unimaginative textbook sycophants

[smw1998a]

I'm sorry but his explanation can not explain it all... If it did then how does he explain the battery charging hours after the treatment has stopped.

How could this effect have anything to do with the circuit once the battery is removed. It would clearly be a chemical reaction rather than an electrical one, which John Bedini accepts. Also, while this effect has been reported it has neither been verified or quantified. Are you telling me you have first hand experimental experience of this effect or are you just repeating what you have read somewhere.

I really don't believe voltage is current.

It would be absurd to pursue such a belief. I don't understand your point.

Regards Lee..

[juju]

hmm

do you have experimented with the bedini circuit?

if the current is not hidden in the voltage can you tell me how to measure it?

cause the only way i see it is in the charged battery...

hugs

[smw1998a]

do you have experimented with the bedini circuit?

if the current is not hidden in the voltage can you tell me how to measure it?

cause the only way i see it is in the charged battery...

hugs

Hi juju,

YouTube - smw1998a's Channel

I always base my understanding from experiments I have conducted, I'm not always correct but I will always acknowledge when I'm shown to be incorrect.

Regards Lee..

[Jbignes5]

hmmm

Hi juju,

YouTube - smw1998a's Channel

I always base my understanding from experiments I have conducted, I'm not always correct but I will always acknowledge when I'm shown to be incorrect.

Regards Lee..

This is from my experience from my experiments. There is something going on other then a chemical reaction. It is called conditioning. When you treat a battery with a Bedini charger it does it via sharp pulses that have little current involved. This treats the battery much like a capacitor. Do something to bring the components of the Battery or Cap and you change the way it acts.
You are no more affecting the composition of the chemicals in as much as you are pumping the very fiber of that battery with a pure form of potential or as near pure as the Bedini method allows. This conditioning allows the very components to change it's electrical properties and not it's physical properties. As the battery normalizes after being taken off the Bedini charger system it will slowly loose the conditioning and have a balance electrically.
Everyone knows by now that using potential only between two mono charged sources you can get it to flow till it balances. The Tesla switch is the very proof of that concept. A more positive or more negative will flow to the less positive or less negative. This is exactly what is happening in a Bedini
charger method. They pound the battery into a condition that only one side has a higher potential then it started with. This allows the current to flow slowly twords a balance and hence shows a charging effect hours after the battery is disconnected.
It's not that hard to envision and if you forget everything the man has beat into your head you might start to see how things really work.
But as much as I feel you are wrong I too could be wrong. The problem is this makes perfect sense scientifically. But you have to reverse your thinking.
The only reason the current system works and makes mathematical sense is it was designed both in theory and math to prove their theories. What didn't prove it or gave more questions was removed. Like Maxwell's other theories.
Even Tesla said that ac was most unnatural. Even Tesla rebuked himself for pushing the meters on us and he even tried to rectify the problem and was not listened to and even attacked because the money was sooooo good from his first version.
I bet if one could measure the one side of a potential one would find that the Bedini method causes an imbalance between the two terminals. Meaning more positive then negative or visa versa. Thats where the extended charging comes from and it takes quite some time to reattain the balance of the battery if one uses the conventional charging method after a battery has this "Bedini charging" method is employed. It would also explain the extra capacity that is typical after the Bedini method is employed after conditioning.

[Inquorate]

guys, i've done pretty extensive tests and believe i know what i'm claiming to be fact.

I've enjoyed the debate to a point, but as repeating oneself is the sign of a losing argument;

Spontaneous charging radiantly charged capacitor research group

Above is the tests people keep claiming i haven't done. And even better, it's with capacitors which rules out a chemical explanation.

@jbigne, your theory is similar to another user's on this forum, i have been chatting to, and does have it's merits. I see nothing to naysay it

[crackahcrackah]

Tv and school curriculums are destroying not just our children's futures, but also our children's minds.

You're correct. My profession actually utilizes the 100 years of empirical research on the behavior of organisms (including humans). Behaviorism is actually being used in the public schools and main stream media to condition attitudes. The classes are structured such that obedience to authority is the #1 behavior which is promoted. This is why we see the apathetic, non-questioning of authority attitude displayed so prominently in the masses. Thank god that there's those of us who are strong independent thinkers. We're the ones that seem to bail out the others down through history. At any rate, this individual is literally demonstrating an academic attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if you're dealing with an undergrad or a graduate student specifically.

