@GroundLoop

.....
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

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

@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
 

 

circuit 1 for my post above

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

sandy

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

@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!!

@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!!