voltage - EMF being the 2nd) reading at the terminals is a gas pressure reading of the aether sitting there in a "static" state waiting for a path to lead it to a lower potential. As soon a you hook a circuit to it like a light bulb, that EMF flows over the surface of the wire like wave-guide at light speed towards the neutral terminal. The current induced to move as described above is the source of the current to light the bulb - if electrons are even really turning into light - we don't know but it is a model that will suffice for this example.

Again, about half of the potential is dissipated from the resistance of the load (work = energy) and the other half depolarizes the chemistry in the battery (loss = unintended work = still energy). As the chemistry moves toward equilibrium from this, the voltage reading goes down because there is less gas pressure of the polarized/symmetrical aether available at the terminal of the battery. The battery didn't lose one iota of "energy" "charge" or any other mystical and magical thing. It only got depolarized.

That is the nature of the dipole and every dipole operates the same way. Chemistry in your cells - sodium potassium pump, whatever - doesn't matter. There is no electrical charge intrinsic to any chemical. When one electron is transported here or there or an ion in a channel, etc. all those chemical reactions are simply creating, destroying and recreating dipoles that polarize the aether in their vicinity and that aether flows to the terminals of the chemistry and move just like the description above. 100% of every dipole is the same without exception.

That is where the EMF comes from (polarized aether). That EMF is also known as the Heaviside Flow and is estimated that only about 1 / 10 trillionths or 1 / 11 trillionths of it is attracted into the copper that pulls the electrons out of orbit to cause the conduction current in amps. Virtually none of it even gets used and is why it is accurate to say a AA batter or other small dipole has the potential to power an entire city or whatever. It's not that the potential is not there, it is that nobody knows how to tap all that potential and turn it into work by resisting it and having it manifest/create energy right on the spot.

Energy always is and only is created or destroyed since there is no such thing as energy. That EMF (polarized aether or Heaviside Flow) is the actual stuff, which is the noun meaning the POTENTIAL is the noun and is the thing. There is no such thing as energy because it is not a thing. Energy is a word to describe work, which is the ACTIVITY of organized potential encountering a resistance that dissipates it back to equilibrium in its active environment. When this happens, energy is created and destroyed simultaneously anywhere work is happening. That is why the entire concept of conservation of energy is for nitwits who are deluded with magical myths.

Now that we know the above, we can create circuits where we can create potential differences in novel ways that allow us to use this potential without killing the dipole. Lead acid batteries are open systems by the way, not closed. The chemistry has free interchange with the environment so what happens in the battery on a front end or back end may be related to each other, but being related does NOT mean it is automatically directly proportional and that is an indisputable fact.

John Bedini and Peter Lindemann demonstrated this many times at EnergenX and I witnessed it over and over right there throughout a couple million dollars worth of R & D show exactly what a battery really is and how it needs to be charged. Peter's demo on John's 10-coiler SSG ran on 24v golf cart batteries and charged a large 24v cell phone tower battery bank at a COP of a minimum of 5.0.

Peter drew 500% more work from that battery bank on the back end compared to the small amount that left the golf cart batteries, which is one of the most blatant in your face demonstrations of the importance of using as BIG of batteries as you can afford, which is what Turion has said for years. Any internal resistance in the battery massively dissipates the potential. Use large batteries and more of that potential in that EMF flow can actually get put to use by eliciting more chemical change in the battery (separation of internal "charges").

AND, with IMPULSES, which are sharp gradients that are known to violate conventional thermodynamics, those IMPULSES cause a sharp gradient at the battery terminals, which polarizes the aether in the space at the battery terminals and we're talking about terminals of a battery being charged. The polarized aether adds EMF that adds to additional polarization of the chemistry meaning the battery is "charging" more than just what enters the battery from the spikes, cap dumps, or other form of impulse. So that alone is a gain mechanism where the battery can wind up with more load powering capability than what entered the battery from the output of the circuit. Again, that battery is an open system so that winds up in the battery is related but NOT directly proportional to what you see in the circuit.

Anyone can measure the spikes from a simple Bedini SSG and see that it only registers at about 15-20% of what is leaving the input battery appearing to be very inefficient. Stooges like Milehigh and others have claimed that for years. However, that is always going to be a bogus test. The only honest test is that you wait until AFTER the battery is charged and then discharge at a 20 hour rating to see how many joule seconds you actually get out of it. And what does almost everyone see? 70-75% is easy and is considered bad performance and a junk build can get these results. 85% is pretty typical and really good results can be up to 95% with a large, quality SSG built. Yet 15-20% is what you measure when putting a meter to measure the spikes (which is always going to be inaccurate anyway). The best anyone can measure is always WAY UNDER what actually is measured from the battery in an honest draw down test with a constant current load. And this is with a simple SSG.

I've seen variations of what Turion has done by Peter and others and know what the results can show. What he is saying is valid and has been proven not just by him but John, Peter and others. Turion is doing it larger scale and is throwing some generator coils that DO offer reduced drag properties for equivalent output into the mix along with being able to neutralize the cogging effect. I don't see how anyone that is honest cannot understand the reality unless they are completely dedicated to deluding themselves.

Thanks Aaron,

Notice my first reply (as of late) to Turion on the subject.

Hello Turion, ...
How can current be the same in and out of the load when that load is consuming power? Answer is potential.
...
bi

{edit}
I still have the same issues posting. I'll try to get a screenshot from my laptop later.

[bistander]

Opinion

Everything is part of nature, all nature ever does is to seek balance.. It is a choice to benefit from it.

Seems to be plenty of chaos along the way without choice.

bi

[Turion]

Battery

Bro Mikey,
My post about batteries wasn’t to suggest that energy moves from the high side of a battery to the low side and is in the same state on the low side as it was on the high side. There is no ball of energy there waiting to be used somehow. It was simply to explain that it runs THROUGH THE LOAD on the way and it is the current flow that runs the motor And there is NO conversion of energy in the battery to mechanical energy in the motor. The mechanical energy is obtained simply by the movement of current. The energy that reaches the low side is almost equal to what left the high side with a bit lost to heat through resistance. To sum it up, my belief is that as electricity moves through wires, some of it can be lost to heat in resistance, or impedance in a circuit, but the idea that it is converted to mechanical energy is crap. Spend enough time working with capacitors and batteries and you will prove it to yourself. When you understand that with the CORRECT circuit you can run the load for free, you are on the right path. You have seen that you can take FULL advantage of energy when it “runs downhill” because of potential difference. The next step is to figure out how to always make it run downhill, or to use it SEVERAL TIMES on its way downhill so you have gotten more out of it when it gets to the bottom than is required to move it back to the top. Start thinking about high voltage low amps moving through a wire vs low voltage high amps. Is there a difference in resistance? Ohms law in action.

[bistander]

Screenshot

Aaron,

Here ya go.

Regards,

bi

}edit{

When I switch WiFi off and use LTE, I get about 1 or 2 minute to post or edit, then then trouble starts.

[bistander]

Current only?

Bro Mikey,
My post about batteries wasn’t to suggest that energy moves from the high side of a battery to the low side and is in the same state on the low side as it was on the high side. There is no ball of energy there waiting to be used somehow. It was simply to explain that it runs THROUGH THE LOAD on the way and it is the current flow that runs the motor And there is NO conversion of energy in the battery to mechanical energy in the motor. The mechanical energy is obtained simply by the movement of current. The energy that reaches the low side is almost equal to what left the high side with a bit lost to heat through resistance. To sum it up, my belief is that as electricity moves through wires, some of it can be lost to heat in resistance, or impedance in a circuit, but the idea that it is converted to mechanical energy is crap. Spend enough time working with capacitors and batteries and you will prove it to yourself. When you understand that with the CORRECT circuit you can run the load for free, you are on the right path. You have seen that you can take FULL advantage of energy when it “runs downhill” because of potential difference. The next step is to figure out how to always make it run downhill, or to use it SEVERAL TIMES on its way downhill so you have gotten more out of it when it gets to the bottom than is required to move it back to the top. Start thinking about high voltage low amps moving through a wire vs low voltage high amps. Is there a difference in resistance? Ohms law in action.