This is one more reason which I believe that any one who has children, should attempt to raise their own children and educate them (work with other close parents) such that their values, and their SKILLS are able to be passed on, which will provide the progeny with the BEST mind to face the world with. It can be tough but it is extremely rewarding and who knows, our children may become fascinated with our independent research and pursue it with us as a team! It is this kind of future momentum that is needed if we are to recover from the planned attitude conditioning over the last century.

[Jbignes5]

guys, i've done pretty extensive tests and believe i know what i'm claiming to be fact.

I've enjoyed the debate to a point, but as repeating oneself is the sign of a losing argument;

Spontaneous charging radiantly charged capacitor research group

Above is the tests people keep claiming i haven't done. And even better, it's with capacitors which rules out a chemical explanation.

@jbigne, your theory is similar to another user's on this forum, i have been chatting to, and does have it's merits. I see nothing to naysay it

I agree on the repeating thing. I will always repeat my theories to an extent. You can not make them accept it but if it holds true then no one can rebuke it. Experiments are our way of proving to ourselves that we are on the right track.
The one problem I see is that how this all works is quite invisibly. We need theories to explain the unknown and that is what we are attempting to do. There is a reason no one has been able to pin this mysterious event down to one known fact and that reason is because it is the very action of what runs everything. If one could see that, one would be so small that sight would be too complicated of a process. So we must use and educated guess. Not by what they tell us is going on but by experimenting and deriving the methodology from our observations.
Also Inquorate I do believe that the chemical process is not what is going on there. It has more to do with changing the base standing voltage of the lead in the batteries. Not both of the polarities but just one. I believe Bedini found our that if you ring the metal just right (resonant) you can change the potential of the standing metal just enough to cause a current to flow from the environment into the battery. This change in potential would be from the original standing potential of one terminal. Kinda of like changing the phase relationship of half the battery causing an artificial difference in the metal itself. This causes a sort of gravity like flow from the environment to the battery of a real charge as evident by the charging effect after the battery was removed. This tipping of the balance of the two plates or so makes the battery look like it is increasing it's capacity. I believe if one could test each pole separately one would find one of the poles higher in potential. Lets say the plus was untouched at a standing charge of 13.65 volts before and after the Bedini method was employed. If one then checked the negative potential alone one would probably get a reading of 14.7 volts. That difference alone would cause nature to try and re-balance itself out like is evident in all of nature. The only other way that the battery could do that was if something was leaking into the battery from outside. There is a 1.05 difference that could slowly suck in current from the available charges in the ambient environment. Now batteries are not the only devices that exhibit this behavour. You ask how does this happen. Well from my insights the plates are antennas that when resonated in the right fashion only one side of the polarity or plate becomes phased changed. This phase change is not bound in the whole device. It is tailored or tuned to affect only one side of the batteries plates via the separation of the target plate by voltage potential. Conventional chargers use both plates to charge with.
What would be very interesting would be to see if one could do the Bedini method on both plates alternately. Negative then plus side could be treated with this method and a super battery could be constructed out of a regular one. I think this Conditioning creates better organization of the metal to conduct the potential, giving it a better capacity and longer run times from making the metal work better in that device. I doubt this change would be seen in a physical manner other then the removal of the crystal that normally form in the process of usage since it is a tuning effect that is being applied here.

[ashtweth]

mandatory work thx
VERY GOOD

[smw1998a]

I agree on the repeating thing. I will always repeat my theories to an extent. You can not make them accept it but if it holds true then no one can rebuke it. Experiments are our way of proving to ourselves that we are on the right track.

Hello All,
This is very true but it is so easy to allow your belief in your own (or others) theory to influence judgment regarding your own experiments. In fact, any experiment which results in ambiguous conclusions, usually due to a lack of basic understanding of the components used, will make this error even more probable.

Being blinded by conventional theory is just as harmful as being blinded by unconventional theory.

I believe Bedini found our that if you ring the metal just right (resonant) you can change the potential of the standing metal just enough to cause a current to flow from the environment into the battery.

This is highly speculative. Pulses resulting in somehow ringing the battery, resonance etc. The plates are primarily lead, in most cases pasted, with separators between them, totally submerged in a viscus electrolyte, not the best conditions for any sort of resonance! From these basic facts I would discount the second part of your sentence until you could prove the first.

While your idea is considered and plausible, to me it would imply you can ring a bell under water, which you can not. People who understand this fact would not look beyond this glaring omission and maybe, unfairly dismiss other more pertinent parts of your idea or theory.

