Hello to the Bedini 10-coiler experimenters and others:
I read the entire Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coil thread and I am setting up this "alternative" thread to discuss the project. I invite all of the 10-coiler experimenters to come here if you want to chat and discuss.
There are a lot of good points and not so good points in the original thread. Some concepts could use some clarification and more discussion. There are also a lot of misconceptions out there, connecting a solar panel to a Bedini motor to extract more energy out of the solar panel is the first one that comes to mind. So perhaps some of the prevalent misconceptions could be discussed and clarified. This will make your research much more fruitful and productive. I understand that Rick who sold you the kits offers no technical support.
For starters, I suppose the question for all of the builders is what tests or project goals do you have in mind? Perhaps you would like some advice on testing methods or would like to discuss how to actually achieve your project goals. I know a lot of you have invested a lot of time and money in the 10-coiler, so the idea is to hopefully help you get more out of your research.
MileHigh
Here is an interesting quote from a Bedini-related thread on the Energetic Forum:
QuoteCertainly the SG or Simplified SG are not claimed Overunity by the Bedini himself, you can search on energeticforum Jonh Bedini user and read it.
Incredibly when you play the EFTV DVD's others words are used, explicitly on DVD #2 : "...first time in the history free and unlimited energy supply".
Bedini shows the famous big SG 10 coils connecting 1200 watts incandescent lamps to the secondary batteries, and finally shows a Pendulum seems OU but he speaks a little about it.
I know from reading the thread that there is a lot of excitement about the EFTV claim about the 10-coiler. So some of you bought the kits and want to explore and see for yourselves and have a lot of fun in the process.
If working together we can offer some guidance and suggestions perhaps you can reach your goals more quickly.
MileHigh
So everybody is interested in coils. Inductors are very similar to capacitors in many ways, and the two devices compliment each other like Yin and Yang.
This YouTuber does not play with back-EMF spikes, but man oh man does he know his coils. He also has a series of clips that teach some basic electronics.
He repairs old radios and he is brilliant.
The YouTube channel is "AllAmericanFiveRadio" and I highly recommend his clips to anybody interested in electronics.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio (http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio)
Even the Bedini crowd would get a lot out of watching his clips.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.22, 00:19:54
Hello to the Bedini 10-coiler experimenters and others:
I read the entire Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coil thread and I am setting up this "alternative" thread to discuss the project. I invite all of the 10-coiler experimenters to come here if you want to chat and discuss.
There are a lot of good points and not so good points in the original thread. Some concepts could use some clarification and more discussion. There are also a lot of misconceptions out there, connecting a solar panel to a Bedini motor to extract more energy out of the solar panel is the first one that comes to mind. So perhaps some of the prevalent misconceptions could be discussed and clarified. This will make your research much more fruitful and productive. I understand that Rick who sold you the kits offers no technical support.
For starters, I suppose the question for all of the builders is what tests or project goals do you have in mind? Perhaps you would like some advice on testing methods or would like to discuss how to actually achieve your project goals. I know a lot of you have invested a lot of time and money in the 10-coiler, so the idea is to hopefully help you get more out of your research.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
Thanks for inviting me to this forum.
First of all, since I'm a newbie here I would like to introduce myself a bit. I have been researching Bedini technology for the last 3 years or so. I have successfully replicated most of Bedini's devices that he has placed in the public domain. I am also a moderator of the Bedini groups on Yahoo! and have also set up a business to distribute Bedini's commercial products in Australia. I am also an authorized dealer for some of the Bedini kits that Rick offers for sale, including the 10-coiler. I was fortunate enough to spend a few days with John, Gary and Rick and found them all to be very good hard working people and I remain close friends with them to this day.
Before I respond to your post I should mention that the only browser I have been able to use on this forum is Firefox for PC. I could not navigate or respond using IE or Safari for PC. You may want to look into that.
OK, onto the response.
I'd like to understand why you have started off a new forum to discuss the Bedini 10-coiler kit, when the forum on Energetic Forum seems to be covering it well enough? I'm not sure if you have posted on that forum under another another name, but if not, why not just post your comments and goals there? Like myself who is a member of many forums on the Internet, why should people join this forum as well? I'm not trying to discourage your motives, just trying to understand them better.
Although I do not own a 10-coiler kit, I recently had the privilege to spend a day with someone who does. I found the machine to be extremely well built and pretty easy to work with, for those that already have a good understanding of how a multi-coil, multi-strand Bedini SSG Monopole Energizer works. I disagree with your statement that Rick does not offer any technical support for the 10-coiler as this could not be further from the truth. I know whenever I have asked for technical support, Rick has been very helpful. I also know of several people that have received very good support from Rick as well.
Rick does make it very clear that the 10-coiler is an experimental kit that is for research purposes. He makes no claims except that it is designed to charge a large bank of batteries. It is up to the individual experimenter to decide what they would like to achieve from the kit and in which direction they would like to go with it. He also recommends that the experimenter should develop a good understanding of how the Bedini SSG Monopole Energizer works before deciding to build or replicate some of the advanced Bedini designs.
In reference to your second post on this thread, I would like to clarify that John Bedini has stated many times that NONE of the devices that he has placed in the public domain are over-unity devices. The SSG Monopole Energizer in particular, is a device that creates a high voltage "spike", which is caused by the collapsing field of an electromagnet, which it then sends to the charging battery. It is how the battery responds to the spike which charges the battery and in many cases will charge a battery that can no longer be charged by a conventional charger. It is the repetition of this process that shows gains in the amount of energy that the battery can provide when it is loaded. This is what many experimenters fail to understand and the main reason why a lot people fail to get the results they expected.
As for connecting solar panels as a power source for the Bedini SSG Monopole Energizer, there should not be any misconceptions either. The Bedini SSG Monopole Energizer works great with solar panels. It does not extract more energy from the solar panels, but it USES all of the available energy, as the device is able operate on less than 1 volt and still charge any battery with a higher voltage than the solar panel is putting out. Whereas, traditional methods of using solar panels are designed in a way that the solar panel must put out at least 2 volts higher than the battery being charged for the battery to charge at all. Therefore, the device is able to charge batteries in low light conditions, such as cloudy days, shade and even moon light.
Once again, I am not trying to discourage you from starting a new forum to discuss the Bedini 10-coiler kit. I am simply re-iterating what John has already stated in the public domain for years and to clarify or help people understand this technology. One simply has to do their research and prove it to themselves on the bench and then draw their own conclusions. You also need to have an open mind as some of the technology is far different to what is conventionally taught in schools and universities. But you also have to obey the golden rule, which is to build the devices EXACTLY how John Bedini has told you how to. Once you have done this and have a sound understanding of the principles involved, you can then make changes and advancements.
I wish you all the best in your experiments...
John K.
John,
Welcome to OUR forum.
It may not always be apparent, but EF is most often not tolerant nor sympathetic towards folks that ask the hard questions. Several from here have been banned from EF for doing just that, and in a respectful manner. I myself was not banned, but after declaring I would not post there anymore, they deleted my account. Speaking from experience, IMHO EF is far from fair, nor are they interested in the raw truth. This probably explains why MH (and many others) does not post there in your threads.
.99
Hi John,
Welcome to the forum. I will try to respond briefly to your points. Sorry, but I won't pull up links to posts in the EF thread because it's too much work. The material in the thread is fresh in my mind I read it just a few days ago.
I am an exile from the EF. I was involved in the Ainslie thread on the EF and OU. Towards the end of the archived Ainslie thread I was booted off by Aaron. Lots of emotions were running high and that's just the way it is. Some people on this forum are voluntary or involuntary exiles from the other forums. My main motive is to help the experimenters achieve whatever they are trying to achieve. It can be fun doing that.
It's arguable as to whether the main forum is covering the subject matter well enough. Time will tell if this forum covers new ground as compared to the EF forum. The first big red flag is that everybody is talking about their battery voltage measurements to gauge performance. That's really not the way to go, and hopefully it can be discussed in more detail with the experimenters.
In the thread there is at least one or possibly more definitive statements that Rick will not answer any emails with respect to the technical aspects of the device. Someone stated that only emails about parts, delivery dates, etc, will be answered and technical emails are not answered. Again, I don't have the stamina to give links. I could do browser string searches on the thread and find the references if I really wanted to.
For the claims about the device I did a copy/paste from the EF that references a claim about free energy from the 10-coiler on a John Bedini EFTV DVD. I haven't seen the DVD myself, I am just quoting someone else. Perhaps someone else can confirm or deny this that has seen the #2 DVD. In the thread there are several references by the participants about "scaling up to the 10-coiler" to achieve over unity. These are the impressions expressed by the participants and it is clear that several of them have this expectation. I am just telling you what I read. Of course the battery charging is discussed also.
I agree with you that the claim about being able to get a battery to store more energy is a reasonable claim that has nothing to do with free energy. As a challenge to the Bedini 10-coilers and other Bedini experimenters, it would be interesting to see an "A-B" type of experiment done where you compare how two new identical batteries perform, one conventionally charged and one charged with inductive current spikes. Honestly over the years of reading about Bedini charging, I don't think I can recall this simple test being done by a third party.
With respect to solar panels, your statements about being able to exploit the low solar panel output voltages in low light and still charge a battery are true. I was actually thinking about something completely different. What I was thinking about was extracting the maximum available power from the solar panel and have that maximum available power be available to power the Bedini motor. That's a different issue, and my impression is that's what the 10-coiler experimenter's are expecting. I could be be wrong. That's a whole different ball game and is very difficult to do.
What is probably a hot-button issue is whether this is unconventional technology that is not taught in universities, or not. That would be part of the investigations if the experimenters decide they want to go down that path. Certainly another hot-button issue is whether or not you need to do an EXACT copy with respect to magnet spacings and dimensions and a host of other parameters. That can be part of the discussion also. If you want to keep an open mind, even these points have to be opened up for debate.
So I will finish off by posing a question to the 10-coiler experimenters:
You normally think of the standard Bedini main firing coil as being single-strand. In the 10-coiler each of the 9 main firing coils is 8-filer, a.k.a. eight strands each one with a switching transistor and a diode. (Or perhaps was it 10 strands per coil in Rick's kit?) Note that one of the 10 coils is the pick-up coil for doing the transistor switching timing.
So why was this design choice made? What are the implications when you go from one wire to eight separate wires for each main firing coil? How will this affect some of your other design choices?
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.07.23, 03:39:37
John,
Welcome to OUR forum.
It may not always be apparent, but EF is most often not tolerant nor sympathetic towards folks that ask the hard questions. Several from here have been banned from EF for doing just that, and in a respectful manner. I myself was not banned, but after declaring I would not post there anymore, they deleted my account. Speaking from experience, IMHO EF is far from fair, nor are they interested in the raw truth. This probably explains why MH (and many others) does not post there in your threads.
.99
.99,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I haven't experienced the same at EF though.
John K.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.23, 03:40:12
Hi John,
Welcome to the forum. I will try to respond briefly to your points. Sorry, but I won't pull up links to posts in the EF thread because it's too much work. The material in the thread is fresh in my mind I read it just a few days ago.
I am an exile from the EF. I was involved in the Ainslie thread on the EF and OU. Towards the end of the archived Ainslie thread I was booted off by Aaron. Lots of emotions were running high and that's just the way it is. Some people on this forum are voluntary or involuntary exiles from the other forums. My main motive is to help the experimenters achieve whatever they are trying to achieve. It can be fun doing that.
It's arguable as to whether the main forum is covering the subject matter well enough. Time will tell if this forum covers new ground as compared to the EF forum. The first big red flag is that everybody is talking about their battery voltage measurements to gauge performance. That's really not the way to go, and hopefully it can be discussed in more detail with the experimenters.
In the thread there is at least one or possibly more definitive statements that Rick will not answer any emails with respect to the technical aspects of the device. Someone stated that only emails about parts, delivery dates, etc, will be answered and technical emails are not answered. Again, I don't have the stamina to give links. I could do browser string searches on the thread and find the references if I really wanted to.
For the claims about the device I did a copy/paste from the EF that references a claim about free energy from the 10-coiler on a John Bedini EFTV DVD. I haven't seen the DVD myself, I am just quoting someone else. Perhaps someone else can confirm or deny this that has seen the #2 DVD. In the thread there are several references by the participants about "scaling up to the 10-coiler" to achieve over unity. These are the impressions expressed by the participants and it is clear that several of them have this expectation. I am just telling you what I read. Of course the battery charging is discussed also.
I agree with you that the claim about being able to get a battery to store more energy is a reasonable claim that has nothing to do with free energy. As a challenge to the Bedini 10-coilers and other Bedini experimenters, it would be interesting to see an "A-B" type of experiment done where you compare how two new identical batteries perform, one conventionally charged and one charged with inductive current spikes. Honestly over the years of reading about Bedini charging, I don't think I can recall this simple test being done by a third party.
With respect to solar panels, your statements about being able to exploit the low solar panel output voltages in low light and still charge a battery are true. I was actually thinking about something completely different. What I was thinking about was extracting the maximum available power from the solar panel and have that maximum available power be available to power the Bedini motor. That's a different issue, and my impression is that's what the 10-coiler experimenter's are expecting. I could be be wrong. That's a whole different ball game and is very difficult to do.
What is probably a hot-button issue is whether this is unconventional technology that is not taught in universities, or not. That would be part of the investigations if the experimenters decide they want to go down that path. Certainly another hot-button issue is whether or not you need to do an EXACT copy with respect to magnet spacings and dimensions and a host of other parameters. That can be part of the discussion also. If you want to keep an open mind, even these points have to be opened up for debate.
So I will finish off by posing a question to the 10-coiler experimenters:
You normally think of the standard Bedini main firing coil as being single-strand. In the 10-coiler each of the 9 main firing coils is 8-filer, a.k.a. eight strands each one with a switching transistor and a diode. (Or perhaps was it 10 strands per coil in Rick's kit?) Note that one of the 10 coils is the pick-up coil for doing the transistor switching timing.
So why was this design choice made? What are the implications when you go from one wire to eight separate wires for each main firing coil? How will this affect some of your other design choices?
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
I agree with most of what you posted, and I'm not here to argue - just state the facts as I see them from my own experiences.
Thanks also for sharing your motives, it looks like they are similar to my own. I can understand your reason for starting your thread here. And yes, as long as it's fun I'll keep doing it.
I totally agree that battery voltage is not a true indication of a battery's capacity. Only a controlled load test can tell how much energy you can get out of it. IMHO, the battery voltage can only be used as and indicator of when to stop charging or loading before you permanently ruin the battery.
Rick is a very busy guy and some people are not patient or persistent enough. I live in Australia so it's harder for me contact him by phone because of the time difference. I know Rick well enough that if I need something answered I may have to try and contact him a few times before I get hold of him, either by email or phone. I respect that he is also a family man and restrict my contact with him to his business hours. If Rick spent his whole day answering emails and phone calls, he would never get anything done and we would not have John's chargers on the market or any kits to buy if we wanted to.
The people that think by "scaling up to a 10-coiler to achieve over-unity" do not understand how the machine works or have the wrong impression on how it works. If they understood that they could achieve similar results with a single coil, single transistor SSG then they would know what to expect from the 10 coiler. However, from my experiments I can say that scaling up does have benefits, but the "free-energy" is still in the battery and only if you use good batteries. As you scale up the performance increases in a non-linear or logarithmic way, that is that the batteries charge faster and the primary lasts longer. But, let me repeat, the 10-coiler is NOT an over-unity machine.
I have done a the simple comparison test that you mentioned and my results were as claimed. I was able to prove that the Bedini SSG did improve the battery capacity whereas the conventionally charged battery did not. My experiment was done with two new batteries exactly the same, with the same date stamp.
I have some more to add, but don't have the time right now. I wrote a response on the EF yesterday that outlines the reason why Rick's kit is not an EXACT copy of John original 10 coiler which I'm happy to post here when I have some time.
John K.
Quote from: John_K on 2010.07.23, 04:25:56
.99,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I haven't experienced the same at EF though.
John K.
Indeed, I'm aware of that.
There are two distinct groups on forums such as EF and OU. One is welcomed and encouraged to post, while the other is not. It's an interesting dynamic of human behaviour that unfortunately can lead to unproductive research and wasted funds.
Check the name of this forum.....obviously I'm hopeful we will find OU one day soon, but what I see at most forums, is they are fraught with members who have little to no knowledge of the field they are researching, while simultaneously exhibiting the strong tendency to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about the devices they are working on. Even worse, are the members that do indeed possess a solid understanding of their field yet still succumb to erroneous premature conclusions regarding the performance of their devices. Most lack the required knowledge to perform stringent testing and the reasons for it. There is a huge element of objectivity missing in these forums, but unfortunately, not many see this.
One of the goals of OUR forum is to help keep folks on level ground, and it is the expectation of this forum that all experimenters provide proper evidence to substantiate any claims. You may be interested in reading the guidelines of this forum for a bit more elaboration on this.
Cheers,
.99
I know this thread is for 10-coil discussion, but can someone direct me to Bedini's Solid State schematic and is there any explanation for what occurs inside a battery charged by Bedini's devices the accounts for the differences?
Hi John,
To respond to the improved charge that the battery can get:
If this is the main advantage associated with charging a battery with current pulses from an inductor then it would seem that the logical configuration for a Bedini setup would be a mains-fed power supply connected to the Bedini motor connected to a charging battery.
There is no point in having a source battery. Yet in the Bedini culture there is almost always a source battery charging a charging battery, and everybody swaps batteries back and forth and a lot of them believe that they can get extra energy like this. Part of the "folklore" if you will is that one battery can fully recharge four flat batteries, and then you can set up a round-robin battery rotation system and get free energy. I am not alleging that you said this! It's simply something I have read dozens of time.
Going back to dropping the source battery, you can take that argument even further and simply drop the spinning motor entirely and do the whole thing "solid state." i.e.; This goes back to the description of a Bedini motor as a "mechanical oscillator." For a few dollars you can use a 555-based pulse generator or similar circuit and loose all of the magnets and the rotor and the bearings.
Anyway, I am just drawing some logical conclusions, I am not arguing with you.
This is also getting off topic. There are people out there with the 10-coiler right now that want to work with it and the offer in my first post still stands. I have a feeling some of them are lurking, let's hope some join and we get a good discussion going.
One quick comment about the EF thread is that no one at this point has discussed doing battery load testing to make some measurements. Hopefully some of them are at the point where they want to take that step. Doing battery load testing is not trivial and I am tempted to dig up some hard core posts that I made about this issue on the Ainslie thread for the benefit of the experimenters. It might be too much work to find those posts unfortunately. Certainly they can cook up their own methodology, but it would be good for everybody if it was discussed ahead of time.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
OK, let's quickly go over why the battery charges, IMO anyways. I don't agree that we are charging with current pulses, or to put it another way - pulses of Amperes. I believe what is causing the battery to charge is the difference in potential between the high voltage pulses that are created when the coil collapses and the low voltage of the battery. It's the difference in potential, not current - although admittedly some current does get through to the battery, but that is not what is mainly charging it.
I also have to disagree (not argue, but respectfully disagree) that there is no point in having a source battery. From my tests and similar tests done by others, it IS possible to charge more than one battery before the same sized source battery goes flat. This is not theory, it has been demonstrated on the bench. Admittedly, I personally have yet to charge 4 batteries from one source battery but I know it can be done.
However, one thing you cannot do with the SSG circuit is rotate the source and the charge batteries around, without first "converting" the energy from one form into the other. No one really knows why, but the SSG does not like being run with the same energy that it produces.
Yes, you can also do solid state and there are some advantages of doing this but I have also found from my experiments that the "mechanical oscillator" is a far better and more efficient charger than the solid state version.
I am also a BIG supporter of load testing to find out how good or bad a particular set up is. I have done thousands of hours of load testing and have the data to prove it. I don't think people do enough of it and they tend to rely more on what their meters are telling them than bothering to perform 30 or 40 cycles of a load test. I wonder how many people out there have built a COP>1 machine but didn't test it properly to see? I have found that meters lie, they cannot measure the capacity of a battery. Only load testing can do that.
I do know of a couple of 10-coiler owners that are using the machine for practical purposes as well. One guy I know is going to run his 10-coiler off solar panels and then power his house from the charging batteries. I'm planning on doing the same. I already power my lab with Bedini charged batteries and only use the grid to run my Renaissance Charge chargers. The battery bank gets better every time I charge it and the batteries are taking less time to charge. OK, it's not off the grid - but it is a practical way to use the technology.
Anyway, good conversing with you. I think we're reading out of the same book. I'd also like to see some others start posting here.
John K.
Hello all, and welcome to the forum John.
I just thought I'd mention the thought of using very small 12V SLABs for load testing purposes, this would of course make the process alot faster.
I will be very interested to see AH load test results on batteries charged with these type of systems.
RE. The 8 strand firing coils, I think this would improve the high frequency response of the coil like Litz wire.
John:
QuoteOK, let's quickly go over why the battery charges, IMO anyways. I don't agree that we are charging with current pulses, or to put it another way - pulses of Amperes. I believe what is causing the battery to charge is the difference in potential between the high voltage pulses that are created when the coil collapses and the low voltage of the battery. It's the difference in potential, not current - although admittedly some current does get through to the battery, but that is not what is mainly charging it.
The coil will output current x voltage x time for every time you pulse energy into the battery. So you are looking at a combination of current and voltage. The same thing for a capacitor of course. But if you dig a little bit deeper the basis for the energy storage in an inductor is the flowing current, and for a capacitor it's the voltage.
So it's accurate to say that the coil outputs current, and the voltage is a result of the current flow. For a capacitor you can say it outputs voltage and the current flow is a result of the voltage. The "driving" mechanism for an inductor is current, and for a capacitor it is voltage.
To put it another way, you can control the output voltage of an inductor at will, but you can't control the initial discharge current. There are some simple tests that can be done to demonstrate this. You can control the output current of a capacitor at will, but you can't control the initial discharge voltage.
So the low-level voltage spikes that you can scope on a charging battery are a result of the coil's initial output current. In essence current is being "forced" into the battery, independent of the voltage.
An inductor acts as a "current source." People interested in this should look this term up and read all about it to get a foundation for understanding what is going on.
Moving on, certainly you can charge four batteries with one battery. The question is how much energy did the source battery output to do this and how much energy is now sitting in each of the four charging batteries. Just to reinforce the point, measuring battery voltages will tell you basically nothing here. All four target charging batteries will be at their "full" voltage when the test is completed. So you need to do load testing.