"The mechanical energy is obtained simply by the movement of current."

So you don't believe in Faraday's Law and the generated potential in the armature?

[Cadman]

Bi,

The load does not have to be a motor.

[dragon]

If you use large capacitors, say 50 farad, and you get the ones that have their own meter showing EXACTLY what is in the capacitor, the test I described is simple. Charge one cap and put the two caps in parallel with the motor between the positives and run it until the caps equalize and the motor stops. LOOK at what is in each cap and add the two totals. It will show you exactly what I am talking about. Now if you do the SAME experiment with a modified Matt motor the results are even more dramatic because with a pulse motor there are two high voltage spikes that can be captured. One when the coil is charged and another when the coil collapses. In most motors these spikes are sent into the unused windings to dissipate. Matt’s motor sends them to the side that is being charged in the path of least resistance.

The Laws of thermodynamics apply to electrical circuits only in how they produce heat. In a nutshell, any device with movable parts produces friction that converts mechanical energy to heat that is generally unusable and must be removed from the system by transferring it to a heat sink. This is why claims for perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected by the U.S. Patent Office.

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase.

Now in electrical circuits, the energy flow is from the high concentration to the low. That’s what we WANT, because we can take advantage of that. That isn’t a “law” of thermodynamics unless you assume electricity is heat, since thermodynamics applies to hot and cold. Not to say that electricity never produces heat, because it can, but it, in itself, is NOT heat so the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to it.

But not an argument worth having. The first step MUST be understanding that nowhere NEAR as much energy is consumed by the load as we have been led to believe. Prove that one thing to yourself and you are on the path to free energy

That's probably not a good example ... for instance if you have 2 - 1 farrad caps one neutral ( discharged ) and one charged to 20 volts you have 0 joules stored in one and 200 joules stored in the other. When the two are balanced using a load between positives there will be 50 joules remaining in each cap at approximately 10 volts each. 100 joules remaining and 100 joules lost.

If you could take the charged 20v 1 F cap ( 200 Joules ) and discharge it through a motor or boost circuit and see the same 20 volt charge on the second 1 F cap when the first one was neutralized then you'd have something quite amazing.

[Aaron]

error

Hi Aaron,

Thanks. But it is difficult to post and include screen shot. Most often I get message site cannot be reached.

When I switch off WiFi, I get one quick shot to post.

bi

Must be server 500 error? The DNS records are properly propagated throughout the ISPs everywhere not sure why. Will ask my server team.

[Aaron]

Loads don't dissipate everything moving through it

The first step MUST be understanding that nowhere NEAR as much energy is consumed by the load as we have been led to believe. Prove that one thing to yourself and you are on the path to free energy

That is even validated by mainstream science. In the last couple years, I came across an article on a study that shows exactly this. I thought I posted it in emediapress.com - will post a link when I find it.

Jim Murray's SERPS technology demonstrates this irrefutably. 50 watts powering incandescent bulbs and nearly all of it is captured in capacitors on the other side of the load. Then it is sent back in the opposite direction through the bulbs lighting them at about 49 watts. The returned "energy" is then stepped up in voltage and over-voltages the generator, which turns it into a motor for that 1/4 cycle of the sine wave and that neutralizes the load the prime mover sees. So 50% of the time the generator is a generator and 50% of the it is a motor. That means the net load the prime mover sees is practically zero. That isn't possible if the bulbs actually "consume" or dissipate all the EMF that moves over the circuit through the load.

[Cadman]

For the discussion.

