unimaginative textbook sycophants

[smw1998a]

User2718218

Hello All,
User2718218 has asked me to forward this post relating to battery charging and measurement.
Regards Lee...

>>>
I am going to suggest to the readers of this thread and all Bedini and related experimenters a proposed methodology for measuring battery energy changes to test for any possible over unity effects. Certainly voltage is not an indicator of battery energy because battery voltage remains more or less constant for up to 90% of the charge state of the battery. So this is a preliminary proposal for doing a serious test, subject to improvement and refinement by any interested parties.

Let's assume we are working with a lead-acid battery that stores approximately 1 megajoule of energy. Let's also assume that there may be some nonlinear effects between a 0% charge and a 20% charge (i.e.; 200 kilojoules of stored energy) and also between an 80% charge and a 100% charge.

Here is the proposal in a nutshell: Start the testing with a source battery that you know ahead of time has about 700 kilojoules of stored energy, and with a charging battery that you know ahead of time that has 300 kilojoules of stored energy. Then run your test where you use a Bedini or any related pulsing inductor charging system where you transfer approximately 200 kilojoules of source battery energy into the charging battery. At the end of the energy transfer do load testing on the source and charging batteries to measure how much energy they have stored in them. Both batteries must be relatively new in both their chronological age and in their charge/discharge life-cycle.

The logic is simple and straightforward. Those that believe in some over unity effects will expect to see excess energy here. A more conservative school of thought says that you might loose 5% in losses in the charging circuit and the charging efficiency of the charging battery might be 80%. In terms of kilojoules the believers in Bedini effects will assume that the charging battery will have more than (300 + 200) = 500 kilojoules of stored energy at the end of the test. The more conventional school of thought would estimate that the charging battery will have somewhere around (300 + ((200*0.95)*0.8)) = 452 kilojoules of stored energy.

So the question is; Is there anything special going on when you charge a battery using a pulsing inductor? The only way to answer that question is to do a test like the one described above. You can not conclude that you have produced over unity by measuring battery voltage increases alone. This is an indisputable fact and it would be very unwise to ignore it.

To do this type of testing you need to develop some formal procedures to for charging a battery and for discharging a battery and measuring how much energy it contains. These procedures would be based on measuring the current and voltages going into (charging) or coming out of (discharging) a battery where you make measurements every five minutes (for example). You have to decide on an appropriate time interval between measurements, what load resistor to use, etc. You also have to define a criteria for when you say battery is "fully discharged." This could be when the specific load resistor that you are using reduces the output voltage of a 12.6-volt battery to 9 volts, for example (This is actually a "disguised" battery output impedance measurement).

Note also that the entire protocol developed would be specific to one size and type of battery. If you want to test another size or type of battery, the parameters in the testing protocol would have to be adapted and tweaked for the new battery configuration.

One thing for certain, this testing would be time consuming, boring and tedious. It would involve making measurements every five minutes (for example) and punching the data into a spreadsheet.

There is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all of this work though. You end up with real source and charging battery before/after energy data. It is the real thing and this data can stand up to scientific scrutiny. I will repeat again: Measuring source and charging battery before and after voltages is meaningless. The voltage across a battery's terminals is NOT an indicator of how much energy the battery contains. If you get anything from this discussion, get this fact.
>>>>

Okay it got a bit longish but I hope that it promotes some serious discussion on the thread!

Thank you again.

User2718218

[Jbignes5]

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..

You are an excellent Sparring partner. You make me want to tell you the whole thing. So are you ready?
I will post in little section what I have been realizing as my research into this effect broadened.

[Jbignes5]

The start.

Every great story needs a solid start. The genesis of everything has to have common and credible clues to the mechanism we want to understand. Seeing that this mechanism controls all energy movement in the known universe or beyond it is essential that we figure out the rules of this most basic mechanism.

I would like to introduce to your the Quantum law of Planks distance. Every solid formed condensed material must abide by this one basic rule. No object really ever touches no matter how small that object ever is. So from that is our base rule. Now if the universe is actually based off of energy, an energy that can never be created nor destroyed, Then at it's nature it is static. I believe if you have a static charge and want to move it from point a to point b then there has to be a vehicle or method to compare and impart movement to the charge. A conductor if you will of the potential of the charge.
These vehicles of the charge will move the charges via a potential difference from the base of the conductor to the tip. Since Planks distance is in effect these conductors never can touch each other only the charges induce the potential from the base to the tip and in that process make the tip a focuser of the base charge in a smaller area of the tip. This gives the charge a flow from tip to base of just pure potential not current. Current in my honest opinion is the motion of the charge from one area to the next via long strings of these vehicles otherwise known as strings of force on a magnet. All a magnet is then is a conditioned piece of metal that has imbalances of charge in the internal structure of the metal, in this case the composition will enhance the effect because the strings are internal to the metal structure. What I like to call matter. Matter is condensed star material around these strings, whatever that material was they were attracted to the static nature of the charges on the strings. Since charges would be strongly attracted to a higher potential they would gather and organize from the highest potential (center) to the lowest potential furthest away causing a sphere on a 3 dimensional aspect. The string is bound by the matters attraction to the charge internal to the physical matter. This string is two way. Meaning that it is attracted via potential only and then makes a connection via charge as feedback. That's why they say voltage leads current. It has to lead it to make the connection then and only then can it make a close enough connection to move the charges around.
Radiant energy is a one way filling of this internal well of charge. Fill it enough and it radiates it more energetically further out of the internal capacity of the atom or condensed material around this string.
Strings have the ability to line up forever given enough initial potential to line them up with. Charges have a shell around the object that is the real charge sphere. Anything outside of that charge sphere only passes the potential or ghost charge as I like to say. The ghost charge is what vision is. Outside of the charge sphere it still radiates but only in the potential and not the charge (current) and our eyes are sensitive to the potential. Hence why we can see planets a million miles away.
What Tesla was doing was converting charge to Voltage potential vial transformers then sending it loss less in every direction. Then all one would need to do is receive the potential only and covert it back to real current via the local environment. This can be done in a 360 degree fashion and many many people can use that movement in potential only to drive a current well of their own. Cause a flow in the very basic of everything and generate from that flow via a transformer to gain real current. We are after all just plugging into the movement and allowing that to move the local charges around to do our bidding.
Explain to me what you think is happening with a Tesla coil knowing this. A Tesla coil uses just one part of the high voltage and uses a coil to simulate the other half on the bottom. This causes a flow from the environment the brush like effect of current flowing twords the high voltage source. This flowing when enough charges get massed together have the tell tale sign of radiating out or transforms itself to light and heat. The brushes look like streams flowing into rivers flowing into larger rivers till it hits the source. It then can not flow anymore and gets higher potential then the source. This causes the charges to fly away from the source now and release some of the charge as light. <-Energy in motion....
I'll leave you with that so far and see if that is starting to make sense.

P.S. Please look at the Tesla switch and that should prove over half of what I am saying. We live in an energy filled universe that is only one potential only. There is no such thing as a negative potential. There can be a lack of potential but absolutely not a negative potential. It's all one potential with differences of potentials that's where current is induced from. I am currently <-joke) designing experiments to prove this new (to me) understanding, this was not new to Tesla and I think I am as close to understanding it all as he was when he was a child to give you an example of how much he really knew before his death.

[witsend]

Hello All,
User2718218 has asked me to forward this post relating to battery charging and measurement.
Regards Lee...

>>>
I am going to suggest to the readers of this thread and all Bedini and related experimenters a proposed methodology for measuring battery energy changes to test for any possible over unity effects. Certainly voltage is not an indicator of battery energy because battery voltage remains more or less constant for up to 90% of the charge state of the battery. So this is a preliminary proposal for doing a serious test, subject to improvement and refinement by any interested parties.

