Time Machine switch

[StweenyA]

- yeah good one huh?

Hob, give me time. I'm not promising I'll share it but I may at some point because I don't have time to deal with it.

The load isn't powered by normal hot current. But I know if I release even part of it without the main load, people will see the switch and will swear it is the load even though I'm saying it is not.

Anyway, it is how you drew the cross over from both sides that I remembered the most and that was exactly how I drew mine and the flip flop back and forth is important.

It can power a load and keep batteries charged up - they will eventually go down so it isn't perpetual but the cop is waaay over 1.0.

I have never built a Tesla Switch in concept as done in the Tesla Switch thread. As soon as it went digital, I tuned out and never paid attention to it since. But from what I gather, this is similar in concept to the Tesla Switch methods. We'll see.

If you invented it, how about making it open source already? Open source does pay, more than just talking about it anyway. Clock is ticking!

Is it at all related to my my thread on energy shuttling? If so, you can post it there.

[Matthew Jones]

Thank you for your response, Matthew.....
What I've presented is more to the tune of a practical nature, whereby
I am not attempting to mislead anyone but instead point out how the
system is described to work.

No I am not saying your trying to mislead anybody, I am just saying I think you are reading far to much into it. No where is radiant energy mentioned.

If you look at it in simplest terms it is what we call a slow TS possibly with an oscillator that back feeds the system.

This is not hard to accomplish. There is no big mystery. Thats my opinion anyway.

Matt

[Aaron]

time machine switch

/Hob

- yeah good one huh?

Hob, give me time. I'm not promising I'll share it but I may at some point because I don't have time to deal with it.

The load isn't powered by normal hot current. But I know if I release even part of it without the main load, people will see the switch and will swear it is the load even though I'm saying it is not.

Anyway, it is how you drew the cross over from both sides that I remembered the most and that was exactly how I drew mine and the flip flop back and forth is important.

It can power a load and keep batteries charged up - they will eventually go down so it isn't perpetual but the cop is waaay over 1.0.

I have never built a Tesla Switch in concept as done in the Tesla Switch thread. As soon as it went digital, I tuned out and never paid attention to it since. But from what I gather, this is similar in concept to the Tesla Switch methods. We'll see.

Thank you for your response, Matthew

The way it is built in Benitez' patent 191514 is not representative
of continually switching the batteries one way or another in order
to gather radiant energy into the system in order to power a load.

It seems to be nowhere near what could be considered a 'Tesla Switch'.

By the following statement,

Until it is shown to work according to the way he has presented it,
any effort placed in finding a brand new way to accomplish what he
has placed in view ought to be less than productive.

What was meant is that deviation from the version I have posted
above with color-coded paths indicating direction of flow ought
to be counterproductive when considering that the way it works is
precisely outlined within the patent... and that without first
building it the way it is shown and described, how is progress to
be made in finding the results of its efficiency ratio?

So why are other systems going to be less productive?

What I'm referring to is not as you state. The production output
of the system is unknown.

If you agree that its a good practice to stick to the plans
when building a circuit, then there is nothing more to question.

What I've presented is more to the tune of a practical nature, whereby
I am not attempting to mislead anyone but instead point out how the
system is described to work.

[Matthew Jones]

It may be that my words are stating the obvious in regards to the
manner in which Benitez' system in his 191514 patent actually works
compared to the way it is being otherwise presented.

1) There are not any diodes being used in the switching portion.

2) The switches 5,6,7,8 do not oscillate for the same purpose of
producing energy as is brought forth by the other diagrams.

3) While Benitez states at the end of page 2 that the spark gap and
accompanying transformer windings may be omitted under certain conditions,
there is still mentioned the use of a secondary winding connected
back onto the primary of 15.

These three are the most prevalent differences I'm noticing.

The only additional work that might be prudent to show is a proper
way in which to interrupt the coil with ends at 16 and 17. Anything
more or less than is shown or thought to be in this figure by Benitez
would be in natural opposition to the goal of replication.

Until it is shown to work according to the way he has presented it,
any effort placed in finding a brand new way to accomplish what he
has placed in view ought to be less than productive.

Nilrehob, your results with Variant 3 seems to be demonstrating a
curious effect of what occurrs in a version more closely resembling
Benitez system than any other thus far documented; time well spent
on laying the foundation for what could be a true producer.

It is certain that our combined effort will prevail in replication
of this phenomenon.

I am not sure why it is you think this is anything other than "Tesla Switch" powering a transformer.
The only difference between his and current models are they were run on Galvanic Batteries, that could store an extra charge above what they were producing. This allowed him to then add energy the system continually while also retaining a portion of what he passed through the transformer.
His systems did not run continually but they continually feed energy into the system and at best produced more energy than was actually contained in the reaction of the batteries.

So whats the big deal?

Already there are systems out there that can charge there own batteries and produce use full work.
Many, Many ways to accomplish this as well.
The last 3 systems I have built produced any where from 50 - 150 times more work than energy stored in the batteries.
I have even done one in the ground with galvanic batteries. It ran continually for 2 months until the aluminum rotted out with many different kinds of loads.


So why are other systems going to be less productive?

I think it takes more than a read through a patten to formulate a good valid opinion.

Matt

[nilrehob]

You ALREADY posted these out in the open for a long time so you're not posting anything new. I only said that your circuit appeared to be similar and that is what I wanted to see.

/Hob

It may be that my words are stating the obvious in regards to the
manner in which Benitez' system in his 191514 patent actually works
compared to the way it is being otherwise presented.

1) There are not any diodes being used in the switching portion.

2) The switches 5,6,7,8 do not oscillate for the same purpose of
producing energy as is brought forth by the other diagrams.

3) While Benitez states at the end of page 2 that the spark gap and
accompanying transformer windings may be omitted under certain conditions,
there is still mentioned the use of a secondary winding connected
back onto the primary of 15.

These three are the most prevalent differences I'm noticing.

The only additional work that might be prudent to show is a proper
way in which to interrupt the coil with ends at 16 and 17. Anything
more or less than is shown or thought to be in this figure by Benitez
would be in natural opposition to the goal of replication.

Until it is shown to work according to the way he has presented it,
any effort placed in finding a brand new way to accomplish what he
has placed in view ought to be less than productive.

Nilrehob, your results with Variant 3 seems to be demonstrating a
curious effect of what occurrs in a version more closely resembling
Benitez system than any other thus far documented; time well spent
on laying the foundation for what could be a true producer.

It is certain that our combined effort will prevail in replication
of this phenomenon.

[Aaron]

@Nilrehob

I have showed You mine, now let's see Yours.

/Hob

You ALREADY posted these out in the open for a long time so you're not posting anything new. I only said that your circuit appeared to be similar and that is what I wanted to see.

During the process outlined by Benitez in pages 1-3 of his patent 191514,
the relative polarity of the condenser 14 is able to be changed through
modifying the position of the two-pole switches 6 and 7, along with the
single-throws 5 and 8.

The reason the system works is due to an interruptor, not pictured
on the primary transformer coil 15 from the first full-page figure
showing the four batteries. This is stated to be so in line 12 of
page 2, through the omission of a part number in reference to it.

It seems that the main switches are only thrown when the level of voltage
reaching the two batteries on charge is not sufficient to increase their
stored energy reserve.

[nilrehob]

Ok, will see what the similarities are.

I have showed You mine, now let's see Yours.

/Hob

[Aaron]

similarities

Ok, will see what the similarities are.

[nilrehob]

Nilrehob,

Geotron posted this:



Wasn't that yours too?

Yes, one of many,
but since its a vanilla tesla switch in my opinion
(although with nice spike-handling)
I disregarded it in this context.

Was it really this one you referred to?
The video: ‪Tesla-switch part 3‬‏ - YouTube
the diagram:


/Hob

[Aaron]

Nilrehob

Nilrehob,

Geotron posted this:



Wasn't that yours too?

[nilrehob]

Hob,

Did you find your diagram?

The pile of diagrams on my computer is overwhelming,
so its quite an undertaking to search there,

and the forum has forced me to remove some from here,
but if its still here on the forum my guess is this one:



Its the only one that sticks out in my opinion.

/Hob

With the diodes directly below the coil as shown, does this have
the effect of pulling energy through lower righthand cell from
the upper lefthand one?



Another perspective
-------------------------