The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor by Mark McKay
Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2011, 08:21 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
making up the losses

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
Thanks for that Aaron, nice explanation.

The other one is that no energy is consumed by the work in a motor, only the losses consume energy. If you put 15 amps into a motor 15 amps come out the other side, only some potential is lost. This can be collected and used to power the next cycle with a small top up equivalent to the loss. So it is the losses we are powering and not the load.

If we pulse a 70% efficient motor with 100w we can recover 70w, now we top up the 30w and pulse the motor again and so on. We are running a motor at 100w for a 30w input and getting 70w of work. COP is 70/30=2.33
Exactly! Same as when the ball bounces to 83% of it's previous height,
you just have to lift it 17% or 17 cm each bounce to get it to 1 meter...
for only 17cm of lift each time. "Free Energy" is literally pouring out all
over the place. Just making up for the loss is all we have to do in many
systems to get the full amount of work out of it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2011, 08:36 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
cop vs efficiency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Results: in the beginning we had a total of 3000+1500=4500 units. At the end we have 1500+2422.5=3922.5 units. I wouldn't call this OU as we end up with less energy than we started with, do you agree?
I don't agree. "OU" or over 1.0 cop does not mean you don't have losses.
It means more joules in measurable work was performed than the measurable
amount of joules that we had to pay for.

You are overlaying the meaning of efficiency on top of COP and they
are not the same thing. Even a self running motor is under 100% efficient
because there are losses in friction, electrical resistance, etc... but
is still over 1.0 cop or "overunity".

It looks like you expect a requirement of no loss in order to be "OU" but
that doesn't really have anything to do with OU. OU may include a self
runner but OU can still be a system that demonstrates more work out
than what we put in. In my over simplified example, there was more
work performed than what we initially invested. That is over 1.0.

A refrigerator is a legitimate "overunity" device - the fridge sitting in my
kitchen is probably COP 3.0. There are real losses in the system, a lot
of them, but more joules in work are performed than the measurable amount
of joules that left the wall. If you convert the work in electricity done
into BTU and you calculate how many BTU's of heat moved around in
the system, it is MORE than the BTU equivelant in electricity used from
the wall. Over 1.0 cop or "overunity" and still with plenty of losses.

As far as your radiant energy questions, etc... nobody can say exactly
what is happening. But in the model I subscribe to, I believe the radiant
spike of negative voltage is a strong suction...all gas pressure analogies.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2011, 03:49 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Hi Peter,

thank you for your input and explanations. You said inductive pulses work a bit better than capacitive pulses to restore capacity and that capacitive is better for maintaining a battery, would you go as far as saying that inductive pulses aren't so good for a battery in the long run, or could even decrease its performance?

Conventionally speaking about the circuits, clearly the direct inductive method is far more efficient than using it to charge a cap and then pulse that to the battery, especially if the cap discharge voltage is way over the battery voltage. But if one is to pursue the maximum gain (COP) of what the battery gives back compared to what goes in to charge it, by doing continuously what you mentioned in the lecture, what would you recommend, inductive or capacitive?


@Aaron, I'm aware of the difference between efficiency and COP, it's actually one of the first things I've learned 5 years ago. I'm sorry but I can not agree with your example. You talk about work being done, but if like we said, the mechanical is left out of the equation there is no work being done, There is one battery charging another with a circuit who's efficiency is 65%. In this case we were strictly talking about units put in and out which clearly and mathematically results in energy being lost, if we compare total initial energy with total left after the runs.
This is why in this example we shouldn't even be talking about COP the way we are calculating units. In order to know the COP we would actually have to do the experiment and see if in the end we are left with more energy, than we had in the beginning, thanks to an environmental gain showing up in the battery, whatever the source is (vacuum, ZPF..), then we could see if the total final energy would be more than the operator had to invest. This is how I see it anyways...

regards,
Mario
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2011, 05:22 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,121
Further Comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Hi Peter,

thank you for your input and explanations. You said inductive pulses work a bit better than capacitive pulses to restore capacity and that capacitive is better for maintaining a battery, would you go as far as saying that inductive pulses aren't so good for a battery in the long run, or could even decrease its performance?