Let's assume we are working with a lead-acid battery that stores approximately 1 megajoule of energy. Let's also assume that there may be some nonlinear effects between a 0% charge and a 20% charge (i.e.; 200 kilojoules of stored energy) and also between an 80% charge and a 100% charge.

Here is the proposal in a nutshell: Start the testing with a source battery that you know ahead of time has about 700 kilojoules of stored energy, and with a charging battery that you know ahead of time that has 300 kilojoules of stored energy. Then run your test where you use a Bedini or any related pulsing inductor charging system where you transfer approximately 200 kilojoules of source battery energy into the charging battery. At the end of the energy transfer do load testing on the source and charging batteries to measure how much energy they have stored in them. Both batteries must be relatively new in both their chronological age and in their charge/discharge life-cycle.

The logic is simple and straightforward. Those that believe in some over unity effects will expect to see excess energy here. A more conservative school of thought says that you might loose 5% in losses in the charging circuit and the charging efficiency of the charging battery might be 80%. In terms of kilojoules the believers in Bedini effects will assume that the charging battery will have more than (300 + 200) = 500 kilojoules of stored energy at the end of the test. The more conventional school of thought would estimate that the charging battery will have somewhere around (300 + ((200*0.95)*0.8)) = 452 kilojoules of stored energy.

So the question is; Is there anything special going on when you charge a battery using a pulsing inductor? The only way to answer that question is to do a test like the one described above. You can not conclude that you have produced over unity by measuring battery voltage increases alone. This is an indisputable fact and it would be very unwise to ignore it.

To do this type of testing you need to develop some formal procedures to for charging a battery and for discharging a battery and measuring how much energy it contains. These procedures would be based on measuring the current and voltages going into (charging) or coming out of (discharging) a battery where you make measurements every five minutes (for example). You have to decide on an appropriate time interval between measurements, what load resistor to use, etc. You also have to define a criteria for when you say battery is "fully discharged." This could be when the specific load resistor that you are using reduces the output voltage of a 12.6-volt battery to 9 volts, for example (This is actually a "disguised" battery output impedance measurement).

Note also that the entire protocol developed would be specific to one size and type of battery. If you want to test another size or type of battery, the parameters in the testing protocol would have to be adapted and tweaked for the new battery configuration.

One thing for certain, this testing would be time consuming, boring and tedious. It would involve making measurements every five minutes (for example) and punching the data into a spreadsheet.

There is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all of this work though. You end up with real source and charging battery before/after energy data. It is the real thing and this data can stand up to scientific scrutiny. I will repeat again: Measuring source and charging battery before and after voltages is meaningless. The voltage across a battery's terminals is NOT an indicator of how much energy the battery contains. If you get anything from this discussion, get this fact.
>>>>

Okay it got a bit longish but I hope that it promotes some serious discussion on the thread!

Thank you again.

User2718218

With the utmost respect to User2718218 - this test is simply designed to fail and it is NOT based on the logic that is advanced by Inquorate - or, for that matter - by Groundloop.

At issue is mainstream assumption that energy delivered by a battery will result in a commensurate depletion of charge from that supply. Nowhere does conventional understanding of energy transfer allow a system to replenish or recharge itself. That is what Inquorate's design suggests may happen and that is what Groundloop has shown us does happen. If and when User2718218 eventually wraps his mind around that fact - then only may he be in a position to actually try and evaluate some appropriate control test.

The fact is that no-one has proposed that the mass of the batteries are altered. No water is being added. No extra chemicals. No extra mass. And the watt hour rating of batteries is determined by those factors. That is why Groundloop's proposal to take a flat battery to a better charged condition is so significant. To take charged battery to a better charged is still possible no doubt. But there will, inevitably, be an upper limit based on the actual material properties of the battery and its electrolytes. But tell me please, User2718218 through which ever agency you need to employ - where have you ever found a battery recharging itself under load conditions? The results of this test - designed by Inquorate and perfected by Groundloop - put paid to mainstream's predictions here. What's lacking, right now, is User2718218's evident reluctance to acknowledge this fact. This - in my own humble opinion is less than scientific.

[Dave Michael Rogers]

....... Nowhere does conventional understanding of energy transfer allow a system to replenish or recharge itself. That is what Inquorate's design suggests may happen and that is what Groundloop has shown us does happen.

The fact is that no-one has proposed that the mass of the batteries are altered. No water is being added. No extra chemicals. No extra mass..........

Good Evening All,

It is good that the battery is being analysed in such depth, for there is such a depth of energy in a lead acid battery that any method of measuring a systems efficiency, or whether certain effects are real are mute unless ALL the energy that has been used to create the battery, cycle the battery through its entire life, until it dies is taken into account.

The supply battery will appear to be charging if the current drain on it is decreasing. So as the secondary battery charges, the supply current maybe be decreasing and the batteries terminal voltage will rise. Lee, I think you already showed this, yes?

If the battery is gassing (cold boiling), and the gasses not recycled, then water is being lost and the batteries overall mass is decreasing. The overall mass of the battery, other than the loss of water does not change. However, the plates themselves do change mass as the electrochemical process of sulphation (which is essential to the batteries operation) occurs. With impulse charging, it seems that the lead sulphate crystal growth is finer than with DC which offers greater surface area. Yes this has an upper limit, one that Bedini has said to peak at about a 50% increase in capacity. But that's not a free 50%, that extra capacity needs the appropriate amount of energy to recharge it, which although more efficient due to the decreased internal resistance of the battery through the impulse charging, does not even approach 100%.

If we truly want to see if there is a gain in the battery, then all the joules ever used to form the plates, cycling between charge and discharge, heat generated and gas expelled needs to be measured until no more can be got from the battery because all the lead has been transformed. Doing this with anything other than a small cell would be extremely long winded (years). A small cell could be built with everything known about it, and taken through its whole lifecycle in maybe a few months or weeks.

Oh, all the above I feel is only applicable to solid plate Plante cell type lead acid batteries, and not the pasted types.

Regards
DMR

[smw1998a]

I would like to introduce to your the Quantum law of Planks distance. Every solid formed condensed material must abide by this one basic rule. No object really ever touches no matter how small that object ever is. So from that is our base rule. Now if the universe is actually based off of energy, an energy that can never be created nor destroyed, Then at it's nature it is static. I believe if you have a static charge and want to move it from point a to point b then there has to be a vehicle or method to compare and impart movement to the charge. A conductor if you will of the potential of the charge.
These vehicles of the charge will move the charges via a potential difference from the base of the conductor to the tip. Since Planks distance is in effect these conductors never can touch each other only the charges induce the potential from the base to the tip and in that process make the tip a focuser of the base charge in a smaller area of the tip. This gives the charge a flow from tip to base of just pure potential not current. Current in my honest opinion is the motion of the charge from one area to the next via long strings of these vehicles otherwise known as strings of force on a magnet. All a magnet is then is a conditioned piece of metal that has imbalances of charge in the internal structure of the metal, in this case the composition will enhance the effect because the strings are internal to the metal structure. What I like to call matter. Matter is condensed star material around these strings, whatever that material was they were attracted to the static nature of the charges on the strings. Since charges would be strongly attracted to a higher potential they would gather and organize from the highest potential (center) to the lowest potential furthest away causing a sphere on a 3 dimensional aspect. The string is bound by the matters attraction to the charge internal to the physical matter. This string is two way. Meaning that it is attracted via potential only and then makes a connection via charge as feedback. That's why they say voltage leads current. It has to lead it to make the connection then and only then can it make a close enough connection to move the charges around.
Radiant energy is a one way filling of this internal well of charge. Fill it enough and it radiates it more energetically further out of the internal capacity of the atom or condensed material around this string.
Strings have the ability to line up forever given enough initial potential to line them up with. Charges have a shell around the object that is the real charge sphere. Anything outside of that charge sphere only passes the potential or ghost charge as I like to say. The ghost charge is what vision is. Outside of the charge sphere it still radiates but only in the potential and not the charge (current) and our eyes are sensitive to the potential. Hence why we can see planets a million miles away.

