Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[chadj2]

pg46

I also tried many months ago to use a rapid switching system to swap the batteries quickly and like you said I saw obvious losses. Through research and studying switch mode power supplies I think I know what the problem was. I was using multiple transistors to switch the batteries from parallel to series. As you may be able to see there is a problem that occurs if both transistors are on at the same time. The current short circuits and energy is wasted for whatever the overlap may be. The overlap could be microseconds but microseconds add up very quickly if you have a fast switching system. Like I said I pretty much have the circuit figured out I just need to figure out how I can mount the motor and generator onto a sturdy platform.

Chad

[saintsnick]

Some of you are missing my point.  Look at this first diagram.  I've cut the wires to the load.  Notice, the see-saw circuit is still complete.  There is still a current path from the high side to the low side.  Like this, the series set will charge the parallel set.  There is NO resistance in the circuit. 

(There is a voltage drop as the current passes through the diodes though.  In a more complicated circuit, forward biased transistors can replace the diodes and eliminate the voltage drop.)

My point however, is that there is NO resistive loss between the series set and the parallel set.  With no voltage drop from diodes (if eliminated) AND no resistive loss with wires cut , every single electron will be re-captured by opposing batteries with the same amount of jules per electron.

Remember: 
Joules/Coulomb = volts
Coulmbs/second = Amperes
Joules/second =Watts

Every single ounce of energy (measured in Watts) is recaptured by this system, BUT there is no work being done, Yet.

[saintsnick]

Now, add the load, but STOP any loss of any Wattage in the load by eliminating the ability of electrons to flow from the batteries through the load.

How?  By placing series capacitors on the load.

Look at the pic.

Caps don't pass DC because electrons can't get through the dielectric.

AC however passes through, but not the real AC, it's like Faux AC current.  The same electrons are bombarding the dielectric and still cant get through, BUT, the cap charges because of the voltage applied, which in turn causes an equal and opposite charge on the other side of the dielectric, which SUCKS electrons from the motor windings. 

The Opposite cap charges in the opposite polarity at the same time, becuse it is hooked up to the opposite end of the batteries.  The opposite charging cap has, on the other side of IT'S own dielectric, the opposite charge of it's primary side, which is Pushing electrons into the motor windings.

The TWO inner CAP plates respectively push and pull together forcing electrons through the motor windings, without EVER using a single electron from the batteries.

When the caps are done charging, like a fraction of a second later, the current flow through the load STOPS.

A fraction of a second later, when the current stops through the load, YOU reverse the whole SEE-SAW, and the current flow starts again through the batteries AND through the load, but now, in the opposite direction.

We are passing AC through the load.  This MUST be a purely resistive load OR an AC motor, or it will not work.

The Frequency MUST be no slower than the charge time of the caps, or the current will stop.  The bigger the caps, the longer the charge time, and the more time you have before you need to switch the system.

YES, if you use a rectifier right where the load is, you can have a steady DC output for a DC load instead of an AC load.

More importantly, based on average capacitor sizes, you're switching the system FAST to keep the current flowing through the load in an AC fashion. MANY cycles per second, NOT 1 cycle every three hours.

Bigger load motor, bigger caps needed to provide enough "inside" current for the load.

One final kicker.  The potential difference between the outside of the caps while charging on any 1/2 cycle should be no greater than 1/4 the series battery voltage, BECAUSE:

series voltage-parallel voltage= potential difference between battery sides (with NO resistance between them)
ie.  24series-12parallel = 12remaining

divide the remainder by 2, half on the top side, half on the bottom. 

12/2 = 6

SO again, if series voltage = 24Vdc.  Load voltage = 6vac

MUST consider this rule for engineering something that actually works.

If you need higher load voltage, you need 4 times as many batteries.

ie...  if load needs 12 volts,   12x4 =  48Vdc series batteries which is equal to 4 12v batteries on each half of the see-saw.

if load needs 120ac, buy stock in Duracell.  ;o)

[gyulasun]

Hi Saintsnick,

I wonder if this setup with the 4 batteries would work with 4 capacitors of appropiate uF values?  Of course in this case the initial charges should be supplied in advance to the capacitors, then the transfer of charges could take place?
Further, I guess some control circuit would still be needed to take care of possible runaway at the caps etc. But if this circuit works with capacitors instead of batteries, then the output voltage could easily be enhanced to higher values, depending on of course the needed uF value versus the voltage rating limits.

Thanks
Gyula

[saintsnick]

Yes, caps will work.  Just as i said, and now you said too, you must charge the caps first.  Batteries have acid to provide the inital charge.  Caps can just be charged.

That scalar charger thing uses a cap on one side of the see-saw.  So does that other battery switcher circuit I provided.

Ideally, caps should be better than batteries.  Lighter, quicker to charge and dump, higher voltage capability instead of stacking volumes of batteries.

You just need to charge the caps first.  This also means, if say you had a system shuffeling 240 volts back and fourth, you'd need to initially charge the caps to 960 volts!  DANGEROUS! 

Again, the magic seems to come from the ability to switch potentials (between batts or between caps)  with very little effort.  The only effort is the power consumed by the relay coil or the power consumed by the transistor.  By doing the switching, you are creating possible HUGE potential differences which can do massive work with the right charge behind it, ALL FOR ALMOST NO EFFORT. 

Big Work, Little Effort, smells like OU to me.

I honestly havn't built any of these circuits though.  I DO consider them something I will tinker with, because I believe this is something that can actually work.  Additionally there seems to be good results coming back from like minded fringe experimenters.  There's already some good stuff happening on this board, here.

Similar idea of switching large energys with little energy.  I saw some video on UTube or somewhere, some physicist theorising some principal on a white board.  Magnet, with ferrite ring to conduct magnet lines.  Interupted ring by superconductor&crystal structure, which happens to react to EM energy close to some common laser emmision frequency.  With miliwatts of laser light, he switches on and off the ability of the ferrite ring to conduct magnetism, which is shutting on and off the much larger magnetic power eminating from the magnet.  A coil picks up the difference in the change from total to no conductivity, from none to all magnetic lines of force.  Big work, little effort.   Yeah, the magnet will wear out I guess.  But the principal is the same, Small Effort, Large Change.

Only human technology can make big changes with little effort.  Relays are old news, but they do exactly that.  Give it a source, like a battery current flowing through the contacts, and you can controll large volumes for little effort. 

With Control of something large, you can cause Large alternations.

With Easy control of something large, you can cause Large Alternations Easily.

Relays or Transistors controling large power, causing large alternations, with little effort.




I really don't know if Newman has anything to do with this.  Newman's motor is based on the similar principals of Edwin Gray's motors, Capturing Back EMF.  Newman uses huge inductances for a huge kick back.  His commutator only serves to cycle the field winding on and off and to direct the back emf, same as Gray.  Nothing to do with sparks causing OU.  ( I think)  Gray however used high voltage spikes to slap the coils.  Quick HV bursts, actually delivering less charge to the coils, yet causing momemtum and a very big back emf.

Gray DID however have a second device, a Spark emition and energy capture device.



Unless Newman had some other device, other than his motor.  Nothing of this on his web page.