What do Bedini, Tesla, Imhotep, and Heins all have in common?

[pha3z]

Found a great blog for beginners in radiant energy and energy from the vacuum. Might even be good for experienced users who want a general overview of the technology.

Energy Is Free

[electronicsounds]

well explained.

well done for the good explanation you gave, it can easily put a beginner on the right track and help those interested in the field for long consolidate all the information they've gathered. One think I am not so sure about, the 100% efficiency argument. If I remember correctly as it has been quite long since I watched energy from the vacuum documentary where Tom Bearden states that no system can have 100% or more efficiency, it is the Coefficient of power (COP) that can exceed 1 which is not normal for the systems we are currently used to. But still thanks for the time invested to put your knowledge to all

[pha3z]

Woops. Here's the link to the PDF from 2006:

http://www.vakuumenergie.de/doc/Coef...Efficiency.pdf

[quantumuppercut]

Thermodynamics always concern about two things: Your input and desired output. Most of the time they put output over input to make a meaningful fraction. Depends on what system or how you define the sytem, they take different meanings.

In a steam cycle, you input heat and extract works through a turbine. The work done by the turbine is output work, but they are less than the heat you put in. Since you are responsible for the total input, it will always be less than 100%. They then call it effiency.

In a heat pump, you input work to move heat from two reservoir. The heat moved is the output desire. In this case, you are not responsible for the total input (because the environment put in some or most of the heat), it can be greater than 100%. They call it COP.

Your explaination makes good sense, the energy comes from the evironment. People always point at the heat pump to justify the extra energy, but I will point out something of more value.

There is something Tesla pointed out a long time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversi...thermodynamics)
"Historically, the term Tesla principle was used to describe (amongst other things) certain reversible processes invented by Nikola Tesla.[4] However, this phrase is no longer in conventional use. The principle was that some systems could be reversed and operated in a complementary manner. It was developed during Tesla's research in alternating currents where the current's magnitude and direction varied cyclically. During a demonstration of the Tesla turbine, the disks revolved and machinery fastened to the shaft was operated by the engine. If the turbine's operation was reversed, the disks acted as a pump.[5]"

We can also apply Tesla's principle to a heat pump. A heat pump use work to move heat. In reverse, you can use heat to "pump" work with a similar COP.

If one see electricity as heat and magnetism as work. It can be seen that when recovering electricity from collapsing magnetic field, work must be done from the environment to the coil.

[gyula]

.....
If one see electricity as heat and magnetism as work. It can be seen that when recovering electricity from collapsing magnetic field, work must be done from the environment to the coil.

Hi,

Would like to ask whether you have managed to get the environment to do work to your coil when you recovered electricity from collapsing magnetic fields?

I am interested because so far I have never managed to get any extra work from the environment when collected the coils spikes caused be the collapsed flux fields. Here I mean using fast recovery diodes and a low ON resistance switch and a good quality capacitor for catching and storing the energy contained in the collapsing field. My best COP has been between 0.7-0.8, I have not received anything from the environment, unfortunately.

Thanks, Gyula

[bugler]

I am reposting this as a new thread because my old thread title was lame and noone responded!! But I really need people to do a peer-review of sorts on my work.

Hi pha3z,

I saw the videos in your blogs. You put videos of bad explanations of free electricity. I found very interesting the 1st video but as you say that explanation is poor.
At the end the guy show a drawing of an engine producing free electricity but I don't understand anything.

Can't this information explain in clear terms?
Can't anyone replicate the motor to produce electricty based on the video?

Thanks.

[pha3z]

Gyula,

How are your coils constructed? Every John Bedini coil calls for segments of Welding Rod as the core. There are some posts to be found on this forum, where people have done tests comparing air core, iron core, and welding rod core. Iron is claimed to perform poorly because the hysteresis losses cause any radiant energy to be soaked up before it can get into the circuit effectively. Air doesn't seem to do well either. They say that welding rod is a decent off-the-shelf alloy for optimizing the effect.

I haven't seen any results of people having tested with Electrical Steel, which is disappointing. I would really like to see that tested. If you've got the cutting tools for it, you could cut yourself a piece of an old transformer core out and use that for a test. These transformers can be found all over the place. Appliances, wall-mounted AC-DC adapters, etc.

The way in which the coil is wound also has a profound effect. Take a look at Tesla's Bifilar Pancake Coil patent where he compares a plain pancake coil with a series-wound bifilar coil. He specifically says in the patent that the series-would bifilar coil has an energy capacitance that is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the regular coil. Since energy from the vacuum is dependent on a circuit's capacitance, you could guess that means this will have a significant impact on your performance.
- Jim

[quantumuppercut]

Hi,

Would like to ask whether you have managed to get the environment to do work to your coil when you recovered electricity from collapsing magnetic fields?

I am interested because so far I have never managed to get any extra work from the environment when collected the coils spikes caused be the collapsed flux fields. Here I mean using fast recovery diodes and a low ON resistance switch and a good quality capacitor for catching and storing the energy contained in the collapsing field. My best COP has been between 0.7-0.8, I have not received anything from the environment, unfortunately.

Thanks, Gyula

hi Gyula,

No, the environment do work on the coil regardless if you recover electricity or not. I do not advocate that on a coil discharge, they have more energy. Hm... let's see how I can put this. The term COP you're speaking of consist of your input as charging the coil. Your output as coil recovering. If you see it in that term, COP = effiency =<100% . However, the energy generate and giving back from the environment is 200%. One going out and one going back in for the net of zero work. Therefore, COP>1 only seeing in term of

energy from magnetic field
--------------------------- = COP
energy input - energy recovery

[gyula]

Hi Jim,

I understand that different coils in these pulse circuits can behave very differently. I used soft ferrite cores and old traditional transformer cores (with the usual 4% Si content) i.e. laminations for my collapsing field tests. I have not used welding rods.
However, I understand you think mainly in systems rather than only collapsing fields energy collection and my question to quantumuppercut was involving only the latter because I understood the last part of his text dealt with that circumstance, I quote it from him:
"If one see electricity as heat and magnetism as work. It can be seen that when recovering electricity from collapsing magnetic field, work must be done from the environment to the coil."

This is why I asked if he already experienced the environment did some extra work in his coil and recovered some more power than he entered the coil. I did not mean I have had a complete system as you mainly refer to in your blogs, built by different inventors, I meant specifically a pulsed coil and then collect the energy in a cap from the collapsed fields.

rgds, Gyula

Gyula,

How are your coils constructed? Every John Bedini coil calls for segments of Welding Rod as the core. There are some posts to be found on this forum, where people have done tests comparing air core, iron core, and welding rod core. Iron is claimed to perform poorly because the hysteresis losses cause any radiant energy to be soaked up before it can get into the circuit effectively. Air doesn't seem to do well either. They say that welding rod is a decent off-the-shelf alloy for optimizing the effect.

I haven't seen any results of people having tested with Electrical Steel, which is disappointing. I would really like to see that tested. If you've got the cutting tools for it, you could cut yourself a piece of an old transformer core out and use that for a test. These transformers can be found all over the place. Appliances, wall-mounted AC-DC adapters, etc.

The way in which the coil is wound also has a profound effect. Take a look at Tesla's Bifilar Pancake Coil patent where he compares a plain pancake coil with a series-wound bifilar coil. He specifically says in the patent that the series-would bifilar coil has an energy capacitance that is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the regular coil. Since energy from the vacuum is dependent on a circuit's capacitance, you could guess that means this will have a significant impact on your performance.
- Jim

[gyula]

hi Gyula,

No, the environment do work on the coil regardless if you recover electricity or not. I do not advocate that on a coil discharge, they have more energy. Hm... let's see how I can put this. The term COP you're speaking of consist of your input as charging the coil. Your output as coil recovering. If you see it in that term, COP = effiency =<100% . However, the energy generate and giving back from the environment is 200%. One going out and one going back in for the net of zero work. Therefore, COP>1 only seeing in term of

energy from magnetic field
--------------------------- = COP
energy input - energy recovery

Hi quantumuppercut,

Well, you have given an interesting answer. While you agree the energy collected from the collapsing field is not higher than the energy input to the coil, still you conclude the Cop > 1.
What I do not get is how this extra energy (you claim coming from the environment) manifests in practice? This is why I asked whether you personally experienced extra energy at the output of a setup, which may have come from environment.
(I understand heat pumps and ok that they use environmental energy and can have COP > 1.)

Your formula for COP shows the energy from magnetic field in its nominator, does it include already the energy coming from the environment?
If so, how can I utilize it in practice?

rgds, Gyula

[nenergy]

not the same

Your Tittle is greatly unmatched.

Tesla first found RE-Radiant energy. What is RE?.
It's a phenomenon that occurs when an LC - conductor and capacitor is in resonance and a standing wave is created. This occurs when there is a 90 degree phase shift between Voltage and Current.

RE is derived from Radio Frequency. RE manifests when V=0 and I=max, pure resonance and Power Factor=0. RE does is not measurable in meters as meters are build backward and only measure the destruction rate of electron, unless RE is transformed to AC or DC.

There are over 9 different types of electricity, We only use the primitive form of AC and no very little about DC.

Bedini has not shown anyone HOW to attain RE, all hes shown is the conversion of energy e=mc2.

Imhotep is the same as Bedini.

Thane Hein seems to have perfected the LC circuit and also tap the Magneti Flux.

You're comparing oranges and apples. Tesla has set the standard that will stand for eternity unless we change our perspective on what truly is electricity.

[Zooty]

Detached collapsing magnetic field

All of these devices have this in common, the detached collapsing magnetic field. It is a very different type of electrical energy or is it? When current flows through a coil of wire, a magnetic field is produced but it didn't cost anything to produce it. Your losses are due to circuit resistance and the magnetic field is an effect of passing current through wire. When the current is abruptly stopped, the magnetic field collapses very fast. We know what happens when a magnetic field passes wire very fast, you get voltage and current flow. The thing that is special about a collapsing magnetic field is that nothing can stop it from collapsing. It has to get converted somewhere. The higher the impedance on load receiving the collapsing spike, the higher the voltage and the lower the current. The opposite is true for lower impedances. Power wise, you would never see 100% what you put in to the system but that does not mean COP>1 can not be had. Think about this for a minute. Take a window motor. You put 100% in and you get 80% back so you lost 20% electrical energy in circuit resistance. You got your motor rotating for nothing though. If you could pulse the same coil in exactly the same way without the rotor, you would still only get 80% back but this time you have no mechanical energy. Now the next bit is theoretical, we know the collapsing field will stop at nothing. It will rip through a transistor if it can see a path through it. If we were to pass the spike through another separate coil 90 degrees from the power coil aligned with the rotors magnet, it might give the rotor an extra push on its way to the load. In a monopole motor, the collapsing field is mainly responsible for the mechanical output and it is an attraction to the scalar south pole, free of charge because the circuit is open during the event. The same amount of electrical energy is recovered (<100%) whether the wheel is there or not.

[quantumuppercut]

What I do not get is how this extra energy (you claim coming from the environment) manifests in practice? This is why I asked whether you personally experienced extra energy at the output of a setup, which may have come from environment.

Your formula for COP shows the energy from magnetic field in its nominator, does it include already the energy coming from the environment?
If so, how can I utilize it in practice?

rgds, Gyula

hi Gyula,

This energy I claimed is induction energy. It is also the energy appear on the nominator of my equation. This energy is how much can you extract from the changing magnetic field (which is the environment interaction with the system). How does this manifest in a theoratical view is what i'm working on; and on a practical view, I can say magnetic induction? I've done several forms of experiments to verify this equation.

Let me ask you this. You said that you can recover about .7 to .8 of the input. If you can tap the induction and gain extra while still recovering .7 to .8, would that validate my equation? The senario is this. Suppose you have a capacitor of certain amount of energy, a transformer, and 2 extra empty capacitors of the same value. You now send pulses to the transformer under no load and recover the electricity at say 70%. Repeat the senario, but now load the transformer with an empty cap. If you can still recover 70%(not counting the load), would that validate my equation?

[gyula]

Hi Zooty,

Your idea of using the voltage spike to feed another coil placed 90 degrees from the power coil sounds good because one could save a fast power diode and a capacitor while the fast switch remains (it would be needed in both cases, right?) But probably there are some more favorable properties in the background when you use inductance as load for a voltage spike.

You may be aware of Bit's setup, called Pulsinator, it utilizes the voltage spikes from several coils' collapsing fields in a chain circuit, one spike from one coil feeds the next coil as it were its supply voltage. It is partly in the Ferris wheel thread and lately here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...nator-iii.html

rgds, Gyula

All of these devices have this in common, the detached collapsing magnetic field. It is a very different type of electrical energy or is it? When current flows through a coil of wire, a magnetic field is produced but it didn't cost anything to produce it. Your losses are due to circuit resistance and the magnetic field is an effect of passing current through wire. When the current is abruptly stopped, the magnetic field collapses very fast. We know what happens when a magnetic field passes wire very fast, you get voltage and current flow. The thing that is special about a collapsing magnetic field is that nothing can stop it from collapsing. It has to get converted somewhere. The higher the impedance on load receiving the collapsing spike, the higher the voltage and the lower the current. The opposite is true for lower impedances. Power wise, you would never see 100% what you put in to the system but that does not mean COP>1 can not be had. Think about this for a minute. Take a window motor. You put 100% in and you get 80% back so you lost 20% electrical energy in circuit resistance. You got your motor rotating for nothing though. If you could pulse the same coil in exactly the same way without the rotor, you would still only get 80% back but this time you have no mechanical energy. Now the next bit is theoretical, we know the collapsing field will stop at nothing. It will rip through a transistor if it can see a path through it. If we were to pass the spike through another separate coil 90 degrees from the power coil aligned with the rotors magnet, it might give the rotor an extra push on its way to the load. In a monopole motor, the collapsing field is mainly responsible for the mechanical output and it is an attraction to the scalar south pole, free of charge because the circuit is open during the event. The same amount of electrical energy is recovered (<100%) whether the wheel is there or not.

[gyula]

Hi quantumuppercut,

I think I have to notice a few things before trying to answer your question.
My take on the case when you load the transformer with the empty capacitor is that you cannot recover 70% in that case but much less because the induced current now is divided between the transformer coil and the capacitor, hence a lower coil current will give less flux so the collapsing field gives lower voltage spike than earlier in the unloaded case. (Charging up an empty capacitor needs current that is the highest in the very first moment the voltage appears, then exponentially gets reducing as you surely know this.)

Another effect of the empty capacitor load when it is present on the transformer is that its load must reflect back to a certain degree to the magnetic field's source, i.e. the magnetic induction needs to provide more input energy now than it had to in the unloaded case. I assume you have to furnish in some input energy at all to create the induction energy which initiate the process at all: now more input energy is demanded from your source that you and not the enviroment started.

So in case you can solve the above two 'problems' then probably your equation above is validated.

IT is possible that these 'snags' I have mentioned can be circumvented and you already have some practical ideas. I am interested because solving the 'problems' would include circumventing Lenz law I suppose...

rgds, Gyula

hi Gyula,

This energy I claimed is induction energy. It is also the energy appear on the nominator of my equation. This energy is how much can you extract from the changing magnetic field (which is the environment interaction with the system). How does this manifest in a theoratical view is what i'm working on; and on a practical view, I can say magnetic induction? I've done several forms of experiments to verify this equation.

Let me ask you this. You said that you can recover about .7 to .8 of the input. If you can tap the induction and gain extra while still recovering .7 to .8, would that validate my equation? The senario is this. Suppose you have a capacitor of certain amount of energy, a transformer, and 2 extra empty capacitors of the same value. You now send pulses to the transformer under no load and recover the electricity at say 70%. Repeat the senario, but now load the transformer with an empty cap. If you can still recover 70%(not counting the load), would that validate my equation?