Don't Kill Dipole

[Jbignes5]

yeah

I'm trying to understand but it still hasn't quite made the light go off in my head.... If you have a charged battery not connected to a load this would be considered a dipole?

So in order to not kill the dipole you would need a single wire with a load on the end and a device that could switch the other end from pos to neg extreemly fast changing the potential of that wire thus powering the load. Therefore nothing is removed or added to the battery... ?????

I guess I'm looking for an analogy that will give me that " ah ha " moment. Until that moment of understanding happens, nothing can be built.

A battery in my honest opinion is just a static potential generator. It is basically a pump for potential. A batteries ability to maintain that potential has tricked us into thinking there is that much power or charges or even energy to provide a load is in that battery. When in fact all a battery does is maintain the voltage potential that we then impart to our load. Eventually the chemical process that goes on in the battery gets depleted by this draining of ability to provide potential to a load. When we charge a battery we are only bringing the battery back up to the ability to provide a steady potential. Kinda like increasing the flow inside the battery to enable that increase. This does in fact recharge the chemical interaction within the battery to a higher level and that is supplied to the positive post only. The negative is suction and the positive is the pressure or abundance.

I would like to touch on the Bedini method one more time. Bedini uses charge depletion method. This is dangerous for two reasons. It will fundamentally change matter to a depleted charge state when exposed to this method. It will also be very hard to contain this method. Meaning the depletion is field based. This field can be quite large and can encompass a rather big area depleting everything in it's field. This is because they are using the charges and not supplying a good inlet to balance the fields effect. The battery in this case is the charge depleted source and this is evident by the recharging effect that continues long after the process was stopped. What bedinin does is the other end of the scale with the battery going into reverse operation. Much like you can run a device from two like polarities but differ in strength, you can also run the battery in "negative" mode. This does two things. It looks like it is regenerating the plates but that is just an appearance. The "negative" operation would do the opposite of what does "positive". When I say "negative" I mean lower in ambient charge when compared to another reference point. The second thing this does is make an electreet out of the dielectric material surrounding the battery. This might not be a good thing because what if you deplete the charge to a point where there is very little holding that material together. This could make the material fluffy and easier to break down. What I really wonder is what effect it has on the biological entities that are using that technology? The depletion is temporary but I doubt that could be good for either matter or bio mass.

I would tend to go the route of filling a space with energy and using some kind of superconductor to hold that energy together then depleting the matter around our device.

[quantumuppercut]

I'm trying to understand but it still hasn't quite made the light go off in my head.... If you have a charged battery not connected to a load this would be considered a dipole?

So in order to not kill the dipole you would need a single wire with a load on the end and a device that could switch the other end from pos to neg extreemly fast changing the potential of that wire thus powering the load. Therefore nothing is removed or added to the battery... ?????

I guess I'm looking for an analogy that will give me that " ah ha " moment. Until that moment of understanding happens, nothing can be built.

I think this is a core question. I also believe that most people misunderstood the meaning of killing dipole or dipole in general.

There are two types of dipoles
1/ Static dipole- a battery not connected, a srping stretched, a stone sitting at certain height...etc...
2/ dynamic dipole - oscillation in circuit, mass going back and forth on a spring, pendulum in action, stone bounching without friction etc...

You cannnot extract energy from static dipole. The dynamic dipole is what Tesla talking about. It is also called brownian motion (zero point fluctuation what so ever). However, there are dynamic dipole within static dipole. Richard Feynman proved that you cannot extract energy from brownian motion based on the brownian ratchet scenario, but he said that if the ratchet has a state below brownian state, you can. It's not practical to extract energy from brownian motion, but it's practical to create artificial huge brownian motion (oscillating circuit, pendulum swing, mass spring action etc..).

So I would say it's not "not killing dipole" but rather..."not killing the state of oscillation"... or efficient oscillation.

In my observation, Rosemary Anslie circuit is #1 efficient, #2 is Dr Stiffler oscillator. So far i'm stuck at drawing below 45mA on oscillator with fairly decent stength.

[dragon]

Thanks Quantumuppercut, that helped put it into perspective to a certain degree. I've worked with one of Lamar's circuits ( slayer/puharich drawing ) with not much success. I've been experimenting with it in different arrangements but it doesn't do as well as my earlier circuit I posted. I can reproduce the oscillation that lamar posted from puharich. I just seem to be missing something.... understanding primarily.
________
MONTANA MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[Farmhand]

Opposing Dipole's

What about when a solar panel is used directly with a battery, are they then opposing dipoles and are they dynamic or static when the panel is charging the battery, because they are opposing each other a diode is needed to separate them in one direction, even better would be to keep them always separate so the panel's potential can be greater. The more separation between them the better while still allowing the panel to float all it's now greater potential to the battery without ever being actually connected.

We need simple ways to do these things, so many will understand because they want to because they can see and understand what is happening and explain it to others.

As long as the people trying to design new ways to do things understand the very basic principal of the separation of charges and other principals they can work to these theories.

In my opinion we need to come up with something very simple as a place for people to start to think about doing things different. The average joe needs to be able to take in the principals, and most wont bother unless they can see something working, I have trouble trying to explain any of this stuff battery reconditioning the lot, most people don't see the point. It's frustrating. As 90% or more of the people I know will never be able to build a bedini energiser or a joule thief, they would rather go to work and buy a new battery. The "man" has made it so people just say- oh you can't do that thats not allowed is it? The masses need to be woken up with a super simple working and real live free energy device or super duper efficient stuff.

Other wise the masses probably wont care.

Regards

[Slovenia]

Getting There

Hi Farmhand,

I think we are getting there now. We have some very good people who I am pretty sure will help us reach the objective of what you speak. I have many contacts, and I'm trying to get some of them to help us also. Many of them are locked into confidentiality agreements so they can't help. Some of the others see a chance to get rich with this stuff, so they won't help. Right now, I think we need to figure out how to do this and do it so we can change the equation with the elite who run this planet in their own favor.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

What about when a solar panel is used directly with a battery, are they then opposing dipoles and are they dynamic or static when the panel is charging the battery, because they are opposing each other a diode is needed to separate them in one direction, even better would be to keep them always separate so the panel's potential can be greater. The more separation between them the better while still allowing the panel to float all it's now greater potential to the battery without ever being actually connected.

We need simple ways to do these things, so many will understand because they want to because they can see and understand what is happening and explain it to others.

As long as the people trying to design new ways to do things understand the very basic principal of the separation of charges and other principals they can work to these theories.

In my opinion we need to come up with something very simple as a place for people to start to think about doing things different. The average joe needs to be able to take in the principals, and most wont bother unless they can see something working, I have trouble trying to explain any of this stuff battery reconditioning the lot, most people don't see the point. It's frustrating. As 90% or more of the people I know will never be able to build a bedini energiser or a joule thief, they would rather go to work and buy a new battery. The "man" has made it so people just say- oh you can't do that thats not allowed is it? The masses need to be woken up with a super simple working and real live free energy device or super duper efficient stuff.

Other wise the masses probably wont care.

Regards

[dragon]

I agree Farmhand, there needs to be a simple - basic device to demonstrate the effect. I hear people saying "it's simple" yet nothing is there to show how simple it is.

I guess, with the experiments I've done, there are 2 standards of measuring overunity. First is the one everyone learns through basic electronics - Ohms law. The second is how the output is viewed or interpreted as overunity.

Just because Ohms law states it takes 1 watt to run a device in a closed system doesn't mean that device is actually requiring 1 watt to run. So in reality we can run the same device in a more efficient way. This would be thought to be overunity when in reality it's simply more efficient because the device doesn't really need the 1 watt to begin with. An example would be driving 50 LED's - Ohms law would predict 4 watts of useage but in reality they run very nicely on 1/2 watt. So is it a COP > 8 or are we simply learning how to utilize the energy in a different way that is far more efficient. When your in a mindset that you have overunity or a COP>8 then you usually think you can loop the excess energy back into the system... it's not there because your simply creating a more efficient system. If you base it on Ohms law then it only appears to be making more energy than your putting in, an illusion of fact.

So, the next best thing would be to be able to tap into a natural source of energy so that our input is nulified. Not overunity but a natural source. So maybe that solar panel rated at 100 watts could actually run what we would consider ( according to ohms law ) 400 watts of devices or more because we are doing it more efficiently.

What we are really looking for is another way to tap into our environment for the source energy and finding new ways to utilize that energy more efficiently in our everyday devices.

Just my opinion on what I've seen in my experiments....
________
Michigan Marijuana Dispensary

[Slovenia]

Other Examples of circuits that don't kill dipole

One of my contacts who is very experienced with Tesla and Bearden just got back to me and told me that the Tesla one wire circuits and Tesla 4 Battery Switch were both examples of circuits that don't kill the dipole. He was busy so he didn't have time to elaborate on the subject, but he did say he would get back to me later and explain how it worked from this don't kill the dipole perspective.

[Farmhand]

Well this solar panel thing is Unreal it's pouring rain here again and with my simple charge pump (not my idea but it works) My panels are pulsing a battery once a second from 14.4 volts on the panels and cap and the battery is 12.6 volts and charging. It's easy, works a treat. I cant wait to see if it will charge in the moonlight.

Here's the drawing I made if someone wants to redo it that can draw well feel free, others may find it as usefull as me the in - out figure's may have you scratching your head too. Seems like no less than 1 in 1 out looks like more but I can't tell. The panels remain at a higher voltage than the battery while they can 2 volts's or so, and it's easy for them to do it a small panel can charge a large battery with this setup in full sun I tried it, the batteries are then hard to drain aswell. When the light gets low it pulses a decent amount of energy to the battery rather than trickle a useless amount.

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...rcuit-pump.jpg

Cheers

[Slovenia]

Farmland's Circuit

Thanks Farmland!!

[Slovenia]

Jbignes5's Post #38 of this thread

I think we should study post #38 on this thread by Jbignes5 very well and not just pass it off. I feel it is very relevant to what we are doing. Also, he appears to understand Bearden and Tesla very well including this dipole question of ours and he is agreeable to answering questions about anything. So, we need to pick his brain and try to understand fully what he is trying to share with us, so that we will understand too and will be able to apply this principle in the real world.

[Farmhand]

I'm trying to think of a very simple way to stop the battery charging at a certain voltage (adjustable) using only a couple of more parts, now that it's raining i'll have time inside to tinker. I think it would also be able to run a Joule thief from the voltage difference in the negative line from one side of the scr to the other an led lights there and the voltage difference can be altered to suit it, not sure exactly about joule thief I don't have one but i see they can run off very little power.

I've tried a few different things with different results but i'm not sure it's wise to say some of the kooky things i've tried with this its very forgiving. I've made some things give of smoke and some go bang but I end up back with the original setup it just works!

Cheers all

[Jbignes5]

I think we should study post #38 on this thread by Jbignes5 very well and not just pass it off. I feel it is very relevant to what we are doing. Also, he appears to understand Bearden and Tesla very well including this dipole question of ours and he is agreeable to answering questions about anything. So, we need to pick his brain and try to understand fully what he is trying to share with us, so that we will understand too and will be able to apply this principle in the real world.

Slovenia,

This has been my problem all along. Even though I Give it my best attempt at showing this has been done already, that the results are in, no one believes me or the ones who have tred this path already. Weather I don't explain it entirely or I over explain it people don't or won't read it all. It took me over 20 years to be able to decipher what Tesla and others have found out and now I feel just like Tesla did. No matter how easy they all say it can't be done. Instead of listening and sitting down and doing the experimenting they dismiss it as being to simple. They throw terms around like cop and overunity when in reality the secret has always been external to the device being made.

We have deluded ourselves into thinking that energy comes from our devices. Well it doesn't. It has always been external and there is a very simple cycle that is made with any device.

If you want to interact with the external charges or energy then you need to provide an external input and output. When we don't do this it causes a vacuum or on the contrary a pressure to build up in our devices. This vacuum or pressure is fighting our attempts to pull in the environmental charges and allow them to transform into the desired energy gains we need.

I will try this one more time to set the record straight. No matter what you think we live in a fluidic atmosphere. We must treat our systems or devices as under water devices. If we want to utilize those devices they need to be designed as a pump that deals with this liquid. Most systems like Rosemary Anslie are far too open to utilize the returning pressures that are coming back to the system. If she had statically shielded the entire circuit except for where she wanted to interact with the environment then she would have seen a much higher return. It's like designing a boat made of cheese cloth. It wouldn't float very well now would it?

Why exactly do you think Tesla started looking into the Tesla turbine? This was just after he had a revelation that the medium and it's charges act under strict fluidic laws. He also was very into static behavour and the laws that govern it as well. I would suggest that one bones up on static laws and how they can be used to create a boundry so that we have a separation of the environment from our systems in key places. Vacuum also plays a nice role in creating a boundry as evident by the many static devices that have been patented already.

Now, one may wonder why we need to create a boundry condition in our systems. Well if a pump was to pump into a pipe that was filled with holes would it do what we desired that well? I doubt it. We need to plug the holes in our systems to enhance the results so that we can say this is the best we can do.

More later... Questions anyone...

[dragon]

Jbigness, thank you so much for your explanations, and continuous pounding at our thick skulls. I understand most of what your trying to explain... I've read your words and re-read them. Unfortunately, with all the information and reading available sometimes things get jumbled, confusing and downright frustrating at times. Even though I have a better understanding I still lack the picture forming in my mind as to a simple beginning device -

A short story on an experiment I had done some time back.... While working with Dr. Stifflers SEC 15 circuit I created a secondary parallel tank circuit on the output. It was separated by his parasitic plate and wasn't driven directly. I added an antenna to the secondary tank and it imediately toased the inductor on the main circuit - smoked it. I replaced it and tried it again - same result. At the time I figured it was simply a really bad feed back and moved on. After time has passed and all the reading I've been doing I'm starting to think there was much more going on than I realized at the time. Could this be what we've been looking for with the exception of finding a way of controlling the feedback?
________
EXTREME VAPORIZER

[Jbignes5]

Simply... Yes...

But I need to be perfectly clear about the AC form of RF energy. Although this can and will work you would be limited by the amount of excitation that you can have around the device. Imagine vibrating your own cells to a point that they pop. This is usually called RF burns.

If you take Dr. Stifflers device and statically shield it in most of the circuit and only allow interaction between two points it will mostly be focused in between those two points. This might take the burn out of the process because you are creating a boundry that will contain this vibration and only let it interact with the environment. I don't know if that can be done and since you have one already why don't you try it. Static shielding is just aluminum foil around wires and components. It could even be a metal casing with no connection to ground. Dr. Stiffler's unit might even fail to produce anything useful at all then but it would let us know how it is operating at that point.

I don't think the device would work in the same way since he uses the AV plug to get useful work out of the device. If we look at the AV plug you will see that it converts the back and forth method by half rectification through the AV plug. Although his diode in the water experiment is proof that a standing potential on the diode can do useful work. It is a pulsing potential and Rosemary uses the same premise. The coil functions two ways in Rosemary's circuit. It uses the coil for inductive spike generation and it uses the coating of resistive material on that coil to intercept those charges that are attracted to that coils potential to gain excess heat. These two methods are vary close indeed and it is the proof that there is charges entering the wires from the outside to the inside of the coil or in the case of Dr. Stiffler's circuit and diode in water experiment we see that it can do work for us if we provide a way for a boundry to be made. That boundry in Dr. Stiffler's case is the diode. Water is just a condensation of air. It is much denser then air and that is what causes the boundry layer we call surface tension. On the bottom of the diode there is equalizing pulses of both polarities. But on the top the diode creates an imbalance and creates a flow of charges twords the diode electrode. This pulls the charges from the water around the diode electrode like pulling the table cloth from under a good set of china. When done right you yank the charges away from the water and it falls apart or disassociates the water leaving the Oxygen for a bit to hang around and the H2 part gets released.

" Hydrogen is lighter than Oxygen.
This is a very simple question. Hydrogen is the first element on the periodic table of elements and it weighs 0.08988 grams per litre. Oxygen is the 8th element on the periodic table. It weighs 1.429 grams per litre."

This is why oxygen doesn't disassociate or looks like it doesn't. The densities are very different. Think of oil and water and how they do not mix well. When Hydrogen looses it's bond with oxygen it literally flies up away from the oxygen and stays hydrogen because it's partner has fallen away from it.

"Water (chemical structure: H2O) has 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. If you add the atomic masses of each of these, you get (1.01+1.01+16.00=) 18.02 atomic mass units (amu).
Oxygen gas (O2) has 2 oxygen atoms combined and weighs 32.00 amu. "

So you can see that Oxygen gas will fall in water or nearly fall. It's actually heavier then water or hydrogen. The Oxygen gas is actually combined in the same process that creates the hydrogen in his experiment. It shuffles the binding charges and allows Oxygen to combine into Oxygen gas or O2 and then falls away. This makes it appear that he is only disassociating only one gas but I assure you he isn't.

[7imix]

In an attempt to help clarify, let me extract some important points from jbignes5's post:

The source in this case is a swirling mass of charges that have formed organized chains into a never ending cycle.

Ok that source is the dipole.

Lets relate this to what Tesla figured out. He figured out that charge and motion are not the same.

Tesla figured out that the medium is highly attracted to pure potential.

Remember that voltage goes one way -> and current gets attracted the other <-. Voltage seems to move faster then the charges and leads me to believe that voltage does indeed lead current.

If you have read any of the Tesla documents You should read my favorite one:

"Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency"

The charges in matter can be pumped up or leeched away and thats where we see transient effects like turning into solids or liquid.

Visualize the dipole as the yin-yang or tai chi symbol. There are not two separable parts. The whole always spins around itself, and one half cannot exist without the other.

So a dipole is the result of spinning charges. In a permanent magnet, the magnetic field is created by the electrons spinning around the metal atoms which are arranged in a crystal lattice. In non-magnetic material, the atoms are oriented randomly and thus they do not form an organized chain and do not produce an emergent dipole.

Extremely short, high voltage spikes sent into a tesla coil will set up a big emergent dipole. Voltage moves faster than current. Current is simply electrons wobbling in the wire, producing waste heat after being disturbed by a rush of voltage. Pulsing a coil at the coil's resonant frequency sets up high potential with little to no current. The resulting emergent dipole has a lot of inertia and can be easily kept going if the high frequency impulses are timed properly. (resonance)

Think of a hand pump for a well. Pumping the well represents voltage. The well water flowing represents amperage. The initial effort to pump the well does not immediately create flow. Once the water is flowing, the "dipole" exists. If the conditions are right the water can continue flowing even after the pumping has stopped.

"Don't kill the dipole" means draw water from the well without stopping the well from flowing. It means to siphon off momentum from the big dipole without taking enough that this emergent dipole starts to wobble and loses coherence.

In one of Lamare's threads, he talks about using a low-pass filter capacitor to decouple the load from the source. When a load is attached to the source, the jitter and pushback from the load gets transmitted back to the source as noise and the source starts to wobble and dissipates it's potential as heat. Using a filter capacitor would decouple the load's high frequency jitter from the source
and thus prevent the load from killing the source's dipole.

I hope this post is helpful. Much respect to Jbignes5 and others on this forum for enhancing my understanding greatly.