Many people the claim of "voltage without current". Some example:
Tom Bearden, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050702.htm
"Anyway, the objective is to deliver the energy flow to the collecting circuit as purely energy flow, with no change of form of energy (no dissipation), which means NO ELECTRON CURRENT FLOW. There is no requirement at all in physics that current must flow in order for energy to flow. That again is a non sequitur mistakenly believed by, say, half the EEs. It's totally false
Anyway, the objective is to potentialize the external circuit, including potentialize all the surface charges in its conductors, without any current (or at least with only negligible current) being forced through the back emf of the source dipole in the generator or battery.
We can prove that Tesla did indeed know exactly how to shuttle the "free potential only, without current" around in his circuits at will"
Tom Bearden, http://www.cheniere.org/misc/battery%20poppers.htm
"the chemistry of the battery is largely dominated and affected by the ion current in the absence of overriding electron current, while the external load is dominated and affected by the electron current alone. You can easily pick a point in the ion current resonance cycle (say, when the ionic current in resonance is in the battery-charging half cycle), and just instantly switch the electron current to oppose it.
The production of that "charge density squeeze" produces a new kind of overpotential that we can use to power the load (i. e. , in electron discharge mode) at the same time that the ion current continues to charge the battery. You've just got yourself a true free energy or negative resistor effect, if you can master it and use it with proper timing.
Since you are going to be producing "discharge pulses of Poynting energy flow from the overpotentials" onto the external circuit in brief spurts, it is wise to use the "pulse discharging" to also charge a "current smoothing" capacitor of proper capacitance. Therefore you convert your "overpotential pulses" in the external circuit into smoothed rippling current through the load. "
Aaron Murakami, owner of energeticforum, http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive ... ie-67.html
"On the current in the battery. Delivering multiple "scalar" potentials into a battery creates an internal charging current in the battery that results in recharge - and this current never comes from external. As soon as the high voltage spike hits the battery - and at a high enough frequency, the lead ions can be moved into charging mode without current."
John Bedini, SSG inventor, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... ch-20.html
"Watch your currents and I know you love current but that is not where the magic is, it's in the discharge without any current."
Conventionally, the charging speed is always tied with the charging current (not the source voltage). More charging current = faster charging. There is also minimum charging current too, where the battery will not be charged under this minimum limit.
Reading the above post, newbie would neglect this minimum limit. They do not care about the output current of their charger. But I believe that all Bedini made charger has significant output current. No one seems to care about their charger output current. No one even compare their charger with the conventional method sometimes even do not measure their charging speed too.
If their charger can not exceed the performance of conventional charger then either their implementation is wrong or their theory is wrong. But this seems hard to admit.
Many implementation end up producing result like this:
"The current draw from the 12V battery was around 1.3 amps and the current into the charging battery was about 10mA."
People only care to increase voltage, when it should be both. The output current measured with amp meter (average current) should be above the minimum (1/35 C?) and under the maximum (1 C?). The spike voltage can be anything because there are research that conclude that pulsed current will charge faster than steady current in the same average current.
Peter Lindemann, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... deo-9.html
This is also strong evidence of our basic thesis. The CFL is being lit by the "voltage punch-up" or "longitudinal shock wave" or "radiant energy spike" in the system, and NOT the amount of current used by the circuit!
In the same sense, newbie will try to get the voltage as high as possible and current as low as possible. But they often forgot that the goal is to make bright light at the lowest amount of watt possible. They make dim light that is useless in real life only to show they can lit CFL with small power. Some people cheat with low voltage source (3V) and higher amperage, but it may not practical in real world because low voltage battery has low capacity.
The one using 12V report consumption between 200mA to even 2 Amp to produce brightness similar to wall plugged CFL. But 200mA still a considerable current. And it is apparent in the solid state implementation that the light become brighter with the increase of input current.
And it seems no one try to utilize the fuse, when according to established science fuse allow twice more efficiency. I tried using fuse, and it produce decent performance even when I do not use correct winding ratio. CFL has two fuse, I use the primary spike to light one of the fuse and the secondary to produce the spike between the fuse.
According to wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
The cold-cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) is a form of CFL. CCFLs use electrodes without a filament. The voltage of CCFLs is about 5 times higher than CFLs, and the current is about 10 times lower. CCFLs have a diameter of about 3 millimeters. CCFLs were initially used for document scanners and also for back-lighting LCD displays, and later manufactured for use as lamps. The efficacy (lumens per watt) is about half that of CFLs. Their advantages are that they are instant-on, like incandescent lamps, and they have a long life of approximately 50,000 hours. CCFLs are an effective and efficient replacement for lighting that is turned on and off frequently with little extended use (for example, in a bathroom or closet).
The link also mention comparison against LED:
The luminous efficacy of available LED lamps does not typically exceed that of CFLs, though there have been LED lamps available for purchase with better than 90 lm/W overall luminous efficacy at least since early 2012. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) tests of commercial LED lamps designed to replace incandescent or CFLs showed that average efficacy was still about 30 lm/W in 2008 (tested performance ranged from 4 lm/W to 62 lm/W).
The goal of CFL lighter should be brightness and low power, but many people only seek low power without the brightness.
About LED, people should try to produce efficiency better than the established implementation too. The goal should be:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode
There are three main categories of miniature single die LEDs:
Low-current: typically rated for 2 mA at around 2 V (approximately 4 mW consumption).
Standard: 20 mA LEDs (ranging from approximately 40 mW to 90 mW) at around:
1.9 to 2.1 V for red, orange and yellow,
3.0 to 3.4 V for green and blue,
2.9 to 4.2 V for violet, pink, purple and white.
Ultra-high-output: 20 mA at approximately 2 V or 4–5 V, designed for viewing in direct sunlight.
5 V and 12 V LEDs are ordinary miniature LEDs that incorporate a suitable series resistor for direct connection to a 5 V or 12 V supply.
So, to compete against the existing implementation, litting a single LED with 12V source should not take more than 8mA. For 3V version less than 20mA. It is useless to claim that "LED only use voltage" if the circuit has much worse consumption than the established implementation.