Author Topic: I'm skeptical of these motors... (Read 11323 times)

mike3 · « **on:** September 18, 2008, 11:58:25 PM »

You know, I just can't help it but have skepticism about all these motors and things. For one, this "Bedini" motor thing has batteries in there. The result is supposedly that more energy comes out the "out" terminal than goes into the "in" terminal. Which therefore makes me wonder, why bother with the batteries? Why not just hook the out to the in and then give the flywheel a kick? If more energy comes out the out, then when the initial pulse here is given, it should self-amplify (or pick up more energy from the vacuum) as it passes through the machine, so the wheel should start to speed up "all on its own". What I'm wondering about though is why this has not been done. If these motors really do work, this should work, no? Why shouldn't it? That's the only way to really prove beyond a reasonable doubt it works -- no batteries or other power systems in the loop -- just the mysterious device itself, and then give it a push and see if it accelerates itself. Only sustained acceleration would prove beyond a reasonable doubt this device actually works. If you don't want it to burst then just have some brakes on there (or yank out the coil or some other fail safe). If it can sustain an acceleration, then we can see it is working, as obviously more energy is coming into the wheel than our push put in.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now having a real, working machine that actually does indeed produce over-unity would be extraordinary proof. But the way these things are rigged seems to leave open the possibility the battery could be supplying all the energy, and since it's infeasible to put up a video that is as long as the estimated lifespan of the battery with no over-unity effects, they do not seem to show that such extraordinary proof exists, and so I don't believe the claim.

Any comment on why this test is bad or problematic or otherwise hasn't been done?

Hoppy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2008, 09:46:54 AM »

Quote from: mike3 on September 18, 2008, 11:58:25 PM

You know, I just can't help it but have skepticism about all these motors and things. For one, this "Bedini" motor thing has batteries in there. The result is supposedly that more energy comes out the "out" terminal than goes into the "in" terminal. Which therefore makes me wonder, why bother with the batteries? Why not just hook the out to the in and then give the flywheel a kick? If more energy comes out the out, then when the initial pulse here is given, it should self-amplify (or pick up more energy from the vacuum) as it passes through the machine, so the wheel should start to speed up "all on its own". What I'm wondering about though is why this has not been done. If these motors really do work, this should work, no? Why shouldn't it? That's the only way to really prove beyond a reasonable doubt it works -- no batteries or other power systems in the loop -- just the mysterious device itself, and then give it a push and see if it accelerates itself. Only sustained acceleration would prove beyond a reasonable doubt this device actually works. If you don't want it to burst then just have some brakes on there (or yank out the coil or some other fail safe). If it can sustain an acceleration, then we can see it is working, as obviously more energy is coming into the wheel than our push put in.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now having a real, working machine that actually does indeed produce over-unity would be extraordinary proof. But the way these things are rigged seems to leave open the possibility the battery could be supplying all the energy, and since it's infeasible to put up a video that is as long as the estimated lifespan of the battery with no over-unity effects, they do not seem to show that such extraordinary proof exists, and so I don't believe the claim.

Any comment on why this test is bad or problematic or otherwise hasn't been done?

With respect you misunderstand the Bedini Motor. It is not OU or even unity. In fact it is very inneficient, around 40% - 50% efficiency electrically. Any gains are claimed to be seen in the battery when it has been conditioned. This is why it's referred to as an energiser, not a battery charger. A lot input energy is required for battery conditioning, even with a new battery. It does beg the question is it all worthwhile. That's down to the opinion of anyone who has had the time and patience to go through this process with all the verifying load testing that is involved, not for people who have never gone through the complete process.

Hoppy

mike3 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2008, 07:43:36 AM »

Which of course makes me wonder as to why bother with the thing in the first place. If it does not provide any more energy out than you put in (i.e. is not "over unity"), but is actually an _under_-unity device, what's its point? It just doesn't make any sense. Then you just have an energy waster, not an energy source. Why is everyone so amazed at trying to build this thing? Just a fun "toy"? What?

And what the heck does this "battery conditioning" mean? How does the _battery_ need to have some sort of special property?

citfta · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2008, 12:19:08 PM »

The whole point is the SSG is used as a demo to show how to rejuvinate "dead" batteries. I have already recovered a couple of batteries that would not hold a charge anymore. The SSG produces pulses that clean up the sulphation in a dead battery. Also if the unit is built and tuned correctly the battery will become more efficient and therefore able to hold a larger charge than it could originally. I have built one and it works just like the people on the monopole site said it would. citfta

Hoppy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2008, 01:19:52 PM »

Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 07:43:36 AM

Which of course makes me wonder as to why bother with the thing in the first place. If it does not provide any more energy out than you put in (i.e. is not "over unity"), but is actually an _under_-unity device, what's its point? It just doesn't make any sense. Then you just have an energy waster, not an energy source. Why is everyone so amazed at trying to build this thing? Just a fun "toy"? What?

