The Tesla Project

[sparks]

   We can use established physics to explain a highvoltage highfrequency gain of energy from the field.  Electrons as modeled by quantom physics are moving like a bat out of hell.  We influence their orbital or spin momentum enough to get loose of the neucleus and their velocity and mass is now free energy.  A short blast of voltage influences the electrons first because well their light and easy to push or pull.  The neucleus not the case.  It's frigging heavy and takes it's time getting moving.  Electrons are free at last to do what they do best.  Go fast and displace the aether.  This electron release is best accomplished when the neucleus is pinned down or aligned.  When a magnetic energy accompanies the electric field stress there is a huge increase in the #of electrons set free as  well as condensation and polarization of the electron flow path.   It is so simple.  You have a ball blasting around a pole tied to a string near the speed of light.  You cut the string and the ball smashes a windshield a thousand miles away.   You cut loose millions of balls at the same time you vaporize the car and the entire city block it's resting on a thousand miles away.

[allcanadian]

@Sparks
If you look at the electroscope model and what we call an atom we should see a similarity. A positive charge(proton) will produce a negative field around itself (electron) and inbetween the positive and negative fields will be a point of neutrality not unlike the bloch wall in a magnetic field. This neutral field could be called a neutron which may be just that ---- a field. It very well may be that most of what we consider an atom to be does not exist, they are simply the fields surrounding a charged body.The energy in these fields moves from place to place giving the illusion that something is there. Nobody has ever seen an atom nor an electron, proton and neutron, they have only measured the fields present so there has never been any real proof as to exactly what the atom is in my view.

@Otto

Hello all,
you all have to understand that we have 2 various kinds of energies, to say so.
1. our classical, we use it and its well understood
2. I will call it Aether energy
its working with high voltages and low currents and is "made" with kicks, as we say in the TPU thread.
Of course, this energy we can also convert into a usefull energy.
I have nothing more to say on this.
Otto

I think we need to de-mystify this technology, A kick is a sharp transient --a sharp potential gradient that is what it is, what is of more concern is the effects produced by this transient. As well I cannot concieve that there are two kinds of energies, there are an infinite number of energies because we are speaking of energy states namely magnitude of potential and frequency of oscillation. I agree with what you are saying but maybe not how you are saying it because it does not lead me to a better understanding of what it is we are dealing with.

[Grumpy]

@ allcanadian

Good explanation.

I have something to add that will turn this discussion on its head.

The current that charges the capacitor is not electron current.  It can not be.  It is a form of current which Maxwell termed "displacement current".  This current is "virtual", it is "massless".

The capacitor is a wonderful device.  It shows us what happens at the initial connection of a circuit - two traveling waves travel from the dipole (battery, capacitor, or other source of opposite potentials) to the opposite plates of the capacitor - which doesn't cost anything but the energy required to make the connection.  No electrons flow.  You can remove the plates of the capacitor and replace them with other plates and the charge remains because the energy will remain stored in the dielectric via an aetheric polarization which only requires potential and not electrons.

Then you connect this capacitor to a battery or lower potential such as another capacitor that is not charged, the capacitor releases this energy (it balances), again the only cost is the energy required to make the connection.  Again the displacement current is called into action to charge the battery.

What we are doing is moving potential energy around - much like taking gasoline from a tank in the ground and putting it into your automobile.

Now, if the balancing act is kinetic, and the balancing force is provided by Nature and therefore "free" - we can take some potential energy, increase this amount of energy for free by causing it to balance and become kinetic for an instant and hence "increase itself" - and there is our mechanism of "gain" - courtesy of Nature.

This was "tongue in cheak" - hope it makes sense.

Charging batteries is useful, but what we really need is direct conversion to classical EM electricity or motive force to power our devices - which is what Erfinder stated a few months ago in this thread.

[allcanadian]

@Grumpy
I would agree completely When I saw the model of the electroscope and how it works everything started to come together. As you said the capacitor is not charged by current, in my machine I only use one wire of the secondaries to ensure there can be no current only a changing potential. In fact charging with only potential seems to be the most difficult part of this technology.

Now, if the balancing act is kinetic, and the balancing force is provided by Nature and therefore "free" - we can take some potential energy, increase this amount of energy for free by causing it to balance and become kinetic for an instant and hence "increase itself" - and there is our mechanism of "gain" - courtesy of Nature.

I think this explains it better than I did previously and gets to the heart of the matter, we provide only the conditions necessary for energy to enter the circuit. There is another concept I am still trying to get a handle on as well, If a charge seperation/potential difference is produced in a conductor then we can say something has been divided, but in dividing itself it has multiplied itself because the potential at each end of the conductor has the ability to induce an opposite potential in any nearby end of another wire or wires. One potential difference produces two more, If this is the case then one charged capacitor can charge two empty ones through electrostatic induction because nature has provided the other half of the potentials on the two empty capacitors---- and again there is no current involved. science tells us that the induced charge between two charged bodies is equal to the work reqired to seperate the charged bodies but nobody said that the charged bodies had to be moved, as you said why not discharge them with a switching mechanism. I am presently testing this theory and hope It will offer to insight into the process.

Charging batteries is useful, but what we really need is direct conversion to classical EM electricity or motive force to power our devices - which is what Erfinder stated a few months ago in this thread.

I would agree that we need a simple device that converts directly, that would be the ultimate technology.

[nul-points]

hi all

interesting discussion on the nature of charge transfer (thanks to Tak22 for the heads-up!)

as some of you know, i've been running some experiments with switching charge between capacitors, looking for OU obviously (and finding it), but also along the way discovering some things about the reality of charging capacitors

my initial energy calculations were partly based on the official text-book statement that in order to charge a capacitor you had to use as much energy in the work needed to overcome the increasing polarisation of the field between the plates as the final energy which got stored on the capacitor as a result

ie. to store 2 Joules of energy would take an extra 2 Joules from your source (4 total)

well, my initial energy calculations used that relationship to double the final energy i stored on my output caps to calculate the total energy i'd 'converted' in the whole process

my results showed total circuit energy quotient of around 1.2 (120% efficient)

the only measurements i took were DC readings of input & output cap voltages at start & finish

as a result of discussions following the posting of my findings earlier this year, i've re-run some tests, only this time measuring the runtime load dissipation for both charging & discharging the output cap

i was pleased to find that the results still come in overunity, at around the same efficiencies (depending on load values), - the most interesting thing was to discover that the charging function was NOT as claimed in the text-books - but NEITHER was it 'massless' !

i'm hoping i've posted the schematic & scope trace for my most recent results below - the (Blue) waveform for the resistive load clearly shows a definite supply of electrons for each charging transient and one larger negative pulse for the final discharge of the cap - the other (Red) waveform is the increasing charge voltage on the output cap (plus charging spikes)

the energy measurements show that the final potential energy stored on the output cap was 1.05mJoule and the measured dissipated energy was 1.04mJoule - good agreement of values and an indication that there are no significant losses in the measured part of the circuit

looking at the charging measurements shows that work was done, via the load, to charge the output cap, but it was only 77% of the stored charge (for a 10 ohm load)

repeating the experiment with a 1 ohm load produced an energy quotient of 1.35 - and the charging energy was down to 27% of the final stored energy

according to the text-books, the work done charging from cap to cap should NOT be load dependent!

how do these real-life results sit with your ideas above?

all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc