unimaginative textbook sycophants

[smw1998a]

Lee,

I find you an honest person, and I have been reading your posts, about Bedini's charging circuits, I have not seen any overunity effect too, but I have seen cold charging and good charging, and also, better batteries afterwards, leading to more battery life, and saving $$$.

This quote of yours regarding charging the secondary battery, the thing that I did not get is that how on earth in conventional means can the primary battery charge the secondary battery when the transistor is "ON"? Yes I know that the inductor gets induced with current by the primary battery, but the diode must be off, because the potential of its anode is less that the potential of its cathode in the ON cycle, No?

Thanks beforehand
Elias

Hello Elias,
I too have have seen all the effects you mention. And, like you, I haven't found OU either but I have had many an exciting time when I thought I may have. To answer your question: Consider a simple circuit consisting of a 24v battery, connected to the positive terminal a 12v 100mA bulb. That bulb is connected to the positive terminal of a 12v battery and the negative terminal of the 12v battery is connected to the negative terminal of the 24v battery completing the loop. The 24v battery is the power source for the circuit and the 12v bulb and 12v battery are the load. Because of the bulb current is limited in the circuit to 100mA.

Kirchoff's current law is a statement about the conservation of charge flow through a circuit: at no time are charges created or destroyed. This means that that, in this simple circuit, a 100 mA current(I) will flow from the positive terminal of the 24v battery, through the bulb, the 12v battery and back to the negative side of the 24v battery, lighting the bulb and charging the 12v battery in the process with 100mA of constant current. If you were to change the bulb to one rated at 12v 200mA, then the 12v battery would see a constant current of 200mA. Change the bulb to one rated at 12v 12watt and 1 amp of continuous current will flow throughout the circuit, lighting the bulb and charging the battery with one amp of current. The bulb is limiting the current in the circuit by conversion and that current is present at all points in the circuit.

Now add a switch into this circuit, you can either add it between the 24v positive terminal and the bulb (high side switch) or you can add a switch between the negative terminals of the 12v and 24v batteries (low side switch). Now you can interrupt the flow of current in the circuit by activating the switch, opening and closing the circuit. What happens when we replace the bulb with an inductor and rapidly switch the flow of current on and off. When the switch is closed the inductor converts the current into a magnetic field around the core of the coil, this limits the current through the circuit, as the field builds less current is diverted so more current becomes available to the circuit and to the 12v battery. This is what is known as the rise time of the inductor or the coil charge. Because of the way the inductor works, current rises in the circuit as the coil charges, therefor, current also rises in the charge battery.

When the switch goes open circuit, the flow of current from the 24v battery stops instantly. Charged inductors hate this, so the inductor will no take the role of the power source by collapsing the stored magnetic field inducing a reverse the polarity potential in order to keep current flowing in the same direction as when it was abruptly switched off. If there is no closed path for the energy you get a huge voltage spike so we include a path from the negative terminal of the 12v battery to the top of the coil to allow the energy induced by the collapsing field to dissipate as current through the 12v battery. The inclusion of the blocking diode creates a closed loop during the field collapse only and blocks when the switch or transistor is conducting, charging the coil.

Regards Lee...

[smw1998a]

Interesting discussion .

@smw1998a, how do you increase your circuit efficiency? pulse shape? duty cycle? frequency? pulse steepness? geometric tuning? special coil? special recovery circuit?

Hello sucahyo,
I have attained reasonable gains from the standard SSG configuration. Firstly by replacing the rotor with a pulse generator and later controlling pulse width and frequency in relation to charge bank voltage. I would say that I managed 70% to 75% efficiency, front to back. Ossie's MSG conversion would seem to offer better efficiencies than my previous efforts, I will continue to experiment with this configuration. Inquorate's and groundloops efforts have been outstanding thus far and I'm intently observing while I asses the MSG configuration.

Regards Lee.

[Jbignes5]

Hi Jbignes5,
Again, another very thoughtful and thought provoking post. Sadly, I'm totally out of my depth on the subject of quantum physics, I have tried to get my head around some of the papers but after a while my eyes begin to glaze over just before my brains begin to run out of my ears! There is a world of difference between the ability to repeat something you have read and to truly understanding something you have read and advance that understanding. Unfortunately, I am the former on this subject but content to take your point of view on board.

Tesla I have studied, not in the detail I would like and without any experimental knowledge of my own to draw from but I will happily discuss my understanding.


This statement does not tally with my understanding. The magnifying transmitter was about earth currents. The high voltage effects that Tesla and his coil are famous for, Tesla considered wasted energy. He went to great lengths to point out the futility of transmitting energy by Hertzian means. Tesla was of the view that the radio men were pushing all their energy into the antenna, 90% and 10% to ground. The problem was that this energy was not recoverable. Tesla's method was to push the energy into the ground 90% of it, losing 10% in the antenna. Tesla was quite adamant that all of the energy put into the earth was recoverable at any point on the globe. The grounding rods for the Wardencliff transmitter went down almost as far as the tower stood high. I couldn't argue about which direction the current flows during a brush discharge but I would like to see one in person.



Although my Tesla studies are far from comprehensive, I have found no reference, in the accepted literature, of such a device we now know as the Tesla Switch. And, unfortunately, this is a very contentious device to call as proof to the ideas you have put forward, since there are very few replications that could be considered successful and certainly non that have been confirmed as over unity. I wish you success in designing your tests and I sincerely look forward to their results.

Regards Lee..

Ok you do know something about Tesla then. He concidered the hv as a waste because that is what he believed he had to pay to attract the real charges twords the hv source. Every attraction has to be payed for. Either by it's own potential source (particle) or the hv source that you have to provide to attract the energy. I am starting to understand the mechanics behind his method. Thats why voltage leads current.
Provide the attractant and the current will flow twords that attractant (hv source). He designed the top of the tower or crown with capacitor like nodes. This shield provides a separation of two potentials and give motion or em force to the coils generating the initial pulse that can be taped for current.
I think Tesla figured out that even when voltages are low they still line these string up radiating out of the copper wire attracting the real charges twords the source voltage. Thats why voltage seems to skin a wire. It isn't riding the outside of the wire the current is permeating the wire from the outside of the wire following the potentials slope.
Say one side of a battery is at +13v(Positive Terminal) and +1v (Negative Terminal). When connected to a circuit the flow would be from 13->1. This is just a potential or voltage. This flow of potential tries to balance and current gets attracted to all the traces or wires in the circuit, entering the wire from outside to the center and being attracted to the higher potential for direction of flow.
Tesla knew this stuff acted like a fluid and adhered to the rules we have formed about flows or currents. What puzzled him was where the current actually came from. He knew that if a battery had that much current it would most likely explode. Yet people used them without much happening in normal usage so there had to be a better explanation. His experiments with the Wardencliff facility were both to perfect the method he currently understood and to feel out his backer J. P. Morgan. He was still on the fence about Morgan and was very concerned all his work would be tanked. Well that is exactly what happened. Well his next move was sheer brilliance.
If you wanted to hide something and no one really knew what it was or what combination to use, where do you think you should hide it? In plain sight for all to see. Check for Tesla's Pierce Arrow on the net and you will start to understand he finally figured out how to individually supply the current from many little units without a transmitter. The transmitter was changed to an emitter that gathered real charges and used 1 way pulses of high voltage to stimulate the particles and real charges to enter his system just by providing the potential and then quickly cause the current to flow between the source and emitter.

Let me explain a possible circuit made by him and referenced in this publication as figure 5.

"Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency" by Nikola Tesla

You might want to read the whole thing as it goes into one wire transmission of potential only and how to use it for many different devices.

Figure 5 would be the equivalent of hooking a paddle wheel to the river just below the top of a waterfalls. Remember that arc spaces are considered as a one way conduit of potential that pulses by the combo of space vs cap charge.

I have made some additions to the circuit in figure 5 when I have added other things that I have deduced from his methods. The disruptive discharge transformer is hooked to two antennas. One being larger in length then the other. Making one longer and thinner increasing it's surface area over more space and the smaller one smaller more thicker. The antennas should be the same mass though. The longer thinner antenna being the + of the pulse or emitter and the load goes in between the long thin antenna and the connection to the transformer.
What should happen next is that it will raise the potential of the antenna creating an attraction of the particles that move the charges and they will form all around the antenna making connections that have near zero resistance to the environment pulling further charges into the antenna. The load is merely a resistance to the flow and will run at maximum capacity to transform into work in the load.
Lets see if that helps explain it.

[Jbignes5]

Sorry it wont let me edit my post again...

This is a theory of mine that I am working on using simple to understand fluid dynamics. Much like an engineer or mechanic would do. Much like Tesla did. I don't know it all and I am possible wrong in more then a few areas but I believe I am correct on the main aspects ot this theory.
I just need help fleshing the rest out since as you go beyond the micro to the macro there are sooo many variations and additional rules that gets applied to the fundamental rules I am fleshing out.
It seems others don't entirely see the connection or are so entrenched in their own teachings that they can't afford to look at this concept. It should be looked at fully. Just for the simple fact that Tesla originally saw this very clearly and used it.

[CatLady]

It wouldn't take your edit

This is a theory of mine that I am working on using simple to understand fluid dynamics. Much like an engineer or mechanic would do. Much like Tesla did. I don't know it all and I am possible wrong in more then a few areas but I believe I am correct on the main aspects ot this theory.
I just need help fleshing the rest out since as you go beyond the micro to the macro there are sooo many variations and additional rules that gets applied to the fundamental rules I am fleshing out.
It seems others don't entirely see the connection or are so entrenched in their own teachings that they can't afford to look at this concept. It should be looked at fully. Just for the simple fact that Tesla originally saw this very clearly and used it.

Sometimes you have to click the "Go Advanced" button to get your edits to stick.

[sucahyo]

Hello sucahyo,
I have attained reasonable gains from the standard SSG configuration. Firstly by replacing the rotor with a pulse generator and later controlling pulse width and frequency in relation to charge bank voltage. I would say that I managed 70% to 75% efficiency, front to back. Ossie's MSG conversion would seem to offer better efficiencies than my previous efforts, I will continue to experiment with this configuration. Inquorate's and groundloops efforts have been outstanding thus far and I'm intently observing while I asses the MSG configuration.

Regards Lee.

Thanks. That is good efficiency . You don't think the magnet is needed then? Also you do not believe "voltage without current" theory?

My way is sharper pulse. Not with expensive transistor, but with tricks. I believe what Tesla had use is impulse. He gain more power from the side effect of an impulse.

[elias]

Kirchoff's current law is a statement about the conservation of charge flow through a circuit: at no time are charges created or destroyed. This means that that, in this simple circuit, a 100 mA current(I)

Thanks Lee
Very comprehensive explanation. Just wanted to mention again that yes when if we do not constantly switch the inductor, we have conserved charge. But ... when the inductor is switched, new charge is added to the circuit. This can be easily verified by using capacitors instead of batteries.

Also, wanted to mention that if our 24v Battery delivers 100mA and our 12v Battery receives 190mA we have got 95% efficiency already, now if you could get around 25% mechanical efficiency from the magnetic field, you have reached cop >1 already.

Now we can see that even without considering the electret effect, we can get cop > 1.

Elias

[witsend]

When the switch goes open circuit, the flow of current from the 24v battery stops instantly. Charged inductors hate this,

Hi Lee. I have often read this and variations where you say that 'charged inductors hate this' ... open circuit condition? May I ask where the following explanation is at variance with mainstream.

Disconnect the battery and then the only potential difference on the circuit is established across the inductor. The field - measured as voltage - is also a measure of the magnetic fields previously induced by current flow in terms of inductive laws. Also in terms of inductive laws therefore, this transferred potential difference is now a new energy supply source. It seeks to discharge that potential difference by establishing an alternative path through the circuit. If a path is available or if a 'closed circuit condition' is made available through a diode or some such circuit component then it will manage that discharge. This will be in antiphase to the applied current that first charged it. Therefore the discharge would be routed through the battery in a reverse polarity, thereby recharging it.

If you study the change in the waveform it seems to marry with the evidence. And it does not need to then accommodate that requirement to force current to flow in a direction that conflicts with the evident voltage. In my humble opinion this is more consistent with inductive laws than the arbitrary requirement to insist that current still 'flows' in the same direction.

...so the inductor will no take the role of the power source by collapsing the stored magnetic field inducing a reverse the polarity potential

Agreed.

...in order to keep current flowing in the same direction as when it was abruptly switched off.

Again. My question. When is the direction of current flow ever determined by anything other than the bias evident in the voltage?

If there is no closed path for the energy you get a huge voltage spike

That voltage spike is only able to discharge when there is a reverse path opened for it's flow. Else we would see a spark discharge of that energy.

so we include a path from the negative terminal of the 12v battery to the top of the coil to allow the energy induced by the collapsing field to dissipate as current through the 12v battery. The inclusion of the blocking diode creates a closed loop during the field collapse only and blocks when the switch or transistor is conducting, charging the coil.

I realise it's semantics. Probably not important. But effectively the current would first flow clockwise - say, in closed circuit conditions - and then anti-clockwise - when the source supply is disconnected. But it achieves the same result and we've no need to vary our known inductive laws. Current does what it always does. It then only and ever flows in a direction determined by the applied voltage. In effect Inquorate and Groundloop have included that 'second path'.

EDITED

[Inquorate]

user's email to me

here it is

''Wake-up call on charging effeciency


Inquorate:



I am not disputing the fact that an inductor pulsing current into a charging battery may have some advantage over a conventional non-pulsing charging system. That would have to be confirmed with solid data.


However, this statement by you: "it has been shown that this can perform at over 90% efficiency, perhaps 100 % or more.."

Here is where you and most of the people on places like the Energetic Forum have a reality disconnect.


The only way you can prove that the efficiency is 90% is by starting with a source battery where you have timed and made measurements of the charging cycle and then discharged it and measured the energy in it. You do this several times until you "know" your battery such that you can say with confidence that your source battery has X amount of kilojoules in it. Same deal for the charging battery, you have to know how much energy is in it at the start of the test.

Then you do your charging test and then measure the energy in both batteries again. In other words what I just posted the other day in the thread.

After the test you have four pieces of data: Source battery start and end energy, and charging battery start and end energy. Only then can you calculate your charging efficiency.


I know with 100% certainty that you have never done this. Just look at the "COP > 1" thread where you and Groundloop are getting excited about battery voltages again.


I will say it again, battery voltages mean almost nothing, and if you were smart and want to be serious you will take my advice.

You have yet to prove you can use one battery to charge another battery with 90% efficiency, let alone 100% or greater. The sobering reality is that none of you have ever shown that ever because you are just measuring battery voltages.


Time to be honest now: You measure source and charging battery voltage increases but you haven't a clue how much energy is actually in the source and charging batteries.


I can tell you what you do know: 1) The source battery looses energy as heat when it powers the charging circuit. 2) The charging circuit looses energy as heat when it charges the charging battery. 3) The charging battery looses energy as heat when it is being charged.


You are just "believing" that you are demonstrating "perhaps 100 % or more" efficiency with your circuits without having a single shred of credible evidence that this is really the case.
I have give you all of the pointers on how to actually make a sound case for what you are claiming. Call it "tough love" if you want, I know that you and your fellow experimenters are all perfectly decent and good people with your hearts in the right place.


However, you have to be real about this.


I am telling you that none of your charging circuits based on pulsing inductors can produce over unity without ever having done a single test. You may think that is pretty brash but I have worked in high tech industry in one form or another for almost 30 years.


You, on the other hand, are hoping that your theories about pulsing inductors can overcome all of the losses indicated above and somehow give you charging efficiency of over 100%. Based on the numbers you quoted from the Transwiki site that means somehow you have to produce about 50% excess charging energy to overcome all of the losses that are inherent in the system.

You believe that a 50% excess energy factor comes from "somewhere." I am saying to you, FINE, time to PROVE IT.


That's the real deal Inquorate. You have to do the battery measurements based on battery ENERGY and forget about voltages because they are meaningless.

I know that this has probably been a very sobering read for you. I am not trying to be a bad gut, and I am certainly not an "unimaginative textbook sycophant." I am giving you the real deal. If you are serious then you have to do serious research. Sorry to say this, but seeing people comparing battery voltage measurements is ridiculous after a certain point in time. You have to learn and move forward and make intellectual progress.


You notice that I am not challenging any of your theories at all. Honestly I am not really all that interested. It's up to YOU to do good research and make proper measurements and then use that data to evaluate your theories.

No matter what the theory of the day is, the notion that a pulsing inductor magically picks up extra energy from "somewhere" is false. You believe otherwise. OK, so do some good research to see if your theories are backed up or not backed up by your data.

Good luck in whatever you end up doing. If you fall back into the trap of comparing battery voltages again, that's your choice. For me that would be a form of cognitive dissonance. You have to be real!


User2718218''

I must say here this is not my post.

[Inquorate]

Thanks Lee
Very comprehensive explanation. Just wanted to mention again that yes when if we do not constantly switch the inductor, we have conserved charge. But ... when the inductor is switched, new charge is added to the circuit. This can be easily verified by using capacitors instead of batteries.

Also, wanted to mention that if our 24v Battery delivers 100mA and our 12v Battery receives 190mA we have got 95% efficiency already, now if you could get around 25% mechanical efficiency from the magnetic field, you have reached cop >1 already.

Now we can see that even without considering the electret effect, we can get cop > 1.

Elias

That's pretty much how I see it too. Thankyou for your comments everyone, they are very reasonable, sober and considered.

A wonderful open debate amongst peers

[witsend]

Inquorate. Not sure of the relevance of that last post. I often get unsolicited correspondence. Just this morning I answered one such as follows.

I see now where you are coming in. You are one of those debunkers who are as compulsively anxious to disprove breach of energy barrier claims as there are those who are equally compulsively anxious to prove them. I'm afraid I'm rather bored with both sides of this compulsion and life is just way to short to get embroiled in any such discussion,

Please feel free to debunk to your heart's content. I have learned how irrelevant all such opinion is. For every new convert 'for' is a new convert 'against' - on either side of this argument. Statistically it all evens out - and interest in the subject is then the only happy beneficiary. I'm always delighted to see the fruits of such efforts. It is my opinion that all such proponents, for and against, are only trying to strengthen a weak foundational 'belief' structure. At issue here is something that is entirely to do with science and science has nothing to do with 'belief'."

If User2718218 would perhaps see how much he is actually advancing the knowledge then I think he'd be rather sorry. And more to the point - what argument will he apply to this application from a utility supply source. The same principle applies. Only the circuit is changed. Battery vagaries account for small variations. But absolutely no mainstream argument allows for one flat battery to recharge another flat battery and vice versa. Just no such animal. It's ground breaking work - however you guys want to evaluate the consequent efficiencies.

Again - let me qualify this. In my humble opinion. LOL

[smw1998a]

Frequency Controlled SSG

Thanks. That is good efficiency . You don't think the magnet is needed then? Also you do not believe "voltage without current" theory?

Hi sucahyo,
In the standard SSG configuration the magnets around the rotor decrease front to back efficiency. So no, I don't think the magnets are needed. It's not that I don't believe the "voltage without current theory along with the mass-less charge" specific to the SG, I have simply been unable to discount the effects of the current in the system built as specified. You need current to repel a magnet and to charge a coil, when that coil discharges it returns a large part of that current to the charge batteries. Many argue that you need to switch quickly so as not to allow current to build up in the system but this approach reduces the coil charge to such a degree that you simply can't maintain rotation and the resulting coil discharge is so feeble the charge battery just doesn't charge.

The 70% to 75% COP is far greater than any rotor based SSG I have built. Reducing frequency to prevent the charge battery from exceeding 14.5 volts also played a large part in obtaining these results due to greater charge acceptance. I have attached the schematic of the SSG circuit used and a short load test plot. In this plot you can see the usual increase in load performance after each 12 hour charge cycle, small, but significant for a 5Ah SLA.





Regards Lee

[smw1998a]

Hello Elias,

Just wanted to mention again that yes when if we do not constantly switch the inductor, we have conserved charge. But ... when the inductor is switched, new charge is added to the circuit. This can be easily verified by using capacitors instead of batteries.

This is not quite accurate. The inductor is only returning energy it has previously stored during the coil charge, this energy was taken from the 24v supply, so no new charge is added it was temporarily stored in a magnetic field and then returned to the circuit with losses. Because the coil and 12v battery are in series the load is effectively a potential divider, actually best look at the 12v battery as a reversed zener diode, anyway, either way the coil only sees half of the 24v supply so the coil is effectively charging from a 12v supply but the current that passes through the coil during this process also passes through the 12v charge battery.

I used 100mA as an arbitrary average, the current rise through a coil starts at zero and follows an exponential curve toward magnetic saturation. That is to say, a coil reaches two thirds of its saturated state in one third of the time it takes to become magnetically saturated. Figure out how long it takes for for your particular coil to become saturated and as long as your coil charge stays below one third of that time you will obtain a relatively large magnetic field in proportion to input current. The energy output from a collapsing field is always a proportion of the energy used to create it. A capacitor will only charge to a smaller proportion of that stored energy. If you have a capacitor of small capacitance it could charge to 100v or more from a single pulse. If, however the capacitance was large a single pulse would charge the capacitor to 3 of 4 volts. the same energy is expended in both cases.

If a coil stored 100 units of energy (I used 100 again) during the collapse, first the coil has to raise its potential in order for current to flow, in this case 12v, the voltage of the charge battery. The coil could spend 35 units of energy generating enough potential difference to allow current to flow from the magnetic field to the battery, once it does all of the stored energy is used simply trying to maintain that difference in potential. Once 80 units of energy or so have been spent the coil can no longer maintain the potential difference and no more current can flow. This leaves a proportion of energy trapped in the field around the windings, in the SG circuit this is dealt with but usually the remaining energy will oscillate at high frequency between a point of equilibrium until the energy is finally spent, usually referred to as ringing.

The 100mA output of the 24v bank represents the same amount of energy as 200mA shared between charging the coil and charging the battery when the switch conducts. When the switch opens the 100mA we invested charging out coil is returned to the circuit with losses, clearly an under unity process.

now if you could get around 25% mechanical efficiency from the magnetic field, you have reached cop >1 already.

If you are referring to the much quoted 25% free mechanical from the rotor this is in fact incorrect.

Now we can see that even without considering the electret effect, we can get cop > 1.

The electret effect is exactly that, an effect. Only when it can be used to produce viable and accessible energy should it be considered as additive to a system.

Best regards Lee...

[Jbignes5]

Hello Elias,


This is not quite accurate. The inductor is only returning energy it has previously stored during the coil charge, this energy was taken from the 24v supply, so no new charge is added it was temporarily stored in a magnetic field and then returned to the circuit with losses. Because the coil and 12v battery are in series the load is effectively a potential divider, actually best look at the 12v battery as a reversed zener diode, anyway, either way the coil only sees half of the 24v supply so the coil is effectively charging from a 12v supply but the current that passes through the coil during this process also passes through the 12v charge battery.

I used 100mA as an arbitrary average, the current rise through a coil starts at zero and follows an exponential curve toward magnetic saturation. That is to say, a coil reaches two thirds of its saturated state in one third of the time it takes to become magnetically saturated. Figure out how long it takes for for your particular coil to become saturated and as long as your coil charge stays below one third of that time you will obtain a relatively large magnetic field in proportion to input current. The energy output from a collapsing field is always a proportion of the energy used to create it. A capacitor will only charge to a smaller proportion of that stored energy. If you have a capacitor of small capacitance it could charge to 100v or more from a single pulse. If, however the capacitance was large a single pulse would charge the capacitor to 3 of 4 volts. the same energy is expended in both cases.

If a coil stored 100 units of energy (I used 100 again) during the collapse, first the coil has to raise its potential in order for current to flow, in this case 12v, the voltage of the charge battery. The coil could spend 35 units of energy generating enough potential difference to allow current to flow from the magnetic field to the battery, once it does all of the stored energy is used simply trying to maintain that difference in potential. Once 80 units of energy or so have been spent the coil can no longer maintain the potential difference and no more current can flow. This leaves a proportion of energy trapped in the field around the windings, in the SG circuit this is dealt with but usually the remaining energy will oscillate at high frequency between a point of equilibrium until the energy is finally spent, usually referred to as ringing.

The 100mA output of the 24v bank represents the same amount of energy as 200mA shared between charging the coil and charging the battery when the switch conducts. When the switch opens the 100mA we invested charging out coil is returned to the circuit with losses, clearly an under unity process.


If you are referring to the much quoted 25% free mechanical from the rotor this is in fact incorrect.



The electret effect is exactly that, an effect. Only when it can be used to produce viable and accessible energy should it be considered as additive to a system.

Best regards Lee...

Would you agree or disagree that everything in our universe is a radiating event? Meaning if I viewed an object I can view that object from any angle because it radiates in every possible direction. That sounds logical right?
Well what Tesla did was prove that no matter what the voltage (static charge) is it radiates. Even wires, traces, chips and anything else you can think of. It all radiates in some fashion or form. Well that's where the current comes from. It is an attraction to the voltage (static charge) in a wire of these little porcupine looking threads radiating out of the wire. These threads are the vehicle of real charges and the Static charges that are present in the wire attracts the current (real charges) twords the voltage. This looks like a tube that has holes cut into it and filled with water to a certain pressure (voltage only) What comes back through those threads or streams is the actual input from the surrounding environment into the wire and follows the voltage potential in a backwards fashion. So in simple terms voltage goes out and at the same time current flows in based on the strength of the voltage or ability to line up those minute particles that provide movement to the real charges.
A battery could in all effects be a static device where in the acid(water mix) is the actuator and the plate is the static receiver from all the acid/water rushing at the plate. Since lead is very very dense the action of the acid on the plate will consume it but only from the collisions of the acid that is attracted to the plate. This action causes static to form on the plates and static is proportionate to the area exposed to the acid rushing twords it. I honestly believe we have had the concepts entirely wrong the whole time. Energy can never be created nor destroyed because it is static in nature. When a vehicle is provided it becomes mobile or dynamic. This could come from the very action of these minute particles flowing through a fluid like (plasma?) substance at that resolution. The shape of the particle is crystaline in nature. Meaning it is near no surface at the tip and a very large surface at the base. The tip has a focusing point and when compared to the rear or base of the shape it has a denser charge value on it.
Tesla also experimented with shapes (conical coils) with rather astonishing results. It could be our little vehicle could be made of crystal with a metal doping. This could explain the attractive static nature to the object and the conductive nature as well. Remember that planks distance is in effect at all time with dealing in this resolution. Meaning nothing really touches at this fundamental level and induction would be the rule for transfer of the real charges.
Since there is no real evidence of magnetics other then lines of force it could be that once the area that the item in question is, it displaces the medium it is in. It causes potential differences between the shape and orientation of the planes these lines are naturally lined up in and that gets radiated beyond the surfaces. The physical material of that object causing attraction and repulsion and directionalism. This is what we have mistaken for magnetics (classical) and current (classical).
Has anyone ever wondered why does a wire burn out only in one little spot and not the whole wire? Yes it is a physical defect but it is from the real charges entering the wire through these lines and hitting resistances to it's flow twords the voltage potential. Kinda like a damn of wood blocks a stream. Once the real charges get blocked they build up and produce a physical change in the medium it is in, in effect overloading the physical material with an excess of energy(real charges). Much like the effects we see entering a Tesla coil on the tip. If one studies the brush "discharges" One would see that actually the energy is flowing into the tip from the surrounding area through lines. Additive lines at that. Look at a map and one can see that from the source of water to the ending it is an additive event. Streams flow into rivers and so on. This is the same effect that these "Discharges" follow. In the example of the streams the cutting of the land allows more force as it flows to it's destination the further along it's path it follows. Well this is exactly what is happening with these "discharges" except the vehicle is not a grove cut by the vehicle it is a static alignment of these basic shaped vehicles and these lines are very powerful, a near perfect conductor because the static does not flow through the vehicle only around it.
Does anyone follow this line of logic?

[elias]

Hello Elias,

This is not quite accurate. The inductor is only returning energy it has previously stored during the coil charge, this energy was taken from the 24v supply, so no new charge is added it was temporarily stored in a magnetic field and then returned to the circuit with losses. Because the coil and 12v battery are in series the load is effectively a potential divider, actually best look at the 12v battery as a reversed zener diode, anyway, either way the coil only sees half of the 24v supply so the coil is effectively charging from a 12v supply but the current that passes through the coil during this process also passes through the 12v charge battery.

This is difficult ...
But let me see, we'd better give a clear distinction between "charge" and "energy".

Charge = Q
Current = I
Voltage = V
Energy = E

Q = C * V

I cannot say anything regarding the energy for now, but, I am 100% sure that you can increase the charge in your system.
-I have explained this in this thread before, but for the record, just replace the 24V battery with a capacitor C1 charged with 24V and the 12V battery a capacitor C2 discharged, and both C1 and C2 have capacitance C.

Experiment one:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them, without switching. You would end up having 12V on each capacitor.

Experiment two:
Discharge C1 through a Coil to C2, with a diode across them with switching.
You will end up having more than 12V on each capacitor depending on the switching frequency and the inductance of the coil. e. g. 16V

So it is evident that in experiment two we have increased the total charge in the system, not? So what did we learn in physics school? Conservation of Charge? Laws?

This shows that the inductor is adding something from somewhere to the circuit and it is not simply storing "energy" or "charge" as the physics instructor would say.

Regards
Elias