>thanks! i will check out the image software but it looks like it only does

Opps thought your were converting images.. I use Sony Vegas for all my video appliations, not sure if it does Apple stuff...



>THE ONLY SIMILARITY between the two technologies is in the "control >circuit" using a transistor to turn the field on and off sharply. thats where >the similarity stops. remember in johns work the secret is in the way a >battery charges not the monopole motor it self. with the monopole your >pulsing a coil whose magnetic field is "open to the environment" not "closed >down in iron". there was some argument from john himself about how iron >absorbs/wastes all of the "radiant energy" if you read the beginning of this >thread and if i remember correctly peter did not disagree with that fact. >heres whats important.


Both methods charge batteries as you point out there may be a difference in the amount of radiant energy output because of the geometry of the device. Iron being put in the motor was quoted by John in EFTV2, where John quotes Tesla saying not to put iron in a motor because it does not help the output of the motor. Iron is used in the monopole for the core of the coils, the welding rods primarily iron. As well the rotors used were aluminum. I am in no position to compare these two methods, since I do not have the means to measure the results other than the final voltage of the batteries. What I need is a battery with a glass case so I can see the coating of the plates. I was thinking of building one using a usb microscope camera with time lapse to see the effect of different charges. This would be a good way to compare the monopole to Peters motor I do believe, since the chemical plating of the battery is the result I am looking for.



>with the monopole the focus is in studying the amount of "radiant energy >absorbed by the battery" "between" the "triggered spikes" developed from >the monopole motor itself. remember this important fact. "the torque >developed by the spinning monopole is an extra byproduct not the focus of >that project"

I would agree, the target is supercharged batteries with the monopole, with the Teal motor the target is COP >1. This is obtained with the 70% energy recovery, and then the other % optained from the torque output of the motor itself to generate more electricity.

>maybe 4 or the theoretical 8 to 12. but if you ask me i bet if you focus on >using the bemf to "charge batteries better" you will find that the battery will >deteriorate just like a conventional pulse charger would do.

Yes, I am hoping to test this.... I do believe long time testing would prove this answer. I wish to try various energizers with my auto battery swapper to determine which one is the best for my golf cart batteries.


I will take either, supercharged batteries or COP >1 both are acceptable to me


Airgap is VERY important, as I have found out in making my wind generator. I do understand this. CNC is the way to go, along with a well balanced stator.

Many different disciplines involved in making these devices.

Thanks Eric for your insights.