Dear Peter,
Since you and Bedini have history you might know a thing or two about the 'Tesla Switch' and alike systems. I think these systems might be a good addition for these No-back emf motor designs especially since they can be driven like dc low ohmic induction loads. Not much input is lost in the form of heat and such.

For those who do not know what I am talking about read:
THE TESLA SWITCH
And
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D3.pdf
Start at page 25 (to 36)

So this post is kind of a double post. On the one hand I see the Tesla Switch having huge advantages, but on the other hand, except for the Bedini page there is no real info to be found anywhere about this system... Why? well Peter what is your take on the Tesla Switch, and in case Bedini is reading this, please feel free to jump in.

Thanks!
Steven

Steven,

As can be seen in the first file, the original circuit was developed by Ronald Brandt. The 1983 date of the Brandt circuit pre-dates John's work on this system. Ron's circuits used mechanical contacters as switches, but apparently worked quite well, as long as the contacters lasted. John was the first to adapt this circuit to solid-state switching, using the SG 1524 dual flip-flop functions and bipolar transistors as the switches. So, exactly why this is called the Tesla Switch is beyond me.

John has told me that his "cigar box" unit ran a small electric motor for more than 6 months without discharging the batteries AT ALL. He also told me that the original working model was smashed by a "guest" in his shop who was infuriated by its operation, while John was out of the room. At this point, he decided not to rebuild it. I know John personally, and have no reason to doubt this report.

Obviously, the voltage drops in the transistors and diodes present a CONSTANT loss during operation, not to mention the energy dissipated at the load. Therefore, the system defies all standard explanations and energy use equations. The batteries apparently stay charged and run loads simultaneously for a reason that is not conventional.

Since Ronald Brandt has run a car on this system, and John Bedini has run small motors on miniaturized version, it seems reasonable to assume it is worthy of more study by experimenters.

I have a copy of a lengthy report, written by Eike Mueller, dated September 3, 1984 that discusses tests of this system. Perhaps John would be willing to comment further on this at some point. But maybe he won't. After all, it was John's demonstration of this system at the Tesla Conference in 1984 that precipitated the events that culminated in having his life threatened if he continued his work on it.

I know of no one who has had their life threatened for working on a technology that didn't work!

Peter

Hi Peter and thanks for the reply.

Yeah the name Tesla Switch is not too clear. Some seem to say/claim that Tesla used this 4 battery flipping system in his remote controlled boat or something.

Now then I must say that at this point I’m not all that concerned about the over unity effect due to the faster switching and electron thing. But the simplest version alone will be very interesting. And could indeed be used in electric vehicles and the like.

To put it in laymen’s terms:
Normally you run a load to a 'ground' which stays 0v all the time so, it is an infinite sink. But in this situation you replace this ground with a charging battery. So the first 12v battery powers the load until the second battery has reached 6v. So both batteries are now at 6v. But connected in series they are still 12v combined. Now you can discharge that 12v in series batteries AGAIN trough a load to a depleted battery. Until that one also reached 6v. Some test at overunity.com have indicated that you can expect at least 50% more work form the same initial battery charge.

One thing I also find somewhat hart to understand is how does this Tesla Switch battery swapping technique behave when the load converts all the ‘electricity’ to something else like heat. Does that mean the secondary battery will not get a charge at all?

And how does the energy balance look like when we use this battery swapping technique for powering a low ohm, low heat loss (no back emf) motor, which runs a generator?

Now I don’t want to sound greedy (lol) but I would be very interested in that report you say you have. Well any additional info on this system for that matter. So if you want to share it please do. I understand that it probably is not in ‘a digital form’ right now. So instead of typing the whole report over. You could also just take pictures of the pages.

So anyway if you feel like sharing you can just mail them to me (or post them here) It will be very much appreciated.

One thing that always baffles me is the fact that every time things in this field needs to be re-tried. I mean there are so many ‘old’ Ideas like this 'Tesla Switch' floating around and then again except for a few schematics no additional information or replications are to be found. Same with Ecklin stuff and such.

Thanks and kind regards.
Steven

Hi all
I'm new here, but I already have attempted to make the Tesla switch. At that time I did not know much about radiant energy and Bedini motors as I do now, that's why I did not have much success. My circuit looked like this:
http://www.bildez.lv/bildes/jetijs/s...1187198552.gif
(sorry, this picture is not available anymore)
The batteries were 1.3Ah lead/acid type.
The oscilator is not shown in this circuit. Slodze=Load. I tried a
small car bulb (1 Ohm) as a load. The bulb was powered through a
bridge rectifier (not shown in the circuit)
First I tried the switch at a low frequency, about 10Hz, everything
seemed fine, the transistors got a little warm and the car bulb
lighted up, but not as bright as when in direct connection to a
battery. Then I increased the frequency to about 250Hz. The bulb
brightness remained the same, the transistors felt a little warmer. I
measured 4.3VDc across the bulb and 0.77Amps. But after few hours the
the light of the bulb turned weaker and slowly the amperage across the
bulb dropped too.

Now I know, that there are some problems with this circuit. First of all as Rick Friedrich said, I should have used NPN transistors instead of PNP because PNPs allow current through constantly, and NPN only when the trigger Base is gated. Also the load was too big for these batteries. The load should be such that the batteries are discharged in the c/20 rate. That means that the load should draw only 65mA. This is because a larger current draw would cause heating in the batteries and that is not good. Now I will try out the circuit with the NPN transistors:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/...i_1/468289.jpg
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/thumbs/lrg-137-468299.jpg
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/thumbs/lrg-136-468297.jpg

Maybe it will help someone. Or maybe someone has anything to add?

Edit: I read somewhere that the name "Tesla switch" is due to the fact, that Nikola Tesla gave this information to a friend. Then later this friend of Tesla shared his knowledge with John Bedini. From here this circuit is called a Tesla switch I do not know if that is how it actually happened.

Thanks,
Jetijs

Steven,

I spoke with John this morning concerning your request for a copy of the Eike Mueller Report. He has no problem with me posting it, but also said he would not be commenting on it in this forum, or anywhere else. He said he agrees with us, that Ron Brandt showed him the circuit and that he doesn't even know why it was called the Tesla Switch.

I'll scan the document into a .pdf file over the weekend and get Aaron to show me how to post it.

Peter

Many thanks in advance for that document Peter (and John) the info and effort is much appreciated!

I know I am being a pain (lol) but when you ever feel like releasing your old Flux motor or/and generator documentation/notes (you know, the "fluxgate generator thingy") Please let me know!

Many thanks!
Kind regards

Steven

Steven,

I scanned the report and sent it over to Aaron. He will post it in this forum so everyone can download it. Its now in .pdf format. I scanned the file exactly as I have it. The font it was originally printed in is a little hard to read, and the pictures are pretty dark, being a copy of a copy. Some pages are not straight, as I have made no effort to clean it up.

When I spoke to John, he told me that getting the circuit to work is a real pain. The circuit controller must be able to produce a perfect 50%-50% flip-flop. The "cigar box" unit used Ni-Cad batteries, which is why they are labeled as 5 volts (4 x 1.25 volts each). The final working model used the 2N5885 transistor instead of the 2N3055H as listed. The control chip was the SG 3524 instead of the SG 3984 as listed. The system switched slowly, at no more that 20 CPS.

That's it. Have fun.

Peter

Thank you Peter, John and Aaron for making the document public.

Is Eike Mueller still with us? I mean it would be interesting to have him comment on this as well?

Hopefully people will do the experiments. It is not really that hard to build a simple proof of concept relay based switching system. And it would allow for energy ‘recycling’ at the very least. And so provide a way to get better battery efficiency for virtually every application.

I mean you could use it to run a 90% efficient motor and recharge the second battery even if it is only a little, which would normally be send back to the same battery to destroy the dipole. (Correct me if I don’t make sense) So with this ‘recycling’ you can make nearly every motor into an o.u device when you look at the total energy balance. Although I must say that some things like radiated heat and back emf are tricky to include. I mean is radiated head from a bulb ‘lost’ or not? Wouldn’t that mean that a 100% efficient heating element will not put a charge into the second battery at all?

I always find it amazing that such ‘simple’ devices are kind of ‘unheard of’ and untouched by next to all researchers.

Hopefully this information will spark some interest and research again (after like 20+ years?)

Again thanks for the info!
It is much appreciated!

Kind regards
Steven

Isn’t it funny how things work out sometimes?
I happen to get hold of the same document but of better quality than perhaps Peters own original.

Check it out.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Mueller.pdf

Kind regards,
Steven

Steven,

The link doesn't work if you don't have a log-in ID. See if you can download the document into your computer and then have Aaron upload the new version here.

Peter

Strange.
It does work fine here.
Maybe: right mouse click > Save link/target as" might work for your?

Another link:
http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf

I must admit that viewing this document online in a web browser does not always work. So downloading it first will do the trick.

If this still does not work for you I can sent it to Aeron. But I don't have his mail address.

Steven

Hi Peter.

I have a question about the timing wheel disk (on page 14)
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Overlap.jpg

I can understand that John says 50-50 switching is important. But unless it is some kind of mistake I do not really understand why the top part of the switching disk is in fact overlapping, and the lower part is not?
Any ideas?

Thanks and Kind regards,
Steven

Steven,

In any investigation of this type, the best way to approach it is to DECIDE in your own mind what the operating principle of the system is. THEN, see if the information supports your hypothesis. If your hypothesis is correct, the evidence should support it. Such as, John's LAST statement that a 50%-50% switching is necessary for the system to work. If this is taken as the working hypothesis, then the drawing of the mechanical commutator with one side over-lapping and one side not should be interpreted as an error.

If you think that all of the batteries can attain an EQUAL charge condition when the switching is UNEQUAL, then believe whatever you want.

Am I getting through to you?????

Trust yourself! You have the ability to think it through.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I've put a lot of time (and money)in testing the TS, I started with solid state switching, then I tried the relais version and the last one had a rotary switch (6 switches) wich commutated the batteries directly instead of driving transistors like in T-7 on Muellers report.
Well the batteries don't charge, they slowly drop in voltage, depending on the load. One thing that confuses me is that in John's T-1 and other drawings the ground between the two lower batts(3-4) is shorted directly through the switch but also going trough the AC out. I mean how can you have voltage on the bridge rectifier if the switches short the grounds directly?
That's why I made the wiring like T7 wich made more sense in relation to the above, only not having the transistors but mechanical switches. I've tried 20Hz and up to 400Hz the mechanical is 50% duty while with the solid state I tried from really narrow to 50%.
The best results I had by putting a coil on the output wich gave SSG type spikes. but still...
I thought the TS was supposed to have a high charging rate and pretty impressive loading capabilities.
Am I missing something? Suggestions?

best regards,

Mario

Dear Mario,

Honestly, I don't think you are missing a thing. You are having the full, frustrating experience of working on a very difficult project. To tell you the truth, I have never seen one of these things work, so I can't help you from a technical point of view.

I do know that when John was working on the SG Pendulum project, he studied the wave shapes the machine generated on the oscilloscope for hours....even days! He never told me what he was looking for, but did tell me he was looking for a specific wave-form.

I also assume that the "Four Battery Switch" must be similar. It is painfully obvious that any operation of the circuit in conventional terms will discharge the batteries. Also, we know that the ONLY energy gain mechanism that is even possibly available in this system is what Tesla refers to as RADIANT ENERGY. So, the proper function of the circuit MUST require:

1) abrupt switching
2) electron current blocking
3) impedance matching and balancing

Exactly how these circuit necessities are accomplished with any given set of components is a NIGHTMARE of testing and tweeking. If I am not mistaken, it took John months to get his little "cigar box unit" operating and stable.

Just so you are clear, every length of wire has an "inductance" and a "capacitance" that is part of the tuning of the system. The gain, voltage drop, and switching speed of the transistors all play a part. Likewise for the diodes. If you are using contactors, the voltage drop and resistance of the contactor plays a role in tuning.

In the end, it might be easier to walk your dog on Mars.

I'm not suggesting you stop working on it, but I am suggesting that success is NOT imminent. John is extremely intuitive about circuit operations. This also suggests that knowledge and logic may be insufficient to ensure success.

Peter

Peter, thanks for your honest answer. John said we need a perfect 50/50% flip flop, that doesn't mean the duty cycle has to be 50% in amplitude though right? Especially if we are to block electron flow but then I don't understand the 50% mechanical pulse width on the T7 rotary switch. T1 one would make more sense since the coil controlled transistors would only allow for very short spikes(more John-like. Is T1 exactly like John's cigar-box or could there be missing parts?

best regards, Mario

Mario,

To the best of my knowledge, Figure T-1, in the Eike Mueller Report is the correct schematic. When I got John's permission to reprint the report in this forum, he gave me the final up-dates to the components list. I stated those component changes in Post #7 of this forum, and I will repeat them here.

"When I spoke to John, he told me that getting the circuit to work is a real pain. The circuit controller must be able to produce a perfect 50%-50% flip-flop. The "cigar box" unit used Ni-Cad batteries, which is why they are labeled as 5 volts (4 x 1.25 volts each). The final working model used the 2N5885 transistor instead of the 2N3055H as listed. The control chip was the SG 3524 instead of the SG 3984 as listed. The system switched slowly, at no more that 20 CPS."

This is as much as I know.

Good luck,

Peter