Thats what I thought you were talking about. If you look at the load tests they check the batterries while running. And even while running the batteries continued to sustain or loose.
Thats not to say they weren't conserving energy. Obviously they were.

The electrodyne report that used to be in the Practical guide to free energy (PGFE) stated that they had to add energy to the system on a regular basis. They also used the 6 switch version.

But... the originall circiut was 4 switch, according to the PGFE. With 4 switch's it is not possible to have a grounded circiut. No one has every came out and said it on this particular circiut but if you peice it together with the theories and working operations of other devices, then the conculsion should be obvious.

I wish their was solid state way of doing it.

Matt

Ok, that could be. Time will show the correct answer.

True "input-to-output" Isolation Amplifier circuits are "ungrounded" and "Differential" in the sense that the main signal circuit has no current path to ground (specifically those officially termed "Differential, Floating Ground", with Common Mode Rejection of <120 dB); except through separate semi-conductors. The problem is they are usually of very low current and voltage. But it should be possible to step-up the component ratings using the same model and still give desired results; after-all the carefully-chosen components used in isolation amps are picked for signal "cleanliness", stability, and linearity... But who cares in this case

Note that all audio amplifiers are "single-ended to ground" (like most 'scopes that plug into the wall) and are not truly "Isolated", which has a very specific definition in the trade... So they won't work (basically they have only resistance or an RC network between the signal and ground... Making the mistake that this is really "isolation" can smoke a scope faster than you can curse ).

What is needed instead as a model, is the schematic of an "Universal DC" or "ECG" (also called "EKG") signal conditioner used in test & measurement / medical research (...and only the older designs using discrete transistors or MOSFETS and not purpose-built IC's or optical isolators.. only because you will never find a similar IC with any significant current rating and they cannot be paralleled without serious additional problems).

"Primer" on Isolation schemes:

Learn the Importance of Isolation in Data Acquisition Applications in Four Easy Lessons

This one shows the circuit basics to get an idea but unfortunately uses IC's instead of discretes.. The point being that in general; two identical amplification circuits are used, one for "Signal High + " and the other for "Signal Low - " , which then feed a third amplifier output stage... They are powered by separate isolated, regulated VCC power supplies (...which very likely use a small isolation transformer at some point in them):

Artikel5

What i need is to get my hands on a service manual for a "Gould" Universal Amplifier #13-4615-58 (...over 20 years old now); a "Grass" Universal Amplifier of many types, or a "Hewlett Packard" ECG amplifier (from about 15 years ago when Grass and HP were still in that business)... For which any of those schematics could be used as a "step-up" model. Unfortunately i can't find these on the web, as they always make you pay at least $50 for the service manuals It would show the design of a differential circuit, as well as the VCC supply. Basically, the older the design the better for this purpose.

I used to have a decent differential isolation amp schematic in an old text book showing it done with discrete's; but it was lost after 5 moves across the country lol. Maybe someone else has got one out there?

RIGHT ON Matthew Jones!

Good work on the tesla switch.

I am of the opinion that mechanical switching is the key.

Mechanical switching meets two of the three requirements listed by Peter Lindemann as requirements for proper function of the circuit:

1) abrupt switching
2) electron current blocking

As for #3 "impedance matching and balancing" the simplicity of your design reduces the number of variables.

A mechanical switching arrangement is an element common among other so-called free energy motors like the "EV Gray Motor" and the "Adams Motor".

Also the success that ashtweth points to (the You-tube video) has a mechanical switch, the relay.

I also recall Peter Lindemann in one of his videos saying something about Tesla referring to a mechanical compression wave in regards to the whole radiant energy thing.

Here are some patents I think may have relevant information:

2836734
3611091
4297590
4101787

Google's patent search is quick and easy Google Patents and provides handy links to patents cited and referenced by others.

Be aware that sometimes with google the drawings aren't rendered properly (mostly the really important ones) so if you need a better copy try http://pat2pdf.org

Tesla has a patent or two for commutators (regulator for dynamo electric machines) you might get an idea from.