While experimenting with leyden jars Benjamin Franklin made the observation that whatever amount of electricity was put into the positive of the jar, the same amount came out the negative of the jar, and none could be put in if none could get out. For every electron added to the plate of a cap an electron is forced out from the other plate.

Whatever work we can get out of a DC circuit is accomplished during the transfer or equalizing of charge from one plate to the other. There are some radiation losses in a circuit along the way (heat, light, etc.) but the majority of the electrons make it to the other plate and the potential disappears when the plate charges equalize.

So, is all the charge in a cap or battery consumed by the load? No. If you had a load that consumed all the charge put through it then all you would have to do is connect a wire from the charged cap’s positive to the load, then from the load to earth to turn it on. It would run for ages because no electrons would ever reach the positive plate and the potential could not equalize.

[Aaron]

batteries and caps

What I would like to see is what Dave is talking about and that is caps
powerful to do the same job as a battery. When I came around to learn
splitting the positive every time I got down to the process comparison
with others work I found the battery was acting up. The plate area was
either getting way bigger. Other times must have been a mystery broken
plate that came alive or a sulfated one that suddenly came clean or
stopped working at all.

Since then it has been years of changing the subject to batteries with
little actual data of the process of splitting the positive stuff then
combine that with learning blockades people already have or the
instructors inability, we are talking decades to move forward.

Everybody knows huge amount of energy can be hidden in a battery
so when someone suggests using 1 percent amp draw it becomes hard
to prove anything on a bench.

I've seen caps work with similar advantages to batteries but the disadvantage to caps is they don't have the chemistry, which "translates" the radiant flow to more "charge separation" to increase the potential difference between the terminals.

One interesting thing the caps to demonstrate is that if you charge them with spikes over time, it gradually conditions them act sort of like an electret. I found this on my own using a microwave oven AC cap (used as a DC cap) and charged it with the output of a Sony Capstan motor converted to a Bedini SSG. Over weeks of experimenting non-stop with it, the cap developed the ability to recharge itself after being shorted. If you short a cap, there is the obvious bounce back as it increases in voltage but everyone knows it is just a tiny bit. This cap was charged to about 90-110 volts DC. I remember because I had a neon bulb that would fire when the voltage on the cap got high enough and that neon bulb would then trigger a SCR to fire that cap to an output battery. I would short that cap out with a screwdriver and I started to see that it would bounce right back up to 80+ volts. That means I could get the full discharge by only replacing a small percent because the rest was all free recharge in that cap.

I replicated that with some 33,000 uf caps at 60v - Mallory type cans and charged it with an Imhotep relay oscillator that pulsed a battery to the primary of an ignition coil and that radiant output charged the cap with 10 to 15kv spikes.

This is a slow boring video that showed what I did with the cap. 33,000 uf is quite a bit of capacitance compared to the AC microwave cap so the self charge up of voltage is not as fast or pronounced as the AC cap but it did work. Running self-oscillating Bedini SG trifilar - 3rd winding has a single diode off one line to an output cap, which is then connected to the front side capacitor in isolated fashion so the front cap does not see the back cap. When the circuit is running, it first preferentially takes from the back battery before touching the front cap. Output cap is also connected to a ground rod in my yard. First, the circuit runs, drains the front cap and bit by bit, the front cap actually starts to climb. It is a flea power demo of no practical use, but it proves the point that it is maintaining the front dipole. It is slow and takes for ever but as it reaches its happy equilibrium spot, it just indefinitely sits there while the oscillator is running and the COP slowly climbs exponentially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDtXR_1Ubs8

That is an under-appreciated gain mechanism in caps charged with spikes.

Any ultra small rated low discharge rate on a battery is irrelevant. If you do work over time and then take that battery and do a discharge test and find that you can get the rated amount out of the battery on a 20 hour discharge of you even exceed the rated amount, then all that work was free. It's easy to exceed the rated capacity of a battery. Even the Bedini S2A-12 "spanker" cap discharge battery charger does it. If you take a brand new battery off the shelf and charge it until the green light is on and you discharge that deep cycle at a 20 hour current draw, you will have 110% of the capacity. I've seen that so many times its ridiculous. I know how to get up to 150% capacity from a lead acid battery even with a conventional charge and I'll let that out when I'm ready.

Even if the battery doesn't give you 100% or more and you lost capacity, that also does not mean you didn't get free work done. You just calaculate what how many joule seconds of work you did and compare it to what is left in the battery. If over 100%, which I've seen countless times, then that is prima facie evidence of free work done.

[bistander]

Motor

Bi,

The load does not have to be a motor.

...The mechanical energy is obtained simply by the movement of current.... but the idea that it is converted to mechanical energy is crap.

I am taking issue with these statements from Turion.

bi

[Aaron]

Power is not potential

Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hello Turion, ...
How can current be the same in and out of the load when that load is consuming power? Answer is potential.
...
bi

But that is the whole point, a load does not consume power. Power is volts x amps for watts and watts are not consumed by any load. Watts are made of EMF - electromotive force and so-called electron current and they move in opposite directions over the surface of a wire when something is between the positive and neutral terminals of a battery.

I already spelled it out in my post and your response complete ignored those very specific details.

The EMF or Heaviside Flow over the wire is the real electricity while current is only the waste. Meter's do NOT measure what is moving over a circuit, meter's measure one thing and one thing only, your losses. They only measure what you are wasting, which is the work done.

When the EMF induces electrons to flow from the copper wire toward the positive terminal, that is watts and if it happens over time, obviously you multiply that by time to get watt seconds, which is work = energy.

That is why Tesla was concerned with using power and not energy.

The bulb or other load is not consuming a single thing. A load will dissipate some of the organized potential (Heaviside Flow or Polarized Aether) that moves over the wire back to a symmetrical state right into the ambient space surrounding that wire because that is the aether's "static" state - symmetrical and in a homogenous or symmetrical flux.

But it is only a small insignificant amount of the total amount of EMF that is still there, which goes right past the load. Although the loads only dissipate an insignificant amount of the total amount of EMF flow, it will "kill a battery" in a "closed" DC circuit like a flashlight circuit because as mentioned, which Bearden has said all along and he appears to be correct is that half the potential available from the source dipole powers the load but the other half depolarizes the chemistry in the battery towards equilibrium.

If the load "consumed" power as you claim, there would be no current leaving the load because it is consumed. And you say potential but you are using potential as a term to describe an abstract concept.

What is the potential you are talking about? If it is anything other than the Heaviside Flow, then you are 100% incorrect and this is not about semantics. Power is not potential but that is what you have said. You have to know the difference between them to understand what is happening in a circuit.

Heaviside Flow obviously being the Electromotive Force, which is the polarized aether moving from space surrounding the positive terminal, to the terminal and over the wire towards the neutral terminal. That IS the potential, which is a concrete substance that is responsible for pulling electrons out of the copper atoms orbit, which is what the conduction current is and where it comes from.

The reason current is flowing before and after the load is because the EMF is pulling the electrons towards it over the entire path of the wire between the terminals.

Power is EMF X Amps and that isn't consumed in a load. A load only dissipates some of the EMF meaning a load doesn't consume power, it only dissipates some of the potential and there is a mountain of difference between the two.

When we start recycling electricity from various recovery or reuse methods like what Turion and others have done, obviously more total real work can be done.

[Aaron]

Ampere turns - not watt turns!

The mechanical energy is obtained simply by the movement of current. ...the idea that it is converted to mechanical energy is crap.

That should be on a plaque hung on everyone's wall!

A magnetic field is created by the movement of current, which is induced by the EMF moving in the opposite direction. The magnetic field is not made by the consumption of current.

A coil has AMPERE-TURNS NOT WATT TURNS OR WATT SECOND TURNS!