Michel! I wish I remembered more, this was 42 years ago and recalled only when Jones started talking about splitting the positive.
Another vauge memory from a more recent time; there was a gentelman that went by the name of Fred Epps and he did post to vortex and was a theoryotician that did a lot of work with J.L. Naudin. He was heavy into parametric oscillation/amplification and Naudins site at one time contained a lot of his material. I lost track of him when he refused to sign an NDA and NCA on a device I wanted to show him. If I remember right he thought I was wrong in wanting any agreements. Anyway his work came back to mind when I remembered the old coil relay demo, I thought of the parametric effect. Sorry I don't remember more, time is taking its toll. -----Original Message----- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive Ron, are you sure there was only one relay? With two relays and an inductor it's quite easy to make a step up (boost) switchmode converter, use the first relay as a switch to ground to ramp up the current in the inductor and the second relay as a rectifier (open it in the phases where a rectifier wouldn't conduct). Mmm, there is another possibility, use an electrolytic capacitor as the rectifier: it behaves as a capacitor with an antiparallel rectifier. One relay, one C, one L, yep it should work, nice trick. If it's what I think, the positive terminal of the capacitor (= the cathode of the diode, if indeed it was an electrolytic) was connected to the load battery, and its negative end (the anode of the diode) to the switch (whose other end goes to ground) and to the inductor (whose other end goes to the source battery). Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stiffler Scientific" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:Splitting the Positive > Jones! > > You have posted reference to 'Splitting the Positive' as you were able to > find on the great www, which is sparse at best for some reason and what is > available is far from what I was shown decades ago. In my case I was able to > observe a system in which two primary cells were connected as ( - to - ) and > the working terminals were the two positives. (Similar to Aarons) The old > technology of relay (contact) switching was employed in switching a tank > circuit ( L and C )across the two + terminals. What I saw was an increase in > charge in one battery and a decrease in the other. > > Knowing what I know today, I ask how this could have been possible, how did > an oscillation determine which battery to drain and which one to charge. > (There was not rectification in the circuit). It only consisted of a relay > switching a tank circuit into and out of connection of the two + terminals. > My first thoughts were on a voltage generation caused by a difference in the > contact metals, which could act as a diode, but common sense would say this > voltage would be so low it could not charge a primary cell. Another idea was > that there was in some way an induction from the relay coil that was > producing the charge. > > Over time, one battery did obtain additional charge and one lost charge in > the same proportion, so it was not a leveling of charge. > > This is what I have mentioned in communications on 'splitting the positive' > and it is indeed different from what seems to be available on the web. > > My memory can be classed as much as folk lore as any other. To this day I > wish I had possessed the foresight to look into this further. >
