Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
New theories about free energy systems => Understanding OverUnity => Topic started by: tinman on November 03, 2014, 11:34:54 AM
-
It's out now-The Complete Hand Book Series.
Opening quote: The Bedini SG Is The First, REAL FREE ENERGY MACHINE.
Has any one seen one of these REAL FREE ENERGY MACHINES ?
Anothe interesting quote:-->Advanced Book Teaches How John Used Low-Drag Generators To Convert Mechanical Energy Into Excess Electricity In His Self-Running Machines!
Has any one seen one of these self running machine's?.
http://bedinisg.com/
-
Has any one seen one of these REAL FREE ENERGY MACHINES ?
yes ...
I have seen a man who seen a man who have a bedini self runner !
-
I am not an engineer. I am a psychologist.
But I am pretty sure these guyz are pushing this just for the money.
Nothing there really.
A nice collection of colorfull characters though. And degrees.
-
The machine consists of a battery and a pulse motor and maybe some capacitors. See, it runs itself (until the battery runs down.) What's that you say, disconnect the battery and watch what happens? Now why would anyone want to do that? You are obviously a paid shill troll, if you want me to remove the battery.
-
If you would like to waste 1 1/4 hours of your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI
I am supprised this lot havnt been taken to the cleaners yet for faulse advertising :o
Self running machine's ::)
Still peddling the same rubbish__> and people keep falling for it :(
You will find that these guys will NEVER let people like poynt or TK actually test one of these !self running! machines.
@TK
At 1 hour into the video,you get to see OU-->they drive light's :D
-
If you would like to waste 1 1/4 hours of your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI)
I am supprised this lot havnt been taken to the cleaners yet for faulse advertising :o
Self running machine's ::)
Still peddling the same rubbish__> and people keep falling for it :(
You will find that these guys will NEVER let people like poynt or TK actually test one of these !self running! machines.
@TK
At 1 hour into the video,you get to see OU-->they drive light's :D
Whee ouu! A big bicycle wheel flywheel pulse motor driven by a battery is down 7 RPM while a bank of 40 LEDs is lit "brilliantly".
Let us do some math. A series stack of 4 white LEDs can be supplied with, say, 9 volts DC and be limited to 30 mA current by a resistor. Put ten of those stacks in parallel and you have 40 LEDs glowing brilliantly on 9 volts, 300 mA. Right? While the motor is drawing an average input current of around 1.2 Amp at 12.6 volts and pumping pulses into another battery by charging and discharging a "special capacitor bank" made of four ordinary electrolytics with short pulses of a little over an amp.
Do I have to watch the whole damned thing and buy the book too before someone will explain to me how this is "overunity" or even particularly efficient?
Is this a challenge for the MHOP, I wonder?
-
Stefan,
Please consider taking a percentage of the OverUnity Prize and allocating it to a Bedini Challenge Prize. The rules could be quite simple:
Show how to build a verifiable self running overunity Bedini device based on direct page quotes from the BEDINI SG - THE COMPLETE HANDBOOK SERIES™.
tak
-
It's out now-The Complete Hand Book Series.
Opening quote: The Bedini SG Is The First, REAL FREE ENERGY MACHINE.
Has any one seen one of these REAL FREE ENERGY MACHINES ?
Anothe interesting quote:-->Advanced Book Teaches How John Used Low-Drag Generators To Convert Mechanical Energy Into Excess Electricity In His Self-Running Machines!
Has any one seen one of these self running machine's?.
http://bedinisg.com/
It is easy to get low drag: Remove the load.
Why don't Aaron and Peter demonstrate that their claims are true?
-
I see someone's beat me to it. Invest 77 dollars and a few for parts and claim the prize.
Or would you call that theft?
John.
-
Whee ouu! A big bicycle wheel flywheel pulse motor driven by a battery is down 7 RPM while a bank of 40 LEDs is lit "brilliantly".
Let us do some math. A series stack of 4 white LEDs can be supplied with, say, 9 volts DC and be limited to 30 mA current by a resistor. Put ten of those stacks in parallel and you have 40 LEDs glowing brilliantly on 9 volts, 300 mA. Right? While the motor is drawing an average input current of around 1.2 Amp at 12.6 volts and pumping pulses into another battery by charging and discharging a "special capacitor bank" made of four ordinary electrolytics with short pulses of a little over an amp.
Do I have to watch the whole damned thing and buy the book too before someone will explain to me how this is "overunity" or even particularly efficient?
Is this a challenge for the MHOP, I wonder?
As painful as it was,i watched the whole video. Never in my life have i heard such dribble.
It has a shift button ;D,Which is probably just a bridge across the base resistor. No different that turning the 1k pot down on the standard SG.
It has blinding LED's,that bog the motor down when switched on-oh wow,the normal generator effect.
Increase the input draw by 50%,and get a 100% increase in output ::) lol.
It has an electrical efficieny of 95%,and then another 35% mechanical output-thus it is 30% OU-->apparently ???
I cant believe they are still trying to peddle this rubbish.
Arron and Peter
If your reading this thread,then please show us all one of these self running OU machines. And then let some one that actually knows there stuff,test your so called self running OU device.
Who wants to put a wager on- they will never take up the challenge-situation normal.
-
As painful as it was,i watched the whole video. Never in my life have i heard such dribble.
It has a shift button ;D,Which is probably just a bridge across the base resistor. No different that turning the 1k pot down on the standard SG.
It has blinding LED's,that bog the motor down when switched on-oh wow,the normal generator effect.
Increase the input draw by 50%,and get a 100% increase in output ::) lol.
It has an electrical efficieny of 95%,and then another 35% mechanical output-thus it is 30% OU-->apparently ???
I cant believe they are still trying to peddle this rubbish.
Arron and Peter
If your reading this thread,then please show us all one of these self running OU machines. And then let some one that actually knows there stuff,test your so called self running OU device.
Who wants to put a wager on- they will never take up the challenge-situation normal.
Aaron and Peter pay for their grid supplied power from sales of their books.
-
I am going to complete a debate that I had with Aaron here.
Also, the "overunity" shows up by adding the mechanical work to the 90%+ recovery and not normally from what the output battery gets (90-95% recovery). But in extended tests back in 2004, which I witnessed, the batteries did deliver more than what was supplied by the input without having to add mechanical work to take it over 1.0 COP.
We will see how what Aaron defines as "mechanical work" is wrong. In observing many Bedini clips I noted that a typical Bedini motor only transfers about 30% of the source battery power to the charging battery. Aaron is claiming "magic" when only 30% becomes a 90% recharge of the charging battery.
Aaron's comment about the cap pulser circuit (special issue designed by John Bedini):
Each time those caps discharge, it delivers over 70 watt peak impulses. That is where your comprehension is breaking down. The uneducated will claim, "It's the same amount of energy just used in a shorter time." But that is false and you have made those claims before.
Here we have a big Aaron fail. A guy who as been running a web site about all things energy related and he can't compose a sentence about energy that makes sense. Aaron, when you talk about impulses, "70 watt peak" is meaningless. When you talk about impulses you specify the energy in the impulse. The "70 watt peak" would occur for a very short amount of time.
It is the same amount of energy over a shorter period of time, and the average power would be about the same. Beyond that, connecting a capacitor bank, which is a voltage source, to a battery, which is a voltage source, causes a rather nasty "fight" resulting in a very high current impulse. I suspect that the battery does not take too kindly to the "70 watt peak" pulse, and it's very possible that cap shorting is rather inefficient, and the battery is acting mostly like a resistor and not being charged. Proper testing would have to be done to find out.
You can have the same energy at a low power or the same energy at a high power and they are NOT the same. The results are way different. If you take a hammer and tap a window 10 times soft enough - the window won't break. But take all 10 taps worth of energy and discharge them into 1 tap and you will shatter the window. That is because increasing the power in a strong impulse does something that the same energy spread over a larger period of time cannot give.
See my comment above, I suspect that you are wrong.
The output battery is being charged with 72 amps pulses 2 times per second or 4 times per second depending on the running mode. Your 30% claim only displays that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I was referring to a standard Bedini setup, not the cap pulser.
Further ignorance is displayed by your mention of C20 charging rates. We're not charging the battery at a C20 charge rate. I talked about a C20 DISCHARGE rate
Yes that was just a "big typo" mistake on my part. I meant to say "discharging" and I wrote "charging" instead. I can't go back and correct it though because I can't see the post when I am logged into YouTube. It's fairly obvious that I meant "discharging" when I stated "charging" if you read the text. Several times afterwards you cynically take advantage of my "big typo."
Continued...
-
The C20 load test will show that a good build like this will deliver 90-95% of what was measured leaving the input battery.
If the source battery only transfers 30% of its energy to the target battery, you will not end up with 90%-95% of the initial source battery energy in the target battery. There is no "magic" and you are playing the "Big Lie" game. State an outrageous lie enough of times and people will believe it. No way. As I state on YouTbe, with new batteries there is "latent energy" that has to be cycled out of them before you can make proper measurements.
So without loading the wheel, you claim waste heat is produced by bearing friction and air agitation is also waste heat. All that heat you're claiming that is a part of this 70% fictitious waste. Yet, you say mechanical work is zero. So you claim there is no mechanical work being done yet the wheel being unloaded is causing all this heat. Do you realize how how much of a forked tongue you have? Even if we aren't loading the wheel with a generator, etc... as it is spinning creating all this heat that you claim, that IS mechanical work no matter how small. Heat is work and while the wheel is spinning "unloaded" it is generating heat, yet you claim, "the mechanical output is ZERO."
Therefore, you are essentially saying that the wheel is spinning for free while simultaneously creating all this bearing and air heat! ROFL!
Aaron Believes that when a Bedini rotor is just spinning driving no actual mechanical load, the bearing friction and the air friction are a "mechanical load" and he can consider that part of the output of the device. It's part of the 70% lost to waste heat Aaron. One more time, this is a huge fail on your part. Here you are running a forum devited to energy for the last 15 years, and you can't even understand the energy dynamics of a vanilla Bedini motor.
you say we claimed for years it is not overunity, yet for the same amount of years, we claim it is overunity by adding mechanical work.... the wheel spins doing zero mechanical work, yet it is magically creating all this bearing and air heat, etc...
you claim the wheel spins without doing work yet you claim the wheel creates bearing heat and hot air, etc...
Yes you have been claiming it is over unity when you "add the mechanical output." The problem with you is that you think bearing friction and air friction are the "mechanical output" for a vanilla Bedini motor when in actual fact they are part of the 70% waste heat. It's actually shocking that you would state that and clearly indicates that you still are semi-clueless. It's just like your crazy claim that a bouncing ball is COP>1. You don't understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.
With the wheel, the waveform is different than a solid state oscillator. With the wheel, it creates the "h" waveform. With the solid state oscillator, the frequency is quite a bit higher and we get a different waveform. You don't need the wheel and can increase the base resistance until the circuit self-oscillates. But I'd use a cap discharge circuit to capture the spikes then cap discharge to battery.
Overall, I think the SG might be more efficient than the solid state oscillator but they both work.
ROFL, the spinning rotor with the useless bearing and air friction sucking source power and pouring it down the drain as waste heat and very little control over the timing vs. a 555 pulsing a coil with complete control over the timing and Aaron pitches the Bedini motor as possibly being more efficient. Interestingly enough, as we speak he is selling a new book on Bedini motors.
-
Final posting to wrap things up...
About Bedini motors and energy from me: "Each time the coil discharges into the charging battery there is a finite amount of energy in that spike. Then the battery has a charging efficiency, and a discharging efficiency that is proportional to the load current. We can keep it simple and state that the two efficiencies combined will be say 80% as an example. So if the source battery supplies 200,000 Joules, what you can get out of the charging battery is 200,000 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 48,000 Joules. That's why over the years you guys have used the line, "You can't take a charging battery that was just charged and put it in the source battery position." You would claim that a "'radiantly' charged battery cannot be put in the source battery position." You guys would state that to discourage people from making that test. And I have read reports by people that do make the test and they are disappointed that the motor dies out quite quickly. The answer is in my example above: Source energy from source battery = 200,000 Joules. Extractable energy from charging battery = 48,000 Joules. When you run the Bedini motor with all the inefficiencies you lose 152,000 Joules."
In their latest clip which is all about "getting over unity when factoring in the mechanical output" (to promote the new book) the setup now has a pick-up coil driving a FWBR driving a bank of LEDs. So indeed, they do have a mechanical load in this setup and are showing a useful output. There is a cap pulser circuit for charging the charging battery.
There is a mechanical load on the motor (finally).
But what are the problems with this clip?
They show the voltage and current readings for the source battery. That's okay.
They don't show any measurements for the pickup coil + FWBR driving the LED load. Big problem.
They don't show any measurements for the cap pulser output. Big problem.
Aaron probably has 15 years experience. Peter probably has 30 years experience. So between them they have 45 years worth of experience and they are pitching a new book about "how to get over unity from a Bedini motor" and they don't make any proper measurements of the output? What a joke! They don't even bother to make an estimate of the cap pulser charging power based on the cap start and end voltage and the pulsing frequency.
The truth: If they did a an emulation of the charging battery with a low-pass filter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output of the cap pulser. If they got rid of the LED load and just used a variable load resistor and a true-RMS multimeter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output for the pick-up coil. They could change the value of the load resistor to experiment with different mechanical loads. They could play with that setup to their heart's content and try any possible combination they could dream of and the power output will never exceed the power input.
MileHigh
-
Just one little bonus comment.
This is from a posting by Aaron promoting his new book:
Engineers are normally taught to ground these spikes out so they don't damage other electronics on an electrical line. In fact, that is what a "surge protector" is designed to do. Through experimentation, John discovered that these electrical transients have a number of unusual characteristics. One of these benefits includes the ability to charge batteries extremely efficiently, and even revive some batteries that are considered dead.
Although many engineers claim these spikes can't charge a battery because they are just high voltage with virtually no current, there are thousands upon thousands of global experiments being conducted with these circuits that prove otherwise. And if these spikes are used to charge a capacitor and then that capacitor is discharged into a battery, even more amazing results can be had. And this is one of the methods for using electricity that Nikola Tesla developed back in 1893. John's circuits are literally a miniaturized version of some of Tesla's greatest discoveries.
Aaron, don't try to put nonsensical words like that into the mouths of engineers. John Bedini did not discover any "unusual characteristics" either. "Miniaturized version of Tesla's greatest discoveries?" ROFL
In fact the spikes start off with whatever current was flowing through the coil when the transistor gets switched off. The current then decreases and approaches zero. The amount of time it takes the current to decrease to effectively what is zero depends on the load. The spikes are actually based on current, and for a typical Bedini motor the current may start off at somewhere between 0.5 amps and 2 amps. And yet you state, "virtually no current." And I am pretty sure your buddy Peter is in agreement with you.
So after 15 years, Aaron still has no understanding about how a coil discharges. It's almost unbelievable but it is true.
-
Final posting to wrap things up...
About Bedini motors and energy from me: "Each time the coil discharges into the charging battery there is a finite amount of energy in that spike. Then the battery has a charging efficiency, and a discharging efficiency that is proportional to the load current. We can keep it simple and state that the two efficiencies combined will be say 80% as an example. So if the source battery supplies 200,000 Joules, what you can get out of the charging battery is 200,000 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 48,000 Joules. That's why over the years you guys have used the line, "You can't take a charging battery that was just charged and put it in the source battery position." You would claim that a "'radiantly' charged battery cannot be put in the source battery position." You guys would state that to discourage people from making that test. And I have read reports by people that do make the test and they are disappointed that the motor dies out quite quickly. The answer is in my example above: Source energy from source battery = 200,000 Joules. Extractable energy from charging battery = 48,000 Joules. When you run the Bedini motor with all the inefficiencies you lose 152,000 Joules."
In their latest clip which is all about "getting over unity when factoring in the mechanical output" (to promote the new book) the setup now has a pick-up coil driving a FWBR driving a bank of LEDs. So indeed, they do have a mechanical load in this setup and are showing a useful output. There is a cap pulser circuit for charging the charging battery.
There is a mechanical load on the motor (finally).
But what are the problems with this clip?
They show the voltage and current readings for the source battery. That's okay.
They don't show any measurements for the pickup coil + FWBR driving the LED load. Big problem.
They don't show any measurements for the cap pulser output. Big problem.
Aaron probably has 15 years experience. Peter probably has 30 years experience. So between them they have 45 years worth of experience and they are pitching a new book about "how to get over unity from a Bedini motor" and they don't make any proper measurements of the output? What a joke! They don't even bother to make an estimate of the cap pulser charging power based on the cap start and end voltage and the pulsing frequency.
The truth: If they did a an emulation of the charging battery with a low-pass filter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output of the cap pulser. If they got rid of the LED load and just used a variable load resistor and a true-RMS multimeter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output for the pick-up coil. They could change the value of the load resistor to experiment with different mechanical loads. They could play with that setup to their heart's content and try any possible combination they could dream of and the power output will never exceed the power input.
MileHigh
Arron has never had much idea as to what is going on,he kind of bumbles his way through things. If you try and correct him on his forum,you just get what i got-booted out lol.
You know that saying MH-->if you cant dazzle them with brilliance,then baffle them with bullsh-t.
(I think Arron baffles him self most of the time)And Peter should know better.
These two are no better than those that try and sell so called OU devices that are fake-EG-a 3kw water powered generator->,they just do it in the form of a book.
I'd be more than happy to go head to head with Arron in a build off-->the most efficient pulse motor build off. But he wont take up my offer,as he knows that would be the end of his self aclaimed fame,and book of knowledge. Imagine that-Arron cooked by a truck driver/mechanicle fitter.
What do you say Arron?-you up for the challenge?,or are you just going to hide in your dark corner as you do when some one challenges you and your rubbish claim's. You can use what ever resorces,build equipment,and money you like,and i'll use a $50.00 budget,recycled material,and do it all on my own. Once the machines are built,we will send them of to some one who knows there way around accurate power measurement's-some one like poynt or TK.
None of my builds are or ever have been OU or self runner's,so you should win hands down with one of your self runner OU machines.So come on Arron,show everyone that you are speaking the truth-->come and kick my ass all over the OU forums-->in sted of just kicking me out of your forum.
TinMan
-
Those clowns wouldn't know how to test an overunity machine if they had one sitting on a table in front of them, which they clearly don't.
You know, I am halfway tempted to get the MHOP down off the shelf again. It would be trivially easy to mount this pre-wound "generator coil" next to its rotor and show it lighting a bank of LEDs, while the usual spike-collector from the drive coil is pulsecharging its own run battery or an external battery. But really, I am tired of working for free, trying to help educate people a little so they don't waste their own time and money on useless fantasies, or in support of people like those Bedini demonstrators who have no scientific integrity at all.
I will bet that they have not even done non-powered rundown tests to determine exactly what the wheel losses actually are. Please, Err-on, correct me if I am wrong. What power does the wheel actually dissipate in bearing friction, windage, etc. when running at the RPM shown in the video? Do you even know how to determine this value? Here's a slightly easier question: how much energy is stored in the rotation of the wheel at a given RPM? Still too much for you? Ok, how about this: How much does the rotating wheel+magnets assembly actually _weigh_ and how is its mass distributed? Can you calculate the rotational moment of inertia ... or would you like me to do it for you?
-
I am not an engineer. I am a psychologist.
But I am pretty sure these guyz are pushing this just for the money.
Nothing there really.
A nice collection of colorfull characters though. And degrees.
Yes, that's the conclusion a lot of people who have studied Bedini devices over past years have arrived at. I'm sure John is sincere in his beliefs that batteries conditioned on his energisers will show more out than in but he is also a business man needing to make a living. It can be fun building his wheel energiser but that's as far as it goes IMO. I did think it would make an interesting garden feature as a water wheel.
-
Well, I hope Aaron is reading this thread and sulking. He really lacks character when he selectively deletes comments to advance hie Orwellian cause.
I mentioned before that I used the generic term "back-EMF spike" to mean a coil discharge and Aaron accused me of not understanding the difference between energizing a coil and a discharging coil.
Here is what he says on the YouTube clip that is viewable to all:
<<< Mountie, please stop spreading your ignorance.
Let's quote you right here: "Then you could measure exactly how much energy per back-EMF pulse goes into the charging battery."
Back EMF is always a lower voltage than the applied voltage when charging a coil. Back EMF (Lenz's Law) happens DURING the application of energy to charge a coil.
When the coil is switched off, we get an inductive spike of hundreds of volts, which is NOT "Back EMF". The Back EMF is ALREADY GONE when switching off the coil.
You don't know the difference between Back EMF and the inductive spike from a collapsing magnetic field.
Because you haven't graduated from Preschool to K, I'm not going to waste my time responding to anything else you bring up. You are a joke and a time waster - take your lies and ignorance elsewhere and stop contaminating the comment section with this kind of stupidity. Go away.>>>
My response is not visible any more, he deleted it:
<<< Don't make me laugh. You are just playing a silly game of semantics. Most people use the generic term "back-EMF spike" for a coil discharge and there are a few others. So I used that term because most people still use that term. So you are just playing a game trying to score some points on the playground. Get real, your nose is growing. You are fully aware I know what the difference is between charging and discharging a coil. Just like you are fully aware that when it comes to electronics I can spin circles around you with my eyes closed. You know it. You will get a full response on OU.com. >>>
So read it and weep Aaron.
-
When the coil is switched off, we get an inductive spike of hundreds of volts, which is NOT "Back EMF".
I am as confused as heck, MH. It would be really useful to have a clear definition of
1. inductive spike
2. back emf
3. CEMF (just for good measure).
-
Paul:
I honestly don't have the energy to go there, sorry. However, it has been covered many times in many threads so you can try searching on this forum. I can also suggest you try YouTube. Or even better, find legitimate web sites for electronics tutorials. I think a good one is called "All About Circuits."
MileHigh
-
Personally, I always call that particular phenomenon an "inductive collapse" spike.
Let's compare: The motor shown in Err-on's clip is running on 12.6 v and around 1.2 amp input, right? Call it about 15 Watts input. And it lights up a bank of LEDs with perhaps 9v x 30 ma = 270 milliWatts of power produced by the generator coil. WOW, what a load! (This is of course estimated since Err-on chose not to measure the power drawn by the LED bank, but as I showed earlier it is a reasonable estimate. Running a JT circuit instead of a simple always-on DC, resistor-limited bank can reduce that to under 100 mW for the same apparent brightness, for 40 white LEDs.) And it is collecting the collapse spike onto some caps which are then periodically pulse-discharged into another battery. Right?
MHOP, on the other hand, runs on 24 v and around 120 mA including the strobe system, or a bit over 100 mA without the strobes. Being very liberal, call it about 2.5 Watts input, or one-sixth the input power of the other motor. It self-starts, does not need any pushing to start rotation and has no trouble at all charging an external 150 uF capacitor to nearly 350 volts in just a few seconds, by siphoning off (instead of recirculating or snubbing) that collapse spike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfC5cTHtfYY
Instead of this system, an external battery could also be charged in an identical manner to the Bedini system, using a simple comparator to select dump voltage, switching an SCR to discharge the cap into a battery. A simple generator coil held near the rotor, feeding a FWB of 1n5817 diodes and a small capacitor, produces 4 volts, with easily enough current to power 6 LEDs.
MHOP's rotor is only a few inches across and stores a tiny amount of energy compared to the heavy bicycle wheel of the Bedini design. Can you imagine what an MHOP would do, scaled up to the same size and power consumption as the motor in Err-on's clip? It's enough to make me chuckle into my coffee cup just thinking about it. But what do Mile High and I know about pulse motors anyway, eh, Err-on?
-
I am as confused as heck, MH. It would be really useful to have a clear definition of
1. inductive spike
2. back emf
3. CEMF (just for good measure).
They are all magnetic induction.
1. An inductive spike is the release of energy in a stored magnetic field when a circuit switches from a low impedance path through an inductor to a high impedance path. Voltage at the switched end of the inductor swings so as to maintain the current flow of the established magnetic field. The higher the impedance, the higher the difference voltage that develops and the faster that the stored energy dissipates.
2, 3. BEMF also called CEMF most often refer to the generator voltage of an electrodynamic machine such as: motors, generators, and alternators, etc. The voltage is the result of changing magnetic flux density across a conductor.
-
Hmmmmmmmm.
But if there is no overunity with Bedini, what's this doc (attached his Paper94) published by a Dr. Myron Evans, notably his designation of Spin Connection Resonance? Matt Watts at OUR asked me if my model of the atomic construct (including Spin Conveyance) resembled this guys theories, so I looked into this guy for the first time ever and pulled out this specific Bedini doc. No it's not the same at all. However, this may be of interest to some of you in this thread.
For me Mr. Evans is just conjuring up more junk science layered over our already thickly layered junk science we have inherited by fame and fortune seeking scientists that were all members of the Cabal (Faraday/Maxwell to name two), either deeply or on the surface they have been controlled by the Bankers to keep things in line with their "feed them enough to function but not enough to think" model. I am not saying those two premeditated such folly but they have been used by the Cabal for their own advantage of taking true gravity driven effects and commandeering them to be understood and known and now ingrained as notions of magnetism, flux, field, electron, electron flow crap.
Hahahahahahahahahaha..................
wattsup
-
Wattsup:
I am not a "Cabalist" so I can't really go there. The paper looks bogus to me. Also, is it the battery magic from the current pulses, the spin/resonance business, or factoring in the "mechanical" output that allegedly gives you the COP > 1? Or, is there no COP >1 and it's just a battery charger/rejuvenator? It all seemingly depends on which way the wind blows.
When you are on the bench you are observing what happens on a macro scale. The challenge is to use your test equipment to measure and track the energy flow in the circuit over time. Now, using the "bucket of liquid energy" analogy, which is absolutely a true and valid analogy, what is a Bedini motor exactly? The coil is your bucket to hold energy. The bucket is leaky and it also can overflow if you fill it up for too long. Leaking or overflowing represents the energy spilling out and "falling on the ground." "Falling onto the ground" in real life is the waste heat production in the motor.
So here it is: When the transistor switches on, the leaky bucket is being filled with energy. Typically the bucket will not overflow but if you keep the transistor switched on too long it will. When the transistor switches off, the bucket flips over on a pivot and empties the energy into the "charging battery bucket." Most of the liquid energy makes it into the charging battery, but some is lost from splashing. When the bucket is empty, it flips back into position and waits for the transistor to switch on again.
That's all a Bedini motor is: A leaky energy bucket being filled and emptying into the charging battery. If you know your electronics and how to use your scope, you can construct a timing diagram and show the flow of energy. It's not that hard to do at all.
So that's a Bedini motor: A leaky bucket.
The energy flow says it all, you don't really have to dig deeper than that. Any Bedini enthusiast should put all of the mumbo-jumbo on the back burner and try to successfully do the most important analysis of all: Do a waveform timing diagram and then add the energy flows to the timing diagram. That tells you what the Bedini motor is _really_ doing, everything else is window dressing, and there is a lot of pseudoscience thrown in the mix.
As far as I am concerned, from the "official" Bedini camp, nobody has explained the energy dynamics a la leaky bucket like I described above. Look at the latest clip: Claims of COP > 1, and just the usual fluff discussion with no serious demonstration with measurements.
MileHigh
-
Wattsup:
Also, is it the battery magic from the current pulses, the spin/resonance business, or factoring in the "mechanical" output that allegedly gives you the COP > 1? Or, is there no COP >1 and it's just a battery charger/rejuvenator? It all seemingly depends on which way the wind blows.
MileHigh
Its quite simply explained in a nutshell IMO. The energiser is around 50% efficient and the battery is claimed to hold the 'free' energy as long as you build it right and measure it right - right! and I nearly forgot, the wheel is not free! Beyond that its all a money making exercise!
-
Yes, that's the conclusion a lot of people who have studied Bedini devices over past years have arrived at. I'm sure John is sincere in his beliefs that batteries conditioned on his energisers will show more out than in but he is also a business man needing to make a living. It can be fun building his wheel energiser but that's as far as it goes IMO. I did think it would make an interesting garden feature as a water wheel.
Well. Sincere BELIEFS have nothing to do with science and technology as far as I am concerned. Scientific method still rules I think.