@inquorate: I have been 'stung' many times by capacitors that I know I previously discharged. I have only known this phenomenon occur to the degree you discuss in electrolytic capacitors which are in fact chemically based.

Regards Lee..

[Jbignes5]

Hello All,
This is very true but it is so easy to allow your belief in your own (or others) theory to influence judgment regarding your own experiments. In fact, any experiment which results in ambiguous conclusions, usually due to a lack of basic understanding of the components used, will make this error even more probable.

Being blinded by conventional theory is just as harmful as being blinded by unconventional theory.



This is highly speculative. Pulses resulting in somehow ringing the battery, resonance etc. The plates are primarily lead, in most cases pasted, with separators between them, totally submerged in a viscus electrolyte, not the best conditions for any sort of resonance! From these basic facts I would discount the second part of your sentence until you could prove the first.

While your idea is considered and plausible, to me it would imply you can ring a bell under water, which you can not. People who understand this fact would not look beyond this glaring omission and maybe, unfairly dismiss other more pertinent parts of your idea or theory.

@inquorate: I have been 'stung' many times by capacitors that I know I previously discharged. I have only known this phenomenon occur to the degree you discuss in electrolytic capacitors which are in fact chemically based.

Regards Lee..

I have in no way blinded myself in any way. In fact I am very open about the fact that I could be very wrong.

Ok on to the questions you proposed. A bell already rings in air and if inductively rung will indeed ring under water. Have you ever heard a whales song? How far away can that be detected from the source? 10-20-50 miles? It is the method you choose that determines if one could detect it. Listening to circuit traces with your ear does little. But listen to it with a scope and you can see the action.
It's your thinking that leads you astray. Air is another enveloping mass just the same as water is. The only difference is how you ring the device in it.
As to the form of the lead it matters little if it is in paste form or not. The only thing that matters in that case is if it does it's job.

[EthelAether]

guys, i've done pretty extensive tests and believe i know what i'm claiming to be fact.

I've enjoyed the debate to a point, but as repeating oneself is the sign of a losing argument;

Spontaneous charging radiantly charged capacitor research group

Above is the tests people keep claiming i haven't done. And even better, it's with capacitors which rules out a chemical explanation.

In the first video, you're using a 100uF 400V electrolytic capacitor, which is an electrochemical pile not so much unlike a dry battery. How exactly does this 'rule out' a chemical explanation? The exact opposite would seem to be true.

You also noted that the 'rebound' charging effect diminished every time you discharged the cap into the lamp. How do you reconcile this fact with the claim that there is a steady flow of charge into the capacitor? Also, the lamp isn't "shorting out" the cap; across a certain range, incandescent bulbs are approximate constant-current devices. That low-wattage bulb is nothing like a dead short, even when it's cold. So what this means, is that just because the bulb is unlit, it doesn't mean that the cap is totally depleted.

In other words, the dark bulb is NOT an indication that the cap has been discharged - your voltmeter is a much better indicator.. but that's not nearly as much fun now, is it?

Now - have you ever noticed that large electrolytic capacitors (particularly computer-grade cans) are shipped with metal foils shorting out their terminals? This is done to prevent the caps from acquiring a charge during shipment & storage.

Spontaneous charging of electrolytic capacitors is a well-known and entirely predictable phenomenon.

[smw1998a]

I have in no way blinded myself in any way. In fact I am very open about the fact that I could be very wrong.

Ok on to the questions you proposed. A bell already rings in air and if inductively rung will indeed ring under water. Have you ever heard a whales song? How far away can that be detected from the source? 10-20-50 miles? It is the method you choose that determines if one could detect it. Listening to circuit traces with your ear does little. But listen to it with a scope and you can see the action.
It's your thinking that leads you astray. Air is another enveloping mass just the same as water is. The only difference is how you ring the device in it.
As to the form of the lead it matters little if it is in paste form or not. The only thing that matters in that case is if it does it's job.

Yes, a bell will resonate well in air, it will resonate for far longer in a vacuum but in water the resonance will be dampened to such a degree after very few oscillations as to render it ineffective, no matter how those oscillations are initiated. Hence, you can't ring a bell under water.
A whale relies on air to produce the sounds of song. The water provides a very good medium for carrying the vibrations produced, usually of low frequency. Without air, the whale could not produce the vibrations in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with resonance in the context that you imply. As for the scope, ringing after a sudden switch does not imply resonance in a battery, the effect is the result of the use of semiconductor switching and can be re produced in any type of circuit, although circuit designers would usually not welcome this.