Hi Jbignes5,
Again, another very thoughtful and thought provoking post. Sadly, I'm totally out of my depth on the subject of quantum physics, I have tried to get my head around some of the papers but after a while my eyes begin to glaze over just before my brains begin to run out of my ears! There is a world of difference between the ability to repeat something you have read and to truly understanding something you have read and advance that understanding. Unfortunately, I am the former on this subject but content to take your point of view on board.

Tesla I have studied, not in the detail I would like and without any experimental knowledge of my own to draw from but I will happily discuss my understanding.

What Tesla was doing was converting charge to Voltage potential vial transformers then sending it loss less in every direction. Then all one would need to do is receive the potential only and covert it back to real current via the local environment.

This statement does not tally with my understanding. The magnifying transmitter was about earth currents. The high voltage effects that Tesla and his coil are famous for, Tesla considered wasted energy. He went to great lengths to point out the futility of transmitting energy by Hertzian means. Tesla was of the view that the radio men were pushing all their energy into the antenna, 90% and 10% to ground. The problem was that this energy was not recoverable. Tesla's method was to push the energy into the ground 90% of it, losing 10% in the antenna. Tesla was quite adamant that all of the energy put into the earth was recoverable at any point on the globe. The grounding rods for the Wardencliff transmitter went down almost as far as the tower stood high. I couldn't argue about which direction the current flows during a brush discharge but I would like to see one in person.

P.S. Please look at the Tesla switch and that should prove over half of what I am saying. We live in an energy filled universe that is only one potential only. There is no such thing as a negative potential. There can be a lack of potential but absolutely not a negative potential. It's all one potential with differences of potentials that's where current is induced from. I am currently <-joke) designing experiments to prove this new (to me) understanding, this was not new to Tesla and I think I am as close to understanding it all as he was when he was a child to give you an example of how much he really knew before his death.

Although my Tesla studies are far from comprehensive, I have found no reference, in the accepted literature, of such a device we now know as the Tesla Switch. And, unfortunately, this is a very contentious device to call as proof to the ideas you have put forward, since there are very few replications that could be considered successful and certainly non that have been confirmed as over unity. I wish you success in designing your tests and I sincerely look forward to their results.

Regards Lee..

[Inquorate]

Quoting myself doesn't work with some. So I'll quote someone else..

From Sealed Lead Acid Battery Applications - Transwiki

''Battery Efficiency


Energy efficiency is calculated on the amount of power used from the battery while discharging divided by the amount of power delivered to the batter while charging, multiplied by 100 to yield percent. Pout x 100 /Pin . A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%. The energy lost appears as heat and warms the battery. Keeping the charge and discharge rate of a battery low, helps keep a battery cool and improves the battery life.


The above losses don't include losses in the charging circuit which may have an efficiency of anywhere from 60% to 80% - thus the overall- total efficiency is the product of these efficiencies and ends up being 45 to 68%.''

Add to that, we are charging one battery from another one, also losing energy.

it has been shown that this can perform at over 90% efficiency, perhaps 100 % or more..

That is not possible, by the very theories that are used to debunk idea that this system is able to perform overunity.

[witsend]

The supply battery will appear to be charging if the current drain on it is decreasing. So as the secondary battery charges, the supply current maybe be decreasing and the batteries terminal voltage will rise. Lee, I think you already showed this, yes?

Hello Dave. What is being referenced here is the adjustment in voltage as a result of changing current. It will tip the supply voltage into either direction depending on the rate of current flow. Then the voltage will, within minutes, settle to a new value and continue it's decline in potential difference. Anyone who has ever used a battery is aware of this. What does not happen however, in terms of classical prediction, is that having discharged that potential difference - you can then take two flat batteries and systematically recharge them both - the one from the other that one is left with two batteries that have an increased voltage from their previously measured ground 'rest' state.

If the battery is gassing (cold boiling), and the gasses not recycled, then water is being lost and the batteries overall mass is decreasing. The overall mass of the battery, other than the loss of water does not change. However, the plates themselves do change mass as the electrochemical process of sulphation (which is essential to the batteries operation) occurs. With impulse charging, it seems that the lead sulphate crystal growth is finer than with DC which offers greater surface area. Yes this has an upper limit, one that Bedini has said to peak at about a 50% increase in capacity. But that's not a free 50%, that extra capacity needs the appropriate amount of energy to recharge it, which although more efficient due to the decreased internal resistance of the battery through the impulse charging, does not even approach 100%.

I am not sure that this is being argued - anywhere.

If we truly want to see if there is a gain in the battery, then all the joules ever used to form the plates, cycling between charge and discharge, heat generated and gas expelled needs to be measured until no more can be got from the battery because all the lead has been transformed. Doing this with anything other than a small cell would be extremely long winded (years). A small cell could be built with everything known about it, and taken through its whole lifecycle in maybe a few months or weeks.

Again. This could not be proven because variations between battery manufacture and manufacturer could give an infinite number of variables to render all results forever inconclusive.

In my opinion the only appropriate control is to take the system off batteries and apply it to a utility supply source. If there's any evident energies being returned to the supply then the argument is proven. But that test is more complicated and will need a variation to the parameters established in this circuit.

[elias]

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.

Kindest regards Lee..

Lee,

I find you an honest person, and I have been reading your posts, about Bedini's charging circuits, I have not seen any overunity effect too, but I have seen cold charging and good charging, and also, better batteries afterwards, leading to more battery life, and saving $$$.

This quote of yours regarding charging the secondary battery, the thing that I did not get is that how on earth in conventional means can the primary battery charge the secondary battery when the transistor is "ON"? Yes I know that the inductor gets induced with current by the primary battery, but the diode must be off, because the potential of its anode is less that the potential of its cathode in the ON cycle, No?

Thanks beforehand
Elias

[witsend]

Lee,

I find you an honest person, and I have been reading your posts, about Bedini's charging circuits, I have not seen any overunity effect too, but I have seen cold charging and good charging, and also, better batteries afterwards, leading to more battery life, and saving $$$.

This quote of yours regarding charging the secondary battery, the thing that I did not get is that how on earth in conventional means can the primary battery charge the secondary battery when the transistor is "ON"? Yes I know that the inductor gets induced with current by the primary battery, but the diode must be off, because the potential of its anode is less that the potential of its cathode in the ON cycle, No?

Thanks beforehand
Elias

Elias - it is my opinion that all contributors here are honest people. What seems to be a variance is the basis of each person's truth. But it is my experience that we are all prepared to test those bases and with that attitude then one can possibly and eventually, do truth justice.

I agree with you that the facts are extraordinary. In fact they're preposterous. Effectively Inquorate's thinking here suggests that we need only get two old batteries to recover two new batteries. I'd say our battery manufacturers would be the first to panic if this were finally proven. Then, unfortunately, truth will be mixed with a certain amount of self-interest, And the fear then is that this knowledge will somehow get discredited through the simple expediency of demanding proof based on tests that are neither scientifically appropriate nor reasonable.

It constantly amazes me that the COP>1 thread is not attracting more interest. The results are ground breaking. But I'm glad that Inquorate had the foresight to allow the arguments to be directed to a second thread and the experimental evidence be left on the first. Hopefully the standard of argument against this evidence will improve - as time goes by. And I agree with Jbigness5. Perhaps what's needed is some more detailed explanation of Inquorate's thesis that supported this prediction. I think we'd all be honoured if you can spare us the time Inquorate.

[Inquorate]

@witsend - I'll try, I'll watch my own videos first, see what I might have left out or unclear.

[elias]

It constantly amazes me that the COP>1 thread is not attracting more interest. The results are ground breaking. But I'm glad that Inquorate had the foresight to allow the arguments to be directed to a second thread and the experimental evidence be left on the first. Hopefully the standard of argument against this evidence will improve - as time goes by. And I agree with Jbigness5. Perhaps what's needed is some more detailed explanation of Inquorate's thesis that supported this prediction. I think we'd all be honoured if you can spare us the time Inquorate.

Dear Rosemary,

I have studied your zipon theory and I believe that the whole existence emanates from a single smallest particle. Also kinesiology obviously verifies this and I am sure that imagining that single point (zipon), can activate the chakra energetic system, and of course the heart and pineal gland.

I am sure that the inductive collapse is "free energy" emanated from the vacuum and also its conventional electrical quality is always < the energy supplied to the inductor, obviously, but the combination would exceed the input energy.

I recently built the Relay based Tesla Switch, and I haven't got the results I was looking so far, with frequencies of about 0.1Hz - 1Hz, with a 100mA resistive load. So I will conduct more tests, with larger loads and more frequencies, to see the effect. I was planning to run my electric bike with it.

The COP>1 thread is good, and I like Inquorate, I know that his circuit is the result of mixing the Tesla Switch with SSG, and It may have COP > 1 effects, I will experiments with those circuits, thanks for mentioning it.
If you use two capacitors in this circuit, instead of three batteries. One charged to 12V, and the other 0V, discharging one capacitor through a pulsing coil to another capacitor using the third circuit would DEFINITELY increase the resulted charge after wards, but the energy I cannot tell.

In order to get more energy out we must have:

Before Discharge:
Energy in C1: 0.5C*144 = 72C
After Discharge:
Energy in C1: 0.5C*V^2
Energy in C2: 0.5C*V^2
Total Energy: CV^2
if we require CV^2 > 72C then V^2 > 72 then V > 8.5v
If I recall my experiments about two years ago correctly I was able to get the two capacitors to 8v, with certain pulsing frequency, which is less than the over-unity limit, maybe with batteries it is a bit different.

Elias

[witsend]

Hi Elias. LOL. I'm certainly NOT plugging my thesis here. I assure you. I'm still bending my mind around how you engineers look at things. Way more interesting. I know how I think. I still don't know how you guys think. It's fun finding out.

Nice to see you're still searching for that elusive energy barrier. You should apply our circuit to your bicycle. My guess it'll give you a total recharge. Especially if you feed back the energy as is proposed here. No need to pedal. The quintessential definition of a free ride. LOL.

[sucahyo]

Interesting discussion .

@smw1998a, how do you increase your circuit efficiency? pulse shape? duty cycle? frequency? pulse steepness? geometric tuning? special coil? special recovery circuit?

[Inquorate]

quote from elias

''The COP>1 thread is good, and I like Inquorate, I know that his circuit is the result of mixing the Tesla Switch with SSG, and It may have COP > 1 effects, ''

the circuit is definitely a blend of the three battery tesla switch and the sg, but I'd been working on the underlying principle 'independently' so to speak; shortly after emailing P. Lindemann asking his opinion, J. Bedini arrived on the tesla switch thread.

Bedini's circuits are nothing short of brilliant. Brilliant, or just sane.. 'destroying the dipole' is complete lunacy.

I have everything on my bench to setup the circuit to run indefinitely, swapping batteries series to parallel ad infinitum. I will have it running a shop bought 12v motor and plan to see how long it persists.

Then, if indeed it dies, I will run the motor at the same speed / amps, with the charged (from a wall transformer) batteries in parallel, until it runs down.

I'm certain that the latter case will be a much shorter run.


I have received an email from user* with the textbook response to what has been found by myself and Groundloop (skywatcher also had success with a joule theif arrangement) - that the batteries actually are increasing in voltage.

I will be including it shortly, as it is quite a good counterpoint - having trouble copying text from yt mail.

However, if I do the test in the next two months, I will get castrated by the missus re the newborn and work etc.

So that is why I put the call out for replications, I am time poor.

Long term, this circuit could be incorporated into a high torque superbly efficient motor, like the one Ted Ewert is working on

Heretical Builders - Powered by vBulletin

That turns off a permanent magnet's field at the sticking point..

The sky is the limit