Bedini Capacitive Discharge Chargers

[Aaron]

Bedini Cap Charger discussion. The chargers with with bridge to cap setup. Can be with mechanical pulley switch setup, 555 timer switch, neon bulb switch, etc... With rotor or self-oscillating.

[lighty]

I always wondered why did Bedini put thyristor in the "negative" branch of the discharge circuit? It seems to me as if it's all the same if one puts the SCR's anode directly to the positive end of the capacitor and then use it to discharge the cap into the battery or if one puts cathode of the SCR to the negative terminal of the cap and then discharge the cap into the battery.

What's the difference? I mean, I've found some very vague explanation in Bedini's latest patent about polarization of the SCR being related to the type of energy used in the circuit but to me it seems as if the SCR is simply the one way fast switch that's being used to close the circuit (or to be more precise to discharge the capacitor to the battery) so it shouldn't matter if one connect thyristor either way as long as the proper polarity is observed?

Could somebody explain the rationale behind the kind of configuration used by Bedini in his patent?

[Aaron]

cap polarity

If you simply mean why is it triggered on the negative of cap to negative of battery...

If the positive is connected but the negative is not, that means that the positive potential from the cap is ALREADY sitting inside of the battery being charged. As soon as the negative side is connected, you have the negative charge popping towards the battery and the charging effect is stronger. It does make a difference.

If the neg is connected, the neg potential is sitting in the battery and when triggered on the positive, then the positive still has to make its way through the battery. The other way, the pos is already in the battery.

John or Peter can of course explain this better but I thought Free Energy Generation book did a good job at explaining it.

When the neg is discharged, the battery itself I suppose is a resistor and since it is, the anti-photon potential around the circuit is sucked towards the battery at this point of resistance.

When the positive of cap is connected to the pos of the batt, look at the battery at simply being an extension of the dipole.

Look at the coil in the simple school girl, the + of battery is ALREADY sitting inside of the coil and the coil is already an extension of the dipole of the input battery. Being an extension of the dipole on the positive side, the positive doesn't have to take the time to overcome the resistance of moving into the coil or moving into a battery.

[Peter Lindemann]

For what its worth...

I always wondered why did Bedini put thyristor in the "negative" branch of the discharge circuit? It seems to me as if it's all the same if one puts the SCR's anode directly to the positive end of the capacitor and then use it to discharge the cap into the battery or if one puts cathode of the SCR to the negative terminal of the cap and then discharge the cap into the battery.

What's the difference? I mean, I've found some very vague explanation in Bedini's latest patent about polarization of the SCR being related to the type of energy used in the circuit but to me it seems as if the SCR is simply the one way fast switch that's being used to close the circuit (or to be more precise to discharge the capacitor to the battery) so it shouldn't matter if one connect thyristor either way as long as the proper polarity is observed?

Could somebody explain the rationale behind the kind of configuration used by Bedini in his patent?

Dear Lighty,

As Aaron just explained, John has looked at switching both the negative and the positive sides and studied the situation in depth. From a theoretical point of view, there doesn't seem to be any reason for a difference. But on the bench, in the real world, there are differences. John has his own way of explaining it, and that's in the book "Free Energy Generation". Here is my way of seeing it. In a lead-acid battery, all of the action is on the positive plate. When discharging, the lead peroxide of the positive plate is donating oxygen atoms to join with hydrogen from the H2SO4 in the electrolyte to be converted to new water molecules and free sulfate ions that deposit on both the positive and negative plates. When charging, this process is reversed, but the action is always on the positive plate. When you try to charge the battery from the negative plate with a big push of negative electrons, the charge has to travel through the electrolyte to get to the positive plate where the reformation of the lead peroxide IS the restoration of the chemical charge. When the positive plate is potentialized, the battery charges differently, at lower temperatures and with less off-gassing.

These things can not be figured out simply by THINKING ABOUT IT. You have to run the experiments if you want to learn anything. And that's the difference. John has run every conceivable experiment in this regard, and that's why he knows more than the rest of us!

I hope that helps.

Peter

[lighty]

@Aaron
@Peter

Thx for the explanation. Now I seem to understand a principle behind it a bit better than before. I did a number of experiments but to be honest I didn't see any difference between these two configurations. I trust Bedini's experience but I also trust in understanding underlying principles rather than simply replicating them.

Also regarding the positive and negative poles of Lead-Acid batteries I cannot but to remember what Leedskalnin described in his experiments and that I replicated and verified. He stated that there is always a larger number of "north pole magnetic particles" in the battery and that they're all sourced from the (+) pole of the battery. I did replicate his PMH and did a number of precision measurements. What I've found is that Leedskalnin was correct in his assertions- no matter what you do with the PMH core, no matter how you polarize coils there will always be a disbalance of magnetic poles in the PMH. The North will always be geometrically predominant in the PMH and it will always be somewhat stronger. I repeated the experiment several times using professional gaussmeter and it always showed the same. One half of PMH is always spatially bigger than the other one and it's always the north pole. So if a north pole is produced by the tiny magnetic particles from the (+) pole of the battery then Leedskalnin was correct in assuming there is more north pole magnets or rather (+) pole particles in the battery.

I'm getting way offtopic here but it just strike me as oddly connected to your explanation.

[Aaron]

pulsing on neg better results

That's an interesting comparision.

My personal experience with the trifilar oscillator going to caps and to batts discharging on the negative side took my results quite a bit further. I could get the batt voltages higher, they powered a load longer, etc... My trifiliar really isn't a trifilar with all 3 wound the same way. the 3rd wire going to bridge and cap is wound in the opposite direction from the power and trigger.

Anyway, pulsing from neg gave me better results.

[lighty]

@Aaron
Your "secondary" is wound in the opposite direction than the power coil? What would that gain you? According to conventional theory you would just end up with the opposite polarity of the coil. To be honest I never tried it and maybe there something more about it that I don't know anything about?


Also, regarding the coils wound Bedini style I've noticed several things:

1. The mass of the copper wire is pretty much the same weight in the power and "secondary" sections. It seems to me that it goes according to Tesla's assertion that in order to transfer and/or gain some amount of radiant energy in any kind of resonant system one has to have the equal mass of conductive metal in primary and "secondary".
2. The bifilar or trifilar winding of coils should theoretically provide coils with the best capacitive coupling between them. Now, if we disregard the inductive (or to be more precise magnetic coupling) then what one is left with is capacitive coupling (which is related directly to dielectric field). Now, my guess is that with better capacitive coupling a better dielectric field between two coils is formed and thus one should get a better transfer of radiant energy. I'm wildly speculating here, of course.
3. The Litz wire has the less resistance to the fast transients or in this particular case the sudden impulses. It also shows less impedance at high frequencies which is precisely what one should expect from the extreme high frequencies radiant energy event. My guess is that all those factors explains for the greater amount or radiant energy produced (or rather captured) by these sort of wire. I did several measurements of the three different kind of coils- the one wound with ordinary round wire, the one wound with copper strip and the one wound with Litz wire. They were all used in the same switching setup, wound on the same type of core and they all had pretty much the same resistance and inductance (I dimensioned wire sizes accordingly). The Litz wire and copper strip showed pretty much similar radiant energy gain but the ordinary round profile wire coil showed a significantly weaker performance. So, the geometry and construction of the wire itself does make a difference. I also managed to acquire some aluminium wire but still haven't had opportunity to test it. My guess is that aluminium wire should outperform copper wire in the sense that aluminium itself proved itself to be a better medium for collecting static electricity (which is by nature damn near the dielectricity).



There is also one more thing that's bothering me regarding a usage of the diode bridge on the "secondary" coil. If you have measured power coil consumption with a current probe on a fast oscilloscope you could have noticed that the moment the power coil is turned on, the power consumption suddenly rises significantly while at the same time the discharge capacitor potential suddenly rises. That to me would indicate some kind of "transformer effect". I also did simultaneous measurement of the both power coil current and the "secondary" coil current and invariably when the capacitor is fully discharged (or rather when it has potential less than the potential of the power source being applied to the power coil) there is a noticeable current rise in the power coil as well as in the "secondary" coil prior to the power coil current cut-off and before the first radiant event occur. My interpretation of it is that prior to the first impulse of radiant energy the capacitor is being charged to the voltage level of the power source solely by the inductive coupling of the coils or rather by "transformer effect". It's easily preventable by simply using one diode instead of a diode bridge so that the inductive coupling of the coils doesn't play such a big role. I tested it and it indeed shows that a current consumption during the first pulse is reduced significantly and that the capacitor is almost not being charged prior to the occurence of the first radiant energy event. Now, my question is what is the rationale behind using the diode bridge in the first place? I mean there is a definite "ringing" of the potential of the "secondary" coil while it's energy being discharged into the capacitor that could be picked up by the diode bridge but is that the only reason for using the diode bridge in the first place? I mean it seems to me that it's simply the choice between picking up all of the energy available (diode bridge) and reducing the "transformer effect" (single diode).

[Shad]

question @ Peter

Hi Peter

I just joined the group - looks like something good among all the groups

Shortly ago I studied your lectures carefully which were really inspiring and made me thinking! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with us!

I often wondered how Bedini charges his batteries - in my eyes he is the master of radiant energy.
I don't understand much of the electronics but rather the physics behind it and am convinced that with his energy spikes/back-emf he causes a radiant event in his battery, which causes the battery to recharge. How he causes this radiant event, is his secret, but it surely is not enough to shoot back-emf into the battery...

Actually, batteries aren't really charged, that is some kind of wrong understanding. What is really happening there is that a kind of electro plating occurs while a battery is charged with current. In his process Bedini causes an avalanche effect of radiant energy in the batteries, similar effects were reported in Tesla's works. However, a battery is no capacitor that stores energy, but there rather occurs an electro-chemical process, which might be mis-interpreted by electro-techniques.

If two different kind of metals are put into an electrolyte, the electrodes will generate ions, or in better words, dielectric charges. If we short out the electrodes and the current starts flowing, electro plating occurs whereby the electrodes start dissolving and exchange each other.
If one charges batteries, a vice versa process is done - and once the electrodes have recovered, we use to say the batteries are charged, because they give power again.


Peter, I have a question to you - what do you think would be happen if we took the ions/dielectric charges in some 'indirect way' away from the battery, without using and destroying the producing electrodes?

Imagine in the same electrolyte you would have two neutral electrodes, made from the same material, like non-magnetic stainless steel. We need the same material in both electrodes because in this way we do not produce any ions/dielectric charges. If now these two electrodes would be shortened out in pulses, they would have to polarize and some current would flow through them.

In this way it would be possible in some indirect way to tap electricity from the battery, without destroying the electrodes that produce the ions and electricity.

But what would be used here was the water, as every time electricity comes across the electrodes an electrolysis would occur. Then water would have to be refilled, whereby the electrolyte is not being used up.

In my eyes the greatest problem is that we use batteries in a wrong way and that we have a wrong understanding of electricity. We always destroy the electricity source - if we had a way of taking it in an indirect way, we would have plenty free electricity and hydrogen from a so-called electrochemical process.

What do you think? Or am I too creative?
Well, my English sometimes sounds weird, but I hope I made my point clear...

Best wishes,
Shad

[lighty]

@Shad

I'm not sure you even need electrolyte. I distinctly remember that somebody reported a partial charging of Lead-Acid battery even when H2SO4 was replaced with distilled (or rather de-ionized water). I think the person reporting it was Bedini himself or Bearden.

While I cannot verify that claim as such I can confirm that a small charge can indeed be stored in a de-mineralized and de-ionized water (like in a battery) when a water is excited (or rather shocked) in a specific way even when not using a different material electrodes.

Which of course brings us to a question of dielectric charge itself and water is specific matter in that way. Schauberger reported a charging of water when a water was forced (or in this case it would be more appropriate to say coerced) to move in the fast centripetal motion. A reported charging of the surrounding metals was a common place and I'm not talking about the "Kelvin's water drop" experiment but rather about very powerful dielectric phenomena on the scale being able to power up incandescent lightbulbs or even burn them up.

Dielectricity is a rather funny thing, eh?

[Shad]

Hi Lighty,

<

@Shad
<I'm not sure you even need electrolyte. I distinctly remember that somebody
<reported a partial charging of Lead-Acid battery even when H2SO4 was
<replaced with distilled (or rather de-ionized water). I think the person
<reporting it was Bedini himself or Bearden.

My personal opinion is that the battery together with its electrodes, electrolyte is not the source of energy, but merely the medium. Such as the atmosphere on our planet or the globe itself – this also merely is a medium for aether or vacuum energy, in which energy can materialize and manifest. If you put the right media together a lot of energy can, for free, accrue. A nice example here is exotic matter, such as mono-atomic gold, also called ORMUS, which you can find googling. This material seems to be a great mystery for science, but one scientific fact is that it is very closely connected to gravity and zero point energy. The laws of thermo-dynamics here do not seem to have any influence on this exotic matter.

Back to the battery: I think that the biggest problem is that while taping power from it the electrodes are degenerated by the electro-plating effect, whereby electricity has to be invested to again regenerate them.

But what will happen if besides the ‘normal’ electrodes, one additionally inserts neutral electrodes that do not produce any charges, but would be able to tap the surrounding charges in the electrolyte of the battery? The electrodes that generate the charges would thereby not degenerate, because there is no electro-plating. If we tap electricity directly from the electrode that generates the charge, we do destroy the source of energy. The battery generates the charge for free by the right combination of materials.

However, we destroy this process with the electro-plating effect which occurs when electricity runs through the electrodes. If two electrodes of same materials are put into the electrolyte such as non-magnetic stainless steel, these electrodes will not generate any charge, but are able to absorb the charge.
The electrodes hereby do not decay by electro-plating, but every time they would be shortened out hydrogen would be generated, as electricity would flow through the electrodes. This one should be no problem, as long as water is for free available, the electrolyte either wouldn’t be used up, from time to time it would need to be refilled and the original electrodes that generate the charge remain intact, without degenerating.

> While I cannot verify that claim as such I can confirm that a small charge can indeed be
> stored in a de-mineralized and de-ionized water (like in a battery) when a water is
> excited (or rather shocked) in a specific way even when not using a different material
> electrodes.

Maybe I am wrong - but I think the same would happen, such as in ordinary charging, if a radiant event occurs in the battery. This means the electrodes recover. The problem merely would be that if there was no electrolyte be present, after recovering the electrodes very little electricity would be generated, as the electrolyte as the medium, is missing.

The recovery of the electrodes can also happen without electrolyte, as for this merely is the bombardment of radiant spikes is needed.

But I could be wrong… I guess John Bedini is the only one that could say what is right or wrong, as he is the inventor of such battery charging system with radiant energy.

> Which of course brings us to a question of dielectric charge itself and water is specific > matter in that way. Schauberger reported a charging of water when a water was forced > (or in this case it would be more appropriate to say coerced) to move in the fast
> centripetal motion. A reported charging of the surrounding metals was a common place > and I'm not talking about the "Kelvin's water drop" experiment but rather about very
> powerful dielectric phenomena on the scale being able to power up incandescent
> lightbulbs or even burn them up.

> Dielectricity is a rather funny thing, eh?

You are absolutely right here – Schauberger in his way charged water for healing purposes. He was even able to make water-diesel with fluid dynamics. The water was that much charged with dielectricity that it combusted better than diesel, gasoline or kerosene, even better than hydrogen/oxygen from electrolysis. The made real detailed measurements and report on this work during WWII.

So, if we understood dielectricity better, we could make a handful of miracles 

Thanks to pioneers like Tesla, Keely, Schauberger, today’s people like Tom Bearden, John Bedini, Edwin Gray, and those who share their knowledge here, as Dr. Peter Lindemann it is much more easy for us to understand as they have done the spadework! If they would not have done it, today we would be quiet ignorant about radiant energy, zpe, or however we might want to call it.

Best regards,
Shad

[lighty]

A nice example here is exotic matter, such as mono-atomic gold, also called ORMUS, which you can find googling. This material seems to be a great mystery for science, but one scientific fact is that it is very closely connected to gravity and zero point energy. The laws of thermo-dynamics here do not seem to have any influence on this exotic matter.

It's interesting that all of the "electrical healing systems" employ one or other kind of dielectricity. I did a lot of work with Rife system and I also did some small amount of work on Lakhovsky system. The common thing is that when you remove the magnetic component of the radiation what's left is a dielectric field which seems to have potent healing potential. The same thing happens with the Schauberger "energized" water. The more interesting aspect is the experiment done by BSRF (or at least I've read about it in one of their journals) regarding a plant growth in the complete darkness. The system used was pretty much similar to the Tesla patent on the radiant energy but the plants were kept between the plates of what was basically the capacitor. I personally witnessed operation of basically similar system of healing with dielectric field in Russia and let me tell you it heals a lot of ailments usually deemed as un-curable. They also employ a system where a sudden and short high potential spikes (in potential range of 3-4 kV) of extreme short durations are applied directly through body. That device also has a tremendous healing potential and it something to think about when considering electric healing systems like Hulda Clark's where a square wave output is applied directly to body tissues- well, if such small impulses and negligible back-EMF generated are able to help healing then imagine what a Russian system might do. Of course there is always more to that then it's being told as my hosts made sure I was aware of.

But what will happen if besides the ‘normal’ electrodes, one additionally inserts neutral electrodes that do not produce any charges, but would be able to tap the surrounding charges in the electrolyte of the battery? The electrodes that generate the charges would thereby not degenerate, because there is no electro-plating.

I think that in this case you would basically get something that Frolov calls "an information providing". It means that you only have to provide some open loop system with the information that the energy is available in order to get the system to react (or at least that's how I understand it). The other way of putting is that you only need to provide the potential and then not allow the system to destroy or rather discharge that potential directly. Bearden says something along that line also although with different terminology. It's pretty much similar to the voltage appearing between the electrodes of the asymetrical capacitor placed between two magnetic monopole beamers like used by Bushman. There is no direct magnetic induction involved but rather an indirect potential appearance caused by the dielectric field appearing in between interacting magnetic monopoles.

The recovery of the electrodes can also happen without electrolyte, as for this merely is the bombardment of radiant spikes is needed.

But I could be wrong… I guess John Bedini is the only one that could say what is right or wrong, as he is the inventor of such battery charging system with radiant energy.

As I said earlier- Bedini himself mentioned this effect in one of the references of his book. I take down my hat to Bedini, he really is one of the great ones. Or at least one of the ones we've heard of.

The water was that much charged with dielectricity that it combusted better than diesel, gasoline or kerosene, even better than hydrogen/oxygen from electrolysis.

The further step would be the combustion of air itself and if I recall correctly there is a Russian patent issued on that matter. The team from Russia supposedly succeeded in producing a "carburetor" system that allowed air to get to the point of self-combustion. Although I don't have any further info on that one I suspect that they simply oversaturated atmospheric air (rich with Nitrogen) with dielectric charge to the point where it started to combust on it's own. I remember Tesla saying that combustion of matter or gases is nothing more than a release of electrostatic energy from the matter. In fact with some of his coils he demonstrated discharges that produced what appeared to be white flames of extreme temperatures. In fact Jeff Behary reproduced one of his coils and got the same results.

So, if we understood dielectricity better, we could make a handful of miracles 

Indeed.

Thanks to pioneers like Tesla, Keely, Schauberger, today’s people like Tom Bearden, John Bedini, Edwin Gray, and those who share their knowledge here, as Dr. Peter Lindemann it is much more easy for us to understand as they have done the spadework!

Bedini/Bearden duo is indeed something to be reckon with and Peter Lindemann is the guy who is extremely good in popularizing stuff that is otherwise somewhat hard to grasp.

[Peter Lindemann]

Answer to Shad from Peter

Hi Peter

I just joined the group - looks like something good among all the groups

Shortly ago I studied your lectures carefully which were really inspiring and made me thinking! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with us!

I often wondered how Bedini charges his batteries - in my eyes he is the master of radiant energy.
I don't understand much of the electronics but rather the physics behind it and am convinced that with his energy spikes/back-emf he causes a radiant event in his battery, which causes the battery to recharge. How he causes this radiant event, is his secret, but it surely is not enough to shoot back-emf into the battery...

Actually, batteries aren't really charged, that is some kind of wrong understanding. What is really happening there is that a kind of electro plating occurs while a battery is charged with current. In his process Bedini causes an avalanche effect of radiant energy in the batteries, similar effects were reported in Tesla's works. However, a battery is no capacitor that stores energy, but there rather occurs an electro-chemical process, which might be mis-interpreted by electro-techniques.

If two different kind of metals are put into an electrolyte, the electrodes will generate ions, or in better words, dielectric charges. If we short out the electrodes and the current starts flowing, electro plating occurs whereby the electrodes start dissolving and exchange each other.
If one charges batteries, a vice versa process is done - and once the electrodes have recovered, we use to say the batteries are charged, because they give power again.


Peter, I have a question to you - what do you think would be happen if we took the ions/dielectric charges in some 'indirect way' away from the battery, without using and destroying the producing electrodes?

Imagine in the same electrolyte you would have two neutral electrodes, made from the same material, like non-magnetic stainless steel. We need the same material in both electrodes because in this way we do not produce any ions/dielectric charges. If now these two electrodes would be shortened out in pulses, they would have to polarize and some current would flow through them.

In this way it would be possible in some indirect way to tap electricity from the battery, without destroying the electrodes that produce the ions and electricity.

But what would be used here was the water, as every time electricity comes across the electrodes an electrolysis would occur. Then water would have to be refilled, whereby the electrolyte is not being used up.

In my eyes the greatest problem is that we use batteries in a wrong way and that we have a wrong understanding of electricity. We always destroy the electricity source - if we had a way of taking it in an indirect way, we would have plenty free electricity and hydrogen from a so-called electrochemical process.

What do you think? Or am I too creative?
Well, my English sometimes sounds weird, but I hope I made my point clear...

Best wishes,
Shad

Hi Shad,

Your speculations here are generally correct! It is possible to make a cell with different metals that produces electricity with NO chemical changes occurring on the plates. Such a device is, technically, NOT a battery, but such things DO exist. They are the best proof that REAL electricity is NOT the movement of electrons. Lead-acid batteries do require some electron flow to function properly and John's chargers produce the right mix of Radiant Energy and electron flow to optimize the battery process.

I have witnessed a number of circuits that John has produced that blocked 99% of the electron flow. The output of these circuits can light light bulbs and when applied to a battery, it looks like the battery is charging, at first. But very shortly thereafter, the battery blocks up and stops working. In small gel-cell batteries, the electrolyte dries up within 24 hours and the battery is dead. Even in large, flooded cell batteries, the process takes longer, but the result is the same. The battery becomes useless and can never be charged again.

The circuits that do these things are VERY counter-intuitive and no one is likely to stumble into them by chance. These discoveries only became apparent after extended study by John.

Theory can only get you so far. At some point, experiment must reduce theory to practice for knowledge to be advanced.

Peter

[Aaron]

John Bedini | Radiant Energy

John Bedini | Radiant Energy

[lighty]

@Lindemann

As I understand Tesla's writings in order to get the maximum efficiency of coils for producing the greatest amount of radiant energy charge (or rather dielectric charge) one has to observe several rules:

1. The mass of material of primary and secondary has to be equal as precisely as possible.
2. The surface area of primary and secondary should also be matched.
3. The length of the secondary conductor should be as close to 1/4 wavelength of the fundamental frequency of the system.
4. The inductance should be as high as possible while the impedance should be as low as possible.

Of course I oversimplified things in order not to complicate things too much and points 1-3 are rather straightforward but point 4 is what bothers me. In my mind the higher the inductance the higher the impedance of the system. Of course impedance varies in regard to the resonant frequency but all in all Tesla was pretty much determined about the statement about keeping the impedance as low as possible while raising the inductance. Impedance is definitely lowered while using Litz type conductor, flat strips of conductor or conductive tubes- anything to maximize surface area. I guess this is not too far from truth but I was wondering- is there some other technical aspect to achieving the point 4. that I'm missing altogether? I have a nagging feeling there is more to it. What's your take on it?



TIA

lighty

[Peter Lindemann]

Please, Stay on topic

@Lindemann

As I understand Tesla's writings in order to get the maximum efficiency of coils for producing the greatest amount of radiant energy charge (or rather dielectric charge) one has to observe several rules:

1. The mass of material of primary and secondary has to be equal as precisely as possible.
2. The surface area of primary and secondary should also be matched.
3. The length of the secondary conductor should be as close to 1/4 wavelength of the fundamental frequency of the system.
4. The inductance should be as high as possible while the impedance should be as low as possible.

Of course I oversimplified things in order not to complicate things too much and points 1-3 are rather straightforward but point 4 is what bothers me. In my mind the higher the inductance the higher the impedance of the system. Of course impedance varies in regard to the resonant frequency but all in all Tesla was pretty much determined about the statement about keeping the impedance as low as possible while raising the inductance. Impedance is definitely lowered while using Litz type conductor, flat strips of conductor or conductive tubes- anything to maximize surface area. I guess this is not too far from truth but I was wondering- is there some other technical aspect to achieving the point 4. that I'm missing altogether? I have a nagging feeling there is more to it. What's your take on it?

TIA

lighty

Lighty,

Your questions are about Radiant Energy, but this is a forum about John Bedini's Capacitive Discharge Battery Chargers.

The short answer to your questions is that you have a number of similar things confused with each other, and only a detailed answer could straighten all of it out. My DVD lecture Tesla's Radiant Energy clears up all of your questions.

Peter