unimaginative textbook sycophants

[Inquorate]

Ok. Here's my interpretation in terms of Inductive Laws.

Assuming that potential difference is a measure of magnetic imbalance, and assuming that current flow is an electric discharge of that magnetic imbalance then

1 Current flow is first induced from the potential difference at the battery.

2 So. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field - answers the first transfer of energy through current flow.

3 Changing electric fields induce a magnetic field - answers the first transfer of potential difference across the inductor

4 Then the current flow from the battery is disabled via the switch.

Effectively the only source of potential difference in the circuit is now in the inductor. It has a closed circuit path via the internal body diode at the MOSFET.

5 The inductor discharges potential difference from some value, say 'x' to zero or ground.

This is seen as a voltage collapse that results in a discharge of energy equal to the energy that was first delivered by the battery. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. AND changing electric fields induce a magnetic field. Therefore the collapse of the voltage from 'x' to zero is a measure of changing magnetic fields.

6 This induces a changing electric field which, in turn, induces a current flow in antiphase to the first cycle.

7 But then that changing electric field, in turn, induces a changing magnetic field that takes the voltage from 'x' to '-x'.

8 This induces a second cycle of electric energy or current flow that maintains the directional flow in antiphase or anticlockwise relative to the battery supply.

9 Then the cycle repeats itself - like a mirror image of the first cycle. The discharge of energy resulting in that negative potential difference results in current flow that is anticlockwise

10 And having discharged its potential difference then the voltage recovers from '-x' to zero.

11 This induces a current flow that is 'clockwise' relative to the battery and the switch now also kicks in that there is a second cycle of energy delivered by the battery.

Effectively, losses excepted, the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is returned to the battery in a precise and equivalent quotient.

However. This equivalence is dependent on the rate of transfer - and that there is 'time' afforded to allow the discharge of stored energy from the inductor through both cycles. That is when the system becomes frequency dependent and that, in my experience, is where the 'art' comes into the tuning of the circuit.

In this particular circuit - as designed by Inquorate - the discharge of energy is alternatively between two batteries resulting in a steady increase in potential difference over both - as the one supplies the other and vice versa during each cycle. As battery 2 gets an increase in voltage it is able to discharge more energy into battery 1 and vice versa - in small and steady increments, thereby recharging both batteries.

In a nutshell, that is how I approached this experiment, along with the inertia of the battery's ions. And lo and behold, it happened. So far, I've yet to hear of a direct attempt at exact replication, despite several uniquely efficient circuits based on some but not all of the principles espoused; they only recover a percentage of circuit losses.

I thank Xeno and Groundloop for their efforts, and the different manner in which they are approaching things; ruling things out, as I had just gone straight for the guts of the matter.

Either way, there are less losses than mainstream theory suggests. Thus debunking mainstream theory. And if that is debunked, so is the supposed impossibility of OU, or the irrationally disputed aether theory.

And if that is the case, then cop > 1 is possible, as found by me. P.s. Skywatcher also found total gain, using the three battery tesla switch and a joule theif circuit designed to operate as I had defined over at hereticalbuilders.

Again. I pay homage to all the theorists arguing this, and the experimenters playing with it also.

[smw1998a]

Those that can, do!

Might I say though, the adherents to textbook theory seem to propose others experiment, but themselves quote textbooks. Which is all well and good on paper, but if the experiment disagrees, it has to be the ultimate authority. Therefore, after a point discussion should lead to solution - how can we benchtest the principles espoused ? What will provide a proof?

Hi Iquorate,
As I seem to be one of the few (in this thread) who would advocate studying the text books, all I can say is this, how would the experimenter know if the experiment disagrees, if the experimenter does not have a sound grasp of the basic 'conventional' theory pertinent to the operation of the circuit, which would support any ability to correctly identify anomalous circuit behavior. Not understanding why something is the way it is, does not imply anomalous circuit behavior. Only when the experimenter has studied all pertinent conventional theory should other avenues be considered and explored.