Conventionally speaking about the circuits, clearly the direct inductive method is far more efficient than using it to charge a cap and then pulse that to the battery, especially if the cap discharge voltage is way over the battery voltage. But if one is to pursue the maximum gain (COP) of what the battery gives back compared to what goes in to charge it, by doing continuously what you mentioned in the lecture, what would you recommend, inductive or capacitive?


@Aaron, I'm aware of the difference between efficiency and COP, it's actually one of the first things I've learned 5 years ago. I'm sorry but I can not agree with your example. You talk about work being done, but if like we said, the mechanical is left out of the equation there is no work being done, There is one battery charging another with a circuit who's efficiency is 65%. In this case we were strictly talking about units put in and out which clearly and mathematically results in energy being lost, if we compare total initial energy with total left after the runs.
This is why in this example we shouldn't even be talking about COP the way we are calculating units. In order to know the COP we would actually have to do the experiment and see if in the end we are left with more energy, than we had in the beginning, thanks to an environmental gain showing up in the battery, whatever the source is (vacuum, ZPF..), then we could see if the total final energy would be more than the operator had to invest. This is how I see it anyways...

regards,
Mario
Dear Mario,

With regard to the question, above, highlighted in RED, I would say "Absolutely NOT". There is nothing wrong with charging a battery with inductive collapses. IF this is the only method you use, and you charge the battery to the top each time, the battery will last an intolerably long time and run your loads perfectly. So, do not think of this method as defective, somehow.

That said, the only method I ever saw John use to run his SG test platforms indefinitely used inductive collapse to charge very large capacitors that were discharged into the back batteries across a mechanical contacter. Photos on the internet from the 2002 period show one such system with a 330,000 mf cap made from three 1 Farad caps in series. Here, the discharge path is very large wire and very low impedance. The caps are discharged about once per second at about 3 volts above the batteries, there being 5 batteries on the back end. In this case, even though the 1 Farad caps were terrible for internal leakage, the inductive charging maintained an "electret effect" in the caps (partial self-charging) that more than off-set it.



The point is that each arrangement must be individually tuned, since the COP=1.1 at best.

Mario, I recommend you do NOT try to reduce this data to some set of "rules" that you limit yourself to in the future. This is the "scientific method" that got people believing that self-running motor-generator combinations were impossible in the first place.

Peter

Last edited by Peter Lindemann : 11-26-2011 at 03:56 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2011, 06:42 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
more work than we starte with

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
You talk about work being done, but if like we said, the mechanical is left out of the equation there is no work being done, There is one battery charging another with a circuit who's efficiency is 65%. In this case we were strictly talking about units put in and out which clearly and mathematically results in energy being lost, if we compare total initial energy with total left after the runs.
This is why in this example we shouldn't even be talking about COP the way we are calculating units. In order to know the COP we would actually have to do the experiment and see if in the end we are left with more energy, than we had in the beginning, thanks to an environmental gain showing up in the battery, whatever the source is (vacuum, ZPF..), then we could see if the total final energy would be more than the operator had to invest. This is how I see it anyways...
Hi Mario,

Leaving the mechanical out of it does not mean no work is being done.
Which I'm only saying to leave it out just for the sake of example.

If you put a current sensing resistor on the negative line and measure
across it, I can assure you very real work in measurable joules of energy
is being done. You can add up that work using a scope that can record
it and do an integrated power analysis like this:
Detailed Integrated Power Analysis of Ainslie Circuit - YouTube
That is just an example using the Ainslie circuit but you can know with
a high degree of accuracy exactly how much work left the battery.

If you start with 1000, that is the input work we had to pay for.
Anything that we get in recovery batteries, that winds up doing work
on its own, was after the fact of the 1000 initially spent. The investment
of the input was only 1000.

1000 was not just the input, but that is also 1000 worth of work being
done.

If we recover 65% that is 650 worth of work that can be done from
what winds up in the recovery battery and we put that on the front and
use it up, we got another 650 worth of work done.

If we recover 65% of that is 422 in work. We put that on the front
and we can do 422 in work for example.

There are obviously a lot of factors involved with this, it would run the
energizer slower, etc... but the point is made.

That is 1000 + 650 + 422 = 2072 units of work performed that is
measurable and we only started with 1000.

That is a cop of 2.072. Total work done compared to our input that we
had to invest.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2011, 06:49 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
point of Battery Secrets

I do want to clarify that this thread is really for the lecture
and is not about "free energy" even though one point about it
is made concerning a gain during constant cycling.

It is a lecture about what happens in the battery with the Bedini
Chargers at Tesla Chargers | World's Most Efficient, Effective & Advanced Battery Chargers

Anyway, I just want it to be clear that Battery Secrets is not
a lecture about free energy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2011, 11:54 AM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Hi Peter,

I always wondered what size those caps were in the picture. Thanks for elaborating on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Mario, I recommend you do NOT try to reduce this data to some set of "rules" that you limit yourself to in the future. This is the "scientific method" that got people believing that self-running motor-generator combinations were impossible in the first place.

Peter
Peter, I never limit myself to some set of rules In fact I try everything I can think of to see what works best.

Quote:
The point is that each arrangement must be individually tuned, since the COP=1.1 at best.
I know what you mean about tuning a device, but I'm not sure what you are referring to with COP 1.1, is it to this particular motor?

regards,
Mario

Last edited by Mario : 11-26-2011 at 02:39 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2011, 12:02 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Hi Mario,

Leaving the mechanical out of it does not mean no work is being done.
Which I'm only saying to leave it out just for the sake of example.

If you put a current sensing resistor on the negative line and measure
across it, I can assure you very real work in measurable joules of energy
is being done. You can add up that work using a scope that can record
it and do an integrated power analysis like this:
Detailed Integrated Power Analysis of Ainslie Circuit - YouTube
That is just an example using the Ainslie circuit but you can know with
a high degree of accuracy exactly how much work left the battery.

If you start with 1000, that is the input work we had to pay for.
Anything that we get in recovery batteries, that winds up doing work
on its own, was after the fact of the 1000 initially spent. The investment
of the input was only 1000.

1000 was not just the input, but that is also 1000 worth of work being
done.

If we recover 65% that is 650 worth of work that can be done from
what winds up in the recovery battery and we put that on the front and
use it up, we got another 650 worth of work done.

If we recover 65% of that is 422 in work. We put that on the front
and we can do 422 in work for example.

There are obviously a lot of factors involved with this, it would run the
energizer slower, etc... but the point is made.

That is 1000 + 650 + 422 = 2072 units of work performed that is
measurable and we only started with 1000.

That is a cop of 2.072. Total work done compared to our input that we
had to invest.
Aaron, ok you mean there is work to be had from the wire going to the charge battery, is this what you're referring to? The "Tesla switch effect"?

regards,
Mario
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2011, 04:01 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,121
"This Particular Motor"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Hi Peter,

I always wondered what size those caps were in the picture. Thanks for elaborating on that.

I know what you mean about tuning a device, but I'm not sure what you are referring to with COP 1.1, is it to this particular motor?

regards,
Mario
Mario,

Yes, the COP statement above is a reference to the performance of that particular motor, and it relates even more specifically to the ELECTRICAL COP, since the mechanical energy produced is not being harnessed or measured. This machine was capable of continuous running, and actually ran for 10 weeks straight in the initial tests simply by switching one battery from back to front twice a day, while 4 other batteries stayed on the back at all times. Sorry for the confusion.

Peter

Last edited by Peter Lindemann : 11-26-2011 at 04:07 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2011, 05:47 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
work done

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Aaron, ok you mean there is work to be had from the wire going to the charge battery, is this what you're referring to? The "Tesla switch effect"?

regards,
Mario
I'm talking about the front side battery used to run the energizer.

Work is being done running the thing.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2011, 08:41 AM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Mario,

Yes, the COP statement above is a reference to the performance of that particular motor, and it relates even more specifically to the ELECTRICAL COP, since the mechanical energy produced is not being harnessed or measured. This machine was capable of continuous running, and actually ran for 10 weeks straight in the initial tests simply by switching one battery from back to front twice a day, while 4 other batteries stayed on the back at all times. Sorry for the confusion.

Peter
Thank you for clarifying Peter, interesting for sure

regards,
Mario
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2011, 09:04 AM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I'm talking about the front side battery used to run the energizer.

Work is being done running the thing.
Aaron, I'm not following you, you started with an example using units calculated mathematically from a battery charging another by means of a pulse circuit. Then (if I understand you correctly) you started adding loads on the neg. output line and then on the front side... and then jumped to other examples. COP is a very simple thing, it's what you put in compared to what comes out of a system, which we both know has nothing to do with efficiency. So I still don't know what's up with your battery/units example being OU. But hey, no worries

regards,
Mario
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
over 1.0 cop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Aaron, I'm not following you, you started with an example using units calculated mathematically from a battery charging another by means of a pulse circuit. Then (if I understand you correctly) you started adding loads on the neg. output line and then on the front side... and then jumped to other examples. COP is a very simple thing, it's what you put in compared to what comes out of a system, which we both know has nothing to do with efficiency. So I still don't know what's up with your battery/units example being OU. But hey, no worries

regards,
Mario
You are complicating the simple. I cannot explain it more simple
that I already have. We had this discussion in the past and you
maintain the same that you do not understand it.

You expend x joules in work from the front side battery and recover
a certain percentage on the back. You then take that and put it
on the front and use the recovered portion, which does work in joules
and you recover a percentage on the back and you put that on the
front, which also does work in joules. You add up all the joules in work
demonstrated including the initial amount and it is over 1.0 cop.

You demonstrated MORE work in joules than you started with. If you're
unwilling to see this for what it is, there is nothing else to be said about it.

Over 1.0 cop is not some difficult thing to accomplish - it is the fact that
most people simply do not know how to recognize it when it is sitting in
front of them.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:34 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
2.35:1 video scale for Battery Secrets

Hi everyone,

As a note, the video is actually supposed to be watched in 2.35:1 video
scale instead of 16:9. I apologize for the inconvenience but it makes
all the difference in the world
. The 2.35:1 scale option is available in the
VLC Media Player.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:37 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
current sensing resistor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
you started adding loads on the neg. output line and then on the front side... and then jumped to other examples.
Mario,

My examples were identical each time.

I wasn't adding "loads" on the neg. The reason it is called a current
sensing resistor
and can be a 0.25 ohm resistor for example is because
it is only really there to be used for measuring what current is moving
pass there and is NOT acting as any significant load itself. Again, it is for
measurement and is not about being a load itself.

If you have a resistor there, you can measure what a solid state oscillator
or an SG is drawing from the input battery. If it is an SG, the wheel is
NOT the only work being done.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2011, 12:26 AM
ibpointless2 ibpointless2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 829
Ok so i bought a copy of the video and watch it today too. The biggest thing i got from the video was that lead acid batteries are like Fuel cells. The making of water is where the electrical power comes from. The charging of a battery is electrolysis and is splitting the water up and sending the hydrogen and oxygen to there desired plates.

So when a battery is fully charged does it lack water in the electrolyte?

This whole thing about the battery making water to make electricity is still a little confusing to me. When i think of a battery i think of two different metals in a electrolyte. One metal gives up its electrons to the other metal thus we have power. The metals want to be at equal electrons.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2011, 02:14 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,121
That's the Point....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibpointless2 View Post
Ok so i bought a copy of the video and watch it today too. The biggest thing i got from the video was that lead acid batteries are like Fuel cells. The making of water is where the electrical power comes from. The charging of a battery is electrolysis and is splitting the water up and sending the hydrogen and oxygen to there desired plates.

So when a battery is fully charged does it lack water in the electrolyte?

This whole thing about the battery making water to make electricity is still a little confusing to me. When i think of a battery i think of two different metals in a electrolyte. One metal gives up its electrons to the other metal thus we have power. The metals want to be at equal electrons.
Dear Pointless,

You are only confused because you cling to your earlier beliefs. My lecture clearly lays out the known facts and the accepted chemical formulas for how the battery works. I have never seen one book explain the action of a battery as "one metal gives up it's electrons to the other metal". That explanation is "mysticism" for sure!

When the battery is fully charged, there is LESS WATER in the electrolyte, YES! This is measured as a higher density of ACID. Why is this difficult to understand? It is measurably true and expressed clearly in the chemical formulas in the books.

Don't be hard on yourself. Your confusion will eventually dissipate. Just watch the film a couple more times. You'll get it! It took John and I a while to grasp this as well.

Good luck,
Peter

Last edited by Peter Lindemann : 11-30-2011 at 02:20 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2011, 12:16 AM
ibpointless2 ibpointless2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Dear Pointless,

You are only confused because you cling to your earlier beliefs. My lecture clearly lays out the known facts and the accepted chemical formulas for how the battery works. I have never seen one book explain the action of a battery as "one metal gives up it's electrons to the other metal". That explanation is "mysticism" for sure!

When the battery is fully charged, there is LESS WATER in the electrolyte, YES! This is measured as a higher density of ACID. Why is this difficult to understand? It is measurably true and expressed clearly in the chemical formulas in the books.

Don't be hard on yourself. Your confusion will eventually dissipate. Just watch the film a couple more times. You'll get it! It took John and I a while to grasp this as well.

Good luck,
Peter

I bought the video to see if your ideas would help to explain the effects I see in the batteries I make. You said " I have never seen one book explain the action of a battery as "one metal gives up it's electrons to the other metal". That explanation is "mysticism" for sure!" --- this is very interesting to me.

I spend most of my time now in the Bedini Earth light thread where I make crystal batteries. I've made a crystal battery that really don't make sense, because it charges itself. I even shorted one test cell out for 3 months and within 2 days it was back to normal working voltage all by itself.

You say that the battery is a fuel cell, when it creates water it creates electricity. But what if the battery lacked a liquid median? What if the batteries electrolyte was completely dry and no water is formed? My confusion stems from my work with my crystal batteries. My crystal batteries work by a dry median, they produce power and never create water nor do they need water to run. I'm wondering if the power that a battery gives comes from something much different? I don't mean to sound crazy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2011, 12:27 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
dipole

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibpointless2 View Post
You say that the battery is a fuel cell, when it creates water it creates electricity. But what if the battery lacked a liquid median? What if the batteries electrolyte was completely dry and no water is formed? My confusion stems from my work with my crystal batteries. My crystal batteries work by a dry median, they produce power and never create water nor do they need water to run. I'm wondering if the power that a battery gives comes from something much different? I don't mean to sound crazy.
There aren't any more or less electrons in the battery whether it is
charged or discharged - so it isn't filling up of something or being emptied
of something. The difference is the potential difference at the terminals.

The more acid in the water, the more potential difference. The less acid
the less potential difference and therefore, the weaker the battery -
and not because it is running out of anything.

Just my opinion, but I believe this is showing that the battery indeed
is acting as a dipole breaking the symmetry of the vacuum energy. That is
where the car battery gets its energy and so does the crystal batteries.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 12-04-2011, 04:56 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,121
Apples and Oranges

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibpointless2 View Post
I bought the video to see if your ideas would help to explain the effects I see in the batteries I make. You said " I have never seen one book explain the action of a battery as "one metal gives up it's electrons to the other metal". That explanation is "mysticism" for sure!" --- this is very interesting to me.

I spend most of my time now in the Bedini Earth light thread where I make crystal batteries. I've made a crystal battery that really don't make sense, because it charges itself. I even shorted one test cell out for 3 months and within 2 days it was back to normal working voltage all by itself.

You say that the battery is a fuel cell, when it creates water it creates electricity. But what if the battery lacked a liquid median? What if the batteries electrolyte was completely dry and no water is formed? My confusion stems from my work with my crystal batteries. My crystal batteries work by a dry median, they produce power and never create water nor do they need water to run. I'm wondering if the power that a battery gives comes from something much different? I don't mean to sound crazy.
Dear Pointless,

The so called "Crystal Battery" that John Bedini has taught you how to build is NOT a BATTERY in the classical sense. My lecture is about the chemistry of the Lead-Acid Battery, which is an electro-chemical storage device. What John has shown you how to build is a "semi-conductor device" that converts some kind of ambient energy (gravity, heat, whatever) into a potential gradient across a semi-conductor junction. The energy can flow in one direction, but it cannot flow back. This allows the natural oscillation in the ambient energy to produce an electrical "bias" that is converted into a dipole.

As you say, you can short the cell out, but once you open the circuit again, the potential difference returns. This is not the action of a battery. It is more like a solar cell, except that it operates on a different frequency of energy other than visible light.

Don't confuse the two, because they are not related.

Peter

Last edited by Peter Lindemann : 12-04-2011 at 05:00 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2011, 01:37 AM
st.eve st.eve is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
mysterious chemistry

hello all

nice to have found this forum and all connected with it.

peter, i have just watched "battery secrets" as a long time follower of your work (and also that of john and tom bearden)

as someone with a fairly strong background in chemistry, i would be very interested in some dialog regarding the lead-acid chemical processes.
i don't know whether this is the right place...?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2011, 05:17 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,121
Check your Private Message

Quote:
Originally Posted by st.eve View Post
hello all

nice to have found this forum and all connected with it.

peter, i have just watched "battery secrets" as a long time follower of your work (and also that of john and tom bearden)

as someone with a fairly strong background in chemistry, i would be very interested in some dialog regarding the lead-acid chemical processes.
i don't know whether this is the right place...?
Dear Steve,

I've sent you a PM.

Peter
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 06:39 PM
alvarohn alvarohn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 61
wow

Wow, clearest than water

That explain the difference in spark size in my mechanical commutator when I charge a relatively sane battery vs a very sulfated one.

best,

Alvaro


Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Hi Mario, et al,

Thank you all for a considered discussion on these topics. The most important thing to keep in mind, is that we have all been learning as we go.

The terminology of "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" was Tom Bearden's first attempt to inform us all that there was a QUALITY DIFFERENCE between these two manifestations of electricity that the meters were saying were identical. This was a gigantic philosophical leap for most people, at the time, but as usual, Tom was right! Whether "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" are the best ways to characterize these differences is not the point.

If we simply observe the "facts on the ground" we can come to a reasonable understanding. In the case of the various chargers that John has been testing over the last 10 years, let us say that "Negative Energy" is that quality of electricity that comes from AN INDUCTIVE COLLAPSE. It is produced by a MAGNETIC FIELD in natural free-fall after the current that produced it has been discontinued (open circuit).

Its effect on a battery is unique. In response to the impedance (resistance) in the cells, the inductive collapse will produce an ever rising voltage to overcome it. Once this potential hurdle has been overcome, then it will produce current to complete the discharge. The higher the impedance, the higher the voltage will rise and the less current will be supplied. The lower the impedance, the lower the voltage will rise and the higher the current will be supplied. The response is completely self regulating, and the battery always gets as much energy transferred into it as it can receive, in the shortest period of time.

Let us also say that "Positive Energy" is that quality of electricity that comes from A CAPACITOR DISCHARGE. It is produced by a DIELECTRIC FIELD in natural free-fall after the voltage that produced it has been discontinued (short circuit).

Its effect on the battery is quite different. In response to the impedance in the cells, the capacitive discharge will produce a TIME VARIANT discharge rate, since the voltage cannot rise above its initial value. It is characterized by a current surge with a dropping voltage component. By contrast, the inductive collapse is characterized by a voltage surge with a dropping current component.

What John found, after exhaustive testing, is that both of these methods charge the battery quite well. Personally, I believe, from what I have seen, that the Inductive Collapse methods work a little better for restoring lost capacity in a battery and Capacitor Discharge works a little better for maintaining a battery. In other words, there are trade-offs.

The other thing John found is that the Capacitor Discharge method of charging a battery was universally compatible with other commercial methods, while the Inductive Collapse method was not. Batteries were just fine if they were ALWAYS charged with Inductive Collapse, but their performance was extremely poor if the charging method varied between Inductive Collapse and other commercial methods.

This is the reason why John eventually changed all of his commercial designs over to these universally compatible methods......so people would not blame him for ruining their batteries when they didn't use his chargers.

I hope this discussion of these issues of helpful.

Peter
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 02-27-2014, 06:14 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,663
Live Q & A with Peter Lindemann

Please register for Tesla Chargers Q & A with Peter Lindemann on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2014 5:30 PM PST at:

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/reg...67684731707138

Peter Lindemann will review some FAQ's and then will take live questions from the audience. This is for any of the wall power or solar chargers from Tesla Chargers | World's Most Efficient, Effective & Advanced Battery Chargers

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved