Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bedini Tesla Switch Solar Amplifier

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bedini Tesla Switch Solar Amplifier

    Bedini's "Tesla Switch Solar Amplifier" is available now for orders.

    Renaissance Charge - Intelligent Solutions to Premature Battery Failure

    Tesla Solar Power Amplifier. The newest Bedini charger for offline solar charging/controlling. Three products rated for 10A, 20A, or 30A 12/24V solar panels and battery systems. See a prototype picture for details. Will ship within two months of ordering in order of payments received.
    Tesla Switch Solar Charger to debut at Bedini conference
    Tesla Switch Solar Charger to debut at Bedini conference
    Free Energy Convention - Windows Live


    Looking forward to learning what it does and how it performs

    Why the need for solar panels?

    Regards, Mike R.

  • #2
    Itīs probably a marketing consideration.
    There is a huge demand for solar chargers in the coming years and the company
    already has a line of non-solar battery chargers.
    Too bad Bedini pulled the youtube vids, he explained the functionality pretty well there. Very vaguely i remember that he stressed the feature of
    majorly increasing the amps in the pulse to the battery in comparison to normal
    solar chargers.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are few people having success duplicating a device that is at least, similar.

      http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post95439

      Read back about 4- 6 pages worth.

      Cheers
      Matt
      ADD BROMIKEY TO YOUR IGNORE LIST He is a saboteur bent on the systematic distraction of every good topic on this forum and since he has been here most working threads have shut down. He is the enemy. If you have blocked him already add this to your signature and encourage others to block him as well. His onslaught of rambling in large text and his constant attempts to misinform at the excuse of being stupid should no longer be tolerated.

      USER CP/Ignore list.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Xenomorph View Post
        Itīs probably a marketing consideration.
        There is a huge demand for solar chargers in the coming years and the company
        already has a line of non-solar battery chargers.
        Too bad Bedini pulled the youtube vids, he explained the functionality pretty well there. Very vaguely i remember that he stressed the feature of
        majorly increasing the amps in the pulse to the battery in comparison to normal
        solar chargers.
        Yeah, the videos were removed. Maybe Bedini is making new ones?

        Is this the Tesla Switch from back in the early '80's where he switches around the batteries to tap negative energy and negative time?

        Mike Mueller's paper on "Experiments with a Kromrey & a Brandt-Tesla Converter" with Comments by Tom Bearden:
        http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf
        The more energy one uses for loads the more charge to the batteries?

        It sounds like tapping free electricity to me. Strange why the need for the solar panels.

        Regards

        Comment


        • #5
          As before...

          I am waiting to hear the results, and see what the specs are. Glad there is a release date.
          See my experiments here...
          http://www.youtube.com/marthale7

          You do not have to prove something for it to be true. However, you do have to prove something for others to believe it true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by vrand View Post
            ........
            It sounds like tapping free electricity to me. Strange why the need for the solar panels.

            Regards
            He will never make a OU product with his business name on it , its just a no brainer to do that, all investor will retract they share because of the high risk of fraud, so many business have proclaimed so many time to have a OU device and at the end it was just a fake that now people don't really put credit to that type of claim when its time to invest. Bedini make really great product and all his product do what its wrote on it, nothing more, nothing less. There the marketing side and the product side , you saw one side but that don't mean its related to the second side

            Best Regards,
            EgmQC

            Comment


            • #7
              Or Energenx will simply never officially claim that their product operates at OU even if it does. That way they give no room to critics, no reason to attack them, if they have never made any such claims.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by theremart View Post
                I am waiting to hear the results, and see what the specs are. Glad there is a release date.
                Yeah, first come first served, and will ship within two months of ordering. So looking at 2 months max before the end user test results come in.

                Anyone here going to purchase a unit? If so could you please post your test results on this forum

                Regards, Mike R.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Matthew Jones View Post
                  There are few people having success duplicating a device that is at least, similar.

                  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post95439

                  Read back about 4- 6 pages worth.

                  Cheers
                  Matt
                  Nice work Matt

                  It look like you have spent a lot of time researching and experimenting with the Tesla switch.

                  What do you think of the new Bedini Tesla Switch Solar Amplifier?

                  Is it over unity, and if so, is it tapping negative time and negative energy?

                  Regards, Mike R.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Xenomorph View Post
                    Or Energenx will simply never officially claim that their product operates at OU even if it does. That way they give no room to critics, no reason to attack them, if they have never made any such claims.
                    Not at the price he sell it, in his patent he will need to explicitly wrote that his device is OU, else .... you know what i mean, someone will make 2-3 modification and fill a patent for a OU device, not a solar charger so 2 different entity completely , impossible to fight back.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Perhaps the Q is, is it OU or not?, i think it must be, if you can charge a battery from a LOWER solar voltage potential source (when solar is down) to attain a higher battery voltage charge then gentle man and Jenna/Rose we must QUESTION is this OU or is this some thing conversed we have over looked?, sounds to me like it has to be OU

                      John B removed his videos showing OU, we have them backed up thanks to Nivver, but the point is, how can you charge a battery via lower voltage (as this can) and get a higher current into them, if its not using the voltage potential only charge? Hmmm.

                      I think We need MATT or Bitz to TEST these, i DON'T want to know how it works, but if the PROCESS is A NEW DISCOVERY, dont forget we need a new genre of FREE ENERGY ENGINEERING (like a non profit research and development center) to study FREE energy, people can get a commercial charger that is OU they are NONE THE WISER TO HOW MANY DEVICES ARE MISUNDERSTOOD AND SUPPRESSED,

                      whee is the security?, we have better devices and so does john he has the Krom device and more. These devices must have better security by having a designated faculty to work on this genre of NEGLECTED engineering and to start the needed research effort to bring back this lost technology.

                      Despite ALL FREE energy inventors not making it to the market with their device(s), it does not mean that their technology did not work. History shows us that they never had the successful METHOD to get their technology known and accepted publicly to capacity, (For example Steven Marks - There are MANY more).

                      We must remember what was said in the public disclosure project, if just ONE of the 500 Military/Norad/Nasa/government witness testimony reports are true, just ONE, then what does that mean?

                      If just one of the devices mentioned in Panacea's FREE energy suppression documentary (researchers edition) is tangible (many are) AND got suppressed.And as a result could of got humanity off fossil fuels.

                      Where is the RESEARCH CENTER to revive these lost devices and work on this new genre of engineering?. Faculties have always rejected these inventors findings. Where is the security and support? Is there any body teaching these FREE energy methods PUBLICLY to advance education? Is the KNOWLEDGE Secure? Does a sale of the FREE energy device alone erect any engineering faculty to address this NEGLECTED science?

                      Panacea has been working with Trevor James Constable, Trevor has had advanced weather modification technology for nearly 20 years.Yet the faculties just like in the case of alternative medicine and FREE energy technology have no grasp or research/course for covering it.

                      It has only been due to the engineers in the OPEN SOURCE FREE energy community that this information has remained alive and not lost. These open source FREE energy engineers who work on NO budget are qualified and have the needed aptitude to resurrect, accept and advance these technologies to help humanity, not to mention have the capacity TEACH them.

                      why did john post the OVER UNITY charger here? It's us who have the capacity to spread the word TO CAPACITY.

                      The METHOD of PUBLIC delivery needs as much address. The historical record shows that it is critical that the public and inventors ADDRESS and express CONCERN when taking these FREE energy devices out there, but every one thinks they have the answers.

                      10 hours of footage contains others just like these engineers who thought they had the answer to deliver the technology conventionally too. If you look on the how they went wrong page one the panacea one inventor this year has already gone just like another last November. We are sure that they both thought that they had the answers to to secure the technology also.

                      I think we will talk to John K about validating the SCIENCE not method, of this device, this should help humanity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EgmQC View Post
                        Not at the price he sell it, in his patent he will need to explicitly wrote that his device is OU, else .... you know what i mean, someone will make 2-3 modification and fill a patent for a OU device, not a solar charger so 2 different entity completely , impossible to fight back.
                        I disagree. Who sais that you have to mention OU in the patent?
                        As long as it describes the functionality and the elements sufficiently exact, the patent
                        is non-ambiguous.
                        Patents usually never go into the finest details and number crunching
                        of input/output values is not included.
                        Gray for instance (and others) also elegantly avoided to use the term free energy anywhere.
                        Doing so also majorly increases the chances to actually get the patent through
                        Last edited by Xenomorph; 05-20-2010, 04:33 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          EgmQC some good points there how the MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC ETHOS looks at OU (public reaction to un independent validated claims). This is useful info. BTW, in regards to what brother Xen said, are you aware of how many patents mention OU?

                          Ash

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Xenomorph View Post
                            I disagree. Who sais that you have to mention OU in the patent?
                            As long as it describes the functionality and the elements sufficiently exact, the patent
                            is non-ambiguous.
                            Patents usually never go into the finest details and number crunching
                            of input/output values is not included.
                            Gray for instance (and others) also elegantly avoided to use the term free energy anywhere.
                            Doing so also majorly increases the chances to actually get the patent through
                            Some famous OU researchers have mentioned OU in their patents, such as Dr. Puharich and his HHO electrolysis invention and Stan Meyers with his water fuel designs. They just explain that is comes from the environment and is not a closed loop system. Tom Beardon in his MEG patent explains it as re-gaging with the virtual particle flux.

                            Dr. Randall Mills and his Blacklight Power Co. claim OU in his patents using his own theories to explain where the extra energy comes from. They received $10's of millions of funding from investors to build power plants.

                            John Bedini is world famous for his free energy research work and to not mention OU in his patents is strange. Why would his products exhibit OU if his patents don't mention any possibility of it? Why would investors put money in another "battery charger" company? What is so special about his product compared to the 1000's of other chargers on the market?

                            Looking forward to hearing more of Bedini's latest product

                            Regards

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ashtweth View Post
                              Perhaps the Q is, is it OU or not?, i think it must be, if you can charge a battery from a LOWER solar voltage potential source (when solar is down) to attain a higher battery voltage charge then gentle man and Jenna/Rose we must QUESTION is this OU or is this some thing conversed we have over looked?, sounds to me like it has to be OU

                              John B removed his videos showing OU, we have them backed up thanks to Nivver, but the point is, how can you charge a battery via lower voltage (as this can) and get a higher current into them, if its not using the voltage potential only charge? Hmmm.

                              ..................

                              .
                              Joules Thief, step up transformer , cap+diode voltage doubler ,SSSG, etc etc There alot of way to archive what you think is the main point.

                              For the current , well , 18-24v input source depending of the output voltage , you only have to fill 2 cap in series and dump it in parallel to the output ,you get Higher Amps lower voltage, if you need more voltage for a low voltage source, step up/charge cap in serie/dump in parallel.

                              There Alot of possibility on how he does , nothing was very clear and its why he removed it i think. We didn't see any screenshot of a scope shot so we cant know for sure if the rise/fall of the Input/Output match, if the output is 3 time bigger but 3 time shorter you got nothing more, analogue meter cant show that nor digital, need a scope here.

                              Until we see the patent for this specific device, there nothing indicating its OU and its not claimed to be OU if you read the description of it.

                              Best Regards,
                              EgmQC

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X