And what the heck does this "battery conditioning" mean? How does the _battery_ need to have some sort of special property?

As citfta points out, its just for learning and enjoyment purposes. Its not a magic machine, just simple EE stuff, an electro-mechanical oscillator which can rejuvenate and re-charge sulfated batteries. The same thing can be done a lot simpler with solid state but the spinning wheel looks nice and can make an attractive feature in the garden or novel fan for the house (matter of opinion of course). If some of the coil discharge is fed back (back-popped) to the primary, the power requirements are low, so a small PV panel can be used to run it as a garden feature (COP infinity!).

The real McCoy if it exists is the property of John Bedini and he is understandably not going to reveal this and jeopardise his commercial interests.

Hoppy

Yucca · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2008, 01:31:02 PM »

Bedini motor is a great introduction to back EMF and coil work it's an easy way of generating very fast transients, plus you have the thrill of a moving motor. I salute all the Bedini builders, great work, keep it up, beats staring into a plasma screen spouting Orwellian newspeak all day.

The skills, concepts and understanding gained from actually building something physical cannot be learnt from books, and those skills can always be used in other areas, so even if a Bedini motor does not yield COP>1 then the experimenter can take the gleaned skills and apply them to other areas that may prove very fruitful.

Also the very act of trying to build for COP>1 is the first step to achieving it. And IMHO it is a very necessary step.

mike3 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2008, 09:11:38 PM »

Quote from: Yucca on October 01, 2008, 01:31:02 PM

Bedini motor is a great introduction to back EMF and coil work it's an easy way of generating very fast transients, plus you have the thrill of a moving motor. I salute all the Bedini builders, great work, keep it up, beats staring into a plasma screen spouting Orwellian newspeak all day.

You mean this thing I'm typing messages into right now? Since that's the screen I stare at quite a bit.

Quote from: Yucca on October 01, 2008, 01:31:02 PM

The skills, concepts and understanding gained from actually building something physical cannot be learnt from books, and those skills can always be used in other areas, so even if a Bedini motor does not yield COP>1 then the experimenter can take the gleaned skills and apply them to other areas that may prove very fruitful.

Also the very act of trying to build for COP>1 is the first step to achieving it. And IMHO it is a very necessary step.

Well, I suppose, but if one wants to seriously have a good shot at getting free energy one must have some theory as to how it could be obtained. Then try and build what that theory suggests would work, and see if it does, which will test the theory. Theory points the way for what to build. Just trying to "build for free energy" doesn't do much until you know what direction to go to have a serious shot at getting it.

So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:

http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm "A skeptical look at the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden"

Fave quote:
"The more you look into it, the more the question becomes not 'why did the MEG project fail?' but rather 'how on earth did they manage to hold it together for so long.'"

http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

At least here though one had some theory to critique and examine (it flopped). I'm not sure what the "theory" is behind the "Bedini motor". Obviously we need some better research and methods if one wants to really uncover the physics behind "real" free energy.

Hoppy · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2008, 10:34:45 PM »

Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 09:11:38 PM

So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:

This is what motivates people to try all sorts of strange and unconventional approaches. After all the conventional approaches have so far failed, so why not try spinning wheels, the MEG, pyramids, crystals and anything else that comes to a creative mind. Life can be fun if it's not taken too seriously. I mean look at those silly men in their ridiculous looking flying machines all those years ago. I'm sure they enjoyed themeselves a lot of the time jumping off cliffs and landing with a bump. These guys were ridiculed plenty but history shows that their efforts were not in vain!

Hoppy

Yucca · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2008, 10:52:33 PM »

Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 09:11:38 PM

You mean this thing I'm typing messages into right now? Since that's the screen I stare at quite a bit.

Well, I suppose, but if one wants to seriously have a good shot at getting free energy one must have some theory as to how it could be obtained. Then try and build what that theory suggests would work, and see if it does, which will test the theory. Theory points the way for what to build. Just trying to "build for free energy" doesn't do much until you know what direction to go to have a serious shot at getting it.

So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:

http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm "A skeptical look at the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden"

Fave quote:
"The more you look into it, the more the question becomes not 'why did the MEG project fail?' but rather 'how on earth did they manage to hold it together for so long.'"

http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

At least here though one had some theory to critique and examine (it flopped). I'm not sure what the "theory" is behind the "Bedini motor". Obviously we need some better research and methods if one wants to really uncover the physics behind "real" free energy.

I meant telivision, scripted viewing. I wasnÃ‚Â´t implying that you are guilty of watching too much TV, just stating that a person building a Bedini motor is being more productive than someone watching TV.

I donÃ‚Â´t think itÃ‚Â´s necessary to use or know theory in order to discover new things, thatÃ‚Â´s like saying explorers of old needed maps in order to discover new lands. Also existing theories cannot explain Griggs Hydrosonic Pumps, you can build your own GHSP and see COP>1 using calorimetery.

I agree that it would be good to have better research procedures and theories in free energy research, but usually these theories follow in the footsteps of the original discovery which is often an anomoly spotted whilst looking for something else. So hopefuly in the end we will have a new or extended set of theories to use in FE research.

I have read a little about motionless electromagnetic generator, but donÃ‚Â´t know enough to comment yet.

mike3 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2008, 02:09:19 AM »

Actually I don't watch TV anymore since TV service was cut off at our house.

mike3 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2008, 02:12:50 AM »

Quote from: Hoppy on October 01, 2008, 01:19:52 PM

As citfta points out, its just for learning and enjoyment purposes. Its not a magic machine, just simple EE stuff, an electro-mechanical oscillator which can rejuvenate and re-charge sulfated batteries. The same thing can be done a lot simpler with solid state but the spinning wheel looks nice and can make an attractive feature in the garden or novel fan for the house (matter of opinion of course). If some of the coil discharge is fed back (back-popped) to the primary, the power requirements are low, so a small PV panel can be used to run it as a garden feature (COP infinity!).

So what happens if you want actual free energy, or to figure out whether or not real "free energy" is possible? (As you said it was "under unity" so it does not yield any "free energy".)

Quote from: Hoppy on October 01, 2008, 01:19:52 PM

The real McCoy if it exists is the property of John Bedini and he is understandably not going to reveal this and jeopardise his commercial interests.

Hoppy

And that sucks, you know. (I.e. I do not agree with the practice.) If one has a free energy device one should give it up to the world, forget about profit and give out the device to help the peoples of the world, to bring cheap energy to those people who need it most in the poor regions of our globe, and so on. But alas greed gets in the way and the commercial interests unfortunately take to the fore.

Furthermore does this mean that he will never release it ever, at all, and so if it does work the invention will be lost forever? Gosh, no wonder I hate prioritizing "commercial interests". What if it does work?

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2008, 03:30:16 AM »

Quote from: mike3 on October 02, 2008, 02:12:50 AM

So what happens if you want actual free energy, or to figure out whether or not real "free energy" is possible? (As you said it was "under unity" so it does not yield any "free energy".)

well, you gotta get off your collective surplus and start trying to replicate...

Quote from: mike3 on October 02, 2008, 02:12:50 AM

And that sucks, you know. (I.e. I do not agree with the practice.) If one has a free energy device one should give it up to the world, forget about profit and give out the device to help the peoples of the world, to bring cheap energy to those people who need it most in the poor regions of our globe, and so on. But alas greed gets in the way and the commercial interests unfortunately take to the fore.

Furthermore does this mean that he will never release it ever, at all, and so if it does work the invention will be lost forever? Gosh, no wonder I hate prioritizing "commercial interests". What if it does work?

oh yes the usual "these damn greedy bastards"... how boring. if you're so altruistic why aren't you building and showing? how much of your paycheck did you give to "the poor peoples of the world" last pay period? can't bring yourself to forget about your profit margin either can you? yeah, greed does get in the way doesn't it?
what if it does work? i doubt you will know, you will probably be here whining about greed and wondering why no one has delivered your silver platter to you...

Goat · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2008, 07:08:26 AM »

@ 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

utilitarian · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2008, 07:55:11 AM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 02, 2008, 03:30:16 AM

well, you gotta get off your collective surplus and start trying to replicate...
oh yes the usual "these damn greedy bastards"... how boring. if you're so altruistic why aren't you building and showing? how much of your paycheck did you give to "the poor peoples of the world" last pay period? can't bring yourself to forget about your profit margin either can you? yeah, greed does get in the way doesn't it?
what if it does work? i doubt you will know, you will probably be here whining about greed and wondering why no one has delivered your silver platter to you...

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.

Goat · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2008, 08:15:28 AM »

@ All

I didn't mean to discourage anyone from messing around with JB's circuits even though you may be skeptic such as I am (that's why I keep trying), as a matter of fact I've bought some of his spin offs such as the FEG book and video as well as the RC-2A12-2 to contribute to his research but as I mentioned I just haven't been lucky enough to show any gains from the circuits I've built so far or the charger, hopefully JB will step forward eventually and show us and not just tell us because so far no go on my end.

Wish everyone the best and hope you find enough of the elusive OU to run your house or your car

Regards,
Paul

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: I'm skeptical of these motors... (Read 11323 times)

mike3

I'm skeptical of these motors...

Hoppy

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

mike3

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

citfta

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Hoppy

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Yucca

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

mike3

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Hoppy

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Yucca

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

mike3

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

mike3

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

WilbyInebriated

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Goat

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

utilitarian

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...

Goat

Re: I'm skeptical of these motors...