While I would certainly quote from the text book and have. I would also point out that I personally have gained far better insight and understanding from the fore mentioned practice, than unnecessarily chasing unsubstantiated theory as I did in the beginning. I would also strongly support out of the box thinking but when looking for answers, it is always better to start your search inside the box.

As for letting the experiments do the talking. A strongly agree. Here are the two experiments I'm running presently. First (see photo) is Ossie's modified school girl circuit (MSG). I have had this running continuously since 23 May swapping the four 12v 5Ah SLAs from 24v supply(series) to 12v charge(parallel) at 12 hour intervals. The SSG is driven by my pulse generator ciruit as the rotor, although well balanced, is quite shrill and I would not want to annoy my neighbors in the small hours. The experiment is continuing.

Second (see photo) is a rebuild of a circuit that I constructed several years ago in an attempt to reduce the massive current flow through a mechanically switched Tesla switch, later abandoned. Effectively, it is identical your original COP>1 circuit but switched on the low side, low frequency and low duty cycle, fully adjustable with, in this case, a regulated 16v supply.

Regards Lee.

Ossie MSG.jpg

HalfTesla.jpg

[Jbignes5]

Hmmm...

What I'm trying to point to above is that standard Inductive Laws explains this potential and that is all that is ever needed to realise a gain. It's just that this also indicates that standard Inductive Laws also have that potential to conserve charge. It's just that this potential has been urgently denied by our physicists.

What is also intriguing is this. I've covered this point before. If E=mc^2 then mass has it's own energy quotient. Why therefore does mainstream ignore the mass of - and the potential energy in - inductive or resistive and inductive components. The energy transferred to such mass would be magnetic - and would only depend on the component's magnetic properties. But having been transferred then it is unarguable that those transferred energies would be usable in line with this equation. Surely?

It is my humble opinion that mainstream have gone to some extrardinary lengths to refute the very arguments related to the transfer of energy - that under all other conditions they also rely on. Seems they're determined to keep shooting into that poor abused foot.

All - is just a reference of a less positive. It is this relation that causes flow. When we say something is - we do not mean that the batter in this case has a +12v and a -12 volts. This is a relationship only in reference to the other. Meaning the - is less positive then the +12.
I think it would be best to clear the battery issue up and I did a lot of thinking last night about it. How I think it works is that when one orients the plates in such a fashion that they are in planar reference to the other the positive plate is reactant to the acid. The acid in the water flows twords the positive plate dragging the water with it and splashing on the plate generating a static charge from that action. Once a battery is set in motion it will continue as long as the positive plate stays at it's potential through the static process. The "negative" of the battery is the input to accept charges through. The positive being the outlet when not being charged. So what we have here is a chemical pump that causes static to form on only one plate through the directional flow setup in the battery from the nature of it's components.
The battery in itself is not the provider of charge only a steady static potential from those flows setup in the battery. But it can move charges from the inputs and outputs (sorta antennas) as well. So in this view the negative is only a base line charge. Like an ambient reference point and the positive is the attractor from the medium of acid+water.
What Bedini found out is that once you set up a flow it will tend to stay in motion. Just like when you pulse a motor you can also pulse a battery start a flow then let inertia carry that flow a certain distance with no further input. In effect increasing the static potential for less.
But what if the medium is air? We all know air is conductive when you get to a certain point (break down). But how would one setup a flow in the air? This is where Tesla comes in. After warden cliff Tesla figured out that if one created a cycle much like a battery in the air one could create the same process as goes on in a battery. Create a flow (cyclic in nature) and then harness that flow to attract the charges back into whatever device he wanted. But this process needs to be a pure one way movement (pulse) or it re-balances itself when the circuit goes "-" or less positive. The easiest way to get a pure one way movement in this potential is to use an arc space. Once you have that perfect movement one way then you have the key to everything. The one way pulse attracts the real charges that we call current because the flow of potentials form from the outside via an antenna into the circuit.
After all is said and done anything that carries this potential can be considered an antenna. Even printed circuits would be considered an antenna. So even regular circuits attract the real charges from everywhere around that circuit and the charges enter through the wires and most components. Most of our circuits are very very destructive to the standing voltage that should be present in a perfect circuit. AC being the worst. With dc being the closest to the natural process.

If we start to understand that all energy in the looses sense is movement. Learn how to design your device to enhance this movement and walla we have an unlimited supply or ability to attract real charges to use to influence more motion in our device.

This is exactly the process that a Regular Tesla coil does without the means to harness the motion. The brush like effects that comes from the one terminal of the coil is only a higher potential source then the environmental baseline causing a circulation of the real charges. These charges being accelerated twords the HV source cause the effects we see or brushes. Design a device that incorporates the harness like I have shown in the circuit I provided and you should be able to redirect those charges into your device as they rush twords the hv source. In effect powering your device by redirecting the charges as they flow through the device.

P.S. This is what I think the Particle looks like that is the conductor. If you read the entire thing one can see how this relates to crystals and how they are formed. It also would explain how it could be a forever journey into the depths of the components of this particle.
Sierpinski triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These conductors are actually static capacitors that only pass the potential to the tip. They are shaped for movement and the driving force is a static charge at it's own resolution. Going further into the charges makeup would show the same architecture but with circulating charges that forever move. At the conductor level I described the medium that the conductors and charges ride in contain the charges and conductors so they never touch physically but touch with finer threads extending out from the planes of the conductors. These finer threads give the movement or directional activity that allows transmission of movement.
One could watch microscopic underwater sea life to see how the threads operate (move through the water). Usually tons of little legs or threads undulating to cause it to move through that medium.

[witsend]

Hi Iquorate,
As I seem to be one of the few (in this thread) who would advocate studying the text books, all I can say is this, how would the experimenter know if the experiment disagrees, if the experimenter does not have a sound grasp of the basic 'conventional' theory pertinent to the operation of the circuit, which would support any ability to correctly identify anomalous circuit behavior. Not understanding why something is the way it is, does not imply anomalous circuit behavior. Only when the experimenter has studied all pertinent conventional theory should other avenues be considered and explored.

Lee? I trust you are not including me in this reference to those who prefer to ignore our text books. I've gone to some trouble to suggest that this result is 'required' in terms of inductive laws. The difficulty only now comes in some need to explain the resulting breach in that elusive energy barrier. I put it to you that our text book explanations have actually twisted themselves through some extraordinary gynmnastics in logic to try and obviate the result that our Inductive Laws require.

btw I'm still working on that paper of yours. That's a tricky one. LOL.

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Ted. I've been trying to understand this circuit of yours. I take it that the power is coming from a battery and that the cap is intended to be charged from the BEMF. I would argue that the returning energy through that flyback diode would route the energy back to the battery supply generating an anticlockwise current flow. This would bypass the cap. Is that possible? Certainly, very broadly, the circuit would then be roughly similar to our own and so would your results. If you could spare the time I'd be glad for clarification here.

So nice to see that so much is happening around the world to progress these applications. AND THAT THE RESULTS ARE SO POSITIVE.

I've included a simplified schematic of this recovery circuit for clarity.
I've tried a lot of ways to recover energy in this basic configuration. This one works the best so far.
I'm using it to drive a motor which runs anywhere from 100 volts to 180 volts DC. The power supply is a very simple DC source with a big cap on the output. The coils are fairly high impedance, around 100 ohms resistance.
I have found that the coil wants to see a fairly high impedance through D2 when it discharges the pulse collapse. The zener diode represents this high impedance until it conducts. The point at which it conducts is critical for the efficiency of the circuit as a whole.
If I feed the pulse straight back to the source, without the zener, the circuit draws a lot of current and performs quite poorly, if at all. With the zener in the circuit this changes. At low values, the circuit draws higher current. As the value of the zener increases, the current consumption of the circuit decreases significantly. As far as I can tell, the value of the zener roughly corresponds to matching the impedance of the coil.
The interesting part is that even if I feed the pulse to a separate stack of batteries, instead of back to the source, the efficiency of the circuit still goes up with a rise in the value of the zener. This means that either C1 is being charged, or the coil itself is acting as a storage device. The amount of power being fed back to the source is really just gravy. Raising the "impedance" (back pressure, voltage potential??) after D2 is where the action is.
I should also note that the recovery portion of the circuit has no effect on the performance of the motor. The input current can drop by half with this circuit and the motor is unaffected. In fact, I get power savings of 60 - 70% with this circuit! Does wonders for the COP calculations.



