Battery Secrets by Peter Lindemann

[Aaron]

making up the losses

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.

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

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.

[Mario]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Further Comments

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

[Aaron]

more work than we starte with

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.

[Aaron]

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.

[Mario]

Hi Peter,

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

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.

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

[Mario]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

"This Particular Motor"

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

[Aaron]

work done

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.

[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

Thank you for clarifying Peter, interesting for sure

regards,
Mario

[Mario]

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

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop

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.

[Aaron]

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.

[Aaron]

current sensing resistor

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.