The problem is, you are implying that resonance, in what ever the form or use of the term, is indeed the function that allows ether currents to interact in the battery and charging it. "Poetical concepts" is a term Tesla once used and I think it could be applied here as there is simply no experimental proof.

The Bedini charge effect does have merit, however, current is evident and more than most of those who choose to persue the "current less potential " idea will accept. The fact that current exists and is generally ignored creates a fundamental contradiction in the potential charge theory.

Regards Lee..

[crackahcrackah]

Hello all,
@Inquorate. I commend you on your efforts and the conviction of your beliefs but you should listen to and respect the views of others, just because they do not comply with your own. You labeled user2718218 an 'unimaginative textbook sycophant'. user2718218 would be equally able to label you as being a "Bearden/Bedini sycophant" Blinded from the truth by colourful theory and inconclusive proofs. No one will be able to discover the truth of such things when attitudes become so entrenched and bigotry is abound on both sides.

The problem is when you're dealing with intentionally dishonest people, or people who literally lack the capacity to understand the dynamics of the phenomenon and they are reciting things from rote memorization. There's a reason why you'll see someone like Tesla or John Moses Browning inventing so many things, and the bulk of others making derivatives of those things, lacking novelty. There's a bell curve no doubt for creative intelligence and most people fall within the first 1 and 2 std's. People like the aforementioned gentlemen happen to fall outside of both. Some people will never understand certain things, although if trained heavily (conditioning) they can repeat what is happening with out even thinking every thing through. It's just human psychology.

[Jbignes5]

Yes, a bell will resonate well in air, it will resonate for far longer in a vacuum but in water the resonance will be dampened to such a degree after very few oscillations as to render it ineffective, no matter how those oscillations are initiated. Hence, you can't ring a bell under water.
A whale relies on air to produce the sounds of song. The water provides a very good medium for carrying the vibrations produced, usually of low frequency. Without air, the whale could not produce the vibrations in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with resonance in the context that you imply. As for the scope, ringing after a sudden switch does not imply resonance in a battery, the effect is the result of the use of semiconductor switching and can be re produced in any type of circuit, although circuit designers would usually not welcome this.

The problem is, you are implying that resonance, in what ever the form or use of the term, is indeed the function that allows ether currents to interact in the battery and charging it. "Poetical concepts" is a term Tesla once used and I think it could be applied here as there is simply no experimental proof.

The Bedini charge effect does have merit, however, current is evident and more than most of those who choose to persue the "current less potential " idea will accept. The fact that current exists and is generally ignored creates a fundamental contradiction in the potential charge theory.

Regards Lee..

Ok. Would you say that a bike needs to be repeatedly pedaled? Well a bell under water would have to be repeatedly rung. Just because the water dampens the ringing does not invalidate that if it was repeatedly rung that it is not ringing. Just because the medium of water does not allow it to register in our ears does not mean it is not ringing.
As for your diatribe on whales song. I don't care if it is a whale or not the simple fact of the matter is that even if a rock was dropped when it hit the bottom your can and will hear it. That was my only point. The whale song reference probably was a bad choice.
I have never said that resonance had an active part in the interaction of the Aether currents. What I did say was that the conditioning (resonate pounding) caused an imbalance in the metal lead in whatever form it is in. Since lead doesn't have a magnetic component I think it is predisposed to conducting the charges when the Aether particles (Conductors, Vehicles for all energy) are attracted to the HV. This was certainly proved by Mr. Tesla. His explanation of stiffening of air certainly is a kin to bunching up these lines of force for which Mr. Tesla talked about riding them meaning they can be directed or attracted. It seems to me that a Bedini pulse is using high voltage spikes to treat the battery attracting these vehicles of charge and eventually channeling them into the battery after exposure to the method.
You talk about current being in the bedini method and to tell you the truth it seems to me that Bedini tried to limit current as much as possible. This implies that if one barraged a battery with High Voltage with near zero current one initiates a lining up of these vehicles (Conductors of potential only), dragging their charges along and eventually they the charges get striped off flowing to the HV source. In this case this would be the single polarity of battery plate that was treated.
The resonate effect was only mentioned because that is the method to pound that plate out of phase so to say over a very long time. This imbalance of the plates draws in the charges from the environment around the battery case. Since Plastic has a higher dielectric effect this might be slowing the process a bit and hence why it takes hours for the residual charging effect to balance or a dampening effect.
This Bedini method is much like training a muscle in your body. Work it out heavily and the capabilities grow. Exercise it regularly and it's strength grows and becomes more organized as it grows. Let it go and it gets unorganized and weak.
No one ever said current Doesn't exist. Current is the real charge in motion. Something must conduct that charge into a vehicle that provides motion. If that is not the case then everything would be static. If indeed energy can never be created not destroyed then it is both the oldest known of anything ever this also proves that energy in itself can neither be created or generated nor destroyed or consumed. It is a shifting game. One problem there is that energy has to have a vehicle then or else it would be static and no current would exist. These vehicles IMHO are only conductive to the potentials the charges provides when they ride behind their Vehicles. So at the quantum level which is what I think these charges and particles (vehicles) reside, they form complex lattices and networks. These are the lines of force with charges in tow. Now how would a charge move then? I would say that it has to be like a pyramid in shape. The base is the charge attractor because of all the surface area that shields the energy from the movement currents and the tip is the focuser much like Mr. Tesla found out when looking at conical shaped coils. These coils when exposed to the bursts of Radiant energy actually show zero current but exhibit great brushes out of the ends of the coils. He also noted that the charges looked like they were flowing over the waires and not in them. Hence the zero current of the coils.
I really believe that all we need to do is learn how to manipulate these lines of force other then the traditional magnetic component. It seems that Mr. Tesla applied what he had learned from making the Niagra Falls power plant. Cause a flow and then let nature provide the rest.
Since we will never be able to see these lines of force it makes it hard to adjust our experiments to get it right. We need to logically step back and for once open our minds to the fact that we don't know it all... Even I have to remind myself of this daily....

