Free Energy is here

[ren]

I always wanted to ask this AC

What is the significance of placing the HSI in the positive leg of the circuit? I note that the monopole is configured like this, that is the inductive coil is connected directly to the positive terminal of the source at all times. Teslas ozone patent (and your subsequent doc) shows the HSI being isolated from the sources positive terminal at all times the switch is open, by being placed in the negative leg of the circuit. As you state, the DC/DC step up converter is configured with the HSI in the positive leg, so why did Tesla place it in the negative leg? Does it make a difference?


Regards

(and thanks for the doc)

[Allcanadian]

@Ren

What is the significance of placing the HSI in the positive leg of the circuit? I note that the monopole is configured like this, that is the inductive coil is connected directly to the positive terminal of the source at all times. Teslas ozone patent (and your subsequent doc) shows the HSI being isolated from the sources positive terminal at all times the switch is open, by being placed in the negative leg of the circuit. As you state, the DC/DC step up converter is configured with the HSI in the positive leg, so why did Tesla place it in the negative leg? Does it make a difference?

LOL, thank you
If I ever wanted to know what an educated person really knows I would ask them one question--what is electricity, magnetism and gravity?-- and in this respect I am not speaking of effects I am asking "what" they are.

At this point mass confusion usually rears it's ugly head, forget about circuits and electrical theory---if you can answer this question you can produce any amount of energy you desire-anywhere. How many of the people here do you think can answer this question?
Concerning the negative terminal, I use electron notation--the negative terminal is a compression, the positive terminal is a lack of compression equal but opposite to the negative terminal. One above ambient---one below, if the HSI asserts it's inertia through an inductive discharge then the compression is ahead of the HSI, If the HSI discharges into the positive terminal then you are trying to compress an area "lacking" compression--a vacuum of sorts. If you compress a vacuum you get "nothing" or ambient conditions, the two opposite conditions have ceased to exist. This makes little or no sense but this is how every conventional DC/DC converter is constructed. A better way would be to use this compression against a capacitor plate to fully charge it instead of discharging the battery. At low potential we rarely see the difference between a positive condition and a negative condition but at high potential each has very different qualities as does the space surrounding each opposite condition.
I made the polarity backwards on the source battery of the new circuit I posted to see if anybody was actually paying attention. I know you were--excellent!
I should note that this effect may make little difference but if we are speaking of free energy we are speaking of maximum attainable efficiency in which case everything matters--every little thing.
Regards
AC

[anut]

Somewhere in your article, you said:

"For myself this was proof that a self sustaining system was possible and that useful amounts of energy could be extracted from what is essentially an “open system”."

I presume you consider your circuit as an open system. Could you tell us which part(s) in your circuit actually extracts energy from outside? Could you kindly post any test data?

Thank you for your enlightening response in advance.

[Sephiroth]

Somewhere in your article, you said:

"For myself this was proof that a self sustaining system was possible and that useful amounts of energy could be extracted from what is essentially an “open system”."

I presume you consider your circuit as an open system. Could you tell us which part(s) in your circuit actually extracts energy from outside? Could you kindly post any test data?

Thank you for your enlightening response in advance.

From what I understand from the pdf, Allcanadian is suggesting that the energy of a magnetic field formed by an inductor is independant of the energy put into the circuit. The only losses are resistive and leave the circuit as heat.

I believe the energy from the magnetic field is possibly formed by the negentropic properties of the vacuum.

Or, as allcanadian suggested in another thread about jo newman's research, the magnetic field is formed by the allignment of the copper atoms when they are exposed to voltage. Eitherway, the magnetic field is independant of the energy input into the system and is formed by the surroundings space making it an open system.

I really like the concept of this circuit and on paper it works very well. I will give it a go tonight! Thanks allcanadian!

[ren]

Somewhere in your article, you said:

"For myself this was proof that a self sustaining system was possible and that useful amounts of energy could be extracted from what is essentially an “open system”."

I presume you consider your circuit as an open system. Could you tell us which part(s) in your circuit actually extracts energy from outside? Could you kindly post any test data?

Thank you for your enlightening response in advance.

I dont think it extracts or collects extra energy Anut. I stand to be corrected, but I think what AC is implying is that work can be done without the source rapidly depleting. A properly tuned and balanced system will still have some losses, there is no perfect conductors for us as small time tinkerers to use as such, so resistance will always be a factor. I think Sep nearly got it right, Sep I dont think the field is independant of the energy put in. I think that the transformation of the input energy in the form of an inductive discharge needs to be utilised correctly. The magnetic field can do the work for us, and all the pieces need to be collected afterwards. This will always be an uphill battle if one thinks conventionally, trying to close the loop or couple their loads in direct shorts to parts of the circuits. But unconventionally one can draw upon the momentum of inductive and capacitive discharges, keeping them within the circuit, or using them to top up or return to source.

I like the way AC said this:

"the negative terminal is a compression, the positive terminal is a lack of compression equal but opposite to the negative terminal. One above ambient---one below, if the HSI asserts it's inertia through an inductive discharge then the compression is ahead of the HSI, If the HSI discharges into the positive terminal then you are trying to compress an area "lacking" compression--a vacuum of sorts. If you compress a vacuum you get "nothing" or ambient conditions, the two opposite conditions have ceased to exist."

Equal but opposite Think about it. If the area of compression and its equal area of non compression are shorted together then the conditions void themselves, and cease to be. Sure work is done, but at the cost of this voidance.

[Allcanadian]

@Anut

I presume you consider your circuit as an open system. Could you tell us which part(s) in your circuit actually extracts energy from outside? Could you kindly post any test data?

I like to keep things simple , If almost all of the current which flows through an inductor to produce it's magnetic field can be recovered then where does the energy for the inductive discharge come from?. This inductive discharge can be 90% of the input to the inductor but 90% of the input has already been conserved in a seperate capacitor. So where did the energy to produce the magnetic field come from?

[Jetijs]

Thank you AC for this thread!

[DavidE]

http://science.uniserve.edu.au/school/curric/stage6/phys/stw2002/sefton.pdf

[gmeat]

Hi All,


Hmmm,Pressure aye .


-Gary

[anut]

@Anut

I like to keep things simple , If almost all of the current which flows through an inductor to produce it's magnetic field can be recovered then where does the energy for the inductive discharge come from?. This inductive discharge can be 90% of the input to the inductor but 90% of the input has already been conserved in a seperate capacitor. So where did the energy to produce the magnetic field come from?

Would you mind to show us some of your experimental results? I 'm sure all of us are eager to understand how your system can save us from our dependence on our electricity suppliers.

[Allcanadian]

@Ren

This will always be an uphill battle if one thinks conventionally, trying to close the loop or couple their loads in direct shorts to parts of the circuits. But unconventionally one can draw upon the momentum of inductive and capacitive discharges, keeping them within the circuit, or using them to top up or return to source.

I would agree, there is a circuit called the "Tesla switch" utilizing four batteries,some switches, two capacitors and an inductive load. In almost every post I have seen concerning this circuit everyone is completely pre-occupied with the switching of the parallel/series battery arrangement, but this is not the source of power. The source of power was completely ignored, it is two capacitors and a large self-inductance. The batteries in the parallel/series (splitting the positive) arrangement does nothing but equalize the charge/discharge conditions but this is not a source of power. When the HSI discharges inductively it charges one capacitor, this same capacitor in the next cycle will act in series with the source charging the other capacitor to a greater potential(source plus inductive discharge). This cycle continues whereby the inductive discharge bleeds through the electrolytic capacitors and recharges the batteries, because an electrolytic capacitor has the property of being able to act like a capacitor or a diode allowing current flow though it depending on the polarity. I wonder how many people even know an electrolytic capacitor has this property? Or how many people assumed they already knew how the Tesla switch worked and jumped to conclusions?
My point here is that as you say "we must think unconventionally", we must understand the properties of the components and the qualities of the current. All these calculations and equations people have been doing have not yeilded any success in any way, their circuits do what any other circuit in the last 100 years has done---discharge the source. The only thing my circuits have done is reduce the number of batteries which is hardly revolutionary in any way.
Regards
AC

[Matthew Jones]

Thats funny thing you brought up about the tesla switch. You make it sound like you figured it out. I think (just my opinion) your definition missed the ball.

The capacitor doesn't have anything to do with the charging of the batteries in the case of a Tesla Switch. In fact your charging rate is reduced from the capacitors. The capacitors are put inline to reduce the strain on the batteries.

The charging of the batteries is a condition within battery that the circiut induces. Turning the load on turning it off then slamming with higher voltage.
The induces a condition that draws non divergent energy into the battery and allows it to be condensed into useful power. You don't need a motor to make this happen. You dont need any magnetic device in the system. You just have to stay off the ground even for switching.

I am in agreement with some of these people NOW. Maybe you should show some test results or a video of at least one working device. Not to prove concept, but to add credentials to what you say. Up until now I was struggling to follow the conversation, but you went and dragged in the Tesla Switch and missed, BAD!

Matt

[Sephiroth]

Calm down Mat Do we really know for certain how the tesla switch works? Surely all we can know is that it works (and you can only know that if you have built a working model). The rest is theory. I think allcanadian's explanation is as good as any I have heard, and immediatly saw the similarities in his circuit and the tesla switch... A one battery tesla switch. Positive flowing back to the positive. But there is still one part of the circuit that needs to be added for the circuit to behave like a tesla switch. It may not be needed, but I was suprised it was omitted. I'm having fun with this circuit

[broli]

But it's true. Why is every question about data being evaded by "prove it yourself" talk? How are you supposed to cooperate like this.

The theory is all nice and diddly but I don't think many people care about that. Sorry AC but you need to be a little cooperative and a bit less mysterious.

[Matthew Jones]

@Seph

I'm calm. I'm pointing out what I have seen. Based on what I have done.

I've had 4 working models too date. I have duplicated the battery effect in several different scenerio's similiar to the tesla switch. Charge, offtime, Discharge and repeat will always produce energy in the battery.
This is the same effect that shows up in the original Bedini energizer. Its not the High voltage spikes the are creating energy they are compacting the energy that freely flows back into the battery after you discharge it.
Discharge a battery and stop. Whats happens to the potential on a battery. It grows immediatly. Why if just took energy out of the battery does the charge come back so fast, even if what remain of the load is removed.

Non divergent energy flow back into the battery from the vacuum.

This same energy will disappear as rapidly as it appeared. Unless condensed and induces into Useable energy.

Discharge, OFF, Charge.

I don't want to drag the conversation off the subject of the circiut he presented. I already admitted I only half follow whats going on with it. I am one of those people who does not know until I actually start puttin my hands on it. Till I see it run.

All I am trying to say is he needs to put his stuff into the light of theory, or show somthing. In MY very best and educated opinion he does not understand the tesla switch. In his theory he disregards the exchange of energy with the enviroment. Which is the key to any device that is COP>1 to self powering.
So now I have to question his schematic. And all I am saying is he could reenforce his theories by showing some operation. Or just say its pure theory.

Matt