David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[Bob Smith]

I was wondering, with all due respect. To those who claim something special is going on and there is a more energy out than energy in situation or effect taking place.

!) Exactly how can it be that more energy can come out of a device than energy that goes into a device, including all the energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to first charge the batteries ?

Fair question, Farmhand.   That is, if we are only dealing with the "energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to charge the batteries."  Anyone who knows this system and its dynamics would agree that this is a logical assumption. 
However, some of the builders of the 3 Battery Generating System are openly acknowledging that energy is coming into the system from the electrostatic environment itself.  Therefore, if more energy is coming out of the battery than what can be derived from its construction materials and charging, we need to consider other explanations as to the origin of this supposedly excess energy coming out of the battery.

2) In other words how can anyone expect to get more energy out of a device over an extended period than work that was done to create the materials and construct all the parts of the device in the first place and all the energy contained within the materials the device is actually made from ? 
The way I see it it is completely impossible for any system to output more energy then is input into said system at all previous stages of construction of the materials and device.

I believe this is a rephrase of your first point, perhaps as a thoughtful point of clarification, lest your initial question be misunderstood. And again, a fair question that deserves a logical explanation.  I, along with some of the builders of this device would argue that the notion of getting more energy "out" needs to be nuanced.  "Out" according to the way you express it, seems to imply that the energy produced must have been "inside" the battery, either through its construction or charging.  I believe that some of the builders are now saying that the so-called "excess" energy is actually coming INTO the 3BGS "THROUGH" the battery. In other words, the battery is acting as a kind of aerial or receiver for ambient electrostatic energy. I am therefore suggesting a shift of electrical paradigm or horizon is necessary to comprehend what is happening in this system, according to those who maintain that it is drawing in excess energy. 

ie. The energy used to initially charge all the batteries and the energy locked up in all of the actual matter the entire device is constructed from.

Any physicist worth their salt would acknowledge there is enough energy locked in a glass of water to make one hell of an explosion. It would surely follow the same is true for the materials locked in a battery's material components. However, I don't think that's what you're referring to, and I don't think this is what the 3BGS builders are referring to as the source of excess energy OUT, either. 

Logic and common sense says that for it to come out it must first go in, unless something is created from nothing.

It seems your logic has broken down here Farmhand. Your premise in the above statement is sensible within the contemporary paradigm (which would exclude electrostatic forces coming into play in this system) to which most EEs would subscribe.  Makes good sense from this perspective.  However, you then seem to invite the reader to assume that the only exception to this premise (expressed with the term "unless") is that "something is created from nothing."  This second step in your logic seems to abandon any environmental, physical or measurable explanation and enters into the metaphysical or theological notion of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) as the only other viable (and ridiculous, I assume) answer.  I believe that you have failed to consider other sources of energy coming into the battery - namely the ambient electrostatic environment.  Without considering this possiblity, the "something out of nothing" conjecture, which seems to discredit the whole 3BGS system, is out of place, and potentially misleading.  It would appear to me that your are leaving out some important possibilities in your progression of thought.

In other words actual OU is impossible by definition. Energy cannot be created from nothing, it is not possible to create any actual thing or work from nothing. To me that is pure logic.

Absolutely correct!  No one on the 3BGS thread has ever suggested that energy is being "created" from nothing. Why, to do so would be to ascribe to one's device, or even worse, to oneself as its developer, some sort of godlike powers of  "creation" ex nihilo.   So therefore, if we are all mortals obeying the law of conservation of energy, and cannot create "something from nothing," and the 3BGS is putting out what appears to be excess energy, perhaps it shouldn't be called "overunity" as per your statement, which echoes similar sentiments expressed by many, many others.  Perhaps to use the term overunity in fact does a disservice to the nature of this device, and the energy that it uses, coheres (transforms?) and makes available.
So what to do?  IF more energy seems to be coming OUT of the 3BGS than what went IN through its construction and charging, perhaps another explanation is needed, as I have explained above.

Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device at some point previously, before it is possible for it to come out.

Not necessarily.  Logic tells us that the origin of "any energy coming out of any device" must be explainable.  And such an explanation must take into account factors which involve the ambient electrostatic environment, among others.  Perhaps a nuance of this statement might help, re-phrasing it to read,
  "Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device, either at some point previously, or during its actual time of operation, before it is possible for it to come out."

So I ask can anyone explain exactly how they expect a device to output more energy than is input into the device and it's components previously ?

..
Again, I believe that without an additional temporal frame of reference (i.e., "or during its actual time of operation"), your question, although interesting, fails to take into account key factors which might explain the 3BGS operation.  Without including these factors in your own analysis of this system, I am afraid your efforts to understand it will be an exercise in frustration. 

Bob

[Bob Smith]

Be advised that things may change drastically very shortly. We have learned that reversing the magnetic polarity on a battery SEEMS to turn it into a negative resistor, and it self charges. If you keep a load on it to prevent it from charging, you can continue to pull the flux out of the ambient environment. FOr how long, we don't know yet. So we are focusing on two things...finding a consistent way to flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and seeing how long this negative resistor will last. Way may only need ONE battery.
Dave

Dave, for what it's worth, I had a similar experience with my batteries running UFOPolitics' 3 and 5 pole motors.  My batteries would go into negative polarity, and I assumed this was the radiant charging them (as negative). Running these DC motors seemed to condition the batteries this way, but I didn't see beyond the novelty of it toward a useful prospect the way you, Matt and others have. Your work is very encouraging.
Bob

[a.king21]

Especially for FARMHAND:


TESLA:  A FEW WATTS IN --- BILLIONS OF WATTS OUT:
He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration; the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces. A vibrating assembly with an adjustable frequency was finally perfected, and by 1897, Tesla was causing trouble with it in and near the neighborhood around his loft laboratory. Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it .  Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

[Farmhand]

Especially for FARMHAND:


TESLA:  A FEW WATTS IN --- BILLIONS OF WATTS OUT:
He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration; the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces. A vibrating assembly with an adjustable frequency was finally perfected, and by 1897, Tesla was causing trouble with it in and near the neighborhood around his loft laboratory. Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it .  Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

Hi A. King, It's been stated many times before and is well known that a capacitor can be charged with a small wattage over a longer period and discharged at a much larger wattage over a shorter period, even Tesla explained that. There is no extra energy in doing that, similarly a coil can discharge at a much higher wattage than was used to charge it. Means very little except it can be very useful.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..

[Magluvin]

Hi A. King, It's been stated many times before and is well known that a capacitor can be charged with a small wattage over a longer period and discharged at a much larger wattage over a shorter period, even Tesla explained that. There is no extra energy in doing that, similarly a coil can discharge at a much higher wattage than was used to charge it. Means very little except it can be very useful.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..

I think what Aking is trying to instill, is the fact that a tapper box with a hand wound spring, tapping on a lower girder of a frame of a large building, was able to induce a large amount of energy in the building structure and that energy is more than what the tapper put out in total. So in the end, it should be possible to wind the tapper spring with the energy of the moving building and still have some left over. So we should be able to model the mechanical example to an electrical example.

In my mind, the impact of the tapper needs to be high as compared to the amount of vibration in the girder where the tapper was applied. Like when the building was in full shake, or swing, down below, where the tapper was applied, there most likely isnt much movement as compared to any parts of the building above that height. So how do we model that in an electronic circuit?

My first guess would be just for simplicity, we have a microwave oven transformer, where we make the large fine wire inductor with a cap as an LC. Then we have a ramp gen charge a tiny cap to a high voltage and discharge that cap into the primary winding, the low ohm winding, in time with the freq of the LC.

Now, if we were to figure out a mechanism to wind the tapper spring, what part of the building would we be able to extract enough motion from the building to wind the spring a bit at a time, without killing the source(the building in motion)? 

I would probably look to the top of the building, where the most motion is happening. If say the building is moving 6in, left to right, would using that force to wind the spring enough to keep the tapper going, would that be enough resistance or damping to kill the buildings movement?

Mags