QuoteHowever, one thing you cannot do with the SSG circuit is rotate the source and the charge batteries around, without first "converting" the energy from one form into the other. No one really knows why, but the SSG does not like being run with the same energy that it produces.
What do you mean by "converting?"
QuoteYes, you can also do solid state and there are some advantages of doing this but I have also found from my experiments that the "mechanical oscillator" is a far better and more efficient charger than the solid state version.
Logically I cannot see this being true. The spinning rotor represents energy lost forever as heat energy. You don't have nearly the same energy overhead if you go solid state. However, I am certainly open to seeing some tests done by somebody if they are up to it. Some people might argue (?) that the spinning rotor and the magnets and all of the related effects might have some effect on the charging efficiency.
Pretty interesting about people powering their houses with battery banks and solar/Bedini configurations. I think a good first mass-market step would be to use renewable energy for everything in the house except for the biggies, fridge, stove, water heater, air conditioners, etc. All of your domestic lighting and gadget power could be from renewable sources. Of course it requires that your home has two "wiring harnesses" built into it. Certainly it would make a lot of people feel good when they watch TV and aren't on the grid. "ROI" is another issue of course.
Fraser:
I agree small is better for first testing. There is also a computer-based gizmo for load testing of batteries. It consists of a big power resistor and a transistor to switch it on and off, connected to a computer CPU heat-sink and fan. It's a USB device and about two years ago the YouTube user Marthale7 bought one.
For the 8-strand firing coils I am thinking along different lines. Hopefully some of the 10-coilers will chime in on that one.
MileHigh
One aspect of the SSG-type mechanical oscillator, i.e. pulsed rotor, is that it finds it's own resonant frequency. So in effect, it is self-tuning and therefore automatically optimizes the operating point. Not sure if this is what John has experienced, but I've seen mention of this many times before. I'm confident that a SS setup could be tuned to the same (if not better) efficiency as the mechanical one.
Regarding the 8-filer coils; certainly inductance will be reduced and the rise/fall times actually increased, but the current in and out of the coils will increase quite a bit (for equal ON-time). The potential kickback voltage is greatly reduced, but available current in the pulse going to the charging battery is magnified accordingly. It's the old series vs. parallel connection thing.
.99
Are the 8-filar coils series or parallel?
If parallel, look what this does to the impedance when the coil is discharging.
Switching appears much easier for those mechanically inclined with the mechanical versions. All of the switching devices I have been able to find for SS versions are very simple and limited.
If anyone has the Eric Dollard book with the title something like "Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers", in the beginning of this book, Dollard shows a schematic of a Tesla capacitor discharge pulser using a spark gap, and then Steinmetz's version using the collapsing field of a large coil through a commutator. He goes on to state that the end result is equivalent: a high voltage impulse that excites a coil. Dollard goes on to elaborate on how the displacement current in the space outside the coil can rise to astronomical levels.
For shits and giggles, let's say that the coils in Bedini devices produce a fair amount of displacement current with their time-dependent pulses.
What does this do inside a battery?
Hi,
As already stated the pulsed output sent to a cap via high speed diodes doesn't match the energy captured by a battery. The battery must have some internal structure or workings that differ. We know most cells do have a crystalline coating on their plates so is this the secret? Old unchargeable batteries come to life if charged by these machines. Nicads with their inherent memory problem can also be 'cleaned' too. Does the piezo electric effect play any part as high voltage pulses are used?
Anyone?
Poynt:
Yes indeed, but you sure that you weren't too quick in some of your statements? The potential kick-back voltage is increased because of the higher current. Think about it. If the question does not generate any more comments in a week or so I will do a breakdown using rationalized units.
Grumpy:
The 8-filar wires are in parallel. It doesn't do much to the change impedance value when you compare the two coil configurations. The output impedance of the coil when discharging is very very high, theoretically infinite for both coil setups. This is related to the "current source" concept discussed earlier. It can be discussed in more detail later if people are interested.
For the solid state timing system, the easiest way to do this is to cascade two 555 timers together, the first as a free-running oscillator (a.k.a. "bistable multivibrator") and the second as a one-shot (a.k.a. "monostable multivibrator"). The first 555 gives you your pulse frequency and the second 555 gives you your pulse width. It's just two of the most basic 555 circuits connected together in a chain.
I'd have to see some diagrams to comment on your example. Can you define "displacement current?"
With respect to Bedini coils and regular electric current, the current starts at some initial value when the transistor switches off and then decays to zero. So if the initial current from the energizing coil is one amp, that's the maximum current flow value that goes into the battery.
MileHigh
Szaxx:
QuoteAs already stated the pulsed output sent to a cap via high speed diodes doesn't match the energy captured by a battery.
You are implying over unity. This was not stated earlier in this thread. In fact John K, who is involved in Bedini systems, says that there is no over unity going on, just the ability to get the batteries to store more energy as compared to conventional charging.
However, someone on the Energetic Forum said that in the Energy from the Vacuum #2 DVD, someone says that the 10-coiler is an over unity device. I haven't seen the DVD myself but it would be nice if someone that's seen the DVD can confirm or deny this.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.07.24, 19:57:10
Are the 8-filar coils series or parallel?
If parallel, look what this does to the impedance when the coil is discharging. This is the reason for paralleling the power windings. ;) MileHigh mentioned before that this could be run off a stepdown transformer, and he is right. However it DOES make a difference when it is run off a battery. The impedance of the transformer will more than likely be very different to the impedance of a DC battery.
Switching appears much easier for those mechanically inclined with the mechanical versions. All of the switching devices I have been able to find for SS versions are very simple and limited.
There are a few different methods John has included in his patents. All of them are fairly common to those already established, the use of a 1:1 feedback winding being the main focus.
If anyone has the Eric Dollard book with the title something like "Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers", in the beginning of this book, Dollard shows a schematic of a Tesla capacitor discharge pulser using a spark gap, and then Steinmetz's version using the collapsing field of a large coil through a commutator. He goes on to state that the end result is equivalent: a high voltage impulse that excites a coil. Dollard goes on to elaborate on how the displacement current in the space outside the coil can rise to astronomical levels.I remember reading somewhere that an inductive discharge has different properties to a capacitive discharge, or at least, there were differences in a spark gap operated device. I'll see if I can find the info.
For shits and giggles, let's say that the coils in Bedini devices produce a fair amount of displacement current with their time-dependent pulses.
What does this do inside a battery?http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index11.html This page has some info on the chemistry involved. Im not sure if youve seen it before, or if that is what you were after?
Regards
Ren:
QuoteMileHigh mentioned before that this could be run off a stepdown transformer, and he is right. However it DOES make a difference when it is run off a battery. The impedance of the transformer will more than likely be very different to the impedance of a DC battery.
Actually your statement is incorrect. The only requirement for the energy supply on the source side is that it have a low output impedance. Both a power supply/transformer and a battery will meet this requirement and either one can power he motor.
There is no impedance matching type of relationship between the output impedance of whatever is powering the motor and the input impedance of the charging battery. The drive coil is between the energy supply and the charging battery and this isolates the energy supply and the charging battery from each other.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.24, 23:40:41
Poynt:
Yes indeed, but you sure that you weren't too quick in some of your statements? The potential kick-back voltage is increased because of the higher current. Think about it. If the question does not generate any more comments in a week or so I will do a breakdown using rationalized units.
MileHigh
Yes that's correct. Sorry. What happens actually with the parallel connection, is the kickback pulse width shortens considerably, while the current available extends much higher than a series connection of the same coils. The kickback voltage is going to be very close in both cases anyway, since the battery load will be limiting it.
.99
I figured the impedance of 8-filar windings would be lower than the same quantity of wire wound as one coil.
MH - aren't you an EE? You should be familiar with displacement current.
A refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
Has anyone ever checked the specific gravity of the electrolyte of a Bedini-Charged battery?
Is Bedini's pulse charging method different than typical pulse charging methods?
Poynt:
The clue for anyone interested in the single-strand coil vs. the parallel 8-filar coil design issue is that as you add more strands to the parallel setup, the inductance of the coil remains the same. So like you said you have a narrower pulse with a higher initial current, and it takes less time to energize the parallel 8-filar coil as compared to the single-strand coil. Like I said I can do a more detailed breakdown on that in a week or so.
Grumpy:
Thanks for the link for the displacement current. I actually reviewed that a few months ago and forgot about it (again). In a nutshell there is no displacement current to be found in a typical Bedini setup. The classic example for displacement current would be in the space between capacitor plates when there is an AC current flowing through the capacitor. Displacement current is only associated with time varying electric fields. Honesty, I think it would be fair to say that in almost all cases you can completely ignore the issue of displacement current when you try to understand how a circuit works. It's just accounting for what happens in the space between the two plates of a capacitor.
QuoteDollard goes on to elaborate on how the displacement current in the space outside the coil can rise to astronomical levels.
That one makes my alarm bells go off unless I am missing something. There is a magnetic field outside a coil, not an electric field.
Going back to displacement current, that's one explanation for so-called "cold electricity." On another thread I explained how every "cold electricity" clip I have ever seen on YouTube was really just high frequency AC propagating through various setups to ground to make light bulbs light up with a single-wire, etc. I said that the high frequency AC was capacitively coupling to ground and completing the circuit even though there did not appear to be a closed-loop circuit. So there is your displacement current in action. Same thing for stray capacitive effects in a circuit.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.25, 14:05:24
Ren:
There is no impedance matching type of relationship between the output impedance of whatever is powering the motor and the input impedance of the charging battery. The drive coil is between the energy supply and the charging battery and this isolates the energy supply and the charging battery from each other.
MileHigh
Hmm. So the supply is connected to the coil and the coil is connected to the charging battery......And the charging battery is connected to the supply, at least on one terminal.
Sorry I dont see complete isolation here.
I find it unusual that your description of displacement current as being related to the space between capacitor plates and varying electric(magnetic) fields, and then you go on to say it has nothing to do with the Bedini monopole. I may not have my head totally around displacement current yet, but to me it would seem that we are talking directly about the space between capacitor plates (charging battery OR capacitor) and the sharp variation of electric(and his counterpart magnetic) fields.
Dont agree with you on the impedance thing. How many transformers have an output impedance of 0.001 ohms? I find it unusual that you would discard impedance so quickly when JB talks about it all the time, and comes from a heavy AUDIO backround, where impedance is king. Some have even noted that the SG resembles a basic speaker driver, where the charging battery replaces the speaker.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.25, 20:53:49
Poynt:
The clue for anyone interested in the single-strand coil vs. the parallel 8-filar coil design issue is that as you add more strands to the parallel setup, the inductance of the coil remains the same. So like you said you have a narrower pulse with a higher initial current, and it takes less time to energize the parallel 8-filar coil as compared to the single-strand coil. Like I said I can do a more detailed breakdown on that in a week or so.
So, the coil also "discharge faster' with 8 parallel wires rather than a single very long wire.
Does this make the output pulse rise faster? If so, that may be the reason to use it.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.25, 20:53:49
Grumpy:
Thanks for the link for the displacement current. I actually reviewed that a few months ago and forgot about it (again). In a nutshell there is no displacement current to be found in a typical Bedini setup. The classic example for displacement current would be in the space between capacitor plates when there is an AC current flowing through the capacitor. Displacement current is only associated with time varying electric fields. Honesty, I think it would be fair to say that in almost all cases you can completely ignore the issue of displacement current when you try to understand how a circuit works. It's just accounting for what happens in the space between the two plates of a capacitor.
That one makes my alarm bells go off unless I am missing something. There is a magnetic field outside a coil, not an electric field.
Going back to displacement current, that's one explanation for so-called "cold electricity." On another thread I explained how every "cold electricity" clip I have ever seen on YouTube was really just high frequency AC propagating through various setups to ground to make light bulbs light up with a single-wire, etc. I said that the high frequency AC was capacitively coupling to ground and completing the circuit even though there did not appear to be a closed-loop circuit. So there is your displacement current in action. Same thing for stray capacitive effects in a circuit.
MileHigh
If you are using "pulses" then you have a time-dependent electric field. If the rate of change is very fast then you may be incorrect in your analysis if you "ignore" the displacement current.
Displacement current resides in the dielectric n ot the conductor, else it would be the same as conduction current. All currents have an associated magnetic field, even displacement current and convection current. The "total current" in a circuit consists of the sum of all of the different forms of current. You can read Einstein's take on that subject. Displacement current is normally thought of as being very weak, but Eric Dollard and a host of others that work with high energy pulses know it must be considered in there line of work.
If Bedini is somehow able to alter the amount of energy stored in a battery, then how might this be occurring?
(I doubt that "W h/kg" measurements are available to confirm the claims.)
Ren:
QuoteSo the supply is connected to the coil and the coil is connected to the charging battery......And the charging battery is connected to the supply, at least on one terminal.
Sorry I dont see complete isolation here.
No current flows through the charging battery when the transistor switches on and the source battery is energizing the drive coil. When the transistor switches off no current flows through the source battery and a now the charging battery circuit becomes active and the drive coil discharges through the charging battery. The fact that the source battery's positive terminal and the charging battery's negative terminal are on the same same node it not really a "big deal." These two events always take place in their own respective time slot. It's like there are two separate circuits superimposed on top of each other, and when one is active the other is inactive and vice-versa. The coil is just a "football" to pass energy from the drive circuit to the charging circuit.
This is a bit of a stretch, but it is almost like you have two bench power supplies with a common ground. Power supply A powers motor A and power supply B powers motor B. The fact that the two motors share a common ground in not significant. There will be no electrical interactions between the two motors.
QuoteI find it unusual that your description of displacement current as being related to the space between capacitor plates and varying electric(magnetic) fields, and then you go on to say it has nothing to do with the Bedini monopole. I may not have my head totally around displacement current yet, but to me it would seem that we are talking directly about the space between capacitor plates (charging battery OR capacitor) and the sharp variation of electric(and his counterpart magnetic) fields.
If you are suggesting that you swap out a charging battery with a capacitor, then indeed there will be displacement current through the capacitor every time the drive coil discharges. The displacement current will be identical in value to the real current flowing through the wires. By the same token you know that opposite charges are accumulating on both of the capacitor plates to account for the current flow. In that sense the displacement current is just "filling in the blanks" with respect to describing the functioning of the circuit down to the nitty-gritty detail level. In that sense you can ignore it, it is a level of detail that you don't need to worry about.
In a battery there is real current flowing through the plates and the electrolyte, there is no displacement current. Battery plates and capacitor plates are two separate and distinct things. A battery does not accumulate charge like a capacitor does. And to split hairs, the true net charge on a capacitor is always zero.
QuoteDont agree with you on the impedance thing. How many transformers have an output impedance of 0.001 ohms? I find it unusual that you would discard impedance so quickly when JB talks about it all the time, and comes from a heavy AUDIO backround, where impedance is king. Some have even noted that the SG resembles a basic speaker driver, where the charging battery replaces the speaker.
I can't really comment on what John Bedini says with respect to impedance matching in a Bedini motor without seeing real quotes. What I can say is that when the transistor switches off and the drive coil discharges into the charging battery, impedance is not an issue. To put it another way, it is a misnomer to discuss impedance matching when the drive coil discharges into the charging battery. I know that might be a little bit shocking for some people to read, and push some hot buttons for some, but that's the case.
There is nothing to "match" when the drive coil pulses current into a charging battery. I know that's going to ruffle some feathers, but that's how it works. The output impedance of the discharging drive coil approaches infinity, so the input impedance of the charging battery is irrelevant. I know the EF crowd will take issue with that statement, might be fun! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.25, 20:53:49
That one makes my alarm bells go off unless I am missing something. There is a magnetic field outside a coil, not an electric field.
When a coil is operating at "natural resonance" frequency then large e field manifests 90 degrees out of phase to B field, the energy component of each being equal. The e field is formed across the coils own parasitic capacitance.
To measure the natural resonance of a coil, power across it with a very high impedance source (100K carbon in series with signal generator) then plug a near field probe into scope. Lay the probe a foot away from the coil.
A nearfield H probe is easy to make:
(http://www.elmac.co.uk/jpegs/mt_fig2.jpg)
Grumpy:
QuoteSo, the coil also "discharge faster' with 8 parallel wires rather than a single very long wire. Does this make the output pulse rise faster? If so, that may be the reason to use it.
It does make the output pulse rise faster. But perhaps it would be better to say that you "hit" the charging battery with a higher initial current and the duration of the pulse is shorter. So what's better for a charging battery, a high short pulse or a medium longer pulse? I don't know the answer to that question. The only thing that I can assume is that there must be a limit to how hard you can whack a battery with a pulse of current that starts at a very high initial amperage level. At some point you must be able to "overwhelm" the charging battery and it will start to croak. You will start to heat the battery instead of charging the battery. However, I doubt that "extreme" level of current pulsing happens in a typical 10-coiler setup. You would still want to be careful though. If you start putting more source batteries in series on the drive side, then you get higher and higher initial charging current levels when the transistors switch off.
Going back to the displacement current, you can think of any circuit as a series of current "loops" and voltage "nodes." The current flowing through a current loop can be regular current or displacement current, and they will be exactly the same value, all the time. So in that sense there is no "adding of currents" like you are implying. My gut feel is that displacement current has been glamourized and mystified among the enthusiasts. From my perspective there are no "unknown displacement current effects" to wonder about. So I am taking the Eric Dollard quote with a huge grain of salt.
QuoteIf Bedini is somehow able to alter the amount of energy stored in a battery, then how might this be occurring?
Bedini circuits can give you increased battery capacity, but you have to put extra energy into the charging battery to fill up that capacity. I don't know the answer to your question. I can only speculate that since the coil can *force* current into a charging battery, and will raise it's output voltage to accomplish this task, that it results in current flowing into less "active" regions of the interior of the battery. So this "current on a mission" manages to "search out" chemical reagents that are normally "docile" and gets them to reverse the chemical reaction to store more chemical energy. It's just a wild guess, I know very little about battery chemistry.
Also, if the coil has to raise it's voltage higher to force current into a sulphated battery, that means that the pulse length has to shorten. There is a fixed amount of energy in every pulse. You see this when you swap out the charge battery for a capacitor and scope the pulses. As the cap voltage increases, you can clearly see the pulse duration gets shorter.
MileHigh
Fraser:
For the self-resonance of a coil, the stray capacitance can be modeled as a very small capacitor in parallel with the coil. All of the electric field phenomena are exclusively associated with the stray capacitance. The inductor is only associated with the magnetic field. Perhaps Eric Dollard was making reference to these stray capacitive effects in the reference, I don't know. However, once again, the displacement current associated with the stray capacitance will be equal to the real current flowing in the coil.
MileHigh
I am just going to do a quick review about the concept of a current source, output impedance, and a discharging inductor.
I am pretty sure that Ren, other Bedini enthusiasts, some of the 10-coilers that might be lurking, are thrown off by my discussion. For years they have been talking about voltage spikes coming off of their drive coils and comparing how high the voltages go, etc. When it comes to Bedini motors, the most interesting thing is how it can produce high voltage spikes that pack a punch, and the assumption is that the charging batteries get charged by the high voltage spikes. More experienced Bedini experimenters know that when the charging battery is in the circuit, the voltage spikes of several hundred volts are reduced to just a few volts.
Why do the voltage spikes almost disappear? The answer is because the discharging drive coil is acting like a current source.
Also, something having "infinite output impedance" doesn't seem to make any sense. I will try to explain this with an example.
An ideal voltage source has a fixed output voltage and an output impedance of zero and it can supply an infinite amount of current.
An ideal current source has a fixed output current and an output impedance of infinity and it can supply an infinite amount of voltage.
You can see the similarity in the above two statements. So let's discuss this "infinite" impedance thing.
Suppose you have a 10-volt battery and you connect a 10-ohm resistor across it. You know the current is one amp. Standard stuff.
Now suppose you have a 1-amp current source and you connect a 10-ohm resistor to it. You know the voltage across the resistor will be 10 volts. Both setups would look exactly the same if you used your multimeter to measure the currents and the voltages.
Continued in 2nd posting...
Part 2....
So what's the big deal about the current source and the "infinite" output impedance?
Keep the same second setup but now we are going to swap out the ideal current source with an approximation of one.
What if we did the following: You swap out the current source for a 1000 volt power supply in series with a a 1k-ohm resistor. Now the circuit is a 1000 volt power supply in series with a 1k-ohm resistor in series with a 10-ohm resistor. The current flowing through the circuit will be (1000/(1000+10)) which is 0.990 amps, which is almost 1 amp.
Now what if we swapped out the current source for a 1,000,000 volt power supply in series with a 1-Mohm resistor? Do the same math and you will find out that the current is now 0.99999 amps, which is very close to 1 amp.
Supposing you have an imaginary 100,000,000-volt power supply in series with a 100-Mohm resistor connected to the 10-ohm load. Now the current through the 10-ohm resistor is going to be so close to 1 amp, we will say it is 1 amp. The voltage across the resistor will be 10 volts.
Now, with the same setup, what happens if we change the 10-ohm resistor for a 20-ohm resistor? Do the math and you will find that the current is still 1 amp and now of course the voltage is 20 volts.
THAT'S WHAT A CURRENT SOURCE LOOKS LIKE. You can change the load resistance, and the current through the load DOES NOT change, but the voltage across the load DOES change.
A discharging inductor IS a current source. This is by definition.
You will also note that a 100-Megaohm output resistance is starting to get close to "infinity." The idea is that you can keep on increasing the voltage source and the output resistance until you reach the point where the volage source is infinity, the output resistance is infinity, and the current is still one amp. Hence the notion that a current source has an "infinite" output impedance. I hope this is making sense to some of you.
See part 3....
Part 3....
What you can also observe is that you can put just about any load resistance (or charging battery) across a current source, and the current flow is essentially unstoppable. The voltage is variable, in my example above the imaginary current source has 100 million volts of "voltage headroom" that can vary up and down to ensure that a fixed amount of current flows through the load.
And that is the essence of the Bedini motor "high voltage spikes" or "radiant energy."
The drive coils in the motor produce pulses of CURRENT, and the voltage produced is a result of the current pulses. It DOES NOT MATTER what the the state of the charging battery is. The input impedance of the charging battery is IRRELEVANT, the drive coils will discharge through the charging battery no matter what.
