Use for the Tesla Switch

[StevanC]

@jeff

@StevenC, Sometimes we need normal design practices to get to the "out of the normal" results. In my opinion, "Free Energy will not be had by one device, but many great devices working in harmony with each others".

I think I respectfully disagree. I think "free energy" will be a simple device and a big "forehead splatter" once we "get it".

OTOH, I admire Your dedication and hard work invested. Also I appreciate Your opinion and value You add to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Bit's-n-Bytes View Post

@SeaMonkey, You do not have my permisson to repost this.

YouTube - Perpetual Self Runner.MPG

Jeff

Wouldn't think of it Jeff. Surely you meant "permission?"(sp)

Your video is interesting and your verbal descriptions
are easy to follow - but,

don'tcha think it's a bit of a Rube Goldberg device?

It is partially "looped" for sure, but questions come
to mind:

Can you give us any idea what the Input Power is?

How much power is being harvested from your
"one coil" and re-applied to the charging batteries?

In other words, what sort of efficiency is there in
your impressive looking device? How much power
is lost in the process?

Wouldn't it be possible to achieve the same result
with a stationary multi-winding transformer?

Well, I gotta give you this: it is a good demo of
the use of a micro-controller for monitor and
evaluation (decision-making) purposes.
A+ for that!

By the way - thanks for "inviting" me back into your
"clique." I don't reckon I'll stay long...

now that was mature



Rube Goldberg machine
not that the comparison was far off



Besides that, a warning:
in favor of Tehnoman's comment:

Every time we making complex (=non-simple) devices,
we risk to obfuscate the [I][B]magic component[/B][/I].

and we all know that (=EV-Gray, =Meyers, others...)

Our ultimate goal would be to "skin the onion" to the core, right?

like the 555 voltage doubler i posted: can it be made to be "floating"?

can it be made to be 80V?

i think it can


Stevan C.

[John_K]

Wouldn't think of it Jeff. Surely you meant "permission?"(sp)

Your video is interesting and your verbal descriptions
are easy to follow - but,

don'tcha think it's a bit of a Rube Goldberg device?

It is partially "looped" for sure, but questions come
to mind:

Can you give us any idea what the Input Power is?

How much power is being harvested from your
"one coil" and re-applied to the charging batteries?

In other words, what sort of efficiency is there in
your impressive looking device? How much power
is lost in the process?

Wouldn't it be possible to achieve the same result
with a stationary multi-winding transformer?

Well, I gotta give you this: it is a good demo of
the use of a micro-controller for monitor and
evaluation (decision-making) purposes.
A+ for that!

By the way - thanks for "inviting" me back into your
"clique." I don't reckon I'll stay long...

I think someone is jealous! (Did I spell that right?)

Rube Goldberg indeed! How much more proof do you want??





John K.

[SeaMonkey]

@SeaMonkey, You do not have my permisson to repost this.

YouTube - Perpetual Self Runner.MPG

Jeff

Wouldn't think of it Jeff. Surely you meant "permission?"(sp)

Your video is interesting and your verbal descriptions
are easy to follow - but,

don'tcha think it's a bit of a Rube Goldberg device?

It is partially "looped" for sure, but questions come
to mind:

Can you give us any idea what the Input Power is?

How much power is being harvested from your
"one coil" and re-applied to the charging batteries?

In other words, what sort of efficiency is there in
your impressive looking device? How much power
is lost in the process?

Wouldn't it be possible to achieve the same result
with a stationary multi-winding transformer?

Well, I gotta give you this: it is a good demo of
the use of a micro-controller for monitor and
evaluation (decision-making) purposes.
A+ for that!

By the way - thanks for "inviting" me back into your
"clique." I don't reckon I'll stay long...

[citfta]

Great video

Another really great video Bits. I like the way you tied it all together. I can't keep up with you guys. When I get done with what I am working on now I have got to get one of those cap pulsers built. I had wired a couple of relays together as a cap pulser circuit and it worked really well. Yours is so much neater and appears to be working even better than the one I just stuck together . Thanks for sharing.


Carroll

[Matthew Jones]

Thats great stuff Bits .

Matt

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

Here it is. Bringing it all together.

I like it!!

@Vissie, you'll really like this one then.

