What happens when you parallel a... ?

[longhorn]

What happens if one parallels a radiantly charged battery, with a conventionally charged battery?

[Tom C]

What happens if one parallels a radiantly charged battery, with a conventionally charged battery?

I am not sure what you want to do with it, a regularly charged battery put in parallel with a radiantly charged battery wil run your loads. I do not know about paralleling primaries for running the Sg, if that is what you are asking.

Tom C

[longhorn]

I am not sure what you want to do with it, a regularly charged battery put in parallel with a radiantly charged battery wil run your loads. I do not know about paralleling primaries for running the Sg, if that is what you are asking.

Tom C

So by hooking up a radiantly charged battery in parallel with a conventionally charged battery, and using the conventionally charged battery as the front battery the dipole in the radiant battery experiences a Doppler shift, and work can be performed with the total amount of amp hrs available?

longhorn

[Faraday88]

When you parallel a conventionally charged battery with a Radiantly charged battery (assuming both are identical in terms of capacity), there is a tendency of the two to equalize their internal impedances, as you know a Radiantly Charged Battery has a much lowered Internal impedance as compared to its non-radiant counterpart.
i'm not quit sure of what 'doppler shift ' you are refering to..!
Think what would happen if you have them in Series and drive a load (can a SG Primary)??????

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[longhorn]

When you parallel a conventionally charged battery with a Radiantly charged battery (assuming both are identical in terms of capacity), there is a tendency of the two to equalize their internal impedances, as you know a Radiantly Charged Battery has a much lowered Internal impedance as compared to its non-radiant counterpart.
i'm not quit sure of what 'doppler shift ' you are refering to..!
Think what would happen if you have them in Series and drive a load (can a SG Primary)??????

Rgds,
Faraday88.

The first thing one would expect should be the equalization of internal impedance between the two batteries, but this is not what has been initially experianced.

Test point data indicates that before the batteries are paralleled, that the batteries measured with conventional meter were as follows:

Radiantly charged battery unparalleled measured: 7.42 VDC @ 1.72 amps
Conventionally charged battery unparalleled measured: 12.46 VDV @ 3.25 amps

When paralleled:

Radiantly charged battery measured 12.32 VDC @ 3.21 amps
Conventionally charged battery measured 12.35 VDV @ 3.21 amps

respectively.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the impedance of the two batteries should have equalized, but they did not.

If we started out with 7.42 VDC and 12.46 VDC then we total the total amount of voltage of both batteries coming up with 19.88 VDC, then dividing that by 2 arrive at 9.94 VDC available at both batteries, but this did not happen.

So where did the extra VDC come from?

Best regards

[John_Koorn]

Longhorn,

The math is not that simple. If one battery is healthier than the other then the equalisation will be biased towards the healthier battery.

John K.

[ZPDM]

Longhorn,

You've started a number of posts around the idea of radiantly charged versus regularly charged batteries and whether they can be swapped, paralleled etc. I'll throw in my two cents on this though I may be wrong. My WAG here is that it has to do with only the single diode charging batteries in an SSG set-up. That is to say, if you look at the schematic in Bedini's battery charging patent he has a FWBR going to the charge battery. In the SSG there is a single diode. In both examples you are charging with a radiant/inductive pulse which lets you do some interesting things. In the SSG you have, if the terminology has any bearing with radiants, something akin to half wave rectification of the radiant spike. My suspicion is that if you charged with a FWBR as in the patent you would not encounter the battery swapping problem. With the half wave rectification the battery charges, and oddly enough discharges plenty of energy, however it seems that only say the "negative" holes get filled. If you now try and charge conventionally, the stadium is half full as it were and the positives can't find a place to sit down. There that's scientific! I do suspect this may be correct though and if you charge radiantly off a FWBR or Avramenko plug you could swap things w/o a concern. Possibly such a model might have something to say about your anomalous power readings, if they weren't as John Koorn mentioned, just a matter of different battery conditions. I am looking at this issue a bit myself with the JT circuit, I am at low power, many hours sorts of tests right now, but will possibly be scaling things up to where I could see a more clear answer. Another question to my mind on this, at higher power inputs where you could see a difference, would be looking at battery temps while charging. Is the decreased temperature often encountered with Bedini set-ups a function of the radiant spike or, possibly, of half wave rectification of the radiant.

[longhorn]

Dear ZPDM

Excuse me, just returned from taking a leak! But being the controversial type of dude that I am I don't look at the means as an end but only a way to get to the end. Bedini has stated that the size of the SG or SSG doesn't matter so why should I think otherwise? Look, the only thing your going to get out of any SG configuration is a charged battery. Sure, one might be able to build one heck of a dynamo, but in the end their stuck with just that a dynamo. It's not the SG that's important it's the results - in other words the battery, so that is why I focus on the end not the means. To drive this point home: the very first major chapter in "Bedini-Bearden Years, Free Energy Generation, Circuits & Schematics" is titled; "Radiant Potential Energy Charger" PG. 85. Now if Bedini and Beardon are more concerned with the end, rather than the means, why should I do otherwise? I mean the only good that comes out of a charger is a charged battery - is it not ZPDM?

Sincerely

[Tom C]

the size of the Sg does matter, its about time, its a time charge. you need enough potential to move the ions in the solution. a little 3 pole kit is not going to charge a bank of 24 2000 amp hour batteries. but a properly tuned 10 coil will easily. you have to be able to move the ions in the solution. which means it must be able to travel thru and potentialize every ion in every battery. the ions absorb the energy they are given. so unless you have a big enough machine to generate enough radiant in each coil to potentialize every ion, it aint going to charge.

Tom C

[longhorn]

the size of the Sg does matter, its about time, its a time charge. you need enough potential to move the ions in the solution. a little 3 pole kit is not going to charge a bank of 24 2000 amp hour batteries. but a properly tuned 10 coil will easily. you have to be able to move the ions in the solution. which means it must be able to travel thru and potentialize every ion in every battery. the ions absorb the energy they are given. so unless you have a big enough machine to generate enough radiant in each coil to potentialize every ion, it aint going to charge.

Tom C

Tom C

To you I will defer, your point is well taken, but I was not talking of of batteries, but a battery.

[longhorn]

I do not have time for, nor am I interested in, debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so to speak.

Whether a particular model is “right” or “wrong” is not the question; the question is, is it useful and does it predict some new and useful results?

Eventually, technical concepts are useful only if they can do something different, provide a better model, etc. Also, abstract mathematics is a wonderful exercise and set of models, but the physics is in the concepts which the mathematical symbols represent and which the mathematical operations manipulate. The physics is not in the mathematics itself, per se.

So we will range across a large field of ideas. We'll indicate those where we've found there is experimental validation or practical use. Others, we will just present for consideration and list some possible implications. The level will be, hopefully, detailed concepts. We will also have a go at some better definitions for such things as charge, potential, energy, time, mind, thought, etc. Slowly we'll put up - and develop - a special glossary. [

-Tom Bearden; Jan. 2nd, 2003

The Tom Bearden Website

[Tom C]

Tom C

To you I will defer, your point is well taken, but I was not talking of of batteries, but a battery.

I was reffering to this quote from your post:

"Excuse me, just returned from taking a leak! But being the controversial type of dude that I am I don't look at the means as an end but only a way to get to the end. Bedini has stated that the size of the SG or SSG doesn't matter so why should I think otherwise?"

this is what I was referring to in my response to your response, when I responded to your qoute of their statement.....


Tom C

[ZPDM]

Hi Longhorn,

SSG, Joule thief, self-oscillating Bedini, Stifler SEC, Imohtemp relay, Slayer Exciter, 555 timer or function generator in all cases you pulse a coil then capture that strange "radiant" back spike. Granted Bedini also shows us how to get mechanical work as well, but leaving that aside, there are different ways to try and make use of the radiant spike instead of engineering around it. You can at a Tesla level use it to light inductive loads like a resistive lamp. I'm sure people on this forum know how to run DC motors with it though I'm no good at that yet, you can light flourescents or LEDS or you can put it in a cap or battery, or a combination thereof. The battery option seems to have some added complexity in that it behaves differently than a capacitor, dare I say I've heard the term "negative resistance" thrown around about with what is going on with the battery. Bedini/Bearden/Lindemann also mention "negative" energy I don't know what it is but I know they are talking about something they encounter. It apparently has many strange properties including cooling things under load instead of heating and as you note making a negatively charged battery recalcitrant to being recharged in a "normal" manner. Now if you want to charge a battery or cap you need to rectify the radiant spike with diodes. All I'm pointing out is that there are two (well three but leaving aside the Avremenko plug) ways, that I know of, of rectifying the radiant spike to get it into a battery. You can use a full wave bridge rectifier (FWBR) attached to each end of the coil. This is seen in Bedni's patent. You can use a single diode (half wave rectification), this is seen in the SSG. I may be spectacularly wrong, but I do have to wonder whether it isn't the half wave rectification where you get "negative" radiant spikes. BTW, your find with the negatively charged paralleled to regularly charged depleted battery is quite interesting and not at all subtle. It's interesting thinking and If it holds up that's a great find! If I get the time at some point I'll try and replicate it, you might try it with more sets of batteries to see if you can rule out whether or not it isn't just different conditions that the batteries are in.

Ciao,
Paul

[longhorn]

Hi Longhorn,

SSG, Joule thief, self-oscillating Bedini, Stifler SEC, Imohtemp relay, Slayer Exciter, 555 timer or function generator in all cases you pulse a coil then capture that strange "radiant" back spike. Granted Bedini also shows us how to get mechanical work as well, but leaving that aside, there are different ways to try and make use of the radiant spike instead of engineering around it. You can at a Tesla level use it to light inductive loads like a resistive lamp. I'm sure people on this forum know how to run DC motors with it though I'm no good at that yet, you can light flourescents or LEDS or you can put it in a cap or battery, or a combination thereof. The battery option seems to have some added complexity in that it behaves differently than a capacitor, dare I say I've heard the term "negative resistance" thrown around about with what is going on with the battery. Bedini/Bearden/Lindemann also mention "negative" energy I don't know what it is but I know they are talking about something they encounter. It apparently has many strange properties including cooling things under load instead of heating and as you note making a negatively charged battery recalcitrant to being recharged in a "normal" manner. Now if you want to charge a battery or cap you need to rectify the radiant spike with diodes. All I'm pointing out is that there are two (well three but leaving aside the Avremenko plug) ways, that I know of, of rectifying the radiant spike to get it into a battery. You can use a full wave bridge rectifier (FWBR) attached to each end of the coil. This is seen in Bedni's patent. You can use a single diode (half wave rectification), this is seen in the SSG. I may be spectacularly wrong, but I do have to wonder whether it isn't the half wave rectification where you get "negative" radiant spikes. BTW, your find with the negatively charged paralleled to regularly charged depleted battery is quite interesting and not at all subtle. It's interesting thinking and If it holds up that's a great find! If I get the time at some point I'll try and replicate it, you might try it with more sets of batteries to see if you can rule out whether or not it isn't just different conditions that the batteries are in.

Ciao,
Paul

Dear ZPDM

How do you kee'eep all that straight?

In all honesty, in Tom Bearden's "The Final Secret of Free Energy" he states:

"Here's the magic secret of free electrical power: The power in the external load is absolutely free, and it always has been free. In any load circuit, the only power you have to pay for, and have ever had to pay for, is the power you incorrectly use to kill your own primary source."

BUT WHAT IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE BEARDEN IS TALKING ABOUT?

Bearden later tells us what the primary source is in the "Final Secret of Free Energy" by stating:

In any electric circuit, we can continue to indefinitely power the external load indirectly from a source, so long as we are not so naive as to use any of the free energy we extract from the primary source to dissipate back inside the primary source itself and shut it off!

Leading into the grand finale:

The Free Energy Principle

"All potential gradient (trapped excess energy density) is free for the taking. The potential is due to the violent VPF exchange between the vacuum and the separated bipolar charges furnishing the source potential gradient. The energy of the entire universe is flowing through that source potential. You can have as much of this internal VPF flux energy (potential) as you wish, as often as you wish, so long as you don't demand current (which is power, or the rate at which the energy is being freed and dissipated). It's really simple. You can have all the trapped energy you wish, from any source. You cannot connect to the source and start to dissipate the energy as power, however, without starting to close the "gate" from which your free trapped energy is coming.

In other words, here's the iron rule: If you draw current, you kill the bipolarity gate furnishing the potential gradient (source of energy density). In that case, you kill the source. If you do not draw current, you do not kill the bipolarity gate and you do not shut down the source. In that case, you can continue to "use" it and extract trapped EM energy from it forever."

Here and in other places in this writing Bearen tells the reader that the "primary source" is the battery. Because where else are you going to find (quoting the above) "separated bipolar charges furnishing the source potential gradient."? The seperated bipolar charge that Bearden is talking about is what takes place inside a battery hooked to an oscillator such as the SG when a flux gate is opened in the local vacuum (i.e. the battery or other capacitance source). The SG is creating the conditions with its spike potential. This spike open the magnetic induction gate that separates electron's normal polarity this being a positive and a negative into two separate camps of what most would consider to have been otherwise a normal relationship. The negative charge moves to the battery's plates, while the positive charge moves to the battery's chemistry both independent of the other in a virtual photon flux state in the "local Vacuum" or the battery.

Then Bearden further states neat the conclusion of the first part of "The Final Secret of Free Energy" that:

"Properly utilized, a single car battery can be used to power an electric automobile indefinitely. Or even to power a battleship."

Now this is what I'm talking about.

SEE: The Tom Bearden Website

Sincerely

[ZPDM]

An Example

Dear ZPDM

How do you kee'eep all that straight?

In all honesty, in Tom Bearden's "The Final Secret of Free Energy" he states:

"Here's the magic secret of free electrical power: The power in the external load is absolutely free, and it always has been free. In any load circuit, the only power you have to pay for, and have ever had to pay for, is the power you incorrectly use to kill your own primary source."

BUT WHAT IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE BEARDEN IS TALKING ABOUT?

Bearden later tells us what the primary source is in the "Final Secret of Free Energy" by stating:

In any electric circuit, we can continue to indefinitely power the external load indirectly from a source, so long as we are not so naive as to use any of the free energy we extract from the primary source to dissipate back inside the primary source itself and shut it off!

Leading into the grand finale:

The Free Energy Principle

"All potential gradient (trapped excess energy density) is free for the taking. The potential is due to the violent VPF exchange between the vacuum and the separated bipolar charges furnishing the source potential gradient. The energy of the entire universe is flowing through that source potential. You can have as much of this internal VPF flux energy (potential) as you wish, as often as you wish, so long as you don't demand current (which is power, or the rate at which the energy is being freed and dissipated). It's really simple. You can have all the trapped energy you wish, from any source. You cannot connect to the source and start to dissipate the energy as power, however, without starting to close the "gate" from which your free trapped energy is coming.

In other words, here's the iron rule: If you draw current, you kill the bipolarity gate furnishing the potential gradient (source of energy density). In that case, you kill the source. If you do not draw current, you do not kill the bipolarity gate and you do not shut down the source. In that case, you can continue to "use" it and extract trapped EM energy from it forever."

Here and in other places in this writing Bearen tells the reader that the "primary source" is the battery. Because where else are you going to find (quoting the above) "separated bipolar charges furnishing the source potential gradient."? The seperated bipolar charge that Bearden is talking about is what takes place inside a battery hooked to an oscillator such as the SG when a flux gate is opened in the local vacuum (i.e. the battery or other capacitance source). The SG is creating the conditions with its spike potential. This spike open the magnetic induction gate that separates electron's normal polarity this being a positive and a negative into two separate camps of what most would consider to have been otherwise a normal relationship. The negative charge moves to the battery's plates, while the positive charge moves to the battery's chemistry both independent of the other in a virtual photon flux state in the "local Vacuum" or the battery.

Then Bearden further states neat the conclusion of the first part of "The Final Secret of Free Energy" that:

"Properly utilized, a single car battery can be used to power an electric automobile indefinitely. Or even to power a battleship."

Now this is what I'm talking about.

SEE: The Tom Bearden Website

Sincerely

Hi longhorn,

I keep it all straight because they all have the same principle, forgot to throw in the Tesla coil as well. Now in line with what Tom (Bearden) is saying, run an Avremenko plug off one end of a pulsed DC coil. Put a volt meter to the ends of the diodes to determine which one is positive and which negative. Connect the ends of a cap into each end of the two diodes and one should be able to watch the cap charge through one wire. How does it happen through one wire? Think about what Tom said and ask yourself two questions what is responsible for the cap charging? and where is there current flow in the circuit? If you get that, in my opinion, you get a great deal of this. There is, ironically, (purposefully?) a sort of magnetic analogy to the voltage analogy on the flywheel part of a Bedini SSG. You can't do work with a fixed magnet, right, sheez everyone knows this. Well note the amps and volts in on your SSG and have weak magnets on the outside. Note rotational speed. Now, again noting power draw, try it again with stronger magnets (not so strong the thing wants to rattle apart but stronger), note flywheel rotational speed. But I thought permanent magnets can't do work? Asymmetry baby ... Yeah! In both cases you allow a field to do work without allowing the system to establish equilibrium. Was watching a lecture by Stan Meyer last night, if I got him right he was talking about keeping the dipole separate right down at the atomic level as a way to do fusion and release astonishing amounts of power. Not sure if he got anywhere with that but it did just make me think, the Lord is merciful and forbearing with his creatures. By that I mean, you think about it and when one pursues this one looks for an "overunity" chain reaction and starting in says my gosh this may be a COP of 1.1 or maybe not, One could imagine a different set of rules where the first overunity one is likely to run into is not 1.01 but 1001 or 10,001 at which time it would be "poof" there goes the neighborhood.