[smw1998a]

Ok. Would you say that a bike needs to be repeatedly pedaled? Well a bell under water would have to be repeatedly rung. Just because the water dampens the ringing does not invalidate that if it was repeatedly rung that it is not ringing. Just because the medium of water does not allow it to register in our ears does not mean it is not ringing.
As for your diatribe on whales song. I don't care if it is a whale or not the simple fact of the matter is that even if a rock was dropped when it hit the bottom your can and will hear it. That was my only point. The whale song reference probably was a bad choice.
I have never said that resonance had an active part in the interaction of the Aether currents. What I did say was that the conditioning (resonate pounding) caused an imbalance in the metal lead in whatever form it is in. Since lead doesn't have a magnetic component I think it is predisposed to conducting the charges when the Aether particles (Conductors, Vehicles for all energy) are attracted to the HV. This was certainly proved by Mr. Tesla. His explanation of stiffening of air certainly is a kin to bunching up these lines of force for which Mr. Tesla talked about riding them meaning they can be directed or attracted. It seems to me that a Bedini pulse is using high voltage spikes to treat the battery attracting these vehicles of charge and eventually channeling them into the battery after exposure to the method.
You talk about current being in the bedini method and to tell you the truth it seems to me that Bedini tried to limit current as much as possible. This implies that if one barraged a battery with High Voltage with near zero current one initiates a lining up of these vehicles (Conductors of potential only), dragging their charges along and eventually they the charges get striped off flowing to the HV source. In this case this would be the single polarity of battery plate that was treated.
The resonate effect was only mentioned because that is the method to pound that plate out of phase so to say over a very long time. This imbalance of the plates draws in the charges from the environment around the battery case. Since Plastic has a higher dielectric effect this might be slowing the process a bit and hence why it takes hours for the residual charging effect to balance or a dampening effect.
This Bedini method is much like training a muscle in your body. Work it out heavily and the capabilities grow. Exercise it regularly and it's strength grows and becomes more organized as it grows. Let it go and it gets unorganized and weak.
No one ever said current Doesn't exist. Current is the real charge in motion. Something must conduct that charge into a vehicle that provides motion. If that is not the case then everything would be static. If indeed energy can never be created not destroyed then it is both the oldest known of anything ever this also proves that energy in itself can neither be created or generated nor destroyed or consumed. It is a shifting game. One problem there is that energy has to have a vehicle then or else it would be static and no current would exist. These vehicles IMHO are only conductive to the potentials the charges provides when they ride behind their Vehicles. So at the quantum level which is what I think these charges and particles (vehicles) reside, they form complex lattices and networks. These are the lines of force with charges in tow. Now how would a charge move then? I would say that it has to be like a pyramid in shape. The base is the charge attractor because of all the surface area that shields the energy from the movement currents and the tip is the focuser much like Mr. Tesla found out when looking at conical shaped coils. These coils when exposed to the bursts of Radiant energy actually show zero current but exhibit great brushes out of the ends of the coils. He also noted that the charges looked like they were flowing over the waires and not in them. Hence the zero current of the coils.
I really believe that all we need to do is learn how to manipulate these lines of force other then the traditional magnetic component. It seems that Mr. Tesla applied what he had learned from making the Niagra Falls power plant. Cause a flow and then let nature provide the rest.
Since we will never be able to see these lines of force it makes it hard to adjust our experiments to get it right. We need to logically step back and for once open our minds to the fact that we don't know it all... Even I have to remind myself of this daily....

Hello Jbignes5,
I have read and re-read your post and it would not be fair to simply pick at it with unconstructive and obstructive argument. You have clearly put a lot of thought into putting your point of view across and this I respect. I can only call on my experimental experience and results regarding the Bedini battery charging method. Some claims and theories can be proved incorrect with relative ease, the mechanical is free, for instance, can be proved incorrect relatively easily. Others, like the scalar south drives the wheel gain credence because so many other ideas are based around the anomalous behaviour of two adjacent like poles. The idea that the field in the core reverses (magnetic polarity) during the coil charge and coil discharge cycle is equally erroneous.

The idea that a battery is being charged via a current-less potential simply does not hold true on the bench. You can charge a capacitor to 300v and short that voltage into a battery with a pulse duration of micro seconds, across a wide range of individual frequencies and the battery will only charge proportionately to the current it receives and the longer the pulse duration the more current becomes available to the battery. Tests showed that this type of high potential discharge was quite harmful, particularly to SLA batteries.

The coil discharge is no better and contains significantly more current when compared to a very short duration 300v capacitor discharge. The current out of the coil is always proportional to the current input, however, the higher the voltage of the charge battery bank the less current becomes available to the bank from the coil discharge. Sadly, the current consumed in the coil charge phase is always greater than the current recovered from the battery during controlled resistive load tests. This fact negates the possibility of an external, additive, source of energy.

The result of connecting a battery to a potential greater than its own is current and the longer that potential as able to sustain that difference the more current will flow. Just as a charged thundercloud becomes connected to the ground via a lightning bolt current flows, in huge quantities, until the potential is spent or the charge has equalised. All our effort is spent trying to force the potentials apart, as soon as we try to tap that potential there is a current and while we can make that current do work for us, we have to pay to maintain the potential difference. We cannot, realistically, tap the potential difference without destroying it.

“This Bedini method is much like training a muscle in your body. Work it out heavily and the capabilities grow. Exercise it regularly and it's strength grows and becomes more organized as it grows. Let it go and it gets unorganized and weak.”
This is an excellent statement and very true. I believe the “effect” is real, I have charged many batteries and I have seen the beneficial effects of conditioning. Unfortunately, for all the beneficial effects on shorter charge times and greater load times, I have never had a battery output more than what I have put in and having been involved for many years in this research I haven’t found anybody else claiming such, who were willing to have there results subjectively tested.

I have a good friend who undertook research on a Plante cell and the effects of Bedini charging. His results lead to the idea that pulse charging a battery not only de-sulphated but created a larger surface area over which chemical reactions could take place improving charge acceptance over time. In light of my own experiments and that of others, I find this a far more plausible theory, just not as colourful and captivating.

I couldn’t even begin to comment positively or negatively on what you or other people think Tesla was doing or their idea of what Tesla was doing. Tesla was both using and producing massive amounts of current while developing and utilising both damped and un-damped (continuous) oscillations of high frequency current in the secondary of his transformers for the purpose of wireless transmitting. I don’t think I will ever understand exactly what he was doing but I never tire studying his writings.

About inquorates circuit. When the switch conducts, current is initially blocked by the inductor, as the magnetic field builds (coil charge) current through the inductor begins to increase rapidly. As the charge battery is in series with the inductor, it too sees this rise in current across its terminals. So, if you spend 100 mA charging the coil in 10uS, in that same 10us the charge battery will receive 100mA minus resistive losses in the same 10us. Your 24v primary battery will have provided 100mA to both coil and charge battery in 10uS. When the switch is turned off, the sudden loss of current through the coil causes the magnetic field around the coil to reverse polarity (voltage only) and discharge, as current, into the charge battery. You wont get all of the energy back, maybe 80 or 90% so, optimistically, for your input of 100mA @ 24v your charge battery will receive around 190mA @ 12v, C.O.P 0.90% which would be considered very good for a battery charging circuit.

I sincerely hope you can prove me wrong on the bench….

Kindest regards Lee..