Cheers,

Ted

[Xenomorph]

Ted,
for your simplified version did you use real zener diodes or the TVS (unidirectional?) variant?
I wanna try that, zeners are easier to find than TVS.
You chose 68V because the upper portion of the spikes reaches 100+ Volts right?

[Ted Ewert]

Ted,
for your simplified version did you use real zener diodes or the TVS (unidirectional?) variant?
I wanna try that, zeners are easier to find than TVS.
You chose 68V because the upper portion of the spikes reaches 100+ Volts right?

I didn't actually build or use the simplified version, it was just drawn for clarity. A zener alone would work if you don't have much power in the circuit. However, a pulse of any significant size will fry the zener. That's why I strap an IGBT across there and use the zener as a reference trigger.
68 volts is what works in my particular circuit, although I could probably go higher. This value would have to be determined by trial in any other application according to the supply voltage and the coil size. I would make it as high as you can without frying your main transistor. The supply voltage plus the zener voltage shouldn't be above the voltage rating of your transistor (Q1 in my case). Get a range of values (they're cheap) and try them to see what works best for your particular device.
I've only tried this circuit in my motors. I'll be curious to see how it works in other applications. This would probably work well in any of the Bedini motors too.

Ted

[elias]

Hello Elias,
You have a very valid point from the result of experiment two but the c1 capacitor would have to be switched before the voltage of c2 equalized or the inductor would not experience the rapid change in current we have been discussing, which would result in both capacitors equalizing at a higher potential than that attained in experiment one. experiment one doesn't allow the collapsing field of the inductor to play a part because there is no sudden disruption of current. But this alone does not prove that the inductor is drawing energy from anywhere other than the capacitor C1. Again, this effect relies heavily on the properties of the electrolytic capacitor and this demonstration doesn't work any where near as well with anything other than electrolytic capacitors. The obvious solution would be to only use electrolytic capacitors but then the experimenter would have to concede that the demonstration is only effective when electrolytic capacitors are employed. Continuing, convinced that there is extra energy due to the inclusion of electrolytic capacitors in this circuit, what could the experimenter do to prove that there is, in fact, extra energy made available in this circuit? And, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be spending all our time searching for COP >1, would we? Ad infinitum.

Regards Lee..

Hi Lee
With all respect, I would say, that this is not the case,
And I would say again, we are talking conventionally here, we have some charge in C1, that is likened to some pressurised gas inside a capsule. So

If you have Capsule 1 with gas pressure P and another capsule the same size, with pressure 0, if you connect the capsules, what would happen?

Yes gas would flow from capsule 1 to capsule 2 and at last you would have the same amount (mass) of gas in the whole system, and the pressure of the both capsules would be halved. Similar to experiment 1.

But ... In experiment two we end up with more gas (charge) and more pressure at the end. And I want to point out that how this extra gas (charge) got into the system? unless the system was open and drawing new gas from the HIGH PRESSURE environment (The Aether)?

If you are not convinced that new charge is introduced to this system, lets try another experiment.

Experiment three:

We have got three capacitors C1, C2, C3.



Event A:
C1 is charged to 24v
C2 discharged to zero
C3 discharged to zero
C1 = C2 = C3 = C = 10000uF
Q_A = CV1 + CV2 + CV3 = 24C = 24000uC

Event B:
C1 is discharged trough an inductor to C2 while switching with S1,
If you switch fast enough you will end up 12v in C1, 12v in C2 and perhaps around 10v in C3.
So
V1 = 12v
V2 = 12v
V3 = 10v

Q_B = 12C + 12C + 10C = 34C = 34000uC

Obviously: Q_B> Q_A
Now this shows clearly that we have got more gas in the end.

