Yes, so Bedini is getting rich off sitting on a free energy invention his entire life, out of fear someone may steal it or otherwise "compromise his commercial interests".  What commercial interests?  There are no commercial interests if nothing is being sold!  This is some genius profit scheme:

1.  Invent an overunity device which is potentially worth billions
2.  Never disclose it
3.  Die poor

If Bedini was just a little smarter, maybe he would at least start selling a little energy so he could make a some money he could enjoy right now before he gets too old to enjoy it ever.

I think the obvious answer is that he does not have a free energy device and that is the end of that.

my post was not directed to you, nor did you address any of the questions i posed, so why are you quoting my post? shouldn't you be quoting mike3's post?

i am curious though, how does one go about "getting rich off sitting on a free energy invention his entire life" and then "Die poor"? how does one get rich when nothing is being sold?
if you were a little smarter you maybe you would omit things like contradictions from your "genius profit scheme" analysis.

@ mike3

I understand your frustration and your skepticism if you have actually built and experimented with the Bedini "Energizers" as I have for the last few years.

The OU is not in the energizer but in the charged batteries so you can't make it self run without batteries, apparently replacing the batteries with caps don't work on some of these circuits, although I've seen one on Utube 

I've seen plenty of anomalous effects on my setups but OU still eludes me...there's tons of info on these setups but I'm just not hitting it lucky yet I guess....

Is there anyone out there that can run a charged battery as OU with accurate measurments or better yet their house on this tech?  After looking at some of Bedini's videos I still don't see how he could run his shop on his best of the best setups, of course I could be wrong (as usual) 

Regards,
Paul

Actually I haven't built any of these devices (see my other post about lacking money). Rather I'm examining the claims out of curiosity, to see just how good they are or what they are supposed to actually do. After all, it would be great to find some source of "free" energy. That's why my skepticism comes up however, such as with these Bedini motors and also the MEG that I mentioned (which seems to have been really debunked good.). Mythbusters claimed to "debunk" the Bedini device but what they built looks nothing like what I've seen in any of the pictures, videos, or diagrams, so I'm not sure if that really affects the Bedini claim in any way. The trick here is that I'd like to find a device that has a reasonable chance of working, and I'm not sure if the Bedini devices are actually it, especially considering what I just heard from someone here that they aren't actually "over unity" at all, which would really make me wonder what their point is. Nor have I yet heard any good theory on the "effect".

I did, however, find this from a guy named Andrew Thorp who tried out something called an "Adams motor" that looks similar to a Bedini motor:
"there is an unusual effect that occurs when lead-acid batteries are subjected to high-voltage spikes, such as the motor coils produce. Their open-circuit voltage rises to a level higher than normal, but the net energy content still diminishes over time as normal. The very small motors that Dr. Adams originally built were capable of masking the normal voltage decrease of the supply batteries and making them appear to hold their energy level. Large automotive batteries will run a small motor for several weeks, and the mechanical contactor switch will fail within this time giving the impression that the motor is going to keep running forever without draining the batteries."

I think there's some relation between Bedini and Adams motors (isn't a Bedini a version of an Adams? I thought I saw something to that effect) so it is likely this critique may apply to the Bedini too. Especially considering you mentioned the "OU" being "in the batteries". If it's something to do with the batteries then the possibility of an illusion there must be considered. Also if there _is_ something "real" going on in the batteries what is the point of the "energizer" motor? Just to generate a particular voltage/current pattern? Then couldn't one use something else to generate that pattern as well? If so that might help to pin down what the heck is going on. It might also alleviate the need for a mechanical contactor, thereby allowing one to test for longer periods to perhaps give some idea as to whether or not Thorp's theory is correct (which, if true, would debunk the motor.).

What do you make of that? If it's just an illusion like that there's no point to bothering. It's stuff like this, plus the lack of rigorous scientific confirmations, that makes me skeptical.

There's nothing wrong in being skeptical about Bedini's claims. I'm skeptical along with many others but you need to realise that nobody can prove his claims simply because they are based on a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a conventional scientific manner. Even the generally accepted method of load testing batteries for the signs of energy gained does not convince experienced 'free energy' researchers that increased capacity in the battery is as a result of negative energy, simply becasue lowering the impedance of batteries by desulfating automatically increases battery capacity.

And that's just it, it can't really be tested very well. So I don't see the point in bothering with that claim. Do you have _any_ idea of _any_ test that adheres to _general_ scientific principles, even if not a "conventional" one, that might work?

I'm sure you must know all this anyway Mike as an EE and yet you continue trying to make some sort of issue out of this. If people want to blindly follow Bedini like Lemmings then that's their choice. I mean if those people don't even understand basic electrics and electronics, there's little hope that your rantings will change their minds. To a large extent, you are 'preaching to the converted' who already understand your angle on things. How about relaxing a bit from the keyboard and letting your hair down by building your first spinning wheel energiser as a garden novelty if you like, as I suggested earlier. At least you can then say that you are at a beginners level with Bedini stuff.

Hoppy

EE? I don't think so but I do know enough about physics to be skeptical of the working of what looks to be little more than just some magnets on a wheel with a coil. ("working" = "gives you 'free' energy".)

I suppose I could build it just for fun of boredom but being tight on cash and all, I'm not sure. Especially if there's really nothing amazing to expect.

Afraid not Mike.

Hoppy

So then I guess there's no bother. How else do you propose to ensure what you are looking at is actually result, and not just delusion? Scientific _methods_, by the way, should _not_ be confused with scientific _theory_.

more pathological skepticism...

1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.

"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff.  We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report.  There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist.  You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion.  We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results    would be a waste of time.  Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down."

The issue here is not a lack of mechanism, or a contradiction with theory, but ultimately a lack of *proof* that the device creates effects that are not attributable to misinterpreted mundane phenomena or experimental bias. For example, one critique I mentioned had to do with an observation of an artifact of lead-acid batteries that may fool an inexperienced experimenter into thinking that the device is generating energy when in fact it is not. One possible test that might eliminate this would be to try out a different type of battery. Does the effect persist or disappear? Look, if good repeatable proof could be found of an effect that is not just experimental bias or incompetence on the part of the experimenter then it doesn't matter if it contradicts orthodox theory -- so much worse for orthodox theory! Time to get a new paradigm. The problem is that lack of proof, however. Why bother replicating an experiment that is methodologically flawed?

5.  Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.

"Your ideas are obviously garbage.  What, try to replicate your evidence?  I wouldn't soil my hands.  And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome."

see http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Did you even read any of the critiques I mentioned? Where are they just blowing it off w/o making any examination of the claim?
For example:
http://www.PHACT.org/e/z/bearden.htm (Get it? "PHACT"? "FACT"??! HAHAHA!)

Here they discuss experimental procedures Naudin _did not follow_, experimental Methods designed to eliminate known sources of bias:
"Don't forget the possibility of capacitive coupling to the probe or its leads. Since the MEG output is pretty high voltage at 25-30 kHz and scopes generally have unbalanced inputs with high input Z, it wouldn't take too many pF of stray capacitance between the MEG output circuit and the probe leads to muck up the measurement.
If such be the case, the interference should lead the MEG output voltage in phase.
In order to check for this, you would need to move the output wire from the clamp as above while leaving it just outside the clamp and keeping the position of the output wiring relative to the probe leads unchanged- and then see if you get a zero reading.
Taking accurate electrical measurements is part of what I do for a living, and seeing the kind of sheer sloppiness Naudin habitually indulges is just plain irritating. Makes me want to go "Move over Rover and let a real tech take over"."

This is a well-known source of ERROR, and one _must_ eliminate it from one's experiment! If Naudin is not taking care with the experiments then the results of them are not trustworthy! How is that so difficult to understand??? It is experimental ERRORS like this that are the problem here. Bedini motors, MEGs, you name it, if they aren't doing good Experiments what's the point?

Another thing that is getting me miffed is that I'm getting contrary information here. One guy here seems to be admitting the device is not over-unity, which therefore would seem to be an admission it is not useful for anything and is not something revolutionary.