Author Topic: Tesla Switch need help (Read 157045 times)

NerzhDishual · « **Reply #195 on:** March 23, 2008, 06:33:17 PM »

@GroundLoop

Quote from: Groundloop on March 22, 2008, 08:51:22 PM

.....
There is no way that this patent can be valid! It was John Bedini and Ronald Brant that
invented these circuits. And, the circuits has been open source on the net many years before this patent......

Yes I'm aware of that..

I guess you can get a patent for a device that already exists or is not new, but in that case your patent would be useless and worthless and you just have wasted you time and your money.

Anyway I do like this patent because:
1) the figures are simple and can also be more simplified.
2) The Bedini/Brant's circuits were too complicated for me as I do not like to use my left brain (and I'm not an electronics specialist)...

Best

Thaelin · « **Reply #196 on:** March 26, 2008, 08:11:11 PM »

Actually it is only an application and most likely will be denied. Brandt's was put into the public domain so therefore cannot be granted. Waste of time and money but then its his. If it does get granted, it will never hold up and be reversed.

@groundloop
Like the noise level of the relays? I only have 4 and they are unbearable.

thaelin

NerzhDishual · « **Reply #197 on:** March 27, 2008, 04:21:19 AM »

Hi 'OU' dot com guys & fellows,

This post is huge. Sorry.
To me, this 'Tesla Switch' is (one of) the keys/secrets for 'OU' (COP >1).

About capacitors:
In the very interesting cond.doc file (from cond.zip) it is stated (page 1):
"But a much different and way more trivial problem occurs, once you want to charge up a capacitor
by another capacitor. If you do that, in a mysterious way, HALF THE ENERGY IS LOST."

And also (page 9):
..................
The total-charge in both capacitors together is now GREATER by a factor of SQRT(2) than
the initial value!!!
---------------------------------------------

Jean Louis Naudin is also proposing an experiment that could suggest a similar result.
I' m just setting-up this JLN's test. So, more to come soon (if any positive results).

The JLN proposed circuit:
(http://freenrg.info/Pic/JLN_exp.gif)

===================================================

Now, the rest of this pots is Off Topic but worth to be read, IMHO...
Non solum dico sed etiam probo...

I'm now becoming very doubtfull about (some of) Jean Louis Naudin's circuits.
I mean: are these circuits accurate enough as to be reproduced by a non specialist = the average
do-it-yourself (OU - or not

) ) enthusiast?
---------------------------------------------
I'm also, By The very Way (BTvW), highly dubious about JLN's ultimate motivations.His he, still, really 'questing for OU'?

Or, his he, now, mostly questing/crusading for fame and official (= 'powers that be') recognition? According to some Internet sites, it sounds like JLN were now working with the French CEO of Tazer's international company (Di Zazzo).

Tazer: this funny (officially non lethal) gizmo that is sometimes used against pregnant women and are actually proved to be (sometimes) deadly. Ask Goggle.

In German (with a picture of JLN and Di Zazzo - JLN name is quoted ):
http://politblog.net/nachrichten/2007/11/27/1832-ein-weiteres-todesopfer-polizeilicher-gewalt-taserdrohne-gegen-demonstrationen-geplant/

In English (JLN name is not quoted):
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/french-reveal-p.html

In French (JLN name is quoted) :
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.activism.vie-privee.actu/825
---------------------------------------------
Now, two examples about (purposely?) 'twisted' JLN's circuits:

First example:
This experiment (with one 2N2222):
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/negosc.htm does not work as claimed with the indicated specifications (1 nano cap and a 6mh inductance, 32.8 volts pk-pk out). After some tedious trials, I got only about 15 volts pk-pk-out out of a 0.8 nano cap (measured) and an about 2.8 mh inductance (measured)). I do not dispute his results (out-volts), I just contest his specifications.

Second example:
Do you remember this (in?)famous MEG?,
JLN claimed to get 'OU' with his own reproduction of the MEG. Why not? That is not my
point. My point is that his proposed circuit (which, BTW, has been removed from his Web
site) is not accurate and misleading:

(http://freenrg.info/Pic/meg31dg.gif)

Just remark the #9 and #10 TL494 pins.

Now, have a look at this excerpt of the datasheet:

(http://freenrg.info/Pic/TL494_Pins.jpg)

The #9 and #10 pins are to be grounded. So?

Best

Groundloop · « **Reply #198 on:** March 27, 2008, 07:29:04 AM »

@NerzhDishual,

There is NO error in JLN's drawing. The TL494 has a transistor output. In his circuit
drawing he puts both collector to plus and use the emitter following to drive the FET transistors.

The "capacitor problem" circuit also looks OK to me. I'm looking forward to your test results.

Groundloop.

NerzhDishual · « **Reply #199 on:** March 29, 2008, 07:59:45 PM »

@GroudLoop

OK about the JLN's TL494 circuit... Noted.
I'm not an electronics specialist.

I was told about this 'error' in the JLN's circuit by an old friend of mine who, I guessed, was better than me in these stuffs.

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

About the other experiment with capacitors : it seems to work.

I use two 100,000 microF (=0.1F) capacitors Cap#1 and Cap#2.
The problem is that the nominal values cannot be always thrusted and I cannot measure
the real capacities. My meter range is not over 20,000 MicroF.

Obviously, these 2 caps are not identical (but are very close).
Anyway, if you swap cap#1 and cap#2 you can get some hints.

My first trials showed that the results (with 13 volts) was better with
Cap#2 as 'input' and Cap#1 as 'output'.
So, I now use Cap#1 as 'input' and cap#2 as 'output' to get the
'less favorable configuration'.

For the moment, my best result is, in this 'worse case', and With
the following specifications:
R1= 100K
C1= A 2nf (measured). Or 3nf? my notes are upstairs!

Begin:
Cap#1 =/= 26 volts. (Two '12' volts bats)
Cap#2 = 0 volts (empty)

End: (about about 25 seconds)
Cap#1 =/= 20 volts
Cap#2 =/= 13 volts
These voltages remain stable (save the caps small leakages)

This inclines me to believe that there is something unusual here.

I have to make more trials, and measurement. More to come asap with a web page.

Best

nul-points · « **Reply #200 on:** March 30, 2008, 04:36:04 PM »

hi all

first of all, apologies for long post and also i don't mean to hijack this thread - i'm just responding to what appears to be some very relevant posts above - happy for this stuff to be moved elsewhere if necessary.

i'm very excited to see that someone else is getting confirmatory results with switched cap charging - i was beginning to doubt my measurements (only have very basic facilities available)

i've been running some experiments on & off over the last couple of years with a kind of Jensen UDT transformer i made, with both negistor osc & switched pulse types of input, very similar to this thread - looking for evidence of more energy transferred & reclaimed (no clear evidence so far)

however, i was recently inspired by reading one of H. Aspden's 'papers' where he was discussing the possibility of anomalous energy behaviour of capacitors

i decided to setup some simple experiments to extend my experiments & repetitively charge & discharge caps & look for evidence of unexpected results

well, with pretty much my first attempt (CCT 1, if i manage to upload the JPGS) i found i got a resulting charge anomaly:

i pre-charged 3 1F super-caps in series to 6V & disharged into a 1F super-cap, stopping when the output cap was at 2V (the caps are rated at 2.3V), input cap had 2.7V remaining

If my understanding of cap charge maths is correct (& i don't claim to be an expert here) this is the outcome of the experiment:

Total charge in: (Q = V * C)
Qin = 6V * (1/3)F = 2 Coulombs

Total charge out: (sum of charges on all caps)
Q1 = 2.7V * (1/3)F = 0.9 Coulombs

Q2 = 2V * 1F = 2 Coulombs

ie. total input charge: 2 Coulombs - total output charge: 2.9 Coulombs!

er, didn't somebody famous mention something about 'Conservation of Charge'

ok, so i've gone on to refine the circuit a few times - looking to investigate the energy implications of these findings

in a later circuit, which includes a transformer in a kind of feed-forward mode i managed to discharge a 0.25F cap stack from 8V down to 6.5V, resulting in a charged similar second stack to 2.5V - PLUS - i reclaimed 0.6V in a third similar stack thro' the transformer

so on three equivalent cap values i used up 1.5V worth of charge from one to generate over 3V total of charge on another pair

(again, if i've been able to upload, scope trace '2 cap charge.jpg' showing input cap dischrge & final charges on output cap & 'reclaim' cap)

i should mention that the switching for all these experiments were self-powered by the charge on the input caps - no external Sig Gens or PSUs (i used some CMOS schmidt trigger inverted NAND gates with RC feedback)

i realise that a charge anomaly is not yet an energy anomaly - but it's a start!

i'll see if i can get these JPG uploaded now

sandy

nul-points · « **Reply #201 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:00:58 PM »

circuit 1 for my post above

nul-points · « **Reply #202 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:01:56 PM »

circuit 2...

nul-points · « **Reply #203 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:03:23 PM »

circuits 3 & 4 (including supposed 'UDT' transformer)...

sandy

allcanadian · « **Reply #204 on:** March 30, 2008, 06:57:38 PM »

@nul-points
I think your post is the first one in this thread that is exactly "on" topic because nobody has fully addressed "what" happens when energy is moved from one place to another and where losses are incurred.There seems to be this preoccupation with electronics and switching which is part of the problem and not part of the solution. To put it simply--- your circuit works because you have added an inductance, you will have large losses when shuttling energy with caps or batteries unless you add a large self-inductance to give your circuit the necessary momentum. A tuned LC circuit has very few losses relative to a pure inductive circuit (motors, generators) or a pure capacitive circuit (batteries,capacitors). L and C must always be used together for maximum efficiency as they complement each others actions.
There was a question in a previous post as to why equalizing capacitors magically lose half of there energy, add a large self-inductance to the circuit and I can assure you your energy will magically reappear--- the question is why? I think if we are to move forward we have to start looking past the equations and component values and start looking at the properties and qualities of every component and how they interact together.

NerzhDishual · « **Reply #205 on:** March 30, 2008, 08:00:38 PM »

Hi Nul_Points,

Thanks a lot for your posts. I will study them more fully.

The JLN proposed experiment: http://freenrg.info/Condos/JLN_exp.gif

My pictures:
http://freenrg.info/Condos/JLN_Caps_Exp_Replic_01.jpg
http://freenrg.info/Condos/JLN_Caps_Exp_Replic_02.jpg
http://freenrg.info/Condos/JLN_Caps_Exp_Replic_04.jpg
http://freenrg.info/Condos/JLN_Caps_Exp_Replic_05.jpg

Best

Groundloop · « **Reply #206 on:** March 30, 2008, 08:19:50 PM »

@allcanadian,

I agree with you 100%. Today I got my batch of NiCads and now my Tesla switch is running on four 9,6 volt 700mA battery packs. The circuit is running fine switching at approx. 20 Hz but I got NO usefull output. Only 2,8 Volt. This was enough to lit a ultrabright LED very dim. So I can say that my circuit as it is now is flawed beyond recognition. I will try to do some modifications but all in all it was wasted time and $845 USD. I think the way to go is as you state with both L and C in a circuit.

Groundloop.

nul-points · « **Reply #207 on:** March 30, 2008, 11:30:44 PM »

@allca. Nerzh & Ground

thanks for comments & info - i'll look up your links ND, too, thanks

yes, the inductances have certainly helped (feedforward Xfr & enabling flyback diode action) but oddly i seem to remember that my very first charge anomaly results were obtained with Cct1 before i included a serial coil with the switched cap

anyway, i can confirm that the 'magical' 50% loss of energy is not happening with these circuits - i've been able to drive 24 mW into a resitive load for a power draw on the input caps of 29mW - a fairly respectable COP of 0.83 (83% efficiency)

i know its not out of the ordinary by commercial PSU standards but not bad for a few simple components stuffed in a breadboard (and my first-ever attempt at designing a switched-mode PSU, apparently!) - way better than the 50% limit insisted on by some heavy-duty dudes writing peer-reviewed papers about cap to cap discharge being a dipole aerial and half the energy being 'I^2 * R losses' or 'radiated away'

most significant for me is the 'Conservation of Charge' issue - What conservation?!?

if charge isn't being conserved (as required by Kirchoff & Maxwell) then maybe Energy isn't quite behaving like these guys claimed either!

something is definitely going on in the Physics Department after all the Professors have gone home for the night

Game On!!

NerzhDishual · « **Reply #208 on:** March 31, 2008, 12:08:44 AM »

Hi Nul-Points

We are on the same page. Sorry for repeating myself, but did you check this link: http://freenrg.info/Condos/ ?
(This page is not still updated).

Actually, according to very simple experiments, I 'lost' nothing when discharging
a filled cap into an empty one. That is also:

Quote from: nul-points on March 30, 2008, 11:30:44 PM

.......better than the 50% limit insisted on by some heavy-duty dudes writing peer-reviewed
papers about cap to cap discharge being a dipole aerial and half the energy being 'I^2 * R losses' or 'radiated away'

Is it not?

Best

nul-points · « **Reply #209 on:** March 31, 2008, 02:06:05 AM »

@Nerzh D
same page definitely!

yes, i've just checked your links and that is one cool rig!

you could lose my breadboard setup inside one of those caps!!!

you're right about neither of us having 'lost' in our experiments - but only as far as charge is concerned:

my test started with 2 Coulomb (C) of charge and ended with 2.9C - a 45% charge gain ...BUT...

started with 6 Joules (J) of energy and ended with 3.215J - a 46% energy loss!

and your test started with approx 2.6C and ended with 3.3C - a 27% charge gain ...BUT...

started with 33.8J of energy and ended with 28.4J - a 16% energy loss

so we're both seeing anomalous charge enter our circuit from somewhere but in both our tests we've used up a positive amount of energy in charging the second cap from the first

at the moment, the anomaly which appears to conflict with conventional circuit theory is that both our experiments have violated the "conservation of charge" rule - pretty impressive in my view

...and if that's true, that means that Kirchoff & Maxwell owe us a beer!!

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Tesla Switch need help (Read 157045 times)

NerzhDishual

Re: Tesla Switch need help

Thaelin

Re: Tesla Switch need help

NerzhDishual

Re: Tesla Switch need help

Groundloop

Re: Tesla Switch need help

NerzhDishual

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help

allcanadian

Re: Tesla Switch need help

NerzhDishual

Re: Tesla Switch need help

Groundloop

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help

NerzhDishual

Re: Tesla Switch need help

nul-points

Re: Tesla Switch need help