The final point to make is that the coil's output current will start to decrease as it discharges, just like the voltage across a capacitor will decrease as it discharges.
If you think hard about this and go back and reread the thread it might 'click.' It is the essence of how a Bedini motor works. The discharging drive coils act like current sources that pump energy into a target battery. You are taking advantage of the fact that the current pulses can *force* their way through a charging battery, even if it is highly sulfated.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.25, 22:55:42
Grumpy:
It does make the output pulse rise faster. But perhaps it would be better to say that you "hit" the charging battery with a higher initial current and the duration of the pulse is shorter. So what's better for a charging battery, a high short pulse or a medium longer pulse? I don't know the answer to that question. The only thing that I can assume is that there must be a limit to how hard you can whack a battery with a pulse of current that starts at a very high initial amperage level. At some point you must be able to "overwhelm" the charging battery and it will start to croak. You will start to heat the battery instead of charging the battery. However, I doubt that "extreme" level of current pulsing happens in a typical 10-coiler setup. You would still want to be careful though. If you start putting more source batteries in series on the drive side, then you get higher and higher initial charging current levels when the transistors switch off.
Going back to the displacement current, you can think of any circuit as a series of current "loops" and voltage "nodes." The current flowing through a current loop can be regular current or displacement current, and they will be exactly the same value, all the time. So in that sense there is no "adding of currents" like you are implying. My gut feel is that displacement current has been glamourized and mystified among the enthusiasts. From my perspective there are no "unknown displacement current effects" to wonder about. So I am taking the Eric Dollard quote with a huge grain of salt.
Bedini circuits can give you increased battery capacity, but you have to put extra energy into the charging battery to fill up that capacity. I don't know the answer to your question. I can only speculate that since the coil can *force* current into a charging battery, and will raise it's output voltage to accomplish this task, that it results in current flowing into less "active" regions of the interior of the battery. So this "current on a mission" manages to "search out" chemical reagents that are normally "docile" and gets them to reverse the chemical reaction to store more chemical energy. It's just a wild guess, I know very little about battery chemistry.
Also, if the coil has to raise it's voltage higher to force current into a sulphated battery, that means that the pulse length has to shorten. There is a fixed amount of energy in every pulse. You see this when you swap out the charge battery for a capacitor and scope the pulses. As the cap voltage increases, you can clearly see the pulse duration gets shorter.
MileHigh
Slow down MH. You are making too many assumptions. The fact that all of the forms of current are summed to get the total circuit current is undeniably carved in stone in many many electrodynamics texts. The currents associated with earth and the sun can not be explained without these other currents. They can not be arbitrarily dismissed. A measure of one form of current does n not imply that you measured the total current. The only thing wrong with displacement current is that it has been ignored.
Displacement current aside, kinetic energy is associated with the fast rising - accelerating along a wire, this energy is far to fast for the ions of a battery to move with it. So, where does this energy go? Do the ions in the electrolyte absorb it? Does it sort of ripple through the electrolyte and plates, depositing energy in it's path?
A similar thing happens when you impact excite a coil: it rings. When you excite the battery,
what rings? You may recall that Tesla stated that the spark gap transmitter was so popular because you could put power in 1000 watts per hour in and pull 5000 watts per hour out (not exact words but same implications).
@milehigh,
At higher frequencies (those present in the sharp knee of a fast rise) then the capacitive element of a coil becomes very apparent, in antenna design the capacitive element of a coil is as strong as the inductive. The capacitance manifests between the coil windings themselves and also between the windings and the environmental ground. Although it is modelled as a seperate entity in sim software it is a very real aspect of all coils operating around frequencies of slef resonance. A core within the coil (ala bedini) will not prevent the high freq. e field action in the coil. A core will not have even started to react by the time the e field disturbance has propogated away from the coil.
I think this e field component of the device must be considered when speculating about it. Might a large virtual dipole manifest in space which is then capable of interfacing with an energy source far outside of the system?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.07.26, 05:07:27
Displacement current aside, kinetic energy is associated with the fast rising - accelerating along a wire, this energy is far to fast for the ions of a battery to move with it. So, where does this energy go? Do the ions in the electrolyte absorb it? Does it sort of ripple through the electrolyte and plates, depositing energy in it's path?
I think the energy in the sharp front of the rise is temporarily stored by the cells intraplate capacitance which is quite a fast capacitor. The stored charge will then force the slower ion transport. When you said "Does it sort of ripple through the electrolyte and plates, depositing energy in it's path?" that pretty much sums up what I think is happening.
perhaps one could model a SLAB by putting a really low ESR RF cap in close parallel with a supercap. then measuring and load testing wauld be really fast to do?
Very interesting claims located at this link:
http://radiant.100free.com/zpe_bedini_solid.html
See "photo #4" where he says that you only need to stack the magnets and the rotor does not have to rotate at all, and that both input and output batteries are charging at the same time.
Has anyone seen the experiment where Bedini lights a red LED by connecting both leads to the plastic case of a battery?
http://radiant.100free.com/zpe_bedini_theory.html
Bedini has pretty much explained that it has nothing to do with BEMF and that it is high voltage impulses without current that charges the batteries and capacitors (he calls it radiant reactive power).
To get the RE effect, all you have to do is apply a HV pulse to a very long coil with a high imepedance. The RE (it is a "force" not a current or whatever Bedini and Bearden call it) is not what is stored in the battery or capacitor as it only exists during the acceleration of the pulse energy which is during the rise (technically during the fall as well). Before the current flows the electric wave is longitudinal. Once curent flows this becomes transverse. Anyone familiar with a little plasma physics may know of a form do current called "inertia drift" which transfers kinetic energy into EM energy and vice versa.
A couple of years ago, I was working with a DC bias coil wrapped around the coil being pulsed to produce the RE force. (Tesla also called it a "force" and I take that as the gospel.) When the bias coil was powered with a DC power supply, the voltage stayed the same. When the bias coil was power by batteries, the voltage rose slightly when the other coil was being pulsed. At the time, I just thought that the pulsed coil was coupling with the bias coil and it was a basic transformer effect, and that with the power supply, this was regulated out. I want to set this back up now and put a load on the battery and see if the increased voltage does anything.
EDIT:
Found some interesting comments by Bedini in this doc: (attached)
Grumpy:
QuoteThe fact that all of the forms of current are summed to get the total circuit current is undeniably carved in stone in many many electrodynamics texts
What I sad was consistent with your statement above. I stand by what I said about displacement current. The term "displacement current" is never used by people that work in electronics. However if you want to start a thread about displacement current it might be interesting.
QuoteDisplacement current aside, kinetic energy is associated with the fast rising - accelerating along a wire, this energy is far to fast for the ions of a battery to move with it. So, where does this energy go? Do the ions in the electrolyte absorb it? Does it sort of ripple through the electrolyte and plates, depositing energy in it's path?
Not sure exactly what you mean here. What I can say is that when you pulse electrical energy into a battery, some of that energy becomes chemical energy by reversing the chemical reactions, and some becomes waste heat energy.
QuoteA similar thing happens when you impact excite a coil: it rings. When you excite the battery, what rings?s.
Not sure if you are talking about mechanical or electrical ringing. Either form of ringing represents the conversion of some mechanical or electrical energy into heat energy. I don't think anything rings in a battery.
Fraser:
Sure coils can self resonate but I am more interested in what the coils are doing in the 10-coil Bedini motor. It doesn't make much sense to model a SLAB with a combination of capacitors, they are different animals.
A more realistic model for a battery would be an ideal voltage source in series with a series resistor, where the series resistor represents the output impedance of the battery. In this day and age with so much computing power on the desktop, you could probably make the series resistor variable, a function of how much energy there remains in the battery. This would allow you to see a dip in the battery output voltage as it starts to get more than 90% discharged.
I would like to try to keep this thread on the Bedini 10-coiler topic and Bedini related if possible.
MileHigh
Grumpy:
With respect to your links, it's too much to digest. Just by skimming through it certainly there is a lot of material there alleging over unity effects associated with Bedini motors. Yet John K. who is associated with Bedini definitively states that a Bedini motor is not an over unity device.
So let me ask you, what do you think a Bedini motor/charger is? Is it an under unity device that just manages to let you charge a battery with more ampere-hours of energy, or is is something entirely different that leverages effects associated with high voltage spikes without any real current which tends to imply over unity? Or something else?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.26, 23:00:58
Grumpy:
With respect to your links, it's too much to digest. Just by skimming through it certainly there is a lot of material there alleging over unity effects associated with Bedini motors. Yet John K. who is associated with Bedini definitively states that a Bedini motor is not an over unity device.
So let me ask you, what do you think a Bedini motor/charger is? Is it an under unity device that just manages to let you charge a battery with more ampere-hours of energy, or is is something entirely different that leverages effects associated with high voltage spikes without any real current which tends to imply over unity? Or something else?
MileHigh
Well, Bedini also states repeatedly that it is not overunity or free electricity charging the batteries and capacitors. These terms are subjective and if you get an energy surplus, then something different is going on. The burning question is: do his devices produce an energy surplus?
I'm not totally convinced that he is applying the radiant electric effect as he claims. It is my understanding that this requires hv pulses over about 1.5kv (preferably much higher) into a coil of high impedance, and this is just for the radiant force. I am also a little perplexed as to why Bedini has not moved away from batteries to direct conversion of the radiant force into conduction current. Maybe he does, but doesn't show it, or is happy with batteries.
Grumpy:
If any 10-coilers contribute to the thread perhaps some more light will get shed on this topic.
I know that what I posted yesterday seems to be coming out of left field, using terminology that nobody ever uses and such. One thing that I did not really elaborate on is that what I said explains all of the spike phenomena associated with Bedini motors from A to Z. Plus this stuff is all measurable, like how much energy there is in a single spike, and a myriad of other measurements. I have read a fair amount about Bedini motors so it's interesting to give a new perspective. With a willing 10-coiler participant, the full energy audit trail for their Bedini motor could be determined if they were willing to run some tests. I am not going to hold my breath for that though!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.27, 00:06:50
Grumpy:
If any 10-coilers contribute to the thread perhaps some more light will get shed on this topic.
I know that what I posted yesterday seems to be coming out of left field, using terminology that nobody ever uses and such. One thing that I did not really elaborate on is that what I said explains all of the spike phenomena associated with Bedini motors from A to Z. Plus this stuff is all measurable, like how much energy there is in a single spike, and a myriad of other measurements. I have read a fair amount about Bedini motors so it's interesting to give a new perspective. With a willing 10-coiler participant, the full energy audit trail for their Bedini motor could be determined if they were willing to run some tests. I am not going to hold my breath for that though!
MileHigh
Can you explain the following?:
When I pulse an air-core coil of high impedance (at least 1000 feet of #28 wire, inductance is about 200 millihenry (give or take as I recall) ) the coil mass will attract metal objects such as pieces of wire and foil. Attraction is one direction and does not reverse. The attractive force is only present when the coil is pulsed with about 2kvDC or more. The same coil will also attract dielectric materials to a lesser degree.
With the same coil setup, I can draw an arc off the coil to an insulated metal object. These arcs are very thin an wispy, up to a little over 1/2 inch.
Another thing is that Bedini reportedly has given demonstration where he lights an LED by touching both leads to the plastic case of a battery. How can he do this without polarization current in the plastic battery case?
(I'll keep looking at Bedini's writings and experiments and see if I can find more of the things that signify RE.)
Hi Grumpy:
I'll try to answer but also clarify some of the concepts. Please be patient with that. Also without schematics or pictures my comments may be way off.
The impedance of all coils is dependent on the inductance and the frequency, and "frequency" means that you put a pure sine wave into the coil, not a square wave. The impedance goes up as the frequency increases.
Unless I am missing something, you are basically turning your coil into an electromagnet, hence the attraction. Perhaps the high DC pulse rate gets some pure DC current flowing through the coil.
1/2 inch arcs means you are generating about 40,000 volts. Air will break down and start to conduct when the voltage is about 20,000 volts per centimeter. Chances are the arcs can land on the insulated metal object because when the voltage is that high the insulator doesn't look so insulating any more.
I can't really comment on the Bedini LED demo. However you probably have seen dozens and dozens of clips on YouTube where people play with a car ignition coil and excite it at a high frequency. They put the "hot" side of the coil to ground (if I recall correctly) and then the entire setup becomes hot with very high frequency AC. You can touch an LED to anything on the setup and it will light up.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.07.27, 01:35:29
Hi Grumpy:
I'll try to answer but also clarify some of the concepts. Please be patient with that. Also without schematics or pictures my comments may be way off.
The impedance of all coils is dependent on the inductance and the frequency, and "frequency" means that you put a pure sine wave into the coil, not a square wave. The impedance goes up as the frequency increases.
Unless I am missing something, you are basically turning your coil into an electromagnet, hence the attraction. Perhaps the high DC pulse rate gets some pure DC current flowing through the coil.
1/2 inch arcs means you are generating about 40,000 volts. Air will break down and start to conduct when the voltage is about 20,000 volts per centimeter. Chances are the arcs can land on the insulated metal object because when the voltage is that high the insulator doesn't look so insulating any more.
I can't really comment on the Bedini LED demo. However you probably have seen dozens and dozens of clips on YouTube where people play with a car ignition coil and excite it at a high frequency. They put the "hot" side of the coil to ground (if I recall correctly) and then the entire setup becomes hot with very high frequency AC. You can touch an LED to anything on the setup and it will light up.
MileHigh
The coil is aircore, pulses are a few nanoseconds long through a spark gap pulser running at 10kv. I think the impedance is very high in regards to these pulses. A compass will point perpendicular to the coil in all positions (I believe this occurs because the compass is conductive). Attraction is to any conductive object regardless of the material - even aluminum, copper, copper, brass, and graphite (pencil lead).
The initial field formed in response to the pulse is longitudinal. Perhaps the electrons bulge out or their mass changes as the energy excites them.
This may be evidence of some sort of force.
I thought about Bedini lighting LEDs with RF, but I can not see how he lit it by touching boths leads to a plastic battery case.
I'll look for some other "Bedini anomolies" and try to bring the discussion back to the 10-coiler.
I started another thread specifically for charging capacitors and batteries with RE and will continue my work over there and leave this thread for 10-coil discussion.
Good luck to all the 10-coilers.
Grumpy:
In my book there are no Bedini anomalies but I would be willing to entertain suggestions.
Here is a simple explanation of a Bedini motor: A battery connects to a coil through a switch. When the switch is on current starts to flow though the coil. When the switch switches off the coil discharges through a diode into a charging battery. The initial discharge current level is the same as the amount of current that was flowing through the coil at the instant the battery switched off. The coil pumps current into the battery until it runs out of gas. The nominal charging battery voltage might be 12.6 volts and when the current pulse hits it it might go up to 13 or 14 volts.
Now, how can we make this seem to be more interesting?
Supposing that we replace the charging battery with a 1-Kohm resistor. Let's also suppose that when the transistor switches off there is 1 amp of current flowing through the coil.
This configuration will produce a very brief 1000-volt voltage spike.
The coil's inductance, core, number of turns, wire gauge doesn't matter. Any coil with the same initial current flow condition will produce a 1000-volt voltage spike.
On the Energetic Forum there is an off-shoot thread from the 10-coiler thread called "Zooming in on Bedini's Radiant Spike." They don't get it, they don't understand the fundamental mechanism behind how the spike is produced. I have tried to explain it in this thread.
Any wayward souls from the Energetic Forum are welcome to come here and have a meaningful discussion.
MileHigh
MH,
If Bedini used the collapse of an inductor to produce a HV spike and then excited another coil with this spike, then the method of producing RE would make sense. However, he doesn't do that. I also do not agree that the RE precedes the spike on the scope. It is electric, time-dependent, and occurs during the rise of the spike on the scope, provided the right conditions are provided, else you just get a pulse.
The RE effect comes out of the mass of the coil and it does not go back into the coil, so how can a collapsing magnetic field in a coil produce RE to go to the battery or cap? Also, Bedini states that he stores the RE in a capacitor. RE is a time dependent force. It can not be stored in a system that is not changing. You can store charge that RE induced in a capacitor, but you can not store RE in a capacitor. Lastly, I do not thing RE can be produced in a battery by impulse charging the battery, but I've never tried to produce RE in a battery or even thought about it as I doubt the impedance is high enough and the pulse will go straight through the battery and do almost nothing.
Grumpy:
There is a serious test that anyone can try to perform in a myriad of ways. Is the energy in the pulse output from a coil equal to, leaser than, or greater than the amount of energy you put into the coil in the first place?
If you can prove that it's always equal to or lesser than the energy you put into it in the first place, then where are you with respect to radiant energy?
It turns out that coils have their equivalent in the real physical world. It's happening around you everywhere you look but you might not realize it.
You have a cart on wheels loaded down with something heavy. You walk up to it and start to push on it. The cart starts to move. Then the cart crashes into a wall and stops. Was there any evidence of free energy in the action you performed? I think your common sense would tell you that that was not the case. You know that it was your pushing on the heavy cart that resulted in the cart crashing into the wall.
In this example the heavy cart is acting exactly like a coil. And I mean really exactly, in every possible way you can examine the situation.
So there is some food for thought for you and the Bedini crowd. Where are the spikes really coming from? Are you stressing the aether and creating an imbalance that bounces back with more energy, or are the spikes really coming from the battery?
MileHigh
RE is just a force.
How you use that force to produce a conduction current is the tricky part.
Well, this thread is not attracting the 10-coilers, at least not yet...
John K may not be coming back, too bad. His main point, that "mostly voltage charges the battery and no real current" is what most, if not all Bedini enthusiasts believe.
It's not good enough to believe this just because the "crowd" says so. The premise does not make any sense. The logical thing to do is make an estimate of the total energy put out by the discharging coils and then measure how much energy you can get from the charging battery with load testing. In six months of discussion on the Energetic Forum 10-coiler thread, this fundamental test has never even been mentioned.
Battery voltage measurements mean nothing, it's worth stating again and again.
Ren also is gone. That Bedini EFTV discussion where he mentions that Bedini says the pendulum oscillator works best with an impedance match with the battery is wrong. Like I said before, there is no impedance matching going on here, at all.
Ren if you disagree, you are welcome to come back and discuss it some more.
There is a huge "run away" phenomenon that happens in these circles. For example, Bedini enthusiasts hear some things that could put cracks in the the whole "belief system" so the reaction is to block you or simply run away. It's really unfortunate, because the truth is the most important thing.
Anyway, if there is no traction getting some discussions going with 10-coiler (or other) Bedini experimenters, then I may be tempted to dissect the 10-coiler thread and rebut it point by point.
The people that dropped $4000 USD on the Bedini 10-coiler are beginners in electronics at best. The reality appears to be that they built the things, watched them spin, and now they are stuck, they don't know what to do. In the six months worth of discussion, nobody has done a serious scientific investigation with their rig with the exception of Preston Stroud. At least Preston did some swapping back and forth. He clearly indicates that he bought the system with an expectation of seeing energy gains, notwithstanding what John K said, and has so far got nothing.
The truth is out there...
MileHigh
Batteries require a current to charge - period. A current is a flow of charges in opposite directions. Wether you induce this current by conventional means or by using a force field, it is still a current. I'd bet that the force field method takes a lot less energy than conventional methods.
Rather than spend $4k on the 10-coiler, they could have built a tetrahedral device posted by "spherics" on OU. They would have learned more and spent less - even if they never got it work.
I tend to stay either positive or quiet when we may convince a new person to join us. It is bad enough working in this field while sticking your neck out. There is a falling axe around every corner. Some of the axes are so dull witted they couldn't cut warm butter. Not that the Bedini folks are correct in their claims. I don't follow his work, for good reason. Again, positive or quiet ;D
I can see where Bedini followers could think voltage is the only thing charging a battery, especially when you are hitting the battery with spikes. In my view, it isn't that the voltage is charging the battery(beyond the correct sense). It is because the spikes could make the battery perform better simply by cleaning the plates and moving the chemical elements back where they started.
Bang it enough and the battery will charge better and hold a charge longer. Bang it a bit more and you need to replace the battery because 'voltage' is the only thing it will hold. Energy storage capacity flattens. The exact opposite happens to the load curve.
I'd like to see a battery charger that really used the radiant force. Imagine it inducing current between the plates, with out contacting the battery at all. Just put your battery in the magic box, turn on the pulser and bias field - Wha-La! - it charges.
Got is all sketched up, but couldn't get the funding - LOL!
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.07.30, 01:08:48
I tend to stay either positive or quiet when we may convince a new person to join us. It is bad enough working in this field while sticking your neck out. There is a falling axe around every corner. Some of the axes are so dull witted they couldn't cut warm butter. Not that the Bedini folks are correct in their claims. I don't follow his work, for good reason. Again, positive or quiet ;D
Guys - I've become a 'lurker' on this forum. Not because it's preferred - but because the entire forum has become a kind of 'exclusive club' where membership requires a specialised training in conventional thinking. Any departures and the thinking is dismissed for being 'unconventional'. I wonder if you would all do better to start questioning your own conventional thinking on many, many levels. Start with the flow of electrons as the cause of current flow. Then maybe look to where dark energy is perhaps a valid requirement to be included in the forces. Or just take the evidence of OU at face value and test those claims. If science had all the answers then I honestly do not think there'd be this obsessive interest in breaching those barriers. You really do NOT have all the answers. At least Grumpy keeps that optimistic reach into the 'maybe's'. My own take is that you have all complicated circuitry to such an extent that even if you reached that OU number you'd be left with some required explanation. It's all become so, so complicated.
But that's just my tuppence worth. I'd be sorry to lose my membership here for speaking my mind like this. I honestly think that it would be a good thing to explore conventional phsyics and see if you can, yourselves, reconcile that quantum/classical number. Then all that smug analysis would be really justified. Else it's just really dry and really repetitive. And it's going nowhere. MileHigh? Don't you see this? Not meaning to be argumentative. I'm just saying it as I see it.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.08.03, 08:34:36
Guys - I've become a 'lurker' on this forum. Not because it's preferred - but because the entire forum has become a kind of 'exclusive club' where membership requires a specialised training in conventional thinking. Any departures and the thinking is dismissed for being 'unconventional'. I wonder if you would all do better to start questioning your own conventional thinking on many, many levels. Start with the flow of electrons as the cause of current flow. Then maybe look to where dark energy is perhaps a valid requirement to be included in the forces. Or just take the evidence of OU at face value and test those claims. If science had all the answers then I honestly do not think there'd be this obsessive interest in breaching those barriers. You really do NOT have all the answers. At least Grumpy keeps that optimistic reach into the 'maybe's'. My own take is that you have all complicated circuitry to such an extent that even if you reached that OU number you'd be left with some required explanation. It's all become so, so complicated.