PEACE
PJ

Matt that means put a fan on the end of the shaft in front of miny (non reflective) wind mill you have a free energy device

I was able to get the 3PDT switch working, however, the relays I was using we not able to go faster than about 20 ms on/off time which left me with only 50 cycles per second roughly. I was actually able to get it to about 70 before the relays lock up.

It seemed to run really well, as long as the load being pulled out of it was less than the C20 rate and the motor ran pretty well, except when there was a hiccup with the relays...which occurred frequently. I actually ran a 20 watt halogen 12 V bulb for over 3 hours with only a tenth of a volt drop on the batteries and the batteries were 17 ah gels.

With the relays, I was getting spikes over 100V at the bridge output, but the motor didn't seem to mind that at all.


So, I wanted to go solid state. It took some major wrangling, but I did get it to work...sort of. Instead of 12V on the output, I'm only getting about 6, so the load isn't what I'm looking for. I'm thinking I need some optos to drive the transistors so they are fully on and off during the on pulse.

I'm just using a 555 timer and have it at exactly a 50/50 duty cycle using a scope for that measurement.

The waveforms are WAY different with the solid state. It oscillates wildly on transitions and for quite a ways after the transition. Pretty cool.

If anybody could help me with the driving of the transistors I'd be thankful. In order for it to work, I had to look at the Mueller pdf pretty carefully and look at the way JB hooked up that 5th battery to the circuit. I'm thinking he used transformers so that the voltage would be sufficient to drive the transistors and to isolate it from the battery and the oscillator part of the circuit (SG3524).

I may try to find some transformers and do the same, but I'd like to use optos if possible. Still need to figure out a way to get the voltage high enough to drive all the transistors when the batteries are at 24 volts though. This one leaves me in a conundrum.

Hope this is not too much rambling for you all.

L

Hi ldissing.
I don't think that you can get perfect 50:50 duty cycle using a 555 timer alone, it will be near 50:50, but not exactly 50:50. The get the perfect 50:50 you will also need to use a flip flop. Here is a logic switching circuit I used to drive the transistors for my Tesla switch:


The capacitor value on the 555 timer will determine the frequency, but the actual frequency will be 2x smaller, because the flip flop will turn ON only on every second impulse, but this will be a perfect 50:50 duty cycle. The CD4001 chip commutates everything so that there is a small pause between switching, because at higher frequencies the transistors might not be able to turn ON/OFF as fast as you want, so there is a pause for them to do so. This insures that one transistor can not turn on, if the other isn't completely OFF. The CD4001 has two outputs, normal one and an inverted output. You can use one for driving one set of transistors and other for the other set of transistors.
Hope this helps.

I have noticed that as well. A load, any load will only draw off what it can handle. You cannot force more current through it than it can take.
On 24 volt system I can run a six volt load and runs exactly the same as it would if it ran off a six volt battery.

Theres somthing to that, I'm not sure what though.

Matt

Yes, of course, it helps and thank you. I'm using a diode between pins 7 and 6 to get the 50/50 timing, so it is precise, although, I like your solution better, because that makes it easier to adjust timing. The flip flop will always give 50/50 timing, so I can adjust the pulse by varying a pot on the 555 and the flip flop will do it's thing all the time. No more tweaking....

I'll study your schematic more and see what it is really saying.

Thanks again,

L

Jetijs,

What ever happened to your tesla switch with NPNs. Looks like you know what you are doing with the driving portion of the circuit.

If you could repost with some values for the resistors on the backend of the circuit, that would be great. I know about doing the 555 timing, caps, resistors there, but the backend stuff would be helpful to me.

Thank you again,

L

my setup dod not work, but that is because I used resistive load instead of inductive load and way too much of it for batteries of the capacity I had. Back then I did not know much about electronics, my fiend, a radio electronic expert, helped me with the circuit. Anyway, this was the full circuit:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/.../sleedzis2.GIF

I would be glad if someone tested it properly

So, if the batteries are only being utilized 50% of the time, then should you be able to pull twice the current in the load?

