This battery theory does not make sense, The Sweet system worked with power coming off the grid. Sweet plugged his frequency generator into a wall socket, no batteries involved. The difference between the Sweet system and the Mamalas system is the billet type. The billet for strontium has a crystal structure that requires very high frequency current stimulation, This means that such high frequency output must be converted to DC to be useful.
The Sweet system could use 50 or 60 Hz stimulation. Sweet was proud to show that his output was 60 hz AC grid compatible current. Because of this grid compatibility, the Sweet system is better than the Manelas system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZBdvTrmHyY On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > One detail not mentioned, or not emphasized adequately is this: > > The Manelas and Sweet devices, if they have real energy gain at all, only > show that gain with a large capacity battery array in the circuit. The > Manelas device does not work with capacitors only and cannot close the loop > without battery chemistry. He tried and failed. > > Thus the putative gain could be at best not "magnetic" so much as it is > the "interaction of an oscillating electromagnetic circuit with a large > capacity battery." This means gain is based on battery chemistry not a > transformer circuit. > > Again, let's be clear - Manelas was not able to replace the large battery > array with a supercap array and maintain the charge, as with batteries. > That is problematic for a number of conclusions being made here. The value > of the Manelas device is the magnetic cooling effect. > > The implication of this is that the circuit does something positive > (regenerative) to battery chemistry which allows extraction of more > chemical energy from the electrolyte than normal. Thus it is entirely > possible that there in no "overunity" per se, but instead a battery array > which is ordinarily capable of let us say: x-watt-hrs becomes capable of > 4x-watt-hrs, but it still will deplete eventually. > > Again, the great value of the Manelas device could be the magnetic > cooling. However, Elon Musk would love to extend the battery-life of his > cars by a multiple, even if small but based on a simple additional circuit > ... and getting free air conditioning is a bonus. > > As for Sweet, neither Bearden nor Bedini could replicate after Sweet's > death, despite having fist hand knowledge and firm belief in its reality - > and in fact there is no scientifically valid evidence that real gain was > ever proved by Sweet, Bearden nor Bedini in any device which was available > for independent verification. There is enticing anecdote, but that is it - > anecdotal only. > Axil Axil wrote: > > The one datum that speaks against this skepticism about magnetic based > overunity is the testimony of Brian Ahern who has tested this type of > system for years and found it to be true. Brian Ahern is a serious man and > is very sensitive to scamming. > > The superparamagnetism mechanism fits too well with the dots that come > from the cookbook. Those dots all connect so neatly. As to where the excess > energy fundamentally comes from is a open question. The energy does not > come from any nuclear process (which is wonderful), so it must come from > quantum mechanical effects (entanglement?) and most probably from vacuum > energy. > > > Chris Zell wrote: > >> The MEG (Bearden) attempts this switching of flux and has not been >> demonstrated to be overunity, as far as I know. Probably just measurement >> errors from apparent vs real power. I think the way forward would be to >> examine the peculiar shape or form of the engineered permanent magnetic >> field and think about how that relates to electron spin/orbits. >> >> Gut feeling is that some sort of gyroscopic precession is involved…. >> > > >
