Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 2:03 am.
Discussion page for OS:Geovoltaic Energy Pump (GVEP)
On Oct. 1, 2007, the following comment was received:
The "Four Battery Switch" is a complicated technology.
There is no evidence that Tesla ever worked on this technology. All historic records lead back to Ronald Brandt as the inventor.
Both Ronald Brandt and John Bedini have built working models of the "Four Battery Switch", so it can be done. John says it is a "total pain" to tune the circuit, and he refuses to work on it anymore. No one has built a working model in decades. It's not easy. In fact, it is extremely difficult. The probability that Dave Wenbert's group is going to build a working model of this technology is low.
I worked on something similar while at NERL, a
motorized recharging system by Doug Konzen (Conehead
is his nickname in the field.) With a WEEK of fussing
with the system, we never demonstrated OU. I agree
with John Bedini's assessment.
I am not doubting the viability of this concept. I discovered the Newman Machine concept on the Discovery Channel on November 4, 2007, exactly the same day as the last previous edit of this article by H2earth (the developer of this idea) (link). I have read much of the book The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, and since last year I watched several times the documentary Energy from the Vacuum (Part 5) after reading material concerning Thomas Bearden's views about source charge and maintaining a dipole.
In that documentary (Part 5), Bearden says that the formation of charge leads to the creation of a wave at the speed of light consisting of the electrical potential that wasn't there before, and that such constitutes an energy flow existing as an non-equilibrium steady state?a state he likens to a steadily flowing wall of water?that once formed can deliver unlimited amounts of energy as long as the charge still exists. He believes that this energy can be diverged without killing the electrical dipole. I disagree. Charge, according to Bearden, is actually a potential difference of charges, which for some reason, results in the value for classical electron charge. If such is the case, then diverging energy from the dipole would apparently reduce the potential difference, which needed to be accounted for. However, Bearden claims this potential difference is formed between two different potentials, one negative, and one positive, both having some unlimited value but ultimately subtracting to a finite value. My contention is that this would actually degrade the value of the electron charge. But this is never observed.
Now consider Newman's theory. He claims that energy in the form of mass can be directly converted into an electrical form of energy. In classical electrical theory, this would mean a formation of a mass defect. The voltage spikes produced by his machine's commutator must be generating a magnetic field forcing opposite charges in opposite rotations. The changing magnetic field (not just static) would accelerate (not just precess) charges converting the potential energy in the magnetic field into photons. Inside atoms, the accelerations will cause an increased displacement of the atomic orbitals with respect to the the positively charged nuclei. The inverse law, whose slope diminishes with distance, indicates that the electrical potential energy of electrons on the side approaching the nucleus must decrease such that the consumption of potential energy in the form of acceleration toward the nucleus contributes to the system's enthalpy, so that the amount of radiation produced may exceed what can be generated by the initial pulse. Other electrons will certainly move away, not toward, the nucleus, but the absorption of energy will be dissipated, and not necessarily back to the other electrons (although this may depend on the electronic structure of the atom involved). Therefore, net residual mass defect in the atom may develop if the surplus radiation is not returned to restore the potential, for example, by being absorbed by an external working fluid. This rarely happens, but if such energy were harnessed, it can be spent. One then wonders, how does such energy become used by the Newman motor if it in fact is?
I have given a description of the likely mechanism by which such energy can be extracted:
THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
Various names for the device, in order of decreasing use:
1) Newman Motor
2) Newman Machine
3) Newman Generator
4) Newman Engine
Various parts necessary in a Newman motor:
1) Electrical energy source
3) Rotor magnet
Various characteristics required in each part to obtain the type of operation specific to Newman motors:
1) Storage of electrical energy
2) High inductance coil
Various names for the energy source used, in order of decreasing credibility, importance, relevance, etc.
1) Heat (real)
2) Cold Current (esoteric)
3) Cold Electricity (poorly-defined umbrella term)
4) Vacuum Energy (misuse of mainstream terminology)
5) Zero-Point Energy (ditto)
Various forms of magnetism used:
Role of the forms of magnetism:
1) Pass current through the coil
2) Extract heat at ambient
3) Convert potential to kinetic energy
Endothermic operation is the goal.
...shares the same source of energy as a Sterling engine
...can run off ambient heat provided the temperature of atoms drops below ambient temperature as a result of alignment
...has three stages of operation (excitation, alignment of magnetic moments at the scale of infrared wavelength - i.e. groups of atoms, mechanical output)
Excitation of the coils is achieved simply by turning on an electromagnet.
FACT: The energy of photons is acquired by the machine as potential energy.
QUESTION: Does the energy of the absorbed photons play a role?
YES: To restore a diamagnetic potential that is hardly ever used in the first place.
QUESTION: Is the diamagnetic potential rare? I've never heard of it.
NO: It is ubiquitous, but this magnetic potential field is almost never observed outside a diamagnetic material. The reason is that consumption of this potential energy is necessary to observe its effects macroscopically. Noticeable consumption is prevented by the presence of heat, the general exception being cases where there exists a very strong magnetic field. For example:
1) A giant external magnetic field to straighten the otherwise wandering magnetic potential of diamagnetic materials into straight lines. (A great example is the levitating frog experiment.)
2) A superconducting magnet.
The former case does not rely on removing heat. Rather it relies on strength of a magnetic field. A superconducting magnet does rely on removing heat to the extent necessary for superconductivity.
A THIRD WAY
Diamagnetism is most easily observed in the presence of very strong magnetic fields. However, it is hard to achieve the effect when there is visible distance from the material.
To achieve this within a material, all we need is a spark gap. This makes it more feasible to generate a strong magnetic response through the diamagnetic properties of the conductor.
In the Newman, a BEMF spike is used to produce a curl of the magnetic field around the wire. The atoms in the conductor's respond by aligning in opposite polarity to the back-EMF (Lenz's law). All atoms have a residual magnetic polarity. Theoretically, atoms lacking a crystalline structure (e.g. copper) are generally more responsive to back-EMF.
QUESTION: Can the net magnetic field curling around the wire be opposite the polarity of the magnetic field produced by the BEMF?
YES: When potential energy extracted from "atom alignment" exceeds the potential energy of the magnetic field of the backspike.
To allow utilization of the diamagnetic component of the magnetic potential energy, circular alignment of the magnetic moments of the diamagnetic material must be maintained throughout the time of extraction. This can be done through a combination of high magnetic circuit inductance and low electron flow density.
The extraction itself can be done using a permanent magnet as the rotor in the proximity of the electromagnet.
The output is eventually remitted as heat through inevitable friction.
I have determined from Joseph Newman's videos of his smaller generator (video 1) (video 2) that the total value of power produced by his device (about 7 horsepower) cannot be determined by the black-body radiation of Earth as determined by Stefan–Boltzmann law one simply takes the area of Newman's small version his machine as a whole and the black-body temperature of the earth to discover it falls short of the claimed energy output of the generator?about one order of magnitude.
Therefore, I have become increasingly aware that in Newman machines, the magnetic entropy cycle described above is basic to absorbing the electromagnetic radiation released by compressed atoms in order to do rectified mechanical work. When rectification is taken into account, high-inductance circuits constitute a more feasible means of increasing the circuit time constant above the microsecond level than capacitor-based circuits that are more sensitive to microelectronics and nanoelectronics.
My current device currently possess a high L/R time constant of several seconds, which is indicated by a delay observed when measuring the resistance of the circuit. The high internal impedance of the digital meter I use and the large size of my coil contribute to the effect. When I connected one end of the coil with the first probe of the digital meter (Extech 411), the delay has been measured to be dependent on what amount of coil segments are measured with the second probe attached as well as the time elapsed since connecting the first probe. This indicated that the propagation of current formation from one end of the wire to the other was observably delayed.
So I believe the merits in this article is spot on. The only difficulty I have with it right now is project itself. The Meyer's Water Fuel Cell has captured much more of the author's attention (link). By the way, I would not be surprised if energies of both kinds of devices share a similar origin.Kmarinas86 12:23, 22 March 2010 (PDT)
The Tesla Switch offends some of the faithful by its sheer simplicity.
But, if you read the Muller report (mueller.pdf) of Bedini's from 1984, it
becomes apparent that this device has better 'test credentials' as to
being independently verified as a real, genuine, working FE/OU system
than most other inventions in this field.
When the common underlying dynamic [by which all such systems operate]
is understood, it becomes apparent that all the competing devices
offer is greater complexity, cost, and uncertainty. In practice, once
the GVEP is sorted out and "tweaked" to optimize it, even this design
might be streamliined, to just a single Newman module and a single
integrated switching disk. Ultimately, a solid state version will
probably come about, although, personally, I am skeptical that solid
state components are reliable in any radiant energy application. Stan
Meyer recognized it and patented an electro-mechanical pulse generator
separately, along with the WFC (#4,613,779), expressly complaining in
the patent Background of this problem. We've seen countless examples
of how fragile Mosfets, 555 Timers, Diodes, Capacitors, etc. just
"snap, crackle, and pop" when exposed to this energy. The Tesla
Switch is easier to implement without these discrete components than
any other FE/OU architecture.
As to its provenance, Ron Brandt, who demonstrated his own car powered
by the circuit and drove Bedini around in it, himself said that he
learned it from Tesla, whom he had worked for earlier in life, and
made no claims to having invented it originally himself. He filed no
patents, which would be curious if it was his own design, since he had
it operating an electric car, and, when replicated by Bedini, it
worked exactly as claimed.
Reportedly, this unit is the one that John Bedini got beaten up and
threatened over, which is why he refuses to discuss the matter. The
physical intimidation he suffered over it back in 1984 is why, even
today, he will not release an overunity battery charger product. We
hope that the GVEP will ultimately force Energenx to bite the bullet
and come out with a true FE/OU system from Bedini.
The slow speed of current propagation through the the lead acid system
(compared to copper wire) is what makes this a good candidate for
radiant ZPE/QVE extraction. It is more resiliant in maintaining its
"source dipole" than all sorts of other approaches. The liquid
electrolyte (just like water in the WFC) with its relatively long
"relaxation time" serves as Bearden's "Degenerate Semiconductor" in
admitting free excess potential from the quantum vacuum.
Being the simplest and cheapest approach to the ZPE extration problem
- and one that we have hard test data since 1984 to prove that it can
be done - it makes sense to invest in the Tesla Switch before
exploring all of the more complex, finicky, marginal, unreliable,
proprietary, more speculative and less-well-understood alternative
FE/OU architectures out there.
The Tesla Switch has fewer variables
and they are easier to control, which makes for a faster pace of
research overall. It is easily fabricated using common, cheap
components and materials, and this is an important factor when you
look at the question "okay, it works, so What happens Next?"
While I'm sure that Tom Bearden will ultimately find the $9 Million
he needs for the MEG, it will/has come at enormous cost in time, effort,
and lost opportunities. A couple dozen other major FE/OU machine inventions
are also on the money hunt, because they require big bucks to mass produce.
This doesnt. We cant afford to spend the next five years sniffing out venture
capital, or chasing patents. We need to "Kick the Door Down" - and
do it in the next 12 months....