I'm talking about the C20 rate, of course.

If I'm using a 17aH battery (4 of them), then the current I can supposedly pull from one (or two in series) is 17/20 = 850ma. If I'm only them at a 50% rate, then can I actually pull 1.7 amps without violating the battery specs? It seems like this should be true, but maybe it isn't. Does anybody know?

Thanks,

L

i'm playing around with the tesla switch at the moment and have wondered the same. Unfortunately, I think the opposite is true.

Someone correct me if I am wrong as I am basing this on my understanding of capacitors.

If you have two 10,000 uf caps and wire them in parellel then you will effectively have a 20,000uf cap... however, when wired in series the capacity is HALFED so you have a 5,000uf cap.

To apply this to batteries, lets say we have two 10ah 12v batteries. If you wire them in parellel then you get a 20ah 12v battery. But if the same rules apply to batteries as they do capacitors, then if we wire them in series we get a 5ah 24v battery which will half the c20 rate instead of double it

but it puzzles me because if they are wired in parellel then we could (theoretically) get 12v at 20 amps for 1 hour which would give us 864000 joules. but if they are wired in series then we could pull 24v at 5 amps for one hour which is only 345600 joules...

something can't be right there because we should theoretically be able to fully charge the batteries in series with 345600 joules, then wire them in parellel and get 864000 joules out of them!

I am pretty sure that same logic (on caps) does not apply to battery or a power source.
2 12volt batteries with 10 amp hour of energy, In Series will deliver 24 volt for 10 hours at 1 amp.
You can test it. I have used the same formula to calculate expected discharge rates and seems to work out. I could be wrong according to the rules.

As far as amp draw in a Tesla switch you should be able to pull any load within the battery range.
17 amp hour battery should be able to deliver 17 amps of flow for 1 hour. If they don't deliver that you'll have to guage it for yourself how much you can pull.

I'm using lawn and tractor batteries, I have pulled some pretty big loads. The biggest thing that limits me is the heat from the bridge rectifier and the speed of the switching. The faster you switch the more power you have availible to you. Unlike a load a battery the load on the rectifier will reduce the voltage availible at the bridge and give a good indicator of how much more you can pull. 0 volts you have full load for your rectifier.

Also the component will only pull what it needs, you cannot force more through it, like hooking straight to battery. Thats a funny thing, but the best I can tell its the truth.


MAtt

Hi Guys,


I found an interesting read about series caps installed in a wind turbine.this guy seems to be saying that hes getting more wattage ouput of the turbine by having it set up this way.

the Otherpower.com Discussion Board || Using Caps on a Wind Genny


-Gary

[quote=Unlike a load a battery the load on the rectifier will reduce the voltage availible at the bridge and give a good indicator of how much more you can pull. 0 volts you have full load for your rectifier.MAtt[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Will you please restate or be more specific for me?


Thank you,

L

Looks like actually the amperage to and accross the battery banks is higher do to the caps. Which would make sense because the caps are and easier load to fill than the batteries would be.
Interesting stuff

When you measure the voltage availible on the bridge rectifier (BR) it will go DOWN as you add loads. Normally a battery will drop but not like the bridge does in a Tesla Switch.
Point being,(And this is just example from my head the numbers act differentk\ly) if you had say a 20 volt availible on the BR and added a 12 volt load, you might drop to 7 -8 volts. You could then add 2, 4 volt loads in addition and the BR would then read of 1-2.
The Voltage is incremental to the load that is on it.
You wouldn't usually see that the case of a power supply or battery. You would see an increase in Amperage from the source to the load but the voltage would remain the same, or slight variation on a battery

You'll find 12 volt lightbulbs don't really take 12 volt. Most I have used (Autobulbs) use about 3volt at 1/2 amp to run.

Its a neat thing to see.
Matt

Well, in case of a battery, the variation can be in full scale, it means - if load active resistance is very high, voltage on the battery poles will be close to it's EMF or rest voltage, I don't know how you call it. But if load active resistance is about zero, then the voltage across battery poles will be about zero, because all voltage drop will be on batteries internal resistance. Current will be pretty big.

Similar behavior shows induction coils or transformers - windings in these devices are not ideal, meaning have active resistance. So if we want to pull to much amperage out of it, voltage that we acquire is quite low, because most part of it is lost on winding's internal resistance.

In case of power supplies - they have overload protection. These devices are designed to give constant voltage, and when they can't do it anymore, they just turns off.

Just couple of things to think about. Cheers. And Happy New Year!!!

So, I finally got the SS tesla switch working, thanks Jetijs. The optoisolators work like a champ.

When I put a small motor on the bridge, with a big cap, it runs. Interestingly, when I put a small panel current meter in series, it pegs the meter (it is only a 500ma meter). The motor should not be drawing more than 250 ma, though, so this is very strange. If I put a small bulb in there, it says 200ma which seems high, but I don't know the true draw for that bulb, so I need another bulb with specs. When I put a 12V 20 watt halogen, it does not even start to light up. Interesting to say the least.

If I increase the time between switching, the transistors get really hot, so I have to keep the switching time pretty fast, which limits the voltage on the cap, which limits the type of load I can put on the "system" too.

If I leave the motor in there, but keep the switching time fast, the transistors do not get really hot, maybe 85-120F, which seems to be fine.

Anybody have any suggestions regarding the strange current reading when a motor is in there, the switching time, etc.?

I read somewhere that John Bedini was saying that it only switched 10-20 times per second, and other places where I've read about 100-800 times per second is correct. Anybody have experience with something they have working?

Thanks,

L

P.S. Relays seem to work infinitely better, as I can draw what I expect from the load, no transistors to get hot, and timing doesn't seem to be as critical. The relay method also works at 12 V, because of the way the circuit is connected, so any 12V load will work just fine.

I have gone as fast as 200 times per second (hz). I don't use transistors though.

I would reckon that at some speed you will start hydrolisis on the battery. probably around 350 - 400. Not sure where it at though.

Where did you read JB say 10 - 20 switches per second? Could you point me to that?

Matt

Peter Lindemann said it on this forum or it is in the Mueller.pdf document in these forums. Just do a search for it.

I believe this is the link to the pdf.

Use for the Tesla Switch

The other link - > 100 hz for efficiency

Use for the Tesla Switch

L

I agree with the battery/cap response. They are different.

If the motor hooked to a 12V battery pulls only 250 ma, then why or why would my panel meter peg over 500 ma?

This does not make sense. Where was the current coming from and where was it going? I believe this high current is also the reason that the transistors get hot. It is shoving a TON of current through the circuit and the only way I can limit it is to switch it more often. Maybe I could put some resistor in there with a high wattage and measure the voltage to see the current going though the bridge?

L

@ldissing

I've read both those several times and have not run accross Bedini talking about the speed of the switching action in either one. In fact one was written by Patrick Kelly and the other wrote by Tom Bearden.
Kelly mentions the electrodyne tests in an earlier version of DOC but they recomended No Higher than 200hz.

Also the AMP draw on a Tesla switch and Battery may be quete a bit different in the case of motor.

The reason primarly is the BEMF on the motor. When you ground a motor to run it both poles will create BEMF. This energy has to be disapated before current will flow. Reducing your actual flow time, and amount of flow. Also reducing the amount of energy actually doing work.

Running on a tesla switch you are only using either pole to run the load and nothing is grounded. BEMF is still being produced. but on a smaller scale and I suspect only on one pole. The pole that is opposite the polarity your on.
So if you are running on the ground side of the battery the North pole attracted part of the motor is making BEMF. This is my Theory I am still building up for testing. A Unipole motor may solve BEMF all together.

I have seen limited amounts of this on my scope in one way tests.
When watching the OUTPUT side of the motor on tesla switch you'll see 2 occilations. One is clear and obviously an ON/OFF wave. The other rises then falls but has both positive and negative spikes indacating BEMF. Depending on what side of the motor I power and what polarity of current I use the wave changes.

Also running test for the long term I have seen My batterries do not maintain the charge.
I have 4 Walmart lawn and Tractors. Hook the motor up straight to the batteries (all 4) in parrallel the motor will run the batteries down in 56 hours. Thats from 13.00 volt to 12.00 volt.
If I run the tesla switch till the batteries are dead (and they do die) it takes about 432 hours.
Thats about 8 times longer of a run.
I've tested the motor and gots docs on it its about 65% efficient when running under 12 volt.
I figure if the Tesla Switch is allowing for 8 time more runtime then I am recollecting about 85 - 90 % percent of the energy, I'm passing through. I know batteries loose maybe 5% percent because they are lead acid. The rest is lost through BEMF in the motor. This is what I am attempting to solve NOW.

So back your question why 250ma one way and 500 the other. Well you have dramatically reduced the amount of BEMF in the way.

The reason it does not feel any more powerful is because of the same thing I do not beleive that Both poles in a conventional motor are doing a full amount of work. So the motor runs slower or less powerful.


Matt

I am completely confused by this bit

I assumed you are refering to back-emf as the induced voltage generated by the coils passing the stator magnets or the self inductance of the coils opposing the change in current as the coils charge (ie. not flyback voltage)

but then I read this

and realised you ARE refering to the flyback voltage (I am guessing those are the spikes from the motor's brushes)

could you explain what you are saying in those first few paragraphs please I don't understand how "back emf" (flyback) has anything to do with this circuit.

also in this bit are you refering to the magnetic or electric poles?

and if you have scope shots I'd love to see those as well (if it isn't too much hassle)!

Cheers!

I have tendancy to do that to people..

Thats some of Back EMF, but not all of it. After the motor switch's polarity in the coil, and starts to move away from the magnet (or stator), And is completly shut off, you still have charge on the wire. This charge is induced from the pulse of current to the coil. It very well the same thing you see in a bifiliar pulse motor with the secondary not on the power source.
You know what I am talking about.

You probably watched this already, but this is the example of the energy I am talking about.
YouTube - Simple Motor 2

What you call, FlyBack Voltage, is a bi product of BEMF. If you have flyback voltage it because you have BEMF on your coil, from the previous charging.
The BEMF is charged opposite of the EMF and what would normally flow to ground now wants to flow to HOT and you have to disapate OR remove it from the coil, to get any work done.

Listen to the motor in the movie. When the spark stops, although I don't show it, amperage draw goes up, and the speed of the motor goes up.

Why? ............ No BEMF in the way.

This energy reduces the flow of current in a motor. That what I was trying to explain. Why his motor drew more amperage under a tesla switch than while running straight off a battery.

When I say pole I'm refering to the Coil. My mistake. I type faster than I think somtimes.

SO what I should have said is...

If you running a motor using a ground (Conventionaly) the energy flowing through the motor will create BEMF on both coils that are charged at the time. When they make it around the next charging position the energy has to be disapated before it will flow through the coil. Less tyime flowing equals less flow.

But in Tesla switch both coils do not produce adverse BEMF. Only one coil does. (My hypothisis still). Both produce extra energies that linger on the wire but one side is charged (do to the polarity of the energy you putting in) the same as the energy you are running through the motor. This energy can get swept out as the the current passes through and can be deposited into the charging bank. It does not get in the way.

But the other coil doesn't do this. It makes an energy that is polarized opposite than the energy you are putting in and therefore you have to disapate it before you get any work out of the coil.

The cause for this I have NOT fiugred out a good way to write.
But the best I can say is when the energy you put in is from the NEGATIVE of your battery then repulses from the SOUTH magnet(stator) the byproduct energy, flows out nicely the next time the coil gets powered into the charging bank. Or maybe its opposite. I am not really sure about the finite details. But I know for sure its doing somthing like this.

Remember in most symetrical motors you have 2 poles (2 magnets) so one of your coils is charged to the south and one to the north while pulling into alignment then the polarity of your coils is flipped to push away.
This is where the BEMF is created. The repulsion cycle.

If you have descent motor you should see on the scope what I have seen.

But I'll have to draw it for you from memory. I'll post it in the morning

I am packing to move to North Carolina. My scope and all my stuff got taped up an hour or so ago.
I can hear it now , "Ya Right"

CHeers
Matt

Where in NC? Perhaps I could come and see what you are up to and we could discuss some things...I'm in SC.

If what you are saying is correct, then you should be able to run the monopole motor from the Tesla switch because there is only one pole. The spike could be used to charge another battery or cap and it should run for an extremely long time.

I was thinking about your getting 8 times the run length over a single battery. Actually, I think you'd have to say only 2 times as you are using 4 batteries total. Still, a nice improvement over a single battery. It is still not what we are looking though. Keep at it, you have still done a fine job.

This is the problem I'm having with all of these "technologies". Some things do look promising, but the gurus are still closed mouthed. We are trying to make things work, working hard at it too, and when we get lost because of lack of knowledge, we just have to stay ignorant. How many different things can one person try with a limited budget. I don't know if it is because they are just greedy, afraid, or they don't have what they say they have. It is a real drag to have to figure it out mostly by yourself. If it wasn't for these groups, everybody would be lost.
How many marriages have failed because of the hope of this stuff working and we men spending so much time on it? I know my wife is not happy with me!

L

PM me ...

4 batterries in Parrallel = 56 hours of runtime
same 4 batteries in a Tesla switch = 432 hours of runtime
432 / 56 = 7.714 times longer runtime.
Motor runs at or up to 100 watts AND PROVIDES SHAFT POWER.
Under Tesla the same motor only cost you 12.96 watts to get the same work done.
How much free energy do you want? And what the heck is it your looking for?
Me I'm trying to get off cheap. Maybe have a surplus in the end of somthing for free.
Gaurentee it don't get much better than that, unless you for some reason understand and can implement some high level physics.

Matt

Sorry, I was remembering differently, thought it was for one battery. Congrats on that performance.

L

Thanks to Nick, more is coming on these tests, all will be added to the PDF tonight.

Tesla Switch - updated December 12 2008
Panacea University

Dave, Matt and Murray will also be looking over these and adding input, we will be building and adding ASAP. There is also a new Solid state design being added in there.

In the order Nick wanted them posted
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: mullerdc1.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: teslaswitchjp2.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: teslaswitchmod1mm7.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: teslaswitchmod2hp3.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: teslaswitchmod3aj7.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: teslaswitchmod4qt5.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: overunityxu1.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: joneswm9.jpg
ImageShack - Image Hosting :: jonesmod1zw4.jpg


Ash

I can understand that you need an even duty cycle for each flip-flop. But wouldn't it make more sense to rotate every battery in and out of the charging slot in a 25%charge/75%discharge. it would only take four tpdt relays and commutator which can be driven by an ssg with the output coupled to the charge circuit. i have a manual switching setup that i can do just this i am currently driving my imhotep style simplified radiant oscillator. two of the poles switch the battery from a parallel to series loop. The third pole bypasses the series section when the battery is out of phase. This setup will put every battery in charging rotation. The commutator could be transfered to be driven by any dc motor that is being powered by the circuit. or to hard to tune be done electronically. If you can capture enough radiant energy to produce a significant gain then you can run alternating battery banks which can also be done automatically based on bank voltage. This way you can run an inverter without having to worry about radiant spikes ruining your devices. Capturing this radiant energy and feeding it back into the system might be the idea behind calling it a tesla switch.