Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

I actually don't think there was any such statement, and until you produce it I think we can all just disregard your claim as needing some kind of basis for it. Your statement is actually expecting a lot if you think about it. What you are doing is effectively dismissing thousands of statements from John and from thousands of other people during that time, and much more since that time. All with one supposed statement that you claim but have not shown. I think it is probably safe to say that you misunderstood him. You are most likely misunderstanding what was trying to explain about negatively charging the battery and not being able to charge it with positive charging. That takes a little understanding and some people, like yourself, are probably confused. The negative spikes will slowly convert a battery to negative and this has many advantages and a few disadvantages. The advantages are that it can receive a faster charge and can continue on charging for some time after the charging input has stopped. There are other advantages as well, but the disadvantages are that after the charging in the battery has stopped then it will start to discharge much faster than a positively charged battery will. A positively charged battery will hold a charge longer before it self-discharges. The more negatively charged a battery is the longer it will take to receive a positive type of charge. Positive charging is current or DC charging, which is also the cap dump charging. This originally understood when Watson's battery was supposedly stolen from the meeting because it was known that if the battery could not receive a positive charge it would have these characteristics. I don't know if that story about the stolen battery is true (who can say if any story was true from those guys?). But thousands of people have had these experiences over the years. It is easy to see these things and it really is old news. But it is a misunderstanding people have had and I can see where you are probably just mixing up John's words in this matter. If anyone would know what John said along these lines it would have been me. And if a statement was made the way you are thinking then it would have got noticed.

As for me, I would find it very interesting if such a statement was made. But without any reference we'll just have to put this down as a mistake from you. For you have very long videos of John talking about the spiking into the batteries being a good thing. You have numerous emails over the years. What you are claiming would be like John saying after all his appearances and posted pictures of himself, that he actually was a black man. So I'm going to leave this as merely a mistake by you or a deliberate red herring diversion meant to discredit this idea. That has some support considering the games that people play on these forums to try and discredit good ideas.

Anyway, the negative spike charging does not in fact damage the batteries. It is actually ideal for the batteries. It's not for everyone but there are many people all over the world that have very good results from their batteries since those early years. For example, my customer who bought the window motor that went into my Porsche shown also at my 2011 Renaissance convention has negatively charged his batteries with very positive results since then. He just called me a few weeks back and reported that it took several month for him to see the gradual gains and the characteristics I have been talking about. So the batteries get better than they were originally, not damaged. Speaking of my Porsche as displayed at my two big conventions  (2010-2011), I had that for 3 years and my batteries also got better over the years even when I expected the opposite due to discharging them at the C1 rate. After the first year I could even drive 10 miles and the 144V would settle and rest at 152V (which would be considered fully charged with conventional charging). We also get deeper discharge capabilities which results in much more practical advantage for such applications. Normally batteries just drop off after the 10.5V level (on a 12V bank) so that many of my friends in the electric vehicle club I was part of would relate the experience of drive too far out and having to get towed home. But not me. I would see more of a linear drop in voltage and could drive the car down to the lowest voltage my controller would allow for. I would not even "limp" home. So these gains from the negative and Renaissance charging systems allowed for significantly higher starting voltages as well as real capacity at the lower levels (with also completely eliminating the idea of only having a limited number of cycles) that can amount to more almost doubling the actual capacity of batteries. Now we never include any gains below the 10.5V level because AH ratings are based on only above that voltage. But for my customers that have DC loads below that voltage they are very pleased with this fact. Also with the fact that there is no end of life for their batteries. So this claim is merely an attempt to set aside all the testimony of this nature. Again, it is but a slander claim and is not justified.

While on this subject, it is important to make finer points as I do, and as has been requested. One such point is that any pulse produces a negative spike prior to the current flow. So any cap dump is doing that as well. This negative spike as people like to call it is what gives you the advantages. It is not the current that does anything good to a battery. But considering the amount of current from the capacitor, the battery becomes more positively charged than negatively. And the positively charged batteries are needed for the SSG type energizers to create the negative charging effect (unless you do a reverse SSG energizer which we have not shown or explained on the internet). But that is another subject. The point is that there is still some negative charging that precedes the positive in the cap dump. John Bedini was rather loose with his words on purpose and because he was no scientist nor was he someone with any real experience with loading batteries. All his statement were coming from people like me who did the real world testing. And you can even see Bearden admitting that about me. But there were other people who worked for John, like Brett and others before him, that did testing. John had no patience to do real science himself. So there is very little proper description by him of important things. The best we have is DVD7. But even there we can see my points illustrated by him and we can see that his words reveal his lack of experience and lack of precision. This is because he has learned such things from other people and is mostly relaying the work of others. So it is very hard to try and precisely understand Bedini's words when he was so sloppy with them. He was also often misunderstood because he was always in a very specific context that often was not what the questioner was asking. This frustrated many people. John was just going to talk about what he was focused on at the moment. So unless you walked with him in that and allowed him to direct the conversation then you would not get anything. There was very little conversation, he would just talk at you.

So with all these things it is safe to say you misunderstood John. Otherwise you are suggesting that everyone just dismiss what thousands of people have claimed to be a good thing. But this would again be a very persuasive attempt to silence this technology which would be expected on such a forum filled with people attempting to do just that...

Also, I have answered everything that has been asked of me. But it is apparent that people skip over my responses and ask the same questions as if I have not answered them.

Hi Hoppy,
yes sorry, yours wasn't a question. It came from your statement:
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.


Unless I missed it I felt Rick didn't really address this issue, as it's part of the things that need to be clarified, in my opinion.

cheers,
Mario

[gyulasun]

A.king21,

Thanks for the reply but unfortunately the 9 mA current has not turned out where you measured?   
I can only speculate whether you used the Ampermeter across the diode bridge DC output?  (This is the worst possible current measurement technique among several tinkerers, unfortunately, and I hope you do not do such...)     

Anyway, I agree with your main point: you have established a new experiment which may lead to a self runner setup, I wish you success on this journey. 

To increase the recharging process for the gate driver battery, more and more satellite coils should be used. 

To approach the near COP=1 situation at least between the summed DC outputs of the satellite coils and the DC input of gate driver IC (voltage and current wise), you would need to achieve a certain loaded DC output from the satellite coils (that you assign for feeding the gate driver) which would amount to the DC power the gate driver takes from its battery. 

To start this, you would need to measure the DC current between say the positive output of the 11V battery and the positive wire which goes to the gate driver as the positive supply. If you have a variable power supply which has current measure feature then you can use it too of course. 

Suppose that you measure for example 120 mA current draw by the gate driver from the 11V battery, this is equivalent to roughly 91 Ohm as a load to the battery (11V/120mA). This would mean that you should first use a 91 or 100 Ohm (not critical), off the shelf, half Watt rated resistor as the load put across the diode bridge outputs of the satellite coils. The latter outputs should all be in parallel, positives to positives and negatives to negatives. 

Then, when you achieve say at least 11-12 VDC measured across the 100 Ohm resistor, you will be very very close to replace the gate drive battery by this DC output (you remove the 100 Ohm load of course when attempting this), this would already be a huge achievement.

I outlined only the process leading possibly this situation, the 100 Ohm might be 91 or 82 Ohm or whatever that corresponds to the load on the battery that feeds the gate driver.  You are surely aware of any addition of resonant satellite coils changes gate driver current draw a little so it is advisable to monitor actual current draw of the driver IC by an Ampermeter.

It is okay you found a small increase in the output power of the satellite coil when attaching an earth ground: this is exactly the same phenomena the builders of a crystal radio receiver also experience as an increase in the audio output. The earth wire insures a better connection to the transmitted energy by increasing the enviromental area of the receiver. Broadcast transmitter antennas are normally grounded too and the radiated energy via the air which is captured by a receiver at a distance can this way receive additional energy from the transmitter antenna via the earth, closing the virtual circuit between the TX antenna as the source and the RX antenna as a consumer. 

Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

Mario,
Yes you are right in your most recent post that I missed this email. Must have posted while I was writing the post after it.
No, you have missed my point entirely. You will have to read True Wireless over again and not just consider his main thesis which you are revering to. You are missing his core teaching on one wire transfer in relation to impulsing, which is my point. I am mainly drawing attention to figure 5 there to show you your options. Figure 12 is also relating to my point.
I see you are making an basic effort into looking at what I am saying, but you are missing the point entirely. If you do not know what Tesla is saying along these lines then you have not read very much from him. You will have to read through the 3 original lectures I mentioned and reread True Wireless.
You say he was not using impulses when he actually said he was. You say "Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well." You will have to actually read what he said as you are mistaken. "As the periodic impulses pass through the one wire..." This is not periodic oscillations. Oscillations are one thing he used, but impulses are rather different and important. We associate the two together but you have to realize that the impulse is prior to everything you see in the oscillations after (what is shown on the scope is the effect of the impulse, not the impulse itself). I think you just read the thesis and then assumed there was no impulses in the article??? But you have to read Tesla in context and not ignore him when he uses the word impulse. You have ignored that word and claimed this was merely "sinusoidal". That is a fundamental mistake or misquote.

Further, you talk about the wire returning back to the other end of the coil and wish to make a sweeping statement and impression that DVD7 is merely the same sort of thing as using the ground as a return wire. Both are not true and your dismissal of this shows a lack of attention to critical detail. First of all, if you consider actually what Tesla said you will see you have missed numerous statements, but also you have missed many diagrams of circuits with no earth return, but merely an air grounding. Thus you miss the most important teaching of Tesla and you sort of dismiss it all in a few sentences as non-existing. Were you trying to create this impression or have you just not read Tesla? It appears that you didn't even read Tesla's description of figure five as I have partly quoted above. This is why I wonder about you guys and what is going on here.

Secondly, when I pointed to figure 5 repeatedly I was gifting you guys this point in giving you 4 options to do this special process. DID YOU NOT NOTICE THE FIRST EXAMPLE? a (you mention b but why ignore a?). Tesla is talking about one wire here. Yes the context is the earth but it all works primarily with one actual wire. And the larger context is the early lecture in his demonstration of this with stout copper bars where the so-called hairpin circuit was demonstrated and articulated. Anyway, notice this (a) example is not a two wire tap from the one wire bar. So we have two one wire transfers here illustrated if you care to notice. The first is the main buss showing the different ways to tap a one wire transmission line (one that is wirelessly powered at that). The very first example is perpendicularly positioned or as Tesla writes there "in the longitudinal sense", or "at right angles to it." I even made mention of this very point already. So you can also run the DVD7 idea this way, that is power loads off of that tap (node). So you're passing over this as if it wasn't there shows that you are not even looking at the figure or what he says about it, or what I have been pointing out. I can't force you guys to read Tesla, or care about any of this stuff, but is a little frustrating that I have to spell this all out again and again while you guys making these sweeping denials.

Now it is of special note that the intensity of the effect in this process is according to the rate of change in the impulse. So if you try and do this with mere sinusoidal you will get nothing. This is exactly what Tesla taught. It is basic Tesla. So welcome to beginning to learn about Tesla second chapter technology (after AC chapter).
Your dismissal of the charging loop as not a one wire transmission is not true. This is first of all a floating ground which is significant in other respects that it give opportunity to demonstrated what Walter Lewin hinted at and only partly demonstrated in showing Kirchhoff is not universal and this is non-conservative loop with more energy appearing than what is to be expected. But there is more than that very important point (which you guys don't appreciate or calculate). There is also important details about this loop that is completely different than a regular loop. For example, if I make a series of untuned impendences that are no matched impedances, and if I place a small inductor with load across it as the first in the series, the rest of them will be limited by size of that inductor. However, if the first is larger, then the rest will not be limited. This is very important because if we were talking about positive charging then we would have a limited flow to all the impedances no matter if the high resistance/impedance was placed at the beginning or the end of the chain. In this case, as I have frequently demonstrated, you can see that this reveals that the loop is really more of a one wire circuit with the diode being the beginning of it and the other end being the end. Of course, as mentioned, I can tap out of any nodal point as in figure 5 a and even create individual networks off of more single wire nodal points (when in resonance with proper impedance matching). But that is not my point here. I am referring to not being in resonance and not impedance matching. So in a non-ideal example we can see many series impedances along this charging path, which is a negative resistance path. Even so I can multiply the output many times and can see only a slight effect upon each other load as I add more and more. I showed 11 of such at the last meeting. I don't show the ideal setup because I am trying to explain and demonstrate this point first. And this is a quick and easy way to get real gain without any tuning from off the shelf parts.

Hi Rick,


I think I get what Tesla was doing and explaining in the true wireless lecture. His magnifying transmitter (and receiver) is basically the same principle of a. in Fig.5. The earth is the same as the wire and the capacities of sender and receiver are acting like the expanding and contracting bag analogy of Fig.4., but the main transfer goes through the wire, or the earth. So, in a sense his wireless is a one wire system.
His method is superior to the hertzian method because he used a one wire connection (earth) and used resonance for maximising power sent, while the hertzian method only sends waves through the air which decay rapidly after short distance. 
Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, so no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well.
Tesla's one wire system has no return, The output of the SG in dvd7 are yes impulses but it has a return (to the main SG coil), this is why I see a limit in as how many series coils can be placed in the line, as opposed to an open wire. What John showed with added series coil and FWBR is an analogy to b. in Fig.5. but in John's case the coil is part of the wire to create a node, while the FWBR across it basically represents b. But still, the wire has a return.


Anyway, my goal is to charge as many batteries as possible from as little input as possible, and I wouldn't mind using the one wire technique.


thanks,
Mario

[Hoppy]

Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.

[popolibero]

Rick,


thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man!   I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.


thanks,
Mario