Elias

[witsend]

Guys, and especially Lee - since we're talking overall 'insight' and 'thesis' - may I refer you to my article. No need to read it all - but the object here was to give some historical account of our forum progress and some idea as to where this 'extra' energy may conform to mainstream requirement - with specific reference to dark energy.

'crashing through the energy barrier'
aetherevarising | Scribd

[smw1998a]

Lee? I trust you are not including me in this reference to those who prefer to ignore our text books. I've gone to some trouble to suggest that this result is 'required' in terms of inductive laws. The difficulty only now comes in some need to explain the resulting breach in that elusive energy barrier. I put it to you that our text book explanations have actually twisted themselves through some extraordinary gynmnastics in logic to try and obviate the result that our Inductive Laws require.

btw I'm still working on that paper of yours. That's a tricky one. LOL.

Hi Witsend,
The reference is to how I became embroiled into this thread, not that it has been a fruitless exercise by any means. Hopefully, researchers won't simply dismiss what conventional teaching has to offer, in the same way conventional teachers dismiss our efforts. The simple fact is, there are ways to wind a particular coil, these ways were deduced, in most cases many years ago, and they worked, equations were written and applied, as long as basic coil construction rules, for a certain type of coil were met, you could work out your requirements mathematically beforehand, avoiding time consuming trial and error. When we, untrained, free energy researchers turn up with our huge hand wound solenoids, conventional wisdom would say "Good god man! You can't wind inductors like that, the maths will never work..." So we are doomed to failure on the looks of our coils alone.Lol..

I have read 'crashing through the energy barrier' and this is typical, as you correctly point out, of conventional thinking. However, there is something in the COP 17 subject you very rarely find. Full public disclosure. Investors will have no interest because to make money they need to hold all the cards, big pharma is a prime example "We have discovered a cure for cancer. Unfortunately, nobody can afford it so we will say nothing more about it!" Likewise, science faculty's rely on research budgets, they too like to hold all the cards, look at Leeds University and the global warming research debacle (Lots of money involved). Unfortunately, these people guard both their position and reputation jealously, they don't like upstarts who may prove a cornerstone of there scientific ethos to be incorrect.

IMHO you have forwarded your research in the most altruistic manner. And, in the context of overunity and free energy, the only viable and correct way to carry such research forward, for the benefit of all. Running down to the patent office, which necessitates non public disclosure, then on, into the hands of investors and private development, usually, never to be seen or heard of again, is such a waste and epitomises the problems in this area of research.

I'm glad you like my paper, pretty much, all my efforts and understanding have been based of the charge and discharge of inductors/capacitors inspired by John Bedini's School girl motor/energiser.

Regards Lee...

[witsend]

Hi Lee
With all respect, I would say, that this is not the case,
And I would say again, we are talking conventionally here, we have some charge in C1, that is likened to some pressurised gas inside a capsule. So

If you have Capsule 1 with gas pressure P and another capsule the same size, with pressure 0, if you connect the capsules, what would happen?

Yes gas would flow from capsule 1 to capsule 2 and at last you would have the same amount (mass) of gas in the whole system, and the pressure of the both capsules would be halved. Similar to experiment 1.

But ... In experiment two we end up with more gas (charge) and more pressure at the end. And I want to point out that how this extra gas (charge) got into the system? unless the system was open and drawing new gas from the HIGH PRESSURE environment (The Aether)?

If you are not convinced that new charge is introduced to this system, lets try another experiment.

Experiment three:

We have got three capacitors C1, C2, C3.



Event A:
C1 is charged to 24v
C2 discharged to zero
C3 discharged to zero
C1 = C2 = C3 = C = 10000uF
Q_A = CV1 + CV2 + CV3 = 24C = 24000uC

Event B:
C1 is discharged trough an inductor to C2 while switching with S1,
If you switch fast enough you will end up 12v in C1, 12v in C2 and perhaps around 10v in C3.
So
V1 = 12v
V2 = 12v
V3 = 10v

Q_B = 12C + 12C + 10C = 34C = 34000uC

Obviously: Q_B> Q_A
Now this shows clearly that we have got more gas in the end.

