Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Common batteries are free energy sources  (Read 82703 times)

pese

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1597
    • Freie Energie und mehr ... Free energy and more ...
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2006, 07:18:05 PM »
Give attentention to test the TRUE charging.

Because if the Voltage "shown OK"
must not be charged ANY usual Power in the battery.

If you test the Voltage without any Load an the Battery ,
you must also compare the Voltage under Load.
Exp. Blub 1 , 5 and 10 Watts.

Compare than this tested volages with an "normal" recharged battery.

If this test give an good result , let it us know.
pese

joe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2006, 07:37:11 PM »
Thanks Pese,

Next weekend I will retry the test and will compare a  battery that is charged with a battery charger with the same voltage and the one that i am charging with the Tesla arrangement.
I will load them with the same bulb individually and then we will know wich one of the 2 batterries  is going to last longer.

I will let know as soon as i conduct the test.

Regards   Joe

pg46

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2006, 07:51:39 PM »
Great Work Joe-

 Glad someone has given it an initial test run. Encouraging results to begin with thats for sure. Pese is right as the batteries need to be tested under a load to be certain.

Good start though and we'll all look forward to hearing more about your experiments.

Best,

ResinRat2

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
    • Hydrogen Reactor Vids
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2006, 03:40:27 PM »
Joe,

Thank you very much for the experiments. I really do appreciate what you did.

Question: Do you think using just 1.5 volt batteries for initial experiments would give valid results? I am only wondering this from a safety standpoint. The smaller batteries may be safer to fail rather than the 12 volt. I just don't want to see anybody injured if it is not necessary.

Are you using diodes in your circuit? I assume you are.

Also, how did you determine when to change the connections? Did you just wait a half-hour each time or did you do it by monitoring the charge levels of the batteries?

Sorry for all the questions, I am just trying to get as much information on what you did as I can. Thanks again.

I think my initial experiments will be on these smaller batteries. Going up to the 12 Volt right away kind of gives me an uneasy feeling.

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2006, 04:29:03 PM »
Hello Folks,

please note the scam-alert in the category : Money makes the world go round ,
section :

investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers

Info about Tesa_2006.

His MEG-Version he offeres does not exist. Do not send money for nothing !

So do not waste time on the subjects he brings up here.

Kator


ResinRat2

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
    • Hydrogen Reactor Vids
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2006, 04:58:27 PM »
ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here we go again! Another crook!!!!!  >:(

This kind of stuff is really making me lose faith in humanity.

Thanks for the info  :'(


pg46

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2006, 05:33:46 PM »
Hi -

 I did the same 3 small rechargeable battery setup as Joe. I fully charged 2 batteries and the 3rd battery was dead(decharged)
 First try I used a 8w 12volt bulb but it drew only 100ma. Thought I'd better draw more current than that because it would run a mighty long time before drawing down. After many many hours I did get the dead battery charges up to 1.25 volts but under a load it faded quickly. So am now drawing 400 ma. Didn't know how long to go before switching. Decided to try switching when the amp guage went down to 200ma which takes about 30 minutes or more to get it down there in my setup.
 Did the battery switch in every position and did end up with a fully charged #3 battery  :) which seemed to compare well to the original fully charged batteries under the same load.
 Thats encouraging I think, except that now one of the other batteries is now the new dead one and so around you go again. Thats what I am doing now to see how I end up after the second go around.
 Will keep you posted.
PS. Just guessing but its probably OK to use the bigger 12 volt batteries so long as one doesn't draw too much current.

Best,
 

joe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2006, 05:39:25 PM »
Hello Guys,

Yes I agree, this is a serious free Energy site so we don't need those kind of people here.

About my setup,  i will take some photos of it this week end and post it.
Resinrat,  about your first question i can't anwser it right now cause i am only testing with small rechargeble batteries and as far as i see it does work. But I can't conclude for real that those batteries will stay charged for a long period of time. Only time will tell us.
I am going to test it for weeks and then i will be able to say that it is working or not.
Second question, no i don't use diodes cause batteries have too low voltage (1.20 v.) When we use diodes we are loosing about 0.6 volts so the batteries would died in minutes.
Next question, i waited for the voltage to drop from 1.20 Volts to .90 volts V.  so with the kind of bulb i am using it takes about 1/2 hour to reach th .90 V.

So, so far so good and the next experiment would be with 12 volts car batteries. I will have to get for the test  3 or 4   12 volts batteries with the same amperage. This way i will be able to meusure the voltage up and down with precision.

But to tell you frankly, it is a bit scarry cause you never know what could happen with high amperage. Especially reverse connections like that ???  ???
Anyway, i will keep inform of my results this week end.

Regards  Joe 

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2006, 07:03:54 PM »
Quote from: Kator01
Hello Folks,

please note the scam-alert in the category : Money makes the world go round ,
section :

investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers

Info about Tesa_2006.

His MEG-Version he offeres does not exist. Do not send money for nothing !

So do not waste time on the subjects he brings up here.

Kator
 

Excuse me Kator, but working on the MEG is by no means a waste of time!!!  In fact, the MEG probably has the best chance of generating "free energy" than any machine to date.

Your statements should be a little clearer.  Last month you were trying to tell us the MEG generates deadly ultrasonic waves, which is completely incorrect and disinformation.

Paul Lowrance

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2006, 07:51:22 PM »
Hello PaulL,

I didnt state that the MEG emits deadly sonic waves. I simply gave an indication that these waves must occur especially if you run it like J.Naudin by switching the magnet with bucking fields.
Whether you accept the negative effects of supersonic-waves on tissue or not is not of importance here. A shielding of these Waves is another step to do in this development, later.

It is up to anyone to develop anything he likes in this area. I only stated this warning because these waves are not easy to detect.( You remember Madame Curie ? She was unconscious of the radiation and died because of this - I know this is a bad comparison example ) No one ever thinks about the supersonic-screening of pregnant-women and the effect it has to the little organism.
I simply care about safety.

It is almost interesting: everytime I give this indication about this superrsonic-waves created by Lorentz-Forces and even when I give you valuable references of serious scientific-institues who have the knowledge about this I either face total silence or a reluctant attitude.
Did you ever read what I had given as an reference ? ( EMUS-Converter, german-development )
Supersonic waves, if created in this device, combine with the electromagnetic flux-variation. It is an additive factor especially because they also create heat in the core, not eddy-currents ( nano-core hardly has eddy-currents)

I am really curious why you are so reluctant to my statements.
I will not touch this subject anymore because it is clear to me, scientiically as well as technically.
PaulL, let everyone here in this community decide for himself whether it is worth to continue with the MEG or not.
I simply give my input here, criticism involved and necessary or progess.

Now your second remark : Waste of time ? I really wonder if my english is so bad that you get it all wrong. This guy steals time and energy and money as well from people here and maybe in other similar communities. Any person who does this is not worth to be taken serious any longer, his posts included.
Waste of time relates to reading and experimenting on things he posts here.
It costed me nearly one day til I found the truth about this person because of a member here who I watched my reaction to Tesala_2006-posts.I watched this MEG-stuff since years now and wish you the best for your new approach on this.


Kator


ResinRat2

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
    • Hydrogen Reactor Vids
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2006, 08:15:58 PM »
pg46,

Thanks for the info. and the details. It looks like it has some promise. I am going to hold off getting too excited because we are looking for a long term energy generation. I do appreciate your efforts and I look forward to your results on future cycles.

I may be a pessimist but my guess is the system will just gradually run down. It looks to me like all that is being done is the energy is being moved around. It probably won't last any longer than how long the light would take to deplete three batteries. Just a guess, and I could be wrong. It might last longer though, because the bulb is burning with less intensity, but it should still run down. Not last for for long periods of time like Tesla_2006 claimed.

Funny how he never got back to this thread.

 I hope I'm wrong.

-----------------------------------------------

Hey Joe,

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I look forward to the pictures of your setup when you are able. Please, please be very careful with those 12V setups. Man, keep your eyes (smoke), ears (sizzle), and nose (fire) on red alert at all times. This is what makes me cautious. This is a strange setup and we don't want anybody hurt. Especially if it holds no benefit.


PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2006, 09:58:15 PM »
Quote from: Kator01
I didnt state that the MEG emits deadly sonic waves. I simply gave an indication that these waves must occur especially if you run it like J.Naudin by switching the magnet with bucking fields.

You did Kator. Here are your quotes,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=30.msg11974#msg11974
Quote from: Kator01
Paul,

I just metioned that all experiments with the MEG including the HOPE delivered not enough energy to light up an incandescent bulb for proof. They always used neon-lights.

The second thing I mentioned is that in the MEG and related techiques there are supersonic waves generated because of Lorenz-Forces. These Lorenz-Forces are created by the bucking-fields ( created by the driver-coils). No one ever thougt about this. These sonic waves can become very nasty and are unhealthy. One has to be carefull getting to close to the system.

Kator




Paul,

I remember that Naudin himself pointed out the strong electromagnetic field around the MEG. No I do not have contact to Naudin.

For basic of what I mean please look at this

http://www.ndt.net/article/0398/huebsch/hueb.htm

The Frauenhofer-Institut is a German High-Tech-Deveopment Institut.

The basic principle consists of creating supersonic sound by direct interaction of magnetic fields within matter.
There is no transducer necessary. I hit a page where it was stated that they explore the technique to generate
supersonic sound in the GigaHerz-frequency-range. Standard medical equipment for sound-screening ( pictures of the fetus of pregnant women ) is in the range 1,7 to 17 MHz. Very dangerous for the unborn baby.
It leads too far in this category here but supersonic-sound is dangerous for the cells because it creates sonoluminiscence in the body-water although no that strong as in the scientific experiment we all know of.
The Ultraviolett flashes of the cololapsing bubbles have a temperature of about 10 000 degrees Celsius in piko-seconds. The UV-Light, even if it is very weak cracks the DNA ( example : sunburns and skin-cancer by UV-A )
It might be new to you but this is not desinformation or info to create panic. There are some reliable scientists here in germany who speak of this danger and have evidence.
The same goes for the cellular phones. Brain-Cells get holes burned in by standard-energylevel (gigaherz radiation) of cellular phones. I will post the pictures of this here later. I have to search for the info on my other computer

I personally abondoned this MEG-Stuff. It is a dead-end so far. The same is true for the HOPE.

Kator

See your quoted red text above. Sounds very clear to me.



Quote from: Kator01
Whether you accept the negative effects of supersonic-waves on tissue or not is not of importance here. A shielding of these Waves is another step to do in this development, later.

It is up to anyone to develop anything he likes in this area. I only stated this warning because these waves are not easy to detect.( You remember Madame Curie ? She was unconscious of the radiation and died because of this - I know this is a bad comparison example )

There you go again. Of course it is a terrible comparison because Madame Curie died of X-rays, not ultrasonic!  Please, anyone who is reading this do not allow such disinformation to scare you.



Quote from: Kator01
It is almost interesting: everytime I give this indication about this superrsonic-waves created by Lorentz-Forces and even when I give you valuable references of serious scientific-institues who have the knowledge about this I either face total silence or a reluctant attitude.

Kator, are you kidding me?  I replied to all your posts. You are the one who ignored my reply.  Here's the link to my post, which you never replied to -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,30.msg11974.html#msg11974

I then made a huge post in the News section attempting to clear up your disinformation, which again you did not reply.



Quote from: Kator01
Did you ever read what I had given as an reference ? ( EMUS-Converter, german-development )

Of course I read them. I replied showing your error. I gave you tons of references showing that deadly ultrasonic waves do not travel through air. Furthermore, it would require the person to place their face directly to a transducer that generated an incredible amount of ultrasonic energy to harm a person much less kill them!  Doctors place such transducers on pregnant women and I can promise you those transducers are designed to generate a lot of ultrasonic relative to any MEG.


Quote from: Kator01
Supersonic waves, if created in this device, combine with the electromagnetic flux-variation. It is an additive factor especially because they also create heat in the core, not eddy-currents ( nano-core hardly has eddy-currents)
You mean the core does not generate *macro* eddy currents. The core does indeed generate a tremendous amount of *micro* eddy currents near every avalanche. The electromagnetic flux-variation you are talking about occurs in every transformer. We've had transformers since the days of Tesla. I take the information you spread very serious.


Quote from: Kator01
I am really curious why you are so reluctant to my statements.
I already provided the links to your quotes that clearly demonstrate you were the one who quite and did not reply and that I replied to your posts.


Quote from: Kator01
I will not touch this subject anymore because it is clear to me, scientiically as well as technically.
Typical of disinformationist to hit and run because they can't back up their lies.

For those interested in real science that *pertains* to the MEG -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1489.0.html



Quote from: Kator01
PaulL, let everyone here in this community decide for himself whether it is worth to continue with the MEG or not.
I'll continue to attempt to stop disinformation so that people can have the truth. I take your disinformation very seriously.


Quote from: Kator01
Now your second remark : Waste of time ? I really wonder if my english is so bad that you get it all wrong. This guy steals time and energy and money as well from people here and maybe in other similar communities. Any person who does this is not worth to be taken serious any longer, his posts included.
Waste of time relates to reading and experimenting on things he posts here.
It costed me nearly one day til I found the truth about this person because of a member here who I watched my reaction to Tesala_2006-posts.I watched this MEG-stuff since years now and wish you the best for your new approach on this.
You need to be very clear that you are not suggesting it is a waste of time to work on the MEG.


Regards,
Paul Lowrance

ResinRat2

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
    • Hydrogen Reactor Vids
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2006, 03:31:54 AM »
Hey Kato01 and PaulLowrance,

Go get your own thread to beat up each other on, you are way off the subject so please do not waste space on this thread with your beefs.

Go start an MEG thread, or whatever you guys are arguing about.

Sheese!!!!

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2006, 05:35:41 AM »
lol  ::)

kreten33

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Common batteries are free energy sources
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2006, 03:16:19 PM »
Tesla switch is very interesting concept. According to Bedini it does work, he even sold a few copies of his solid-state switch plans. I personally haven?t built it yet (priorities?), but I would agree with Harti, mechanical switch would be better. As far as speed of switching is concerned it should be in the range of 100 ? 800 Hz (higher is dangerous, batteries ? 12v acid ? could explode). My hunch is that the resonance point of all 4 (3) batteries should be found (in the above mentioned range). Original Tesla switch is consisted of 4 batteries and they discharge-charge in serial-parallel fashion and vice-versa 100-800 times per second.
Hopefully this will help someone with time and resources to conduct an experiment.