But that's just my tuppence worth. I'd be sorry to lose my membership here for speaking my mind like this. I honestly think that it would be a good thing to explore conventional phsyics and see if you can, yourselves, reconcile that quantum/classical number. Then all that smug analysis would be really justified. Else it's just really dry and really repetitive. And it's going nowhere. MileHigh? Don't you see this? Not meaning to be argumentative. I'm just saying it as I see it.
The flow of electrons is the result of an interaction of things. It doesn't "just happen". That is where to start though. Dielectrics are also effected but the electrons/ions are not free to move.
If speaking your mind was an membership offense I would not be here now.
As for dark matter and energy, I think the whole concept should be thrown out. There are other explanations which may solve other riddles.
As for classics, they have little more value than other ideas not examined on my bench.
I'll not expand on my Bedini thoughts as my blood pressure medication isn't working well lately.
As to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others. I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick. If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries. Oh but any day now sombody is going to put a coil and a capacitor together in some new way that is going to produce overunity. I for one can't agree that the answer is simple in terms of anyone and their grandmother being capable of building it. But what does it matter? if any one person can do it then some others will certainly be able to reproduce it and grandma wont have to, we'll make one for her. ;D
Rosemary:
It's all about finding the truth. "Radiant energy" is not really clearly defined in free energy circles, but with respect to a Bedini motor, a discharging inductor is certainly not radiant energy. Nor is it what Aaron calls "time compressed potential." There is no tapping into the aether or Dark Energy or taking advantage of asymmetrical stresses with a discharging inductor. It's nonsense. Seemingly the pitch from the Bedini camp is two-faced, there are denials that a Bedini motor is a free energy device, but apparently on the EFTV DVD series there is an alleged claim that it is a free energy device. I am hoping that someone can confirm this is a fact. Assuming this dichotomy is true, well that sucks and the record should be set straight. However, the dichotomy must be good for sales.
The goal in this thread is to bring a true understanding of what the Bedini 10-coiler is an does, and by extension the same thing for any Bedini motor.
I have lurked in your threads, and you still don't understand what current is. You make an argument that it is impossible to supply all of the electrons that the electrical grid is supposed to supply. I remember you also believed that a battery was a source of electrons and when it is discharged it runs out of electrons. In both cases the current is circulating in a closed loop just like looking at a pipe configured in a closed loop with an in-line water pump. If your thesis is based on this misunderstanding, then the whole thesis is rendered baseless. I am not sure is this is the case or not.
My thinking can take lots of departures and I can suggest alternative ways to make measurements and alternative ways to try to understand something. Who is wearing the straitjacket is a relative thing. In a nutshell, one of the classic statements you often read is that a given setup is "outside the norms of conventional electricity and conventional engineering." That claim about Bedini motors was made in this thread by John K. In basically every case these types of claims are nonsensical statements. The people that think that they are doing something different are not aware that every single thing that they are doing is conventional. They are clearly demonstrating their ignorance. It's up to them if they want to learn. I will pick on Aaron because there is a glaring example. For 10+ years Aaron was sure that when an inductor discharges the current running through it would reverse direction. He thought that because he saw the voltage change polarity. He even made an "educational" clip on YouTube about inductors where he stated this fallacy. So it's fun to try to help people really understand what's going on.
There is no obsessive interest in breaching energy barriers among scientists. Almost all of that "energy" comes from "experimenters" who mostly, and unfortunately, have no training or education at all in electronics and physics and related disciplines. The ones that actively contribute to the free energy forums are prone to gobbling up questionable information and accepting it as fact. They also have money to spend.
The smug analysis is real. Sometimes it gets tiring composing politically correct prose all the time and I just type without the extra stress of making it all PC. It's too bad that no Bedini enthusiasts are dropping by to exchange ideas.
You may think this thread is going nowhere, but at least in two weeks it covered more ground than the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread has covered in six months. If somebody has a Bedini setup and wants to come here and understand it they are welcome here. The 10-coilers are not making a peep. This thread has the potential to cover a lot more ground, but it needs real participants. It's the "real" Bedini 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum that is going nowhere. The last posting is by an unknown where he throws out a bunch of meaningless measurements and numbers and is asking for advice. Nobody has responded.
There is no reason to ban you Rosemary. As far as I know the last person around here to get banned was IST and anybody familiar with the "scene" knows why that is - he makes dozens and dozens of nut-case postings a day. For what it's worth, he is also completely, and I mean completely, clueless.
Anyway, the tread is here and if no Bedini people drop by I will continue to make ongoing occasional postings.
MileHigh
Hi All,
If in our blindness to achieve the OU magic we see the coils etc as the afore mentioned cart, then by now its rolling on vacuum magnetic bearings. The unfortunate part is that none here have constructed the thing on the top of the hill. Just one simple push and away it goes.
The aether may have some relative equilibrium that needs a shove, but only a few seem to have done this, typically they have not shared this info or are too scared, maybe in the case of some an untimely demise forced upon them by unknowns. Until this 'hill' is at least observed we are close. Time will tell, unless that inherent human emotion impinges on them, we here call it greed.
Searching still for a paper I had stating clearly OU can be achieved by a simple coil with the secondary wound from many insulated fine wires around it in the fashion of a bobbin of string as purchased from the local store. More than one coil is required and the 'ground' connection between all is where the excess energy appears. Assuming the energy is captured from the secondaries its supposed to add up to more out than in by a small fraction.
Impedance matching required, the rest I didn't read at that time but ten coiler reminded me of it. The TPU may operate in a similar fashion too. Where its gone is a total mystery and Ive been searching for quite a long time now.
One pulse produces ringing and theres a delay in it and this causes a current flow in the 'ground' connection. Nothing complicated but the pulse width and rise times needed to be ... It read like this.
Anyone come across anything sounding similar. It was towards the bottom of the page but the rest mentioned Sweet, Hendershot and others.
Szaxx:
if you find the paper you should start a thread about it.
On the other Bedini 10-coiler thread, they go off on the "ground chase" and one of them wants to drill into his concrete basement to find a good earth ground. Yikes!
Connecting to a true earth ground does nothing except create another path for energy to flow out of the battery. So they see a light bulb brighten or a voltage increase and they seem convinced that "energy is coming up from the ground" when in reality energy is flowing out of the source battery more easily. The overall impedance of the motor relative to the source battery decreases when they make a ground connection.
MileHigh
@Room3327
QuoteAs to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others. I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick. If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries.
I have found my greatest insights have been made by understanding that even the most complex problem is always fundamentally simple after the fact. The airplane is simple yet for centuries nobody could build one that flew, the light bulb is simple yet for centuries nobody could make one light. A caveman could have made a light bulb or an airplane or a wheel if he had the understanding and perspective to do so --- but he didn't. So you see some things can be very simple in nature yet be completely unknown until someone comes along and explains just how simple it is. To say "If it was simple it would have already been done by now" is absurd because simple new technologies appear each and every day. If everything simple must have been done by now then why do we have so many new and simple technologies emerging at a rate magnitudes higher than any other time in history? The creation of technology relies on understanding and perspective, not simplicity nor complexity, not man hours or people or time --- understanding and perspective.
Regards
AC
Hi guys. I never actually signed up for membership here and I now see that I'm not getting notification of posts. Poynty - can you organise it that I get emailed? Do you guys have that system here? Be much obliged if it's available.
Hello MileHigh. I now, like you, bear the distinction of being 'expelled' from EF.com. It's a distinction I carry with some pride. But I must say I would like nothing better than to nuke those administrators with litigation from hell. It it weren't so expensive I'd do so. And if I EVER make any money from our application - then I'll dedicate the whole of it to such a cause. It'll at least bring some much needed publicity to their smug duplicitous manouverings. What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. You can probably tell I'm still smarting. I lack your own philosophical forebearance at these events.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39
I have lurked in your threads, and you still don't understand what current is. You make an argument that it is impossible to supply all of the electrons that the electrical grid is supposed to supply. I remember you also believed that a battery was a source of electrons and when it is discharged it runs out of electrons.
This is nonsense - with respect. I have never believed that a battery discharges electrons - EVER. I've gone to some considerable lengths to assert that it doesn't.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39In both cases the current is circulating in a closed loop just like looking at a pipe configured in a closed loop with an in-line water pump. If your thesis is based on this misunderstanding, then the whole thesis is rendered baseless. I am not sure is this is the case or not.
And I must say I'm with you here - re the closed loop number. My thesis is not baseless. It's just really badly explained. I'm hoping to fix that through a collaboration. But we're in early stages of 'talk'.
Regarding JohnK - et al - I wonder if the actual problem relates to the need for good measurements. My complaint here is simply that one can get so engrossed in irrelevant measurements that one stops seeing the wood for the trees. There's also an easy 'proof' - I would have thought. Somehow it's never actually applied. Or it's done for short durations.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39
There is no obsessive interest in breaching energy barriers among scientists. Almost all of that "energy" comes from "experimenters" who mostly, and unfortunately, have no training or education at all in electronics and physics and related disciplines. The ones that actively contribute to the free energy forums are prone to gobbling up questionable information and accepting it as fact. They also have money to spend.
Not sure that this is fair comment. I know of some serious investment into institutions in SA to advance alternate energy. And there's budget for those anomalous claims which definitely means that all avenues are being explored. That's far down the road from 10 years back. I assure you. But I can't speak for those expert scientists outside our country.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39The smug analysis is real. Sometimes it gets tiring composing politically correct prose all the time and I just type without the extra stress of making it all PC. It's too bad that no Bedini enthusiasts are dropping by to exchange ideas.
LOL MileHigh. I think the most of us are rather wary of when you give way to all that stress. ::)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39
You may think this thread is going nowhere, but at least in two weeks it covered more ground than the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread has covered in six months. If somebody has a Bedini setup and wants to come here and understand it they are welcome here. The 10-coilers are not making a peep. This thread has the potential to cover a lot more ground, but it needs real participants. It's the "real" Bedini 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum that is going nowhere. The last posting is by an unknown where he throws out a bunch of meaningless measurements and numbers and is asking for advice. Nobody has responded.
Frankly I don't think they read OUR. You'll need to pm them somehow. Get word there. I see how you're itching to cover ground here. Maybe Armaggdn can drop word there for you?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.03, 22:13:39
Anyway, the tread is here and if no Bedini people drop by I will continue to make ongoing occasional postings.
And if it's any comfort MileHigh I'll continue to read them.
:)
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.03, 18:02:49
If speaking your mind was an membership offense I would not be here now.
As for dark matter and energy, I think the whole concept should be thrown out. There are other explanations which may solve other riddles.
As for classics, they have little more value than other ideas not examined on my bench.
I'll not expand on my Bedini thoughts as my blood pressure medication isn't working well lately.
Hi WaveWatcher. Dark matter and dark energy are no longer thesis. They're full blown theory with proof based on gravitational lensing. I'm not sure of the experts here but they're from Caltech. But it's not caught fire with our classicists because it's calling for a new force. So it's not been structured into general physics and - inevitably - there's resistance. Our mainstream scientists are patently somewhat reluctant to concede that they missed out on a really significant piece of the puzzle. But however it's described - it's actually just a revamp of aether energies.
Anyway if you want me to I'll get the whole reference. I've got a full transcript of an interview with these guys somewhere. The thing about it is that it actually does resolve certain questions in physics related to gravity. But they've no idea yet what the particle is. It's due to be uncovered in CERN - I think - when they've finished that upgrade.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.08.03, 19:10:24
As to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others. I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick. If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries. Oh but any day now sombody is going to put a coil and a capacitor together in some new way that is going to produce overunity. I for one can't agree that the answer is simple in terms of anyone and their grandmother being capable of building it. But what does it matter? if any one person can do it then some others will certainly be able to reproduce it and grandma wont have to, we'll make one for her. ;D
I think even more obvious is that complexity doesn't cut it either. Personally I think everyone is in a tail spin because you're looking at the same problem from the same perspective - and just adding coils to try and solve it. Something like that. LOL.
So are you telling me that only simplicity is accepted at these forums, anyone with complex ideas stay away. The basic ideas may be simple but implementation may be very difficult, who knows what it is going to take? Should we not post what we are doing because 80% don't understand and can't reproduce. I don't think it matters if everyone can follow what I am doing, I'm not going to dumb myself down to the lowest common denominator because it is too difficult for some people. Yes an airplane is simple after the fact, but build me one! The complexity is enormous, can anyone here build an airplane?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.08.04, 18:00:16
So are you telling me that only simplicity is accepted at these forums, anyone with complex ideas stay away. The basic ideas may be simple but implementation may very difficult, who knows what it is going to take? Should we not post what we are doing because 80% don't understand and can't reproduce. I don't think it matters if everyone can follow what I am doing, I'm not going to dumb myself down to the lowest common denominator because it is too difficult for some people. Yes an airplane is simple after the fact, but build me one! The complexity is enormous, can anyone here build an airplane?
I'm really not in a position to tell you anything at all Room3327. I'm only suggesting that - in my humble opinion - the more complex the circuit does not necessarily produce the better result. I think a better analogy - as you're using aircraft - is the fact that one can get a glider to fly without any motors - but it does not thereby make it a more efficient machine. Just that it works and speaks to the aerodynamic forces somewhat more simply than motorised flight. The problem being that those 'aerodynamic forces' are here analogous to the electromagnetic force and that is NOT fully understood. It is only well exploited. But that's only my opinion. If you know that I'm wrong - then I'm happy. This is one thing I'd prefer to be wrong about than right - quite frankly.
You know I have to laugh, sorry, but I have tried to keep the circuits I have presented as simple as possible and yet perform well without self destructing. I guess I have worked with complexity too long. Ask most any Electronic engineer if my circuits are complicated they too will laugh, We deal on a daily basis with circuits that are 100 to 1000 times more complex then what I have shown, a single integrated circuit in your cell phone has 1000 times more circuitry then the most complex thing I have posted. Everything is a matter of degree, it depends on where you are viewing things from.
Rosemary: Thanks for your comments and I will keep on keeping on on this thread.
Okay, I am going to tackle the single-strand vs. multi-strand coil configuration and we will see what happens. I am going to do this on the fly. The whole analysis will be done with rationalized units.
Only Poynt made some comments about this issue which were correct, so lets try to dig deeper.
For starters, lets call the single-strand coil the "Single" Lets call the multi-strand coil the "Multi."
Let's assume that the Multi has eight strands and each strand consists of eight turns. For the Single, assume that the single strand has 64 turns.
Let's say that the resistance of each wire in the Multi is "R." Therefore the resistance of the Single is 8R and the resistance of the Multi is R/8.
Let's say that the current going through the Single is "I." We want to work with the same amount of current through each strand for the Multi, therefore the current through the Multi is 8I.
Lets say that the inductance of the Multi is "L." Since we know that the inductance of a coil is proportional to the square of the number of turns, then the inductance of the Single is 64L.
The key point about the Multi is that the eight eight-turn strands give you the same amount of inductance as a single eight-turn strand. This can be easily proved with a thought experiment, if you have the spark!
Single stats:
Resistance = 8R
Inductance = 64L
Current = I
Multi Stats:
Resistance = R/8
Inductance = L
Current = 8I
Okay, now that we have defined the two coil configurations in terms of rationalized units, let's see what we can learn from this.
MileHigh
So let's look at the energy storage in each coil. Of course the formula is one-half * Inductance * Current-squared.
Single:
Energy_Single @ current of I = 1/2 * 64L * I * I = 32 * L * I-squared
Multi:
Energy_Multi @ current of 8I = 1/2 * L * 8I * 8I = 32 * L * I-squared
So what is this telling us? The first thing you notice is that for the Single and the Multi, they will store exactly the same amount of energy if the amount of current through the single strand of the Single is the same for each individual strand of the Multi.
In other words, as long as the same amount of current is flowing though all the wires, be it Single or Multi, the coil will store exactly the same amount of energy for transfer into the charging battery.
The big difference is that the initial current when the Single starts to discharge is I, and for the Multi it is 8I. So the Multi can hit the battery with a much larger initial pulse of current, and that will result in an initial voltage spike that is eight times higher in potential.
So if you are working with a 10-coiler, you should be very interested in knowing precisely how much current there is in the initial wallop since all of the coils are multi-strand. Can your battery take it? Are you comfortable if it is very high? Do you want to control it and reduce it? All very interesting questions.
I am pleased to be the first person to raise this issue. Anyone that works with a 10-coiler should want to have an understanding of, and control over, the magnitude of the initial pulse of current that goes into the charging battery.
That raises a big question, how do you measure the magnitude of the initial current pulse?
MileHigh
Okay, so we know that if we connect a very good beefy source battery to the Single or the Multi, that the same amount of energy will be released when either coil discharges, if the Multi is drawing 8X the current from the battery when the transistor(s) switch off.
With the same amount of total energy, but with a much higher initial current spike from the Multi, common sense says that the Multi must discharge faster than the Single.
Let's take a look and see. Here you should look up "LR circuit" or "RL circuit." Wikipedia has good explanations as well as the HyperPhysics web site. In a nutshell, when an inductor discharges through a resistor, the current and voltage waveforms undergo an exponential decay. The same thing happens when a capacitor discharges through a resistor. Any exponentially decaying waveform has it's associated "time-constant" which is a measurement of how long it takes the voltage or current to decay by 63%.
The formula for the time-constant of an RL circut is inductance/resistance.
We are introducing a new variable here, an external resistance that the coil is discharging into. Let's call this resistance R_Ext.
IMPORTANT: We are making an important assumption here: We are assuming that the external resistance R_Ext is much larger than the internal resistance of the battery plus the resistance of the wires in the Single or Multi coil. This is a reasonable thing to assume for the purposes of this exercise.
Single:
Load Resistance = R_Ext
Inductance = 64L
Single_Time-Constant = 64L/R_Ext.
Multi:
Load Resistance = R_Ext
Inductance = L
Multi_Time-Constant = L /R_Ext.
So the above is showing you that the Multi coil configuration typically charges or discharges (or energizes and de-energizes, same thing) 64 times faster than the Single coil configuration, assuming that we can ignore the battery internal resistance and the resistance of the wires.
This has HUGE ramifications with respect to your Bedini timing circuit. It is reasonable to assume that you can't go from a Bedini motor based on Single-type coils to a motor based on Multi-type coils without taking a serious look at the timing circuit. If you are using the standard pick-up coil setup to time the firing of your transistor(s), then chances are you are energizing the Multi-type coils for way too long.
If you are indeed energizing your Multi-type coils for too long, then you are simply pouring battery energy down the drain. People that know their Bedini motors know that they typically want to energize their main firing coils by one time-constant or less. For Multi-type coil, that would be only 1/64th the amount of time compared to a Single-type coil.
Now going back to the real Bedini setup with respect to the coil discharges, you don't have an external load resistor, you have a charging battery. The charging battery effectively looks like a non-linear resistor. Since the resistance is non-linear, you loose the beautiful exponential discharging waveform for the voltage and current pulses. Instead, you get a non-standard variation on an exponential waveform. HOWEVER, you can still say with confidence that the Multi-type coil will discharge approximately 64 times faster into the charging battery as compared to the Single-type coil.
So in a nutshell: The Multi-type coil gets charged up by the source battery approximately 64 times faster than the Single-type coil, and it also discharges into the charging battery approximately 64 times faster.
Therefore there are two things to watch out for with a Multi-type coil as compared to a "standard" Single-type coil configuration:
1) Am I switching on the transistors for too long when I energize the Multi-type coil and decreasing the charging efficiency of the motor?
2) Am I whacking the charging battery with a pulse of current that is to large and too short in duration? There is a risk that the battery gets overwhelmed and instead of charging, just acts like a resistor and gets hot instead, which also decreases the charging efficiency of the motor.
MileHigh
For later, the time will come to discuss the energy and power issues with respect to the 10-coiler-type configuration. This fundamental stuff is almost never discussed - what is my power consumption and what is my power output? How much energy did I draw from my source battery and how much energy can I get back from my charging battery. You simply can't do this by making battery voltage measurements.
For a later day. Anyone that is working with a Bedini motor should be concerned with these issues. Forget about your RPMs, quite honestly it's almost garbage data with no real use.
MileHigh
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.08.04, 15:18:11
Hi WaveWatcher. Dark matter and dark energy are no longer thesis.
Agreed! They are now full-blown fudge-factors ;D
Just in the nick of time, the mathematicians and physicists are straining to account for the evidence.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.05, 04:21:27
Agreed! They are now full-blown fudge-factors ;D
Not sure of the term 'fudge-factor' - unless you mean an 'in your face' quantifiable upending of known physical principles as propounded by our learned and revered with the full force and weight of their mathematical obfuscations - over a couple of centuries or more? In which case 'fudge-factor' is DEFINITELY the right term. Just seems inadequate somehow. LOL
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.08.05, 04:21:27
Just in the nick of time, the mathematicians and physicists are straining to account for the evidence.
No WaveWatcher. I wish this was so. In fact the most of them have lined up and joined hands to defend that obsolete library that they've used for reference. They're defending this from an attack of free thinking independent logicians who prefer to establish the truth from nature rather than presume to advise nature as per that really OLD, OLD school. LOL. But I get it you're ambivalent? In which case this post will NOT add to your blood pressure. That's a really good thing. LOL. ;D I'm on that attack line and I REALLY want to kiss goodbye to all that supposed authority. It either needs rejuvenation or it needs to trashed. No other options. Else we'll be stuck in the mud forever. And tempus is fugitting. At SPEED. ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.05, 00:27:27
For later, the time will come to discuss the energy and power issues with respect to the 10-coiler-type configuration. This fundamental stuff is almost never discussed - what is my power consumption and what is my power output? How much energy did I draw from my source battery and how much energy can I get back from my charging battery. You simply can't do this by making battery voltage measurements.
For a later day. Anyone that is working with a Bedini motor should be concerned with these issues. Forget about your RPMs, quite honestly it's almost garbage data with no real use.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. Am I missing something? I get it from these arguments that the returning energy from multiple coils will be greater than from a single coil? That's surely NOT what you're arguing? If the input energy in both instances is the same then the returning energy from multiple coils should still be the same. Surely? Sorry if I've missed the point - which is more than likely. Can I impose on you here? But if it simply holds you up - don't bother. :)
Hi Rosemary:
More coils might get you more power, but never more power than in supplied by the source battery.
Not to open up a big current debate but I plucked some of your writing:
QuoteThen there's another problem with the concept of electrons flowing anywhere at all. Say one charges a flat battery from a wall plug. Then the idea is that the battery will be replenished with electrons to reconstitute the charged property of the electrolytes. But any chemist will assure you that there has been no loss of electrons in the mix. They have just been re-ordered in the molecular arrangement through that electrolytic process. Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?
The battery is NOT replenished with electrons. The electrons give up their energy and that drives the reverse chemical reaction in the electrolyte. 100 electrons give up their energy and 50 chemical reactions are "powered" by this giving up of energy by the electrons, or whatever. Your metabolism uses the "electron transport cycle" to do a "slow burn" of the same energy, that's why your body is warm.
Think of a hot water tank. Cold water molecules enter at the bottom and hot water molecules exit at the top. They are the same molecules, but at a higher energy state when they leave the tank. The tank puts energy into the water molecules at a certain power rate. That's EXACTLY what a battery does.
There is an analogy between the water molecules and electrons. It's kind of like thinking that the battery receives "cold" electrons at ground potential at the negative terminal and outputs "hot" electrons at higher potential at the positive terminal. In reality the electrons are going in the opposite direction, but it's easier to visualize it the "backwards" way.
I'll even go out on a limb and do water and pressure. Take a long hose in a big circular loop with an in-line water pump. In this case the water pump is acting like a battery. Water enters the pump at low pressure on one side and exits the pump at high pressure on the other side. The water pump is acting like a battery and the long hose is acting like a resistor. The hose is literally giving off heat when you do this. That's because the high pressure water molecules are "giving up" some of their energy and as result they loose some pressure. If you could measure the pressure along the length of the hose you would observe the pressure dropping the further you are away from the pump output.
I am making reference to a pump that can generate a certain amount of pressure. If you block the hose then the pressure is at the maximum and the water flow stops. That's just like a battery, it's a voltage source.
If you change to a different type of pump, one that has pistons like an automobile engine, that pump produces a fixed flow rate. With that kind of pump if you try to block the hose you can't. The pistons will keep on pushing water and the hose will burst because the pressure will get too high. Voila, that type of pump is identical to a current source. I have already said dozens of times in this thread that discharging coils are current sources, not voltage sources. There's your analogy for that.
The concept of current flow makes perfect sense, just like the concept of flowing hot water giving up it's energy to heat the radiators in a house and then circulating back to the hot water heater to start the whole process all over again. You can substitute the radiators with electric baseboard heaters (resistors) and now you are doing the same thing with electrons.
I hope you can grasp that because I don't want to hijack my own thread.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh. There are 'flaws' in your concepts here. For instance how does an electron, which is a stable particle, ever 'give up' it's energy? If it's the 'velocity factor' - then the average electron would need to come to a grinding halt inside those atomic energy levels - or at least slow down. And in a recharging battery it would need to return to the plug source with rather less energy than it had when it first left that plug source. Neither are evident. But thank you for the explanation. I do think that 'water pressure' and most analogies to water and current flow are really good. Very clear. I certainly did NOT expect a discussion on current flow. And I am NOT looking for converts - or NOT on this forum. It's not important MileHigh - or not to your discussion here.
Just go back to post 66 or 67? Not sure which. You're arguing that the 10 coiler will result in more energy output. But I may have read it wrong.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
EDITED. Here it is.
'Let's say that the current going through the Single is "I." We want to work with the same amount of current through each strand for the Multi, therefore the current through the Multi is 8I.' If that's 8*i then that's way more current than in the single strand. Surely? Unless you're arguing that you're just getting more power from the source through the multi coil number? I would have thought that the multi coil would offer a greater resistance to current flow. But I'm open to correction.
Hi Rosemary:
In my posting I made simple, bit still valid analogies. The electrons are gaining or loosing energy in lock step with the electric field that they are associated with. I am not going to go into this any deeper, the main point is that current flows in a loop, and associated with that loop you have some drive mechanism or mechanisms that elevate the potential of the electrons in the current flow, or lower the potential of the electrons in the current flow, like some circular roller-coaster track. Raising the potential implies that there is a source of energy and lowering the potential implies the dissipation of that energy. This is all very simplified here. You seem to be focused on "excesses of electrons" and where they come from, which is moot, it's a non-issue.
For the Single vs. Multi, indeed the Multi can draw more battery current than the Single. The Multi has the potential to draw more current from the source battery, but if you put them on an equal footing with the current in each strand of the Multi being equal to the current through the Single, then they will store exactly the same amount of energy.
The Multi offers less resistance to current flow because it possesses less inductance and less resistance compared to the Single.
MileHigh
hello MileHigh. I love your analogy to a rollercoaster.
To my shame I honestly did NOT know that series inductive loads increase current flow. I just assumed that they'd act in the same way as resistors. Apologies.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary,
There are no series inductive loads. Using my example, the Multi is effectively a single-wire coil with 8 turns and the Single is a single-wire coil with 64 turns. In the Multi the eight wires are in parallel, not in series. The Multi has 1/64th the inductance of the Single.
MileHigh
Just for fun, let's design an inductor-based solar battery charger. Bedini enthusiasts talk about connecting a Bedini motor to a solar panel, and then you can charge a battery even if the solar panel's output voltage is below the voltage of the charging battery. The solar panel energizes the inductor, and then you switch off, and the inductor becomes a current source and transfers a fixed amount of energy in Joules into the charging battery. It doesn't matter what the voltage of the charging battery is, you can still charge it.
It all sounds good, but the main problem is you can't do an impedance match with the solar panel like this. Even through you are charging the battery, there is a very good chance you are only getting a fraction of the available power that the solar panel could output.
The solar panel wants to transfer it's output power into what looks like a constant resistive load that is its impedance match. The impedance of the Bedini motor is a function of time. When the coil switches on to start the charging cycle, the impedance of the Bedini motor is close to infinity. As the coil starts energizing, the impedance starts falling towards zero. Then the transistor switches off and the impedance of the Bedini motor is near infinity again. It's a total mismatch with what the solar panel wants to see, and as a result you are only extracting a fraction of the available juice that the solar panel could theoretically provide.
So what needs to be done is to create a circuit that goes between the solar panel and your inductor discharging circuit. You can't use a Bedini motor as the inductor discharging circuit because you don't have enough control over the timing of the inductor discharging. You want precise control over the frequency of the charging of the inductor, and for how long you switch the transistor ON to energize the inductor for every charge cycle. A Bedini motor simply can't give you the level of control that you need.
MileHigh
The fist thing is that you have to check what is written on the back of the solar panel. You will see a stamp or a label on the back of the panel that lists a voltage and a current value for when the panel is in full sunlight. Those are the optimum output parameters for the panel. That's the layperson's way of indicating the output impedance of the panel. Suppose it says 12 volts and 200 milliamperes. So the output impedance of the panel is (12/0.2) = 60 ohms in bright sunlight. So if you can make your load "look like" a 60-ohm load you will extract the maximum amount of power from the panel, (12 x 0.2) = 2.4 Watts.
Let's define the inductive discharging circuit we need to do this. It's a standard Bedini-like setup with a switching transistor and a diode that connects to the charging battery. The transistor base is triggered by a 555-based timing circuit. It's the same timing circuit that I described before, a bistable multivibrator connected to a monostable multivibrator, then connected to the transistor base. You have a variable resistor to adjust the frequency of the pulsing connected to the bistable multivibrator, and a variable resistor to adjust the length of the pulse width for the monostable multivibrator to control the transistor ON time. In other words - a pot to control the pulse frequency and another pot to control the pulse width.
The circuit that goes between the solar panel and the inductor discharging circuit is trivial, it's just a big low pass filtering capacitor between the solar panel output and ground. So what it ends up looking like is the solar panel charges the big capacitor, and then when the transistor switches on, it's the big capacitor that charges the inductor.
When you switch on the setup, you need to have a multimeter monitoring the voltage across the big capacitor. You then tweak the pulse frequency and the pulse width using your potentiometers so that the voltage across the capacitor stabilizes 12 volts, the optimum voltage for the solar panel. Typically you will want to make the pulse width very short, so that the inductor does not have too much current going though it to minimize the resistive losses in the wire. So with a short ON pulse, you play with the pulse frequency to get the big filtering cap voltage to stabilize at 12 volts.
That's it, you have done it. You are extracting the maximum possible power from the solar panel in full sunlight and using that power to charge an inductor, and then discharging that inductor into a charging battery. This setup will typically outperform an equivalent solar-panel-Bedini-motor setup by a huge margin because you have done a true impedance match with the solar panel.
For 10 Bonus points, you could do a "smart" version of this setup where a micocontroller board like an Arduino controls the timing of the pulsing. Two A/D channels would be needed. One channel would monitor the big capacitor voltage. The second channel would monitor the light intensity with a photocell setup. A software algorithm would read the light intensity and then look up a table in memory that tells it what the optimum cap voltage is for a given amount of light. Then the software would tweak the timing of the pulsing to bring the cap voltage to its optimum level. In other words, the output impedance of the solar panel varies with the light intensity striking it. The microcontroller setup could dynamically adjust the impedance of the "load" to ensure maximum power transfer at any light level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeScmRwzQho (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeScmRwzQho)
MileHigh
For what it's worth I've got a couple of designs on the bench right now for a forward motion and regenerative braking system for electric bicycle utilizing a pic based microcontroller pwm.
I've been fiddling with similar circuits for windmill systems that allow some inductor charge and discharge into a battery when wind speed is below battery threshold....not much energy there but still a bit to capture.
I've also got on the bench a line operated pulse battery charger system of very simple design that will impedance match to one or many series connected cells.
I thoroughly enjoy playing with switchmode circuits.
Ion:
QuoteI've also got on the bench a line operated pulse battery charger system of very simple design that will impedance match to one or many series connected cells.
This is a technical issue that I have discussed a few times, but it is worth mentioning again. When you say a "pulse battery charger" I assume that you are talking about a discharging inductor like we are all familiar with, as in a Bedini motor.
Sometimes I clarify technical points that appear to go against the grain, and I know that most Bedini enthusiasts believe that there is some kind of impedance matching going on with a Bedini motor on the charging side.
The "surprise" is that in fact there is no impedance matching going on. The nature of the beast is that the discharging inductor will discharge its stored energy into any type of charging battery load. The best that you can say is that the higher the impedance of the charging battery load, the faster the inductor will discharge its energy into that load. So no matter what, the inductor discharges all of its stored energy, independent of the load. In that sense there is no impedance matching going on.
MileHigh
QuoteWhen you say a "pulse battery charger" I assume that you are talking about a discharging inductor like we are all familiar with, as in a Bedini motor.
Yes, a discharging inductor like we are all familiar with.
But I am not a Bedini enthusiast, don't believe in his work, most of it can be replaced with simpler and less costly SS designs.
I feel sorry for people that part with money to send to JB. Also, his battery shell game annoys me.
But if people learn something from buying one of his kits, more power to them.
A fool and his money are soon parted....maybe that is the most important lesson they will learn.
QuoteThe "surprise" is that in fact there is no impedance matching going on. The nature of the beast is that the discharging inductor will discharge its stored energy into any type of charging battery load. The best that you can say is that the higher the impedance of the charging battery load, the faster the inductor will discharge its energy into that load. So no matter what, the inductor discharges all of its stored energy, independent of the load. In that sense there is no impedance matching going on.
You are correct, strictly speaking there is no impedance matching going on. I should have said it is not necessary to make any adjustments to match the voltage output to the number of series connected cells as it is automatic and inherent in a discharging inductor design.
Even new batteries that have been sitting around in a discharged state will develop a thin layer of sulphation that raises the effective internal impedance of the device. It is difficult to dissolve this thin layer back into solution with voltage source-current limited chargers.
The high output voltage of a discharging inductor can aid in dissolving this layer back into the electrolyte. This more than likely accounts for the sudden increase in apparent capacity of a battery
charged for a time on a "current source" charger such as a Bedini machine.
But as you already know and have pointed out, it is a bit false to imply that rotating magnets are the only way to accomplish this.
It bugs me to see charlatans getting away with this. Caveat Emptor
Good to see the Bedini skeptics are still around, it gives me more motivation.
Question: Have you actually built a Bedini system to spec and done 30+ cycles of scientific load testing?
If not, quit bagging the man out until you have. His stuff works, period. I have the data to prove it. I have achieved COP>1.
I have a COP>1 Bedini based design running on the bench now. Have you?
Still lurking and laughing in the background.... ;D
John K.
Quote from: John_K on 2010.08.09, 09:57:29
Good to see the Bedini skeptics are still around, it gives me more motivation.
Question: Have you actually built a Bedini system to spec and done 30+ cycles of scientific load testing?
If not, quit bagging the man out until you have. His stuff works, period. I have the data to prove it. I have achieved COP>1.
I have a COP>1 Bedini based design running on the bench now. Have you?
Still lurking and laughing in the background.... ;D
John K.
You're talkin' the talk, now let's walk the walk.
Let's see the data.
John:
Can you elaborate on your COP>1 statement?
MileHigh
QuoteGood to see the Bedini skeptics are still around, it gives me more motivation.
I was not always a skeptic. I parted with money and bought some of his papers in the late 80's. Since then I have followed his video's, analyzed some of his outrageously priced audio amp designs and watched his company stock fluctuate into the pink.
I am not impressed with his presentations or lecture style or offerings of chargers.
John K. you have the perfect right to your beliefs about the man as I also have.
Now replace those batteries with capacitors and see if your self runner sustains itself to a COP>1, or close the loop around a single capacitor.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.08.09, 13:47:53
You're talkin' the talk, now let's walk the walk.
Let's see the data.
No Grumpy, not until you've answered my question.
John K
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.09, 14:09:48
John:
Can you elaborate on your COP>1 statement?
MileHigh
No MileHigh, not until you've answered my question.
John K.
Quote from: ION on 2010.08.09, 14:37:32
I was not always a skeptic. I parted with money and bought some of his papers in the late 80's. Since then I have followed his video's, analyzed some of his outrageously priced audio amp designs and watched his company stock fluctuate into the pink.
I am not impressed with his presentations or lecture style or offerings of chargers.
John K. you have the perfect right to your beliefs about the man as I also have.
Now replace those batteries with capacitors and see if your self runner sustains itself to a COP>1, or close the loop around a single capacitor.
Ion,
Yes, it's great that we live in a society where we can freely express out beliefs and opinions.
I never said I have a self-runner, I said I have a COP>1 system. It will not work with capacitors or closed loop systems. The energy gains are in the batteries in a "duality of closed paths, or a singularity of open paths".
Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention that I have a COP=Infinity system running in my lab as well. It is also a Bedini based system.
John K.
QuoteOh yeah, I also forgot to mention that I have a COP=Infinity system running in my lab as well. It is also a Bedini based system.
Well I'll have to take my hat off to ya, John, and if you've got some salt, I'll eat that hat.
John:
The answer is no, I haven't. I have never played with a Bedini motor. On the other hand I looked at a lot of YouTube clips with Bedini motors a few years ago, easily more than 100. I also have read many threads on Bedini motors.
MileHigh
Quote from: John_K on 2010.08.10, 00:03:17
No Grumpy, not until you've answered my question.
John K
The answer is "NO" I do not have any sort of Bedini device. I do not need or want one.
I'm a real smartass and I have advanced knowledge, so I know that Bedini's devices can not work as claimed.
Heat pumps are COP >1 whoop-de-doo
@All
This thread is priceless, the self-proclaimed experts who say the Bedini technology cannot work have never actually built one which means they are an expert in nothing other than opinion. Then there are others who's ego cannot let anyone else take the stage thus they are compelled to make even grander claims, lol. This is yet another reason why I like these forums so much, it is a great lesson in psychology and the human condition, that is why we do things and think the way we do. I'm going to go out a limb here and ask the hopefully unbiased question I think John would like us to ask---- Could you expand on the concept of "duality of closed paths, or a singularity of open paths" as it relates to Bedini's technology without giving away any information you may not feel comfortable with?
You see that wasn't so hard and we may actually learn something of John_K's perspective which is a good thing.
Note: For the record I have built both Bedini's rotary and solid state systems to spec.
Regards
AC
AC:
So you were the fist to jump on it! Congrats! It's unfortunate that what you are saying is not true. You don't have to build the thing to know how it works!
Often that strategy is used as a loaded question. It's even used as an escape mechanism by the person that poses the question.
You can certainly learn a lot about the human condition, I have to agree with you there. You are also part of the display.
Also, I will reply to your email, sorry for the delay.
MileHigh
P.S.: I can see John K has returned. My comments above are generic, not directed at anybody. I would be more than happy to discuss Bedini motors with you or anybody.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.11, 00:22:53
@All
This thread is priceless, the self-proclaimed experts who say the Bedini technology cannot work have never actually built one which means they are an expert in nothing other than opinion. Then there are others who's ego cannot let anyone else take the stage thus they are compelled to make even grander claims, lol. This is yet another reason why I like these forums so much, it is a great lesson in psychology and the human condition, that is why we do things and think the way we do. I'm going to go out a limb here and ask the hopefully unbiased question I think John would like us to ask---- Could you expand on the concept of "duality of closed paths, or a singularity of open paths" as it relates to Bedini's technology without giving away any information you may not feel comfortable with?
You see that wasn't so hard and we may actually learn something of John_K's perspective which is a good thing.
Note: For the record I have built both Bedini's rotary and solid state systems to spec.
Regards
AC
AC,
Sure I can. It's been on the Internet for years. I may have not quoted it exactly correct. Go to this page for more information:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kron.htm
Since you have also built Bedini systems, what did you conclude from your experiments?
John K.
John:
I read your link but didn't get too much from it. You seem to be indicating this concept applies to a Bedini motor and the charging process. Can you tell us more? Also, can you talk about your COP >1 and COP infinity claims?
MileHigh
MileHigh,
I would advise to read the following for a better understanding of the process...
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index101.htm
http://www.signallake.com/old/innovation/col_0221.pdf
You could also Google "the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") " for more information.
John K.
I picked up on one thing in Bearden's blurb about "Gabriel Kron and the Negative Resistor" which comes from Bearden's book, "On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum."
Bearden says this:
QuoteA true negative resistor appears to have been developed by the renowned Gabriel Kron, who was never permitted to reveal its construction or specifically reveal its development.
Bearden is setting up an "aura" about the mysterious "negative resistor." It is ostensibly a source of energy, drawing energy from the "Heaviside energy component."
Note that the "forbidden fruit" card is being played by Bearden. Bearden even says, "Apparently Kron was required to insert the words 'none or' in that statement." MIB suppression card being played also. Steorn plays the "forbidden fruit" card also.
I am being somewhat harsh but with good reason.
I did a search on "Gabriel Kron" and it took me less than one minute to get this link:
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/Kron-1945/Kron-PR-1945/Kron-PR-1945.htm (http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/Kron-1945/Kron-PR-1945/Kron-PR-1945.htm)
To quote:
Quote1. The circuit contains positive and negative resistors and in each state the currents and voltages are constant in time. The state is changed by varying the resistances, corresponding to a change in eigenvalue (energy level).
2. Although negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer, in practice it is more convenient to use a second type of circuit, in which the positive and negative resistors are replaced by inductors and capacitors and the d.c. currents and voltages are replaced by a.c. currents and voltages of fixed frequency. The use of the second type of interpretation is equivalent to multiplying the wave equation by i = √- 1.
In the diagrams to follow, unless otherwise stated, the inductors (whose reactance at the fixed frequency is denoted by XL ) may also be viewed as positive resistances of value XL and the capacitors (whose reactance is denoted by - XC ) as negative resistances of value - XC.
The real "negative resistor" in the network analyzer at that time was implemented with some sort of a tube-based amplifier circuit. You can easily create a "negative resistor" nowadays using operational amplifiers configured in such a way to make a network element that behaves like a negative resistor. You can easily find this in an op-amp applications book. Alternatively, as they state above, you can play with flipping the time and frequency domain modeling such that you emulate the DC behaviour of a circuit by using a fixed AC frequency. This gives you the ability to model a negative resistor using a capacitor.
I am not going to go into mathematical circuit modeling, but "XL" and "-XC" come from frequency domain modeling of circuit components. An inductor's circuit impedance is jwL and a capacitor's is (1/j)(wC) = -jwC. ("w" is really omega, angular frequency, and "j" is the square root of -1. ) I am really rusty here as a disclaimer...
The main point is that this is all very well known stuff. It makes perfect sense to use a capacitor to model a negative resistor as described above where you simulate DC behaviour by going over to the frequency domain. You can also model a real negative resistor with active components, be they tube-based amplifiers or transistor-based operational amplifiers.
Back to Bearden:
QuoteHere the introductory clause states in rather certain terms that negative resistors were available for use on the network analyzer, and Kron slipped this one through the censors.
For sure they were available, the "negative resistors" were nothing more than boring old vanilla capacitors, or some sort of active tube-based circuit. There was no censorship issue, Mr. Bearden is dishing out goop. The "network analyzer" is simply an analog computer. It's what I often talk about, using electrical circuits to model real-world physical systems like a car's suspension and vice-versa. Analog computers were used for decades before digital computers existed and they still use them.
So what Bearden is saying is nonsense. He is mining true research information from the 1940s that was done to model big electrical motors and stuff like that, and snowing his audience and telling them pure fiction. There is no "mysterious negative resistor" that was "suppressed." Sorry for being that harsh, but it's the truth.
MileHigh
Edit: Corrected and changed "inductor" for "capacitor" in a few instances above.
John:
You can see that I just indicated that I am not impressed with the "negative resistor" angle from my previous posting. I know reading that may upset some people, or affect them in other ways. If someone is a big Bearden fan, and they agree with me that Bearden is hoodwinking people with his "negative resistor" talk, then the bottom may fall out of their whole "Bearden Universe."
I will give the second link a read first, "Explanation of John Bedini's Formation of Negative Resistors in Batteries By Tom Bearden 4-26-00." But you can see by what I posted above that I am not impressed by Bearden because frankly I smell a rat with respect to his "negative resistor" talk. Just telling the truth.
I will still look at the material.
But what about your experience, your work? That's what a few of us are asking you to share with us.
Thanks,
MileHigh
I'll have to wholeheartedly agree with Milehigh on this one.
We used to build those "negative" circuits found in the old National Op Amp Cookbooks back in the 70's...fun to play with.
There are many things that Bearden, Bedini and Lindemann all have in common. Can anyone guess what they are?
Then there is the Bedini claim that his devices use "radiant current" which is produced by discharging coils. Not even Tesla himself could produce "radiant current" this way!
Also, there is not a single reference that Tesla ever charged batteries with a RE device.
If you research RE yourself, you will find that it is NOT a current.
================================================================================
B, B, and L sell literature.
Well thanks Ion and Grumpy for your voices of support. Ultimately we are looking for the truth.
This is a quote from the Tom Bearden link that I said that I would read first:
QuoteJohn's method does the following: (1) It forms a true negative resistor in
a most unexpected way, inside a common lead acid battery, (2) it uses that
negative resistor to extract excess energy from the vacuum and furnish it
both to the ions in charging mode and to the electrons in load powering
mode, and (3) it adds several other stimuli which increase the
amplification of the negative resistor and further enhance the effect,
increasing the excess energy extracted from the vacuum and collected in the
charging process and also in the powering process.
Putting the "negative resistor" talk aside, you can see how Bearden's prose is clearly indicating that you can get excess energy with a Bedini motor setup. I am assuming that John Bedini is fully aware of this content online and I will make the inference that John Bedini has "authorized" this online content about him and his motor.
This puts the ball in John K's court. Earlier in your postings you clearly indicated that a Bedini motor is not a free energy device. Yet you give us links that state that a Bedini motor is a free energy device, so which is it?
Also, on that topic. I am going to make the assumption that you are very familiar with all of the Energy from the Vacuum DVDs. Someone on the Energetic Forum said that in DVD #2 someone on the DVD (not sure who) states that the 10-coiler is a means to produce free energy. Is this the case or not? If the answer is yes, then who made this statement?
If there is no answer forthcoming, can someone pose the question on EF or OU and get an answer? I know from reading that there are people there that buy those DVDs and watch them over and over.
Thanks,
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteSo you were the fist to jump on it! Congrats! It's unfortunate that what you are saying is not true. You don't have to build the thing to know how it works!
Bedini has stated his device is based on the precise switching of of an inductance which relates to transient effects, lets do a google search on --"inductance transient effects". Now I wonder why one would get hundreds of thousands of hits on scientific papers in regards to transient effects in inductors if everything was understood?--- if we had nothing left to learn? From your posts you would seem to be implying that you must know everything these hundreds of thousands of credible scientists do not--- is that what you are saying?, that you know everything without building or testing anything?
Let's google ---"science switch mode converters", that is where you switch an inductance(a coil of wire) on and off to charge something such as a battery not unlike what Mr.Bedini is doing. Oh dear I am getting millions of hits on this one, maybe you could respond to all these engineers and scientists and inform them that you understand all that they are researching and you could also tell them that there is really no need to build or experiment with anything. Of course I am being sarcastic as usual but I hope you can understand my point here, your argument is absurd. I would also like to note that I have made absurd arguments in the past as well, I am not perfect, I do not know everything but I will be the first to admit I may be wrong and I take a great deal of pride in this fact---that I am wrong all of the time.
@John_K
QuoteSure I can. It's been on the Internet for years. I may have not quoted it exactly correct. Go to this page for more
information:
Ah, Mr.Kron I have a great deal of respect for his work although I would disagree with some of his terminology. A negative resistance? I have built many oscillator circuits based on this supposed effect with NE2's, quenched SG's and 2N2222A transistors and found there is no negative resistance. If a resistance is defined as an opposition to motion then a negative resistance must be beyond superconductivity or an acceleration of some sort. I think the issue here is one of math versus reality, does a sudden lack of resistance constitute a negative resistance? Does an inductive discharge producing a voltage rise proportional to resistance effectively negating all resistance including a polarity reversal constitute a negative resistance? Should we start calling every resistance a negative acceleration? What I do agree on is the fact that we can confuse this simple issue with math,oscilloscope plots,electronic functions and all other kinds of nonsense but the message implied is that there is some sort of energy gain due to an unexpected acceleration between the source to the final destination.
@Grumpy
QuoteThen there is the Bedini claim that his devices use "radiant current" which is produced by discharging coils. Not even Tesla himself could produce "radiant current" this way!
Have you been talking with Tesla again? Bad Grumpy, you know how the neighbors talk when you do that.
Regards
AC
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.11, 03:06:06
Well thanks Ion and Grumpy for your voices of support. Ultimately we are looking for the truth.
This is a quote from the Tom Bearden link that I said that I would read first:
Putting the "negative resistor" talk aside, you can see how Bearden's prose is clearly indicating that you can get excess energy with a Bedini motor setup. I am assuming that John Bedini is fully aware of this content online and I will make the inference that John Bedini has "authorized" this online content about him and his motor.
This puts the ball in John K's court. Earlier in your postings you clearly indicated that a Bedini motor is not a free energy device. Yet you give us links that state that a Bedini motor is a free energy device, so which is it?
Also, on that topic. I am going to make the assumption that you are very familiar with all of the Energy from the Vacuum DVDs. Someone on the Energetic Forum said that in DVD #2 someone on the DVD (not sure who) states that the 10-coiler is a means to produce free energy. Is this the case or not? If the answer is yes, then who made this statement?
If there is no answer forthcoming, can someone pose the question on EF or OU and get an answer? I know from reading that there are people there that buy those DVDs and watch them over and over.
Thanks,
MileHigh
MileHigh,
Yes, John Bedini is fully aware and has authorized Bearden's online content as it is reproduced word for word on his pages. However, no where does Tom say it has to be a "Bedini motor" as you put it. If we're talking about terminology, Bedini himself refers to an "Energizer" rather than a "motor". If you had built one you would understand this terminology. Bearden explains how John manufactures a "negative resistor" in the common lead-acid battery, not about the method or device he uses. You cannot "put the talk aside" as it is the foundation of what Bedini's devices do. You have read the text out of context.
If the "ball is in my court", here's an ace... You're not even playing in the same court. I did not give you a link that "states the Bedini motor is a free energy device". I've read those pages over and over and nowhere does it state that the Bedini motor is a free energy device. It states that the "free energy" is in the battery in the process that John has invented and patented. I stand my by original posts that said that the Bedini 10-coiler (of which this thread is named) IS NOT a free energy device, never was, never will be. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Yes, I have watched the EFTV DVDs over and over. Whoever on EF stated that "the 10-coiler is a means to produce free energy" is quite correct. The 10-coiler is a MEANS, not the device which in my book means that it is the process that creates the "free energy", not the actual device itself.
@AC,
Let's not squabble about the terminology. The fact is that according to Gabriel Kron, circuits can be made that converge energy into the circuit, rather than just diverge energy from the circuit as all EE's are taught from the text books. Kron clearly made this discovery which allowed the generator to be disconnected from the circuit and the circuit could power itself and it's loads and losses. Call it what you will, but you can't deny the fact that every watt of electricity produced today is extracted from the active vacuum, not from coal, oil, nuclear or any other fossil burning technology that we have become brain-washed to believe.
@Grumpy,
I have never heard of the term "radiant current" as you put it. When and where did Bedini claim this, please list the reference as I've read everything John has placed in the public domain many times and never come across this term. I haven't spoken to Tesla lately, but he termed the energy "radiant energy", referring to energy extracted from the "Aether" as we would call it today. Tesla also knew it was in the form of a "gas" that floated on the outside of the wire, not within the conductor itself.
@ION,
I believe the thing that Bedini, Bearden and Lindemann all have in common is that they have all produced and witnessed extracting energy from the vacuum, or aether, or environment - whatever you want to call it. They may have also published literature on the topic, but that was to educate people from the lies and suppression that was ordered by Mr. J. P. Morgan and executed by Lorentz.
You guys probably think that I'm some sort of "brain-washed Bedini, Bearden crack-pot", I don't blame you. But I have done the experiments and proved on the bench of what they have claimed in front of my own eyes. I don't expect you to believe an ounce of what I say until you have simply done the same experiments for yourselves. If you choose not to, fine, I don't care if you do or don't. It won't make any difference to me or my research into this technology. I know it works, I know how it works and no one is going to convince me otherwise.
I hope that someday before we have burned up all the fossil fuels and killed the planet and its inhabitants by our greed and ignorance that mankind will wake up to itself and realize that it just doesn't have to be that way.
Back to the bench....
John K.
AC:
I am correct in that I think that I have read several times that you stated that you are an engineer? If yes, may I ask what kind of engineer?
John:
I am not worried about whether a "Bedini motor" is called a "motor" or "mechanical oscillator" or an "energizer." It doesn't really matter, you and the readers know what I am talking about. In the link you provided Tim Bearden is clearly talking about using a Bedini motor setup to pulse current into a battery to charge it.
When Tom Bearden writes "increasing the
excess energy extracted from the vacuum and collected in the charging process" he is stating that when you charge batteries with a Bedini motor the ultimate result is that you have excess energy stored in the charging battery. "Excess energy" is perfectly clear to me, it means free energy. You charge a battery with a Bedini motor and Tom is stating that you get free energy, more energy out than the energy you put in in the first place. i.e.; you power the Bedini motor with X Joules of electrical energy over a certain amount of time and then you can extract more than X Joules of electrical energy afterward from the charging battery.
Quoting you:
QuoteI've read those pages over and over and nowhere does it state that the Bedini motor is a free energy device. It states that the "free energy" is in the battery in the process that John has invented and patented. I stand my by original posts that said that the Bedini 10-coiler (of which this thread is named) IS NOT a free energy device, never was, never will be. Please don't put words into my mouth.
As I state above, it is 100% clear to me from the link you provided that Tom Bearden is stating that a Bedini motor setup is a free energy device. Using a Bedini motor allows you to get more energy out of the charging battery that you put in.
So I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you again, is a Bedini motor a free energy device or not?
QuoteYes, I have watched the EFTV DVDs over and over. Whoever on EF stated that "the 10-coiler is a means to produce free energy" is quite correct. The 10-coiler is a MEANS, not the device which in my book means that it is the process that creates the "free energy", not the actual device itself.
Sorry, I don't accept your comment above. The device is a "means" to do something but the actual device itself does nothing???? The two are one in the same. You have to get real here John. You are talking in a form of marketing-ese, or like a politician. It's like saying a car is not a transportation device, it's just a means to transport yourself if you push the right pedals and use the steering wheel properly. It's the process of driving the car that transports you, not the car itself. That kind of talk makes people roll their eyes. Please just state the straight goods.
Also, you still didn't answer my question: Does someone on the EFTV DVD state that the 10-coiler is a free energy device and if yes who says it? If you can state the quote from memory that would be even better.
Finally, I hope you can talk about you COP > 1 and COP infinity claims that you mentioned. Your setup, measurement methodology, measurement data, all that would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Regardless of whether the 10 coil charger is touted as a free energy or excess energy device or not, it is clear that the main thrust of books, DVD's etc by the holy three are advertised as "free energy" books.
The three support each other and make a nice living selling these books, DVD's pamphlets etc as well as lecturing at "free energy" symposiums. So why would they not support each other?
http://www.cheniere.org/books/FEG/index.html
http://www.free-energy.ws/products.html
http://johnbedini.net/john34/bedinibearden.html
Check out the smirk on John Bedini's face on the cover of the "Free Energy Generation Circuits and Schematics" book.....he's probably saying "we pulled off another one, I can't believe it, thanks Tom".
I've been chasing the "free energy dragon" for nearly 40 years, have more than one lab at least as impressive as JB's, have built some of his "FE claimed" devices.
I'm glad that John K is having fun charging batteries and producing "excess energy" (not free energy) LOL
I'm just stating that he might want to close the loop on the system with a simple boost converter so he doesn't have to swap batteries, then he can see where the excess energy is hiding.
Sorry, not a believer in the "Holy Three"
QuoteThey may have also published literature on the topic, but that was to educate people from the lies and suppression that was ordered by Mr. J. P. Morgan and executed by Lorentz.
We should all be shocked (LOL) to learn that Lorentz was in on the suppression.
By the way, my background is in inductive switching and power control circuitry, made my living at it, and was able to retire 15 years early and pursue my own research because of it.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.11, 06:39:00
@GrumpyHave you been talking with Tesla again? Bad Grumpy, you know how the neighbors talk when you do that.
Regards
AC
Try it. RE doesn't come out of a discharging coil - it can't.
Quote from: John_K on 2010.08.11, 11:15:40
@Grumpy,
I have never heard of the term "radiant current" as you put it. When and where did Bedini claim this, please list the reference as I've read everything John has placed in the public domain many times and never come across this term. I haven't spoken to Tesla lately, but he termed the energy "radiant energy", referring to energy extracted from the "Aether" as we would call it today. Tesla also knew it was in the form of a "gas" that floated on the outside of the wire, not within the conductor itself.
Back to the bench....
John K.
OK
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/intro.html
QuoteIf you kill the dipole you loose the energy. The dipole killer is the electron current in the circuit. So therefore the term free electricity only applies to those that have done away with the current or have figured a way to block it from completing it's path through the circuit. Their are no meters to measure this radiant current, and when you catch it, it has the power of the universe and beyond. Good luck in your research . Their is only energy from the vacuum, known as radiant energy. to find out more about this you need to read Tom Bearden's book. To go to my pages go to the bottom of the page .
Bedini lists his own patents and the capacitive motor of Bearden et al, and then states:
QuoteThese patents are the only key to unlocking this radiant energy.
Then he lists Tesla's Radiant Energy Collecting patents, which show collection and a few means of generatinf radiant energy. If you take these different methods of generation and hit the books, you will find the many other names for radiant energy. Too many people want to say something is wrong or missing in modern science without first understanding it.
Bedini then states:
QuoteHere in the Tesla patent once again we see the use of radiant energy. As I have said above their is only a radiant current, and this current is passed through the system by the capacitor and only a capacitor. The next step in the system is the amount of time it takes to charge this capacitor, and then the amount of time it takes to discharge the capacitor for they all have their own time, and each one of these things must be in sync in their own time.
It is so funny to sit here now and think that Benjamin Franklin had it all at his finger tips, if he would have used the capacitor the correct way.
It's the most simple thing in nature to do, and the hardest for mankind to understand because of the mind blocks. Their is no math for radiant current, for are instruments do not measure it. It's even sick to see meters all over these machines, because their is no possible way to measure the Aether flow. The people have had it all along and yet a little "meter" has stood in their way from the truth. Meters only measure wasted energy in the system.
Bedini then shows his solid state device - The Real McCoy as he calls it.
Then he states:
Quote(all patents are core technology, now using inverted radiant circuits)
AND
QuoteRadiant currents are just like Tesla said a gas in nature the transformation converter is the Capacitor.
Bedini then goes on to answer a question from Dave Thomson (the aether physics dude):
Quote
An answer to David Thomson
David this is great stuff and I admire your work, but the dipole we are talking about are two different things. first of all the math does not apply since their are no equations for it. The math of today's scientist only runs you around in equation after equation, "just like Tesla said". All are electrical equations are only designed to burn energy in current. I understand the The Casimir effect, but this does not have anything to do with the charge of a magnetic moment. this does not take any high voltage since the stress field is always there. Our circuits are designed to split the magnetic moment before it becomes magnetic, this is where the radiant comes from. If we go back to Tesla and what he was doing in the end we find out he was studying through small experiments how this Radiant gas behaved, and what shapes it worked best with. His work with different lattice was very detailed and this is where The Casimir effect comes into play. As for the Radiant work their only three patents by Tesla which discusses anything, and no math. The only thing we have to use at this time is VQ without the I (current) but it should be Vr =Q ( voltage from the split Radiant = Charge) The only other factor is TIME to get the Vr. If a long time is required to collect charge in this split then C (capacitor) should be very small so that the highest V (voltage) is obtained. If the Vr is very quick in splitting this magnetic moment then C can be very big. Also frequency of this magnetic moment is very important. You must release the Radiant voltage into a radiant current de-void of any electrons. So what is charging the batteries in My system is pure Radiant Current. This means that since their is no electrons to pile up on the Ions of the battery nothing can move, this forces the Ions to change their state and they move on their own, this is nothing more then a impedance shift, if you have a low impedance in the battery you have real power, if you have high impedance in the battery you have nothing. Nature takes time to move at her own rate, so the battery may take a long time to charge but charge it will with a different form of energy. This brings me to a different point, That all that is driving the switching solid state wise is a difference in potential across the battery inverted. This then means that the whole flow theory is out the window, meaning that the semiconductors are working on potential charge de-void of electrons so their is no heat generated in the semiconductor. As for the battery it fill's in it's own electrons. I must say that Tesla was right.
John
Well, I can't begin to anihilate that paragraph enough.
Then there is the second reply to David:
Quote
Answer Two
David and Darren
First of all with all due respect and admiration for your work, I must still state that My work has nothing to do with "Strong Charge", or Resonance in our circuits. My work is based on real working models, and these real working models are saying something much different than what the equations are saying. My magnetic moment is based on what is occurring in the front end circuit before the normal current builds up, and then to capture the radiant voltage and then split this voltage into a current de-void of electrons to charge the batteries. So here we differ again I'm not looking for electrons to power anything, in your model you can not get away from the electrons. My models are telling me that the equations must be revised to work properly with My model. I not only have one model that is working I have 30 that do the same thing plus the solid state models. Radiant energy goes away when electrons enter the picture. Read very carefully what Tesla said about the power stations when they were DC powered, I think you will catch it. I have never seen anybody that did science right do the equations before they had a working model on the bench. Also it's not "Professional" to speak of another fellow scientists working in the field as regurgitated Bearden concepts, when nobody has check the references to find out if he is right. I have worked with Tom Bearden for 30 +years and those theories come from my bench models that are working. Now others are getting to first base and soon they will be on third base, soon you will see these machines powering loads and charging their own batteries, then where will all the math models sit? If my patents were understood it would be found out that the Mono Pole motor is not a Motor, it is a mechanical Radiant oscillator with a one to one transformer inductively triggered. Being a one to one transformer you can not get more out then you put in, unless something else is flowing through it, it does not fit the math models, so this washes the forward converter theory down the drain. I say this, if I take your model and understand it correctly, everybody should have their lights burning right now! What bench model do you have running on this theory? I say these things to you with all do respect for your hard work.
John Bedini
Quite a mess isn't it?
Ion:
Congratulations on your early retirement! Nice that you can do your own thing!
Grumpy:
It does seem to be "all over the place."
I think part of the problem is that the term "radiant" meant one or more things in the late 19th century, but the meaning of the word has evolved over time. So I think there is a lot of confusion here and people are comparing apples with oranges with pomegranates.
Going back to Bearden for a moment and the link that John provided, there is this quote:
QuoteSuppose we "hit" a battery's terminals with an instantaneous leading edge
rise of a pulse of electrons and potential. Let us assume the "hit" is in
the "battery-charging" mode. The electrons drive in instantly, trying to
force the heavy ions to start moving in the charging direction. For a
moment the lead ions just sit there, and then very slowly (compared to the
electrons!) start to reluctantly move in the recharging mode. During that
"ion response lag" time, the electrons continue to furiously rush in and
pile-up on the plates. The charge density sharply increases on the plates
in that pile-up where the charges are "squeezing" together (clustering). So
now we have a much higher potential suddenly rising in the squeezed charge
cluster, because of the increased charge density arising there.
I don't buy this for a second. There are no electrons "piling up on the battery plates." Current flows in "curvilinear cubes" through all of the conducting volume of the battery. It is impossible to have electrons bunching up on the battery plates.
In my book that's two strikes against Bearden. The first strike is his fabricating a story about an elusive "negative resistor" that somebody invented but the knowledge was suppressed by the powers that be. The second strike is to fabricate a story about electrons bunching up on the battery plates suspended in the electrolyte. People that do not understand physics and electronics will gobble this stuff up and believe it. This does not cast a positive light on Bedini either since he associates himself so closely with Bearden.
From my perspective the literature and other media clearly indicate that Bedini systems are supposed to produce free energy. However, if push comes to shove you can always point to somewhere in the literature where Bedini categorically states that a Bedini motor does not produce free energy.
All that being said, results on the bench would really help matters. I believe that ultimately the battery is supposed to "bring the radiant (or whatever) energy over to the real side" where it can be measured and do useful work in the real world. Hence the interest in John's or anybody else's real-world bench test data.
With respect to the bench, I have explained what a Bedini motor does. It is simply a timing device, a.k.a. "mechanical oscillator" that energizes an inductor and then allows that inductor to discharge it's stored energy into a charging battery. When the inductor does this it is acting like a current source, because that's what inductors do. If the load that the inductor discharges into has a very high resistance, then you will get high voltage spikes as a result of the unstoppable initial current flow.
The vast majority of people that experiment with Bedini motors, I will guess more than 98%, have no real idea how the device works as described in the paragraph above. Even John K. was not aware of this based on what he stated in his first few postings. I doubt that Bedini or Bearden ever mention this fact in their literature or their DVDs. In contrast, if you take an Electronics 101 course, you will learn this material.
I find it all very sobering and frankly quite strange that people have worked with Bedini motors for years without really understanding how they work. It is doubly strange that Bedini never mentions this. Some people see high voltage spikes and are convinced that is the motor producing "radiant energy."
v = L di/dt. The voltage output from a discharging inductor is proportional to the size of the inductor and the rate of change of current flowing through the inductor with respect to time. The higher the load resistance you connect across the discharging inductor, the faster the current will decay with respect to time, and this results in very high voltage across the terminals of the inductor. This is not "radiant energy," it's just a coil discharging its conventional energy.
Anyway, perhaps we can cut to the chase and talk about real-world results on the bench?
MileHigh
Quotev = L di/dt. The voltage output from a discharging inductor is proportional to the size of the inductor and the rate of change of current flowing through the inductor with respect to time. The higher the load resistance you connect across the discharging inductor, the faster the current will decay with respect to time, and this results in very high voltage across the terminals of the inductor. This is not "radiant energy," it's just a coil discharging its conventional energy.
You are so right, I think BEMF is one of the most misunderstood things in the Free Energy community. Most experimenters think because they can get a very high voltage back from a lower voltage input that it is free energy. Most also don't know the difference between CEMF and BEMF or flyback.
I would like to add that opening the inductors output leads is the highest output load you can put on it and consequently the highest voltage is reached. And this is how most measure it and think they have something.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27994549/Bedini-Free-Energy-Generator-E-Book
FROM BEDINI'S OWN WEB SITE:
http://johnbedini.net/
Quote20 Bedini-Bearden years Free Energy Generation
MORE HERE: http://potentialtec.com/kits1.html
@Grumpy
QuoteTry it. RE doesn't come out of a discharging coil - it can't.
I understand that Mr.Bedini has made many statements which may seem a little strange but all this squabbling over the possible misuse of terminology seems pointless and has no bearing on whether he has something or not. Try reading some of Victor Schauberger's work and you will get a good lesson in having to read between the lines as most everything he say's seems nonsensical, but in this madness there is true genius.
On the issue of an inductive discharge, I have produced radiant events from both the charging and discharging of an inductance at relatively low voltages. I know these are radiant events or radiant energy because every conductive object in the vicinity such as pliers, nuts, bolts, open wires, coils etc.. has a strong surface charge and a volt arc discharge can be drawn from them to ground or to other open or closed path conductors. I should be clear this Radiant--"Consisting of or emitted as radiation:" Energy--"The capacity of a physical system to do work." can also travel on single conductors a considerable distance and charge objects at a distance. Whatever you want to call this makes no difference to me, the fact remains that energy has radiated from a source to a sink through a space and by definition this is a radiant event.
@milehigh
QuoteI am correct in that I think that I have read several times that you stated that you are an engineer? If yes, may I ask what kind of engineer?
I come from a long line of fecal engineers, you know it is a shitty job but someone has to do it. I hope you do not think any less of me or that this would somehow hinder my ability to learn or evolve my understanding of science just because I wallow in human excrement on a daily basis.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.08.12, 00:42:43
@Grumpy
I understand that Mr.Bedini has made many statements which may seem a little strange but all this squabbling over the possible misuse of terminology seems pointless and has no bearing on whether he has something or not. Try reading some of Victor Schauberger's work and you will get a good lesson in having to read between the lines as most everything he say's seems nonsensical, but in this madness there is true genius.
On the issue of an inductive discharge, I have produced radiant events from both the charging and discharging of an inductance at relatively low voltages. I know these are radiant events or radiant energy because every conductive object in the vicinity such as pliers, nuts, bolts, open wires, coils etc.. has a strong surface charge and a volt arc discharge can be drawn from them to ground or to other open or closed path conductors. I should be clear this Radiant--"Consisting of or emitted as radiation:" Energy--"The capacity of a physical system to do work." can also travel on single conductors a considerable distance and charge objects at a distance. Whatever you want to call this makes no difference to me, the fact remains that energy has radiated from a source to a sink through a space and by definition this is a radiant event.
...
Regards
AC
"Radiant Energy" should not be confused with "radiant force" or "electrostatic induction". Radiant energy is radiation like you say and as Tesla shows in his RE patents.
When Tesla first started researching what he later termed "radiant electricity", he found two articles that mentioned events that he felt were related. The first involved discharging a capacitor which resulted in iron needles being magnetized two floors below the capacitor. The second involved arcs as you describe when Elihu Thomson connected the terminals of a Rhumkorff coil to a metal table and a water pipe. I am reasonably sure these events are a display of displacement current and not the same as what Tesla called "radiant force" or "radiant electricity". Avramenko (spelling?) reported the same arcs and said it was displacement current.
Radiant force will charge capacitors (not nearly as easy as it sounds), and attracts objects to the coil producing it. It actually has many names, but all are related forces. Even the Lorentz Force is related. Takes at least about 2kv dc, sharp pulses for this.
Grumpy and company:
I have a theory about the needles becoming magnetized. Does anyone else? It's "I hate pop quiz" time! lol
You have a hollow metal sphere. There is no electric field at all inside the sphere. Charge is continuously moving on the surface of the sphere to ensure that's the case. So there can be very high frequency AC currents on the surface of the metal sphere if there is high frequency EM radiation in the environment.
"I hate pop quiz II:" How come you see the plasma being created at the tips of needles when you look at those "ionic lifters," or you have a hollow metal sphere at a very high static voltage with one or more metal needles as part of the sphere? Why do you only see the plasma forming at the tips of the needles?
No Google! Poynt99 is disqualified! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.12, 02:20:58
Grumpy and company:
I have a theory about the needles becoming magnetized. Does anyone else? It's "I hate pop quiz" time! lol
You have a hollow metal sphere. There is no electric field at all inside the sphere. Charge is continuously moving on the surface of the sphere to ensure that's the case. So there can be very high frequency AC currents on the surface of the metal sphere if there is high frequency EM radiation in the environment.
"I hate pop quiz II:" How come you see the plasma being created at the tips of needles when you look at those "ionic lifters," or you have a hollow metal sphere at a very high static voltage with one or more metal needles as part of the sphere? Why do you only see the plasma forming at the tips of the needles?
No Google! Poynt99 is disqualified! lol
MileHigh
Before you jump to conclusions, you might want to find the article about Joseph Henry's experience.
I can't remember exactly, but I think he was discharging the cap through coils with iron needles (like nail or knitting needles, etc.) inside the coils. He later found that needles two floors below his lab had also become magnetized. (Stone and wood building, maybe some metal too.)
I know that the sparks you are talking about are because the electric field is concentrated at the sharp edges. (Diverged if you like.)
The sparks you are talking about are electrostatic - perhaps even corona if the voltage is high enough. By the way, you can trigger a spark gap very very quickly if you set it up to produce corona and then trigger it - it's like it is preloaded.
The sparks that AC and I are talking about are electrodynamic, as they appear only when he field is changing rapidly. With a HV HF transformer - you can draw an arc to an insulated conductor from a single transformer lead. Spark is longer or shorter depending on rate of change and all that (see displacement current). A few Russian scientist have interesting patents utilizing displacement current and Avramenko wrote a paper on converting displacement current into conduction current (I have never read this paper, only seen references to it.)
The attractive force that I mentioned is a little different. It is still electric in nature but proportional to the gradient of the electric field squared (grad E^2). Also, the attraction is opposite that found in hydrodynamics and is "from low pressure to high pressure". so, if your coil is producing this force, objects are attracted towards it. This force has several names (over a dozen). One of it's known properties is that it can produce a magnetic field.
You really should clear off a workbench and get in the game. You'd be very good at it.
Grumpy:
My theory about the needles is that it was a big capacitor and assuming he shorted it out, the current got super high for a flash. That created an unidirectional magnetic field impulse that was strong enough to magnetize the needles two floors down, which had to be properly aligned in the magnetic field.
Very tired so I can't comment on your stuff. So briefly, the charge on any hollow metal object always arranges itself to give you zero electric field inside the metal object. So in the presence of any external AC electric field, the charge on the surface of the metal object has to move around to compensate.
When a conductor has a static charge, the electric field lines have to emanate from the conductive surface at right angles to the surface. So at the tip of a needle, you have a high concentration of electric field lines all bunched together. The electric field strength is defined as the rate of change of the voltage of the electric field lines with respect to distance. Another was of stating it is the electric field strength is the gradient of the electric field potential.
The voltage gradient is very high at the tip of the pin, hence the electric field strength is very high at the tip of the pin. This very strong electric field pushes on the nuclei of the air molecules and pulls on the electron clouds (or vice-versa). If strong enough, electrons are stripped off of the nuclei and you get a glowing plasma, a bubbling cauldron of positive ions and electrons. The tip of the pin is the "Genesis point" for the creation of the plasma. Current is either going into the pin, or out of the pin, to sustain the plasma. Of course the same process works with high potential AC, and then you can play Bohemian Rhapsody on the throbbing AC plasma (Classic Rock works better with AC plasmas).
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.12, 04:14:08
Grumpy:
My theory about the needles is that it was a big capacitor and assuming he shorted it out, the current got super high for a flash. That created an unidirectional magnetic field impulse that was strong enough to magnetize the needles two floors down, which had to be properly aligned in the magnetic field.
Very tired so I can't comment on your stuff. So briefly, the charge on any hollow metal object always arranges itself to give you zero electric field inside the metal object. So in the presence of any external AC electric field, the charge on the surface of the metal object has to move around to compensate.
When a conductor has a static charge, the electric field lines have to emanate from the conductive surface at right angles to the surface. So at the tip of a needle, you have a high concentration of electric field lines all bunched together. The electric field strength is defined as the rate of change of the voltage of the electric field lines with respect to distance. Another was of stating it is the electric field strength is the gradient of the electric field potential.
The voltage gradient is very high at the tip of the pin, hence the electric field strength is very high at the tip of the pin. This very strong electric field pushes on the nuclei of the air molecules and pulls on the electron clouds (or vice-versa). If strong enough, electrons are stripped off of the nuclei and you get a glowing plasma, a bubbling cauldron of positive ions and electrons. The tip of the pin is the "Genesis point" for the creation of the plasma. Current is either going into the pin, or out of the pin, to sustain the plasma. Of course the same process works with high potential AC, and then you can play Bohemian Rhapsody on the throbbing AC plasma (Classic Rock works better with AC plasmas).
MileHigh
I forgot to mention that the "force" I spoke of is "non-Columbic".
@milehigh
Did you buy my fecal engineering bit?, Sorry I could not resist as the term is just so damn funny,lol. I'm a Power Engineer,ie: specialist in energy systems/power generation and conversion systems. In Canada I can cross over and challenge the Mechanical Engineering Degree which cuts out two years of university which was my plan but plans change. It has it's moments, have you ever fired up a gas turbine as big as your house? It can also be stressful, turn one wrong valve or switch and trip the plant which can cost your employer a few million a day and your career is effectively over,lol. I am still working but I have come to the conclusion we are doing it all wrong, the future is a decentralized grid utilizing super efficient devices at the point of use. This should be obvious, if the cost is less and the efficiency higher then centralized power production has no future and I was never one to live in the past.
QuoteMy theory about the needles is that it was a big capacitor and assuming he shorted it out, the current got super high for a flash. That created an unidirectional magnetic field impulse that was strong enough to magnetize the needles two floors down, which had to be properly aligned in the magnetic field.
You are aware of the inverse square law?, I have done experiments with EMP's and it is not all it is cracked up to be as the energy dissipates must faster than one would expect in reality. Inversely, the energy I am speaking of dissipates much more slowly with distance that I would expect, in fact I cannot say that there are any measurable losses in this system which I find very interesting. Consider the fact of how much energy we lose due to I^2R losses, eddy formation ect... and you will start to understand why I find this technology so attractive. Ask yourself what would happen if a conductor could not conduct because even a short length would offer great impedance, what would happen if a conductor can only act as a waveguide for the energy in question?. The only reason I refer to this form of energy as something different is because I have ruled out every effect you have mentioned in all your posts by actual experiment, your theories will only take you so far and at some point your going to have to get your hands dirty.
I think you already know this but reality can be a real bitch, nothing ever works out as planned and nothing about it is easy. This is and always has been what separates the people who do things from the people who think about doing things.
Regards
AC
AC:
That was very strange so I didn't know what to say! The power stuff sounds interesting. For sure decentralized power will become more interesting as time goes on. Of course in other countries it is a fact of life and has been for decades because the power grid is unreliable. Diesel or gas generators fill in for the gaps in the grid. Changing the diesel or gas generators for something greener is always desirable. If solar panels cost one-tenth of what they cost now, then the whole ball game would change. Then I think the other challenge is to do away with batteries, because they are messy and dirty and very un-green.
I know about the inverse-square law. But if you hypothetically had a very large ultra-low-inductance capacitor and shorted it out across a thick iron bar or something you just might be able to magnetize the right type of iron needles out to a fairly large radius. Just a guess.
QuoteThe only reason I refer to this form of energy as something different is because I have ruled out every effect you have mentioned in all your posts by actual experiment, your theories will only take you so far and at some point your going to have to get your hands dirty.
Okay in one sentence you are allegedly deconstructing everything I have said in this thread? Can you pick some points I made and talk about your experimental results that refute them? That will get my hands a little bit dirty.
QuoteThis is and always has been what separates the people who do things from the people who think about doing things.
I know the mantra AC, "Do the Experiments." The counter-mantra is "Get a reasonable knowledge foundation going before you do the experiments, it will make you more productive and you will learn faster."
The short rebut is I have done the experiments, albeit in a different form, but I have done them.
Anyway, onward and upwards!
MileHigh
I looked at Rick Friedrich's long description of how a Bedini motor works on Google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1630339210335190736#
I am about 3/4 of the way through and I should have been "blogging" as I watched it. Rick mentions lots of points about the motor that are correct using layperson's terminology.
He mentions that the Bedini motor is not "conventional technology" and so conventional analysis and understanding of how the motor works does not apply. This is one of the great ironies when it comes to Bedini "technology" and Bedini enthusiasts in general. They think that they have a system that is outside the bounds of conventional electronics understanding. However, in the vast majority of the cases that I have seen, it is the enthusiasts themselves that don't understand what their motor or "energizer" is actually doing. They say "textbook doesn't understand" when in fact they don't understand it themselves. It's all pure textbook, it is all very simple and very easily understandable, if you have the knowledge foundation. That's what this thread is all about and what it is attempting to do. Help create that foundation and then see if anyone wants to test to see if what's being said is true or not by running some more and new tests with their setups.
He clearly states several times that you should be able to get more energy out of the charging battery than you put into it. Personally, I would only believe that if I saw some serious charge and load testing done on the charging battery. I am willing to just look at this and forget the other factor, how efficiently the source battery can transfer power into the charging battery.
He uses analog current meters and I am not completely comfortable with their ability to average out the pulsing current, for both the source and the charging batteries. Nonetheless, early in the video he shows about 120 milliamps at about 12 volts being supplied by the source battery and 32 milliamps at about 12 volts going into the charging battery. He makes no comment here but he should have. It is showing you that his motor is roughly 25% efficient at transferring power from the source battery into the charging battery. The other 3/4 of that power is becoming waste heat.
I had to stop at about 1:05 and come here. Rick makes some "smoking gun" statements that clearly show that he is basically a layperson that knows all of the Bedini motor buzzwords. He talks about how remarkable it is that the source battery can be at a lower voltage than the charging battery, and still charge it, "without a transformer." He mentions that even a four-volt source battery can charge a 12-volt charging battery. He thinks this demonstrates something special about a Bedini motor. (He also states that the spike is "free." That's not true. The energy in the spike came from the charging battery. You can prove this for yourself by running some tests.) If you have been reading this thread and have been "getting it" you know that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this fact. You know how you hear the high-frequency whine when an electronic flash is recharging the main flash capacitor to a high voltage? There is another example of a pulsing inductor circuit. So Rick has qualified himself as a layperson by making that statement. You would think that he would know how the "motor" works as of 2007, when the movie was made. I will assume that by 2007 Rick already had had a close association with John Bedini for several years.
If there is anything else worth mentioning I will post more.
MileHigh
Another few comments comment about the clip.
Again around 1:05 there is a text overlay: "The fast turn-on and off of the transistor, The Sharp Gradient DC Disruptive Discharge: CAUSES THE ENVIRONMENT TO FREELY CHARGE THE BATTERY." Don't we all wish this was true. When the transistor switches on, the coil starts to energize. Mathematically speaking the coil is integrating the voltage applied across it, and the result of the (voltage x time) integration is current flowing through the coil. The battery is working and supplying the energy to make this happen. This represents the storing of electrical energy in the coil that is provided by the battery. The magnetic field around the coil is where the energy is stored. You can even quantify the magnetic field flux density in Joules (or Ergs) per cubic centimeter if you were so inclined to do that. In the physical world if you push on a spring the same process is taking place. You compress the spring in your hand and you can feel the spring pushing back. The pushing back, that force you feel, is equivalent to the current. Your hand is acting like the battery in this case and providing energy to the system. The spike that happens when the transistor switches off, the "disruptive discharge" is the releasing of that stored energy. Just like when you let the compressed spring fly out of your hand at a high velocity (equivalent to voltage). Going back to the inductor discharging into the battery, that energy comes from the energy stored in the coil, and that coil energy came from the source battery. The spike energy does not come from the environment, and the environment does not freely charge the charging battery. The notion that the spikes are extracting some extra energy from the environment is false. It is a familiar theme in free energy circles. Again, this can all be proved experimentally.
Around 1:07 he demonstrates how if you disconnect the charging battery and instead the neons start flashing, you can see how the current consumption from the source battery decreases a bit. There is a text overlay, "It takes more energy to run the motor with the charging battery removed." Rick says, "That does not make sense." Hey says the "speed does not change that much on the wheel" almost as an afterthought, but he does not really check that parameter seriously.
Here is were you separate the "Do the Experiments" men from the boys. In my opinion Rick actually does not know if it makes sense or not, but to him it "seems sensible" to say that. He does not investigate this further. With careful measurements you can explain exactly why this happens. Here is where I would need to get my hands dirty to tell you exactly why. We know that when the charging battery is connected the inductor discharges it's stored energy more slowly as compared to when the neons are flashing. There is a transformer coupling back to the pick-up coil when this happens. It may be something related to that, but tests would have to be done. There is an explanation for this, guaranteed.
MileHigh
I am doing some Bedini hunting around online for fun.
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/John%20Bedini%20Technology.pdf (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/John%20Bedini%20Technology.pdf)
The above is a "Panacea University" pdf document all about Bedini technology.
The following quote is in bold text and caught my eye:
QuoteWhat makes this technology an exception to every other aspect of current technology is that
although it has been tested and made to work in some practical applications, it is yet to be
accepted by the mainstream ethos and is not taught in any textbook that we have today.
I have already covered this topic, everything about a Bedini motor is pure textbook. So Ash and the boys, come on down! Read this thread, I think that it is important that you do and you are welcome to come here and discuss.
MileHigh
Hi guys,
I have a question about spark gaps. I myself have never worked with them since I have always thought it to be a great waste as the radiant energy. But here is a question.
In the spark gap the energy potential is in one direction. But that gap, in my view, is counter productive because it does not permit any flyback return from higher up in the circuit, So what if you put a heavy diode across the spark gap that is pointing back to the source. You would still be able to make the spark gap work and have a return path for any flyback. Does that sound crazy?
Chances are whatever you are hitting with that spark gap will have some inductance, and that inductance will cause ringing. The positive excursions will probably be clipped by the diode to the power source level if the diode is across the gap pointing to the source.
For large gaps, diodes with a high PIV rating are usually expensive.
Check with Grumpy on this..he has the experience.
you don;t want it to flyback
you want it to fly out of the coil
Quote from: wattsup on 2010.08.15, 00:03:34
Hi guys,
I have a question about spark gaps. I myself have never worked with them since I have always thought it to be a great waste as the radiant energy. But here is a question.
In the spark gap the energy potential is in one direction. But that gap, in my view, is counter productive because it does not permit any flyback return from higher up in the circuit, So what if you put a heavy diode across the spark gap that is pointing back to the source. You would still be able to make the spark gap work and have a return path for any flyback. Does that sound crazy?
Wattsup,
A spark gap is a switch. It can be made to pass only a certain polarity of DC, rectify AC or pass AC. Look at the schematic symbol for a diode. Put a little gap between the arrow point and the cathode band. You have a rectifying spark gap. You want an AC spark gap? Point two arrows at each other or two balls. Most modern schematic symbols of early devices are derived from the physical appearance of that device before solid state existed.
If you place almost any diode across a spark gap you have options: diode will pop, spark gap will not fire, diode will cause spark gap to fire at the wrong time.
I run the AC from the hv supply through a bridge and caps across the output, so only DC to the switch.
This posting is a follow-up from my posts about Rick Friedrich Bedini motor Google video.
I noticed that Rick made some comments about the video on his website:
http://rpmgt.org/SSG.html (http://rpmgt.org/SSG.html)
I am going to try to keep the comments brief (FAIL), and will respond if there are any questions.
QuoteRPM & AMPERE DRAW
I set it to where the mechanical efficiency of the energizer gives me the ratio of the lowest ampere draw on the primary battery to the fastest speed (or more importantly to the highest charging rate in the charging battery). This may take a little playing around with, but do not worry about perfect results to start with. I start with 680 ohms resistance on the trigger resistors and work up or down from there.
When I think I have what I am looking for, I replace the charging battery with an 1 ohm resistor and measure the voltage across it while the machine is running. If the voltage is above 1V then I am pushing the Energizer with too much current and the trigger resistance needs to be higher. In the video the voltage measured across 1/4W 1 ohm resistor with this setup was 0.15V @ 190ma = 28.5 milliwatts. Temperature was about room temperature on the resistor.
I saw in the video where Rick uses his analog current meter in series with the 1-ohm resistor and he has a digital multimeter across the resistor. The motor is pulsing at what sounds like between 15 and 20 Hz. That whole setup is iffy, there is no way I would consider it to be able to make reliable measurements. We don't know if he is using a True-RMS digital multimeter and even if it was a True-RMS multimeter, we don't know if the meter would give reliable results when it is looking at pulsing voltage at 15 to 20 Hz.
You can argue that what I am saying doesn't matter because all that Rick is trying to do is is get a "yardstick" for how much current he is putting into the charging battery. On the other hand, Rick is crunching those dubious numbers into 28.5 milliwatts of power through the 1-ohm resistor.
Let me just tell you what I would have done in this case. I am assuming that Rick is trying to determine the amount of current going into the charging battery. If you have been following this thread, you know that you can split this into two measurements, 1) the average current going into the charging battery, and 2) the peak initial current flowing into the charging battery when the transistor switches off. We also know that the current waveform undergoes a quasi-exponential decay after the transistor switches off.
To measure the average current going into the charging battery you do this in a round-about way. You have to measure the power output from the coil, and when you know that, by definition you know the average current going into the charging battery. All that you have to do is measure the average DC voltage across the charging battery when the motor is running, and then knowing the power, you can calculate the average current. In this case you can ignore the voltage pulses on the charging battery because they are small compared to the DC voltage of the charging battery.
So to measure the power output from the coil, you swap out the charging battery for a big capacitor in parallel with a variable resistor. The capacitor has to be big enough to smooth out the cap voltage bumps due to the current pulses from the coil. Check it with your scope. You then adjust your variable resistor so that the big cap voltage is about the same as the charging battery voltage, say 12.8 volts. So the coil power output is then simply = (v-squared/R). You have to measure the pot setting with your multimeter.
Bedini enthusiasts take note of the paragraph above. It is how you can measure the power output from your drive coil(s). The power output from the drive coils is independent of the load. That's why the above test works. You measure the power going into the big cap in parallel with the resistor and you know that's the amount of power that will be going into the charging battery.
If you are a keener you might say that you don't even need the variable resistor and you are correct. As long as the cap voltage stabilizes at 10 volts or higher, you are minimizing the effects of the voltage drop across the diode. The only reason that I am suggesting that you dial up the cap voltage so that it is the same as the charging battery voltage is so that the energy lost in the diode in both cases will be about the same. Hence you are getting a quite accurate measurement of the power going into the charging battery with the diode power dissipation being about the same.
Measuring the peak initial current is trivial. You replace the charging battery with the 1-ohm resistor. You should actually measure the value of the 1-ohm resistor with your multimeter to get a more accurate measurement. The put your scope across the 1-ohm resistor, run the motor, and measure the peak voltage and then derive your peak current.
So now you can state what the peak initial current going into the charging battery is, as well as what the average current going into the charging battery is. If you do this carefully and properly, your measurements will probably be accurate to within +/- 3%. As a "bonus" you have also measured the power output from the coil or coils with the same accuracy. That's probably the most important measurement in the bunch.
Any 10-coilers listening?
MileHigh
This is a little side-bar posting related to the posting above.
Here is an important point:
The POWER output from the drive coil of a Bedini motor is the the measurement that is CONSTANT. (We are assuming the motor RPM remains the same and the initial peak current from the coil is the same.)
That's because the discharging coil acts like a current source and will discharge all of its energy per pulse, independent of the load. That's how a discharging inductor works.
What this means is that the average CURRENT output from the coil of a Bedini motor is VARIABLE, and is dependent on the resistance (or impedance) of the load.
We also know that the VOLTAGE output from the coil of a Bedini motor is VARIABLE, and is dependent on the resistance (or impedance) of the load.
If you really want to figure out how your Bedini motor works you have to wrap your brain around this stuff! When you look at your Bedini motor running you have to be thinking of the POWER that is being pumped into the charging battery, and much less about the voltage or current spikes going into the charging battery.
That leads into a very important question: What is the source battery power consumption of my Bedini motor compared to the coil output power? When you play with your transistor base resistor value, it changes the source battery power consumption and the coil output power.
MileHigh
Continuing on with Rick's discussion about his Bedini video clip:
QuoteAmpere Draw on Primary Battery
0.120 Amperes * 12.33 Volt battery = 1.48 Watts
CHARGING RATE MEASURED
It is not recommended to leave any meters hooked up to the charging battery or in series with the paths to and from it. The meters will become part of the circuit and negatively affect the charging rates. Therefore only momentarily place the meters across the charging battery or in series with it.
Voltage across charging battery was 12.56
Amperes measured going to the battery was 38ma
Watts = V * A = 0.48 W or 477 milliwatts
A voltmeter across either battery will have no affect on the setup. An ammeter in series with either battery will have a very minimal affect on the setup. Nonetheless, only making momentary current measurements is considered good practice.
Rick is stating 1.48 watts source battery power drain and 0.477 watts going into the charging battery. Even though I have major issues with Rick's measurement techniques, the numbers look reasonable and are almost certainly in the ballpark.
The numbers are telling you that only about (0.477/1.48) = 32% of the source battery power ends up going into the charging battery.
This means that 68% of the power being supplied to his motor is becoming waste heat. The waste heat includes all of the resistive losses in the wires, the coil, the transistor, the resistor, the bearing friction on the wheel, and the air friction on the wheel.
Rick in his video clip, and many others on the forums, make mention of the "free extra mechanical output from the spinning wheel." If there is no mechanical load on the wheel then there is zero output from the wheel. It is as simple as that, there is no mechanical output associated with the spinning wheel, it's a common mistake made by many enthusiasts.
MileHigh
The following paragraph from Rock is a biggie and we are going to do it sentence by sentence in some places:
QuoteSo if the charging battery charges at the rate of discharge of the primary battery, then we have to figure out where this extra 1 Watt is coming from, or we have to abandon our meters in relation to this technology.
That's a big "if" there Rick. Unfortunately in your presentation you only gloss over the very important issue of battery load testing and you don't provide any data that the charging battery has more energy in it than it is supposed to, which is the basis for your argument that there is an "extra 1 Watt." Your first round of data is showing that the charging battery
isn't charging at the rate of discharge of the primary battery, and you are asking your readers to take it on faith that what you are saying is true. What I don't understand is that this issue is central and fundamental to the COP>1 argument, and yet in your entire 1 1/2-hour video you barely even mention it and provide no data to back up your statements. It's easy to say, "the battery is charging itself," or, "the coils are getting extra energy for the back-EMF spikes from the environment." All the enthusiasts seem to believe this or want to believe this. Somebody has to provide hard data.
QuoteThe 1 ohm resistor test shows that no significant current flow is crossing the path of the charging battery.
As I have explained in my earlier postings, you can't compare the current through the 1-ohm resistor and the current through the charging battery. You are comparing apples and oranges because their respective impedances are different.
QuoteThe voltage and amperage test above shows that when the battery is connected, the meter shows more apparent current flow when the battery has a lower impedance than 1 ohms. But the current meter shows much less than the primary draw to run the circuit and loads.
I'm not sure what Rick is trying to say here. It looks like he is arguing that the 1-ohm resistor is a valid substitute for the charging battery for measuring the current going into the charging "black box." As I previously explained, you can't do this.
QuoteI have run numerous tests with this circuit and various modifications to verify that the charging battery charges at a rate equal to 80% to 95+% (depending on how well made) of the discharge rate of the equal size primary battery. If the charged battery is loaded down properly we can compare the two loads in the different batteries to figure out work done. I have also seen that whatever way we measure the current going into the charging battery, we should see more work being done by that battery under load with repeated cycles.
Personally I have to derate my confidence in Rick's ability to perform these tests and measurements properly and arrive at the correct conclusions. However, if there is a Bedini enthusiast or a 10-coiler that agrees with what I am saying, there is already enough information in this thread to start doing some serious testing on your setup. As a reminder, it's not "current and work," It's energy in Joules or power in Watts being output by the source battery, or output from the coils, or being extracted from the charging battery. When you are at this point there is no wiggle room with respect to the terminology that you use. It's what separates the laypeople from the serious experimenters.
Certainly the battery load testing is not fun but you can buy a computer-controlled battery load testing device that would make the whole load testing process a million times less painful than doing it manually.
Since you now know how to accurately measure the power output from your coil or coils, knowing how much energy you will be putting into the charging battery over a certain amount of time is trivial. Then develop a standard protocol for doing the load testing on a specific model of battery and attach your computer gizmo to the battery. Run the software, and you can crank out the energy that you extracted from the battery during the load testing in a snap. It would be as easy as pie!
MileHigh
Continuing on....
QuoteWhen we run sufficient load comparrison tests, calculate the losses in the circuit (transistor, resistors, diodes) in heat, the work done in light in the bulb, and the mechanical work done with the wheel, we can very easily see that we are getting more out of the SSG Energizer than what we are putting into the system with our primary battery. The mechanical output can easily more than make up any of the 20 to 5% difference. And adding more batteries to the charging bank will increase the amount of work able to be done with that bank.
Like I stated before, and it is worth mentioning again, the mechanical output is zero. A spinning wheel connected to nothing is for all practical intents and purposes equivalent to a resistor that generates waste heat.
Here is where a Bedini enthusiast or a 10-coiler could do a serious energy audit to see if what Rick is saying is true by doing his or her own tests. If you are really serious and know what you are doing, you will be able to do a full output vs. input energy breakdown and see for yourself.
QuoteThe efficiency of the circuit and motor is not the same as the COP. The efficiency is less than 100% while the COP is greater than 1. The energy transfered for work by the primary battery has an efficiency of less than 100% as there are losses mentioned. But the resulting useful work out of the system can be greater than what that primary battery supplied. This is analagous to a wind, solar, or hydro generation system where the opperator provides little or no collector current to tap a free environmental energy source. In this case the battery is being uniquely triggered to charge itself.
The YouTube user Marthale7 bought himself a computer-based battery load testing device. If you want to make your COP measurements, that would be the way to go. If you don't buy the device, you will be forced to make measurements every 15 minutes and you will burn yourself out (in my opinion). If you are serious, get the computer gizmo and save your sanity!
MileHigh
I am posting up a storm today but I can't resist discussing the battery load testing to determine the COP of your motor. I am going to work with the "strict definition" of the COP testing.
I define COP as the energy that you can extract from the charging battery compared to the energy that you supplied to the motor with the source battery. i.e.; (charging battery energy out)/(supply battery energy out).
So supposing that you get two brand new batteries of the same type. I have some suggestions for people to think about before they do their testing.
I am also going to assume that you have purchased the computer-based battery load testing device, let's call it the "smart load". It is controlled via a USB port, surprise! lol
You have to define a protocol for deciding when the battery is fully discharged. The nominal battery voltage is 12.6 volts. So lets say that you define a "discharged battery" as being when the battery voltage drops to 10 volts when the smart load is ON. Everything I am saying is being simplified.
So the first thing that you have to do is measure the power consumption of your motor when it is running nominally and charging the charge battery. The best way to do this would be to use a big low-pass filter between the source battery and the motor itself. Poynt designed one where you have two large electrolytic capacitors and a shunt resistor. This will convert the pulsing current load of the motor into smooth measurable DC. This will allow you to make very accurate power consumption measurements of the running motor.
Then you take the charging battery and you connect the smart load to it and you discharge it completely. Yes, you discharge it completely as per your defined protocol.
So now you are ready to start the test. You take your fresh source battery, and power the motor for a fixed amount of time so that you put 500 kilo Joules of energy into the motor. You know the motor power consumption, so you know how long you have to run it to put 500 kilo Joules of energy into it. Let's suppose that you have to run the motor for exactly 40 minutes to do this.
So you run the test for 40 minutes, then you disconnect the charging battery and then put the smart load on the charging battery and discharge it until it is fully discharged as per your defined protocol. Then check your computer to see how much energy was contained in the charging battery, that's it!
The logic is simple. Start with a fully discharged charging battery. Run the motor for enough time to drain 500 kilo Joules from the fully charged source battery. Then measure how much energy you now have in the charging battery by discharging it. Then you can calculate your COP.
You can't calculate the COP from one lousy test. You have to run a suite of tests with variations, etc, and calculate some sort of average COP.
Did Rick do anything like this? What about John K? Perhaps they have different methodologies for doing the load testing and COP measurements that are just as good or even better? At this point as far as I know there is no information from either of them that shows how they calculated the COP, or any data. Forget about the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread, none of them are even close to getting to this point, and the thread is comatose at this moment.
MileHigh
Final post today where I am going to make a prediction about the COP measurements.
If you do everything correctly and know how to make your measurements and know what you are doing, I predict that your COP is always going to be less than one.
The reasons for this are as follows:
1. You loose energy in the step where the source battery power is converted into the coil output power because of the various resistive and mechanical losses. I think that everybody agrees with this.
2. You loose energy when the output coil power charges the charging battery. Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting the electrical energy you supply to them into stored energy.
3. You loose energy when the charging battery is discharged into the smart load. Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting their stored energy into output electrical energy.
4. There is no magic going on in the battery because it is being charged by regular pulses of current. Sorry, you have to prove this one otherwise with hard data.
5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off. There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea. You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench. The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.
6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something. When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.
I know that I am being a "bad guy" here. However, the proof is in the COP measurements, and I have never seen any. I have been reading about Bedini motors for years, but I have never seen anyone do any serious COP measurements where they describe their protocol and show their hard data proving the claim.
Forget about battery before/after voltage measurements, they are totally meaningless for calculating your COP.
If any Bedini enthusiasts have been following this thread and understanding most or all of it, and they have the drive and motivation, they would be able to prove or disprove the claim of COP>1 themselves.
You can call me a skeptic with respect to Bedini motors and the claims made about them. However, I am prepared to have a civilized debate with anyone that disagrees with me, or agrees with me. That what this thread is here for. It's all about finding the truth, and yes, sometimes you have to roll up your shirtsleeves and do the experiments yourself. Don't listen to me, or Rick Friedrich, or John K., or John Bedini. If you have a Bedini motor and have the motivation to find the truth you can do the COP measurements yourself.
MileHigh
Great job at the analysis MileHigh...I am in agreement. Most errors are indeed measurement errors.
You sure have a lot of patience. I hope some of the Bedites are following this thread.
The man behind the curtain will not be so happy. He has refined his snake oil sales over a period of 30 or more years and has honed it to a fine edge with just the right hype, buzzwords, and website management.
One additional question I would like to ask whomever: does the "proposed magic" happen with any type of battery?
e.g Lead acid wetcells, gel cells, nickel cadmium, Nickel Metal Hydride LiFePO4 etc? Is an electrolyte a "must".......what about "electrolytic" capacitors?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.08.16, 00:09:08
Final post today where I am going to make a prediction about the COP measurements.
If you do everything correctly and know how to make your measurements and know what you are doing, I predict that your COP is always going to be less than one.
The reasons for this are as follows:
1. You loose energy in the step where the source battery power is converted into the coil output power because of the various resistive and mechanical losses. I think that everybody agrees with this.
2. You loose energy when the output coil power charges the charging battery. Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting the electrical energy you supply to them into stored energy.
3. You loose energy when the charging battery is discharged into the smart load. Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting their stored energy into output electrical energy.
4. There is no magic going on in the battery because it is being charged by regular pulses of current. Sorry, you have to prove this one otherwise with hard data.
5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off. There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea. You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench. The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.
6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something. When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.
I know that I am being a "bad guy" here. However, the proof is in the COP measurements, and I have never seen any. I have been reading about Bedini motors for years, but I have never seen anyone do any serious COP measurements where they describe their protocol and show their hard data proving the claim.
Forget about battery before/after voltage measurements, they are totally meaningless for calculating your COP.
If any Bedini enthusiasts have been following this thread and understanding most or all of it, and they have the drive and motivation, they would be able to prove or disprove the claim of COP>1 themselves.
You can call me a skeptic with respect to Bedini motors and the claims made about them. However, I am prepared to have a civilized debate with anyone that disagrees with me, or agrees with me. That what this thread is here for. It's all about finding the truth, and yes, sometimes you have to roll up your shirtsleeves and do the experiments yourself. Don't listen to me, or Rick Friedrich, or John K., or John Bedini. If you have a Bedini motor and have the motivation to find the truth you can do the COP measurements yourself.
MileHigh
Dont worry too much about being the bad guy , only people with little or no experience in electronic/science take everything from bedini as fact. There so much replication everywhere since so many years and about no selfrunning or a near proof of concept showing a UNDENIABLE COP > 1 . Funny thing , one of a very few(if not the only one) who got a selfrunning bedini motor work for him :) . People often forget the marketing side of a company and Bedini like any business man want to make money , look at his tesla solar charger, the publicity before the release was showing a possible COP > 1 but the reality from people who bought it don't show that at all, but the publicity he make pushed his sales and didn't cost him anything to make :)
Usually, if the proof of concept doesn't work and was applied correctly, the hole idea doesn't work.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Just add the word "Tesla" or "Radiant" to your product and there are a few tens of thousands....(maybe more) out there willing to part with their money.
Slick snake oil salesman know how to walk the line and only allude to COP>1, no guarantees. They talk magic.
Wish I had thought of this, but then again, I lack the required low ethical fiber to wholeheartedly pull off such obvious scams.
Never underestimate the gullibility of humans. The great unwashed are ripe for the picking.
@milehigh
Quote5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off. There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea. You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench. The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.
I would agree however what many of the persons here who have never actually built anything have yet to understand is something called "quality". The analogy here is than many of you would have me believe there is no difference between a glass of stagnant pond water and that from a mountain spring as they are both water but the reality is that there is a huge difference in quality. Here is another analogy, what if I put you in a 6'x6' box with a small hole for light/air and I fed you nothing but slop -- would you tell me there is no difference in your life since you are still "alive" just as before? You see quality is just as important as quantity and if you think you can just charge then discharge any old inductance into any old battery and expect a miracle you are sadly mistaken. This is where science and many so-called experts have lost their way, they are cold, calculating and impersonal which is everything that nature is not, nature is dynamic.
Quote6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something. When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.
--
Quote"The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself"
I cannot say if this is what Bedini is doing but I can tell you I have because I have performed actual experiments to prove it can be done.
Quotenor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but in electron flow notation this "bunching of electrons" is referred to as a negative source not unlike the negative terminal on a battery. The bunching of electrons on one plate pushes electrons off nearby plates creating a potential difference in every single capacitor in existence regardless of whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte. We could also say a current will cause electrons to bunch on one plate and not bunch on the other in a battery when it charges, are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?
QuoteWhen electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy
Power is not pumped into the battery energy is and the chemical energy stored is fundamentally electrostatic in nature, that is what you call "chemical" or "chemistry" is simply a naming convention for interactions between electrostatic sub-atomic forces. There is no "chemistry" in nature, it is a fictional thing created by man so they can specialize and demand higher wages,lol. The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?
Regards
AC
If anyone is a little down and needs a good chuckle, watch this "infomercial"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mKOL0JGUxw
Ion:
Yes I saw the clip also. At 3:30 Gary Bedini of Energenx Inc. says that the Renaissance Charger uses "radiant technology" and the word "PATENTED" is overlaid on top of the video. That's just marketing hype of course, every company does that. "Radiant technology" simply means that the battery charger is using a pulsing inductor to charge a battery, just like a Bedini motor. In the lexicon used around here it would be called a "Solid-state Bedini" system.
With a few multimeters, a scope, and a few tricks of the trade, like the big capacitor with the variable load resistor to mimic the charging battery, you could measure the Renaissance Charger's performance. You could measure its average output power, the pulse frequency, the energy per pulse, etc. My guess is that the "Power" control knob on the device simply adjusts the frequency of the current pulsing from the output coil.
They make the same claims about rejuvenating batteries, desulfating batteries, and extending battery life that the Bedini enthusiasts make. My gut feel is that to a certain extent this is true, but I would like to see more hard data to back up those claims. Does the ampere-hour capacity really get restored to 90% of the original capacity? More importantly, can the "rejuvenated" battery undergo a comparable number of charge-discharge cycles as compered to a new battery, and also retain its ampere-hour capacity as it continues to undergo charge-discharge cycles? Those are some good questions, and the answers are out there if a Bedini enthusiast wants to find out for him or herself by running some tests.
Personally, I would not be surprised if the "rejuvenation" is (to borrow a term that normally makes me squirm) "fluffy." In other words, the battery appears to be fully rejuvenated, but after less than a dozen charge-discharge cycles it starts to loose it's ampere-hour capacity again. The reason that I am speculating that this is the case is that there has been some sort of degradation in the battery chemistry and you can't really escape this in the long run. I am not an expert on battery chemistry at all.
Energenx Inc. is a Pink Sheets company that hasn't made any money over the last 10 years from what I could gather from my brief look at their financial reports:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/EENX/financials
MileHigh
AC:
With respect to my statement that the output spike contains energy that comes from the battery and nowhere else, you state:
QuoteYou see quality is just as important as quantity and if you think you can just charge then discharge any old inductance into any old battery and expect a miracle you are sadly mistaken.
You seem to be making reference to the "quality" of the energy in the discharging inductor. Even in surfing all things Bedini online, somewhere there is a still frame picture of John Bredini discharging a capacitor where it says that John Bedini is discharging a capacitor that is full of "radiant energy." There are also references, possibly on the same page, that state that this is "negative energy." Among the Bedini and free energy enthusiasts there is the notion that a capacitor can be charged with "radiant" electricity as well as "normal" electricity and there is a difference between the two types of energy in the capacitor.
All of the stuff mentioned in the above paragraph is nonsense, pure and simple. Anyone can go ahead and do some bench tests if you don't believe me and try to find some differences, you never will.
With respect to alleged phenomena about the battery itself, like internal "resonance" when charging the battery or "self-charging" you state:
QuoteI cannot say if this is what Bedini is doing but I can tell you I have because I have performed actual experiments to prove it can be done.
If you can share with us what your experiments were and what your data is that would be appreciated.
For my comments refuting, "bunching up of electrons" you state:
QuoteI hate to be the bearer of bad news but in electron flow notation this "bunching of electrons" is referred to as a negative source not unlike the negative terminal on a battery. The bunching of electrons on one plate pushes electrons off nearby plates creating a potential difference in every single capacitor in existence regardless of whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte. We could also say a current will cause electrons to bunch on one plate and not bunch on the other in a battery when it charges, are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?
I think many free energy enthusiasts possibly including yourself are confusing capacitor plates and battery plates. They have nothing to do with each other. There is essentially no relationship between capacitors and batteries so your analogies don't work.
"Whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte." The electrolyte is not a dielectric. The electrolyte is a conductor, and by definition is not a dielectric.
"Are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?" I explain this in quite a bit of detail earlier in the thread so you might want to look around.
Now of course the pulses charge the battery and each current pulse contains a measurable amount of energy. One thing that I can add that I probably did not clearly state before is that it would be very easy to measure the number of Joules of energy per current pulse coming from the discharging inductor in a Bedini motor. It's just the measured coil average output power times a certain time period divided by the number of pulses that occurred during that time period, so it's a trivial measurement. You just need to use your scope to measure the pulse frequency.
QuotePower is not pumped into the battery energy is and the chemical energy stored is fundamentally electrostatic in nature, that is what you call "chemical" or "chemistry" is simply a naming convention for interactions between electrostatic sub-atomic forces. There is no "chemistry" in nature, it is a fictional thing created by man so they can specialize and demand higher wages,lol. The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?
Energy is pumped into the battery at a certain average power rate that you can measure. I disagree with you with respect to your statement that there is no chemistry in nature. It is a very complex field, and electrostatic sub-atomic forces are just the tip of the tip of the iceberg!
"The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?" For this I invite you to name some parameters or attributes or qualities that you can use to define the "nature of this energy." I am not sure if you are talking about some of the stuff that I have been talking about like pulse energy, initial pulse current, pