IPC Background

Here some of the historical background and context of IPC is presented, laying the foundations for present-day investigations. This text is drawn from the ‘OSF Pre-Registration Content’ prepared for the proposed study to take place in 2024.

Inductive Pulse Charging derives from the original work of Daniel Cook in the 1860s and substantially expanded by the investigations and observations of Nikola Tesla in the 1880s on the behavior of high-frequency oscillators and pulsed DC systems. On the assumption that the energy originated from the sun, he termed the effects ‘radiant’ which has remained in use ever since for those working in this area, and as a convenient label to contrast effects derived from conventional AC or non-unidirectional pulsed systems.

A modern day IPC system uses pulses derived from the rapid switching of the current, and subsequent collapse of the magnetic fields, in a set of inductors (coils or solenoids). The generated reverse EMF (flyback) pulses, as very short duration voltage transients, are then directed through a suitable diode to an electrochemical system which is often, but not always, a Lead acid battery. While such transients are seen as electromagnetic interference (EMI) and undesirable in modern electronics, in this context they impart a range of benefits to a battery system, including the opportunity to recycle a portion of the input energy and also to elicit certain other beneficial responses from the local environment. It is the interaction with the local environment and these benefits and that the various research hypotheses will be testing.

Such devices are based on a long history of developments, patents, and related systems and include the work of such pioneers as Carlos Benitez in the early 1920s, Edwin Gray in the 70s, John Bedini, Peter Lindemann and Aaron Murakami in the 80s and 90s and others, such as Rick Friedrich, into the 21st century, and onwards to the present day.

While the controversial term ‘free energy’ is often used in this area of exploration, this is meant in the same sense that a large proportion of the energy from a heat pump is free. The operator has to pay for some input but not that drawn in from the local environment, which provides it automatically. Similarly, with much renewable energy, it is being harvested freely from local sources by well understood mechanisms. However, all these systems are not without their respective costs and where the main investment involved is at the front end in setting up the appropriate mechanisms and energy gradient to be able to extract the energy.

In the same vein, the term ‘OU’ is often used, meaning ‘over unity’ and referring to a Coefficient of Performance greater than one, a unitless term derived by dividing the total energy output by the energy supplied by the operator. This is in sharp and distinct contrast to the term efficiency which can never be greater than one. This is not least by virtue of the way the term is defined in the context of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, that of energy conservation, in a closed system. As with a heat pump, this is a situation where the total net and efficiency moderated output is greater than the input provided by the operator alone (see image at the side or below of an open system).

While it is scientifically speaking legitimate to talk about a wind turbine or a solar panel possessing a CoP of infinity, as there is no denominator value for the energy input from the operator, this is relatively meaningless and not usual practice and the term CoP has traditionally been reserved for various types of heat pump. However, there is no reason why the term cannot be applied in any context where energy may be drawn in from a local source to augment that supplied to operate the device, as the research hypothesis being explored here suggests.

With regard to the actual pulse generating devices used in IPC, their conventional efficiency is typically very poor, in the 15-30% range, commensurate with that of an internal combustion engine. That being so, even obtaining a CoP of around one for the whole system, including the batteries wherein the energy gains are realised, is a significant achievement (see image of typical pulse waveforms)

The main difference here is that the energy mechanisms and pathways involved in IPC producing ‘OU’ and ‘radiant’ effects, are not yet clear or well understood. Therefore, obtaining reliable and reproducible data regarding the phenomenon is paramount and the first and most important step before attempting to build a working theoretical model. Despite this, various attempts have been made over the last 30 years in particular to produce a variety of speculative theoretical frameworks, together with an associated language, in an attempt to describe the phenomenon in pre-existing scientific terms. These have often involved ideas around vacuum energy and the zero point field (ZPF) and, while vacuum energy extraction is a well advanced area of scientific research, linkage to the ZPF, for example, while tantalising, is premature. Similarly, various alternative developmental pathways have been identified for Maxwellian based electrodynamic theory on the basis that certain assumptions and mathmatical techniques were used to make sense of the burgeoning theory in the context of the time.

So while these various ideas and their language have been helpful to researchers and technical developers operating in uncharted waters, they do not constitute a working scientific model or theory until such time as it has been tested, and iteratively revised where necessary, in the time honored fashion. Here, the inductive scientific method, and subsequent hypothetic-deductive practices, reign supreme. Nevertheless, it will require a larger perspective on the nature of electricity to build a more accurate model, one that reflects a diverse set of technically accurate observations.

Equally interesting is the historical legacy of the development of electromagnetic theory from the early days of Maxwell, Hertz, Helmholtz, Heaviside, and others. The observations by Tesla of the behaviors and properties of so called ‘electro-radiant events’ or ‘disruptive discharges’ (Tesla, 1898, 1900 & 1905) and also by Edwin Gray (Gray, 1985) did not follow those of regular electromagnetic waves, the theory for which was being newly developed at the time (Lindemann, 2000). A bifurcation in the development of electromagnetic and thermodynamic theory was already occurring, one that would have long lasting consequences on our fuller understanding of electricity’s properties and possibilities in a wider context.

Similarly, in more recent times, in moving from the electrical to the electronic age, the focus has shifted to the role of the conducting transmission line itself rather than including the space around the conductor which is now considered to be devoid of any electrical activity (Dollard, 2018). This is a trend that opposes the widely accepted and pivotal work of Poynting for which energy flux is a function of the EM fields in the space around the conductors (Moree, 2022; see image of EM fields surrounding a circuit).

The role of IPC in battery health is also a future topic of study and part and parcel of the investigations into the benefits of IPC on battery capacity, energy storage, and battery health as currently defined (Suozzo, 2008 and Braun, 2022). Its role in the production of hydrogen is also of potential value and is to be compared with the use of combined battery and electrolyser technologies as exemplified in the new bread of Iron-Nickel ‘Battolysers’ (Jenkins, 2022). 

Development on variants of IPC and related DC pulse technologies continue to this day but, apart from the use of conventional and commonly available pulsing technologies used to counter battery sulphation and improve performance (Cooper, 2002), have largely fallen outside of regular peer review and mainstream publications due to the unconventional, and so far unexplained, nature of the results. However, suitably designed research studies can and should be undertaken in this fascinating and unconventional area and are long overdue.

References

Braun, J., Behmann, R., Schmider, D. &  Bessler, W., (2022) ’State of charge and state of health diagnosis of batteries with voltage-controlled models’ Journal of Power Sources, V 544, 231828, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231828

Cook, M. D., (1871) ‘Improvements in Induction Coils’. Patent US Patent 119,825A https://patents.google.com/patent/US119825A/en

Cooper, Robert B., (2002) ‘Pulse charging lead-acid batteries to improve performance and reverse the effects of sulfation’. West Virginia University, Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 1223. 

Dollard, E., (2018) ‘The Electrical Utility in a Digital Age - Engineering Report NVE-1’ https://ericpdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/epd-nve1.pdf

Gray, E., (1985) ‘Efficient Electrical Conversion switching tube suitable for inductive loads’, Patent US4661747 Available at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4661747A/en

Jenkins, B., Squires, D., Barton, J., et al. (2022) Techno-Economic Analysis of Low Carbon Hydrogen Production from Offshore Wind Using Battolyser Technology, Energies,15 (16), 5796 https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15165796

Lindemann, P., (2000) ‘The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity’, Clear Tech Inc, WA

Lindemann, P., (2013) ‘Battery Rejuvenation’ Powerpoint Presentation, A & P Electronic Media Available at: https://emediapress.com/shop/battery-rejuvenation/

Mŏrée, G., (2022) Comparison of Poynting’s vector and the power flow used in electrical engineering, AIP Advances 12, 085219 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0101339

Suozzo, C., (2008) ‘Lead Acid battery aging and state of health diagnosis’, A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University.

Tesla, N., (1898) High-Frequency Oscillators for Electro-Therapeutic and Other Purposes, The Electrical Engineer, Vol. XXVI, No 550, p.477

Tesla, N., (1900) Apparatus for the transmission of electrical energy, Patent US 649,621 Available at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US649621A/en

Tesla, N., (1905) The Art of transmitting electrical energy through the natural mediums’, Patent US 787,412 Available at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en