Elias

Hi Elias. Another really NEAT circuit. Blown away here. Very nice indeed.

[witsend]

Lee - hi, and thanks for the kind comments. I did not realise that you had your feet in both camps - your heart perhaps in FE? LOL. I suspect so.

[nilrehob]

Coils are interesting critters. When the pulse collapses you have energy shooting out both ends; normal current out the bottom and something else out the top (sort of like a bad case of food poisoning).

I cant help thinking of Benitez again,
he is doing some odd things with coils.
Look at patent GB191417811A for instance,
the coil at the bottom of the picture,
looks like some kind of Avramenko-plug.

I have attached the whole patent.
There are another 3 patents by him if i remember correctly.

He does all kinds of crazy things with coils that doesn't fit in modern textbooks.

/Hob

[Ted Ewert]

I cant help thinking of Benitez again,
he is doing some odd things with coils.
Look at patent GB191417811A for instance,
the coil at the bottom of the picture,
looks like some kind of Avramenko-plug.

I have attached the whole patent.
There are another 3 patents by him if i remember correctly.

He does all kinds of crazy things with coils that doesn't fit in modern textbooks.

/Hob

Hi Hob,
Thanks for the info, I'll read it when I get some time.
Coils are little energy generators if you treat them right. In the recovery circuit above, all I've done is to replace the battery in Bedini's SG circuit with a zener.
I always thought the battery was there primarily to collect the energy from the pulse, but that's not really the case. The little that goes into the battery is a lot less than what the coil produces as a result of the "back pressure" the battery, or zener provides.
The reason I like the zener is that all the energy is contained within the circuit in real time, and efficiency can be directly calculated by total current draw. No battery COP to deal with.
When Bedini said it was all in the SG circuit, I think he knew more than he's given credit for. We just needed to look at it a little different.

Cheers,

Ted

[witsend]

I've included a simplified schematic of this recovery circuit for clarity.
I've tried a lot of ways to recover energy in this basic configuration. This one works the best so far.
I'm using it to drive a motor which runs anywhere from 100 volts to 180 volts DC. The power supply is a very simple DC source with a big cap on the output. The coils are fairly high impedance, around 100 ohms resistance.
I have found that the coil wants to see a fairly high impedance through D2 when it discharges the pulse collapse. The zener diode represents this high impedance until it conducts. The point at which it conducts is critical for the efficiency of the circuit as a whole.
If I feed the pulse straight back to the source, without the zener, the circuit draws a lot of current and performs quite poorly, if at all. With the zener in the circuit this changes. At low values, the circuit draws higher current. As the value of the zener increases, the current consumption of the circuit decreases significantly. As far as I can tell, the value of the zener roughly corresponds to matching the impedance of the coil.
The interesting part is that even if I feed the pulse to a separate stack of batteries, instead of back to the source, the efficiency of the circuit still goes up with a rise in the value of the zener. This means that either C1 is being charged, or the coil itself is acting as a storage device. The amount of power being fed back to the source is really just gravy. Raising the "impedance" (back pressure, voltage potential??) after D2 is where the action is.
I should also note that the recovery portion of the circuit has no effect on the performance of the motor. The input current can drop by half with this circuit and the motor is unaffected. In fact, I get power savings of 60 - 70% with this circuit! Does wonders for the COP calculations.

Cheers,

Ted

Thanks for this circuit Ted. Much easier for my old mind to get to grips with. I might tell you that there is essentially no difference to our circuit except for the fact that you're running a motor. Some really interesting results and - again - I keep seeing this - simple and clear reach to the objectives. It's so nice to see this and it keeps happening - all over this thread. I'm learning loads here and very glad of it. Thanks guys and many thanks Ted.

The fact is that there are definitely two distinct 'returns' from the inductor and it also seems that the motor application is well able to make use of both.