@SeaMonkey, You do not have my permisson to repost this.

YouTube - Perpetual Self Runner.MPG

@StevenC, Sometimes we need normal design practices to get to the "out of the normal" results. In my opinion, "Free Energy will not be had by one device, but many great devices working in harmony with each others".

@John K, Vissie, A big Thank you.

Jeff

[nvisser]

YouTube - Inverter 2 Cap Pulser.MPG

This thread has been quite for too long. Check it out.

Thanks

Jeff

I like it!!

[Tehnoman]

First, few words about the work done here. All of it is just remarkable, I wish I had the skills and motivation to do all this stuff. But hence I do not, I have not spoken in this thread for a while.

So to bring you up to day, I just will say that I now have a BSc degree in Physics and I am heading towards MSc. Yet, I keep all this "alternative" (in sense of conventional science) movement under my view. And when I have spare time, I do some thinking towards this direction.

[..]
How can we be sure we are not just skinning the same (wrong) cat just the other way?
[..]
but does it do it the right way?

How can we tell?

"it works" is just not enough for me ATM?
[..]

Welcome to my club!

These are the questions that are bothering me from the very beginning of entering alternative-direction movement, while parallel studying traditional physics (so to say). Well, basically the first of your questions. Is it the same cat (all Maxwell equation stuff, quantum physics, known to conventional science, etc) or not?

So as these questions are asked, I felt like I finally can contribute something (at least - thoughts).

The short answer in Tesla switch case for question "How can we be sure we are not just skinning the same (wrong) cat just the other way?" is - we can not. That is just the sad truth. Why? Short answer again - the device is just too complicated. Not enough? For longer answer, continue reading.

The longer answer is not so drastic, but still the basic idea is the same. In Tesla switch we have quite sophisticated operation (all these electric spikes, inductive loads, etc) and also very sophisticated components (the worst of them - chemical batteries). To understand, whether or not we have created (or stumbled upon) something not present in conventional/classic science, we must describe the system from classic science viewpoint, using every single theory, which is accepted in this field. Only then one can compare acquired results with theoretical outcome and say - yeah, they do not match and therefore we are sure we are on to something new. And in this case description of process happening inside chemical battery during such spiking of electric parameters requires application of quantum physics (due to sharp behavior of spikes, small transition scale, description of basic behavior it self, etc). Quantum physics itself is very, very sophisticated. Analytic description of few atom system is pain in the ass, numerical simulation of few million (~ 10^6) atom system is very intense in sense of computational power. Just no way to describe whole battery (if weight is ~ 24g, count of particles to be simulated is ~ 10^24, assuming base material carbon) in useful time. Discard quantum physics? Then we come back to the phrase sure; we can not tell for sure, if we don't know what quantum physics (the most recent and modern section of "conventional" physics) has to say about the case.

Therefore I dismissed Tesla switch as object of my experimentation - it is just too complicated to be brought down to basic principles of physics responsible for operation.

I am not saying anyone should stop on this or anything like that. These devices could be performing better that batteries would in normal circumstances, I don't know why, maybe there is some conversion of energy from ambient heat, or smth. It is ok to use "trial-error" approach to create ways of more efficient usage of batteries.

But from present point of view, I do not see any way to use Tesla switch as proof that conventional science is wrong or we are extracting energy from vacuum. And I don't think it will be done in nearest future.

My goal - I want to find simple but strong enough proof, that there exists deviations from Maxwell equations, that there is a way to send information faster than light, that there are other configurations of E and B fields in wave than currently assumed as the only and one transverse EM wave.

The problem is - answer to my question does not directly lead to practical usage in short time frame; effect would be felt only after a while. Quantum physics is about hundred years old, some practical usage are being created now, only century later.

And the second problem is - these practical experiments with such complicated systems does not directly lead backwards to answers of my question, that would lead to reorganization of science.

Only one exception - if experiments with complicated device show drastic results, in example, true over unity (have not seen that). Then the device can be studied, examined and after long years work it can be bought to basic principles. The energy extraction from vacuum is something that is not possible from general conclusion of classical science.

[..]
How can we be sure we are not just skinning the same (wrong) cat just the other way?
[..]
"it works" is just not enough for me ATM?
[..]

So again, final conclusion.
Without conducting simpler conceptual physical experiments, there is no way to conclude definite answer based only on results obtained from Tesla switch to question that was asked, except case, if true over unity would be acquired.

[StevanC]

HI Stevan,

I don't see it as "rotten EE science" as we are still using potential to charge the heck out of the battery. Actually it's a combination of difference of potential as well as "conventional" current. As you know a LAB is a complex beast, but it does like being charged with a large, short spike of "higher" voltage mixed in with "high" current.
Jeff's design is a simpler version of your PV_amp circuit, with far less components. IT DOES charge the heck out of batteries, and will "cold" boil them in a few minutes. It will get the same 12V battery to 16V under charge when other circuits won't. I have found that it will also rejuvenate batteries better and faster than anything else I've built. In a sense it is very similar to the Tesla switch.
We are trying to exploit it for more practical purposes as well. My plan is to have a PV drive the inverter section and then use the 2 cap pulser section to charge up a 12V bank. But, as the sun doesn't shine all day I want to use the 12V bank that I charged during sunlight hours to run an SG based circuit (SS or 10-coiler, whatever) to charge up a larger bank 24/7. The larger bank then powers my some of my house through a conventional commercially available inverter (because they are cheaper to buy off the shelf than build)

I also want to extract every joule that the PV puts out. This means having an "intermediate" charger that will run from a couple of volts at low amps, right up to ~38V at 5.2A (using a 24V 200W PV in this example). I tried running a SS SG circuit in place of the inverter in the circuit, but at low light I couldn't get the results I was after and in full sun it literally melted the coil. SG circuits work very well when the voltage doesn't vary much because they are tuned that way, but they don't run well when the voltage varies a lot - without having a mechanism to automatically adjust the tuning. This just adds more complexity as well as more losses in the extra components.

But we are still early days into the project. This is just a small prototype for a "proof of concept". Once we've ironed out the bugs, it should be easy to scale up. Theoretically speaking, there should be no reason why you could not run your whole house off a 1kW PV setup, using 10kWh per day.

We may not be able to achieve what JB showed us in the videos, but we're getting pretty close. At least we're heading in the right direction.

Yes, the energy off the PV is "free", but the ROI will still be a few years away, given that I only pay about US$3 for 10kWh to buy it from the power company and I've invested >US$2000 in PV's, batteries and inverters.

The circuit that Jeff posted DOES rock the cables when it's tuned right. You would know from your setup what it does to the battery. But whether it rocks the cables is not important, what's important is how well is it charging the battery. This is not "trickle" charging or surface charge, it is real power that powers loads. It is not hard to do and has a small number of components.

But as Jeff and I have stated, it is still in development and we are still scratching the surface and we need to do lots of testing still. The meters will not tell you much except if you change something and the needle goes higher or lower. What counts is how long you can light your lights for and how well can you extract and use every joule that is available, whilst minimizing the losses.

I'm not dissing you, because I know you are a very clever man so please don't take offense. I'm also not saying that this setup is better than yours or anyone elses. There a many ways to skin a cat, we are just developing one of them that we have had really good results with so far. Jeff already found out that you can't close the loop on this one, but the experiment had to be done to find out. We know more today than we did yesterday.

It's time to get serious. I'm not saying that this will solve the global energy crisis, but it's the best I've seen in my research so far - and it's practical. It's also open source, anyone that can hold a soldering iron the right way can do it and develop it.



John K.

John K,

that's the problem with the written word.
I wanted not to dismiss Jeff nor the success o the device neither.

What I wanted is to merely warn that we missing the main issue here:

How can we tell we are doing the right stuff?

Charge batteries up You say? So does just clipping the PV to the LAB? ain't it so?
Just clip and it goes?
How can we be sure we are not just skinning the same (wrong) cat just the other way?
And here i doubt mine PV_amp alongside all others:

Yes it rocks cables without a magnet near
Yes it brings a LAB from 1100g/l to 1325 g/l fizzling like a 7up can from 2.5A limited PSU (=17V topping voltage)
Yes it ponders above 100A per pulse @5A limited input off a single to-220 device (IRF3205) and gets the PSU HOT (3x2N3055 on putput) 20V@5A it kick the s##it out of the pants to a 100Ah LAB.

but does it do it the right way?

How can we tell?

"it works" is just not enough for me ATM?

And as I wrote, Jeff did well, not even a shadow cast over his work!

[Matthew Jones]

I tell ya it sounds perfect for grabbing energy from Earth batteries.

A few copper and galvanized pipes, a little water and away you go.

Talk about something that needs to use some sort of accumulator.

Matt

[John_K]

Sorry to be a show stopper, but...

aren't we threading over stumped snow here?

A. if we aren't using "infinite potential" off a coil subject to decaing magnetic field (aka SG technology), aren't we just trickle charging?
B. if we aren't using "surface charge" of a battrey subject to charging, and transforming it (V/A ratio) just to bouce it back to the battery (trading impedance), aren't we just doing it the "old EE way"

Are we being sucked into the "rotten EE science", to do it the "easy way"?

just to "make it work somehow" instead the right (hard) way?

I just wonder?

P.S.
Congratulations Jeff, nice job .

What's the value regarding free energy?
Does it rock the cables wihle charging a battery? (Mine rocks wire (no magnets near) (~awg16 litzed) hanging from the air while charging a 55Ah12V cranking battery - connected with clips(!) my estimate ~60A peak)

HI Stevan,

I don't see it as "rotten EE science" as we are still using potential to charge the heck out of the battery. Actually it's a combination of difference of potential as well as "conventional" current. As you know a LAB is a complex beast, but it does like being charged with a large, short spike of "higher" voltage mixed in with "high" current.
Jeff's design is a simpler version of your PV_amp circuit, with far less components. IT DOES charge the heck out of batteries, and will "cold" boil them in a few minutes. It will get the same 12V battery to 16V under charge when other circuits won't. I have found that it will also rejuvenate batteries better and faster than anything else I've built. In a sense it is very similar to the Tesla switch.
We are trying to exploit it for more practical purposes as well. My plan is to have a PV drive the inverter section and then use the 2 cap pulser section to charge up a 12V bank. But, as the sun doesn't shine all day I want to use the 12V bank that I charged during sunlight hours to run an SG based circuit (SS or 10-coiler, whatever) to charge up a larger bank 24/7. The larger bank then powers my some of my house through a conventional commercially available inverter (because they are cheaper to buy off the shelf than build)

I also want to extract every joule that the PV puts out. This means having an "intermediate" charger that will run from a couple of volts at low amps, right up to ~38V at 5.2A (using a 24V 200W PV in this example). I tried running a SS SG circuit in place of the inverter in the circuit, but at low light I couldn't get the results I was after and in full sun it literally melted the coil. SG circuits work very well when the voltage doesn't vary much because they are tuned that way, but they don't run well when the voltage varies a lot - without having a mechanism to automatically adjust the tuning. This just adds more complexity as well as more losses in the extra components.

But we are still early days into the project. This is just a small prototype for a "proof of concept". Once we've ironed out the bugs, it should be easy to scale up. Theoretically speaking, there should be no reason why you could not run your whole house off a 1kW PV setup, using 10kWh per day.

We may not be able to achieve what JB showed us in the videos, but we're getting pretty close. At least we're heading in the right direction.

Yes, the energy off the PV is "free", but the ROI will still be a few years away, given that I only pay about US$3 for 10kWh to buy it from the power company and I've invested >US$2000 in PV's, batteries and inverters.

The circuit that Jeff posted DOES rock the cables when it's tuned right. You would know from your setup what it does to the battery. But whether it rocks the cables is not important, what's important is how well is it charging the battery. This is not "trickle" charging or surface charge, it is real power that powers loads. It is not hard to do and has a small number of components.

But as Jeff and I have stated, it is still in development and we are still scratching the surface and we need to do lots of testing still. The meters will not tell you much except if you change something and the needle goes higher or lower. What counts is how long you can light your lights for and how well can you extract and use every joule that is available, whilst minimizing the losses.

I'm not dissing you, because I know you are a very clever man so please don't take offense. I'm also not saying that this setup is better than yours or anyone elses. There a many ways to skin a cat, we are just developing one of them that we have had really good results with so far. Jeff already found out that you can't close the loop on this one, but the experiment had to be done to find out. We know more today than we did yesterday.

It's time to get serious. I'm not saying that this will solve the global energy crisis, but it's the best I've seen in my research so far - and it's practical. It's also open source, anyone that can hold a soldering iron the right way can do it and develop it.



John K.

[StevanC]

Sorry to be a show stopper, but...

aren't we threading over stumped snow here?

A. if we aren't using "infinite potential" off a coil subject to decaing magnetic field (aka SG technology), aren't we just trickle charging?
B. if we aren't using "surface charge" of a battrey subject to charging, and transforming it (V/A ratio) just to bouce it back to the battery (trading impedance), aren't we just doing it the "old EE way"

Are we being sucked into the "rotten EE science", to do it the "easy way"?

just to "make it work somehow" instead the right (hard) way?

I just wonder?

P.S.
Congratulations Jeff, nice job .

What's the value regarding free energy?
Does it rock the cables wihle charging a battery? (Mine rocks wire (no magnets near) (~awg16 litzed) hanging from the air while charging a 55Ah12V cranking battery - connected with clips(!) my estimate ~60A peak)

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

G'day Jeff,

Great job!

Thanks for the code. I think this design is great because you can run the whole circuit from just one PIC.

As you know I plan to use a 24V 200W solar panel for my input. Do you see any issues with the large variance in energy coming from the panel depending on the variable sun irridation? I want to use every joule out of the panel that I can, from a nominal 5V @0.5A, right up to 38V @ 5A. This means running it off moonlight!

I know the volatge divider will auto adjust the cap pulser frequency, but will the inverter portion still work satisfactorily between 2.5W and 200W? (or more)

Let's get this thread more active again, and please folks build "as-is" before recommending improvements or mods! Jeff, Vissie and I have done a lot of work to get this where it is already. I've got the cap pulser part working beautifully, I just need to build the inverter and voltage divider portions and then test, test, test... (I did try a SS SG in place of the inverter, however it did not work quite as well as I wanted it to)



John K.

Thanks John, yes it should swing through that range, but you have said it well, Test, test , test. I just tried to self charge the same batt that is providing the input, While I didn't let the smoke out (fully isolated) The batt didn't charge. Just thought I would write that test off. (but it charges the hell out of others).

Thanks.

Jeff

[John_K]

Hi Matt, yes this is the same circuit. It's truely is a performer. When the first pulse occured before I got it tuned in, scared the hell out of me. Lucky I didn't blow the bulb. Now got it tuned down a bit. Here is the code so far;

Main:
;********************************
;Inverter Section
do
high 5
pause 10
low 5
pause 50
high 4
pause 10
low 4
inc b1
loop while b1 < 20
b1 = 0
;********************************
;Pulse section

high 6, 7
pause 30
low 6, 7



goto main

Thanks

Jeff

G'day Jeff,

Great job!

Thanks for the code. I think this design is great because you can run the whole circuit from just one PIC.

As you know I plan to use a 24V 200W solar panel for my input. Do you see any issues with the large variance in energy coming from the panel depending on the variable sun irridation? I want to use every joule out of the panel that I can, from a nominal 5V @0.5A, right up to 38V @ 5A. This means running it off moonlight!

I know the volatge divider will auto adjust the cap pulser frequency, but will the inverter portion still work satisfactorily between 2.5W and 200W? (or more)

Let's get this thread more active again, and please folks build "as-is" before recommending improvements or mods! Jeff, Vissie and I have done a lot of work to get this where it is already. I've got the cap pulser part working beautifully, I just need to build the inverter and voltage divider portions and then test, test, test... (I did try a SS SG in place of the inverter, however it did not work quite as well as I wanted it to)



John K.

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

Thats the same circiut you posted the other day right??

Looks good can't wait to see whole deal.

Matt

Hi Matt, yes this is the same circuit. It's truely is a performer. When the first pulse occured before I got it tuned in, scared the hell out of me. Lucky I didn't blow the bulb. Now got it tuned down a bit. Here is the code so far;

Main:
;********************************
;Inverter Section
do
high 5
pause 10
low 5
pause 50
high 4
pause 10
low 4
inc b1
loop while b1 < 20
b1 = 0
;********************************
;Pulse section

high 6, 7
pause 30
low 6, 7



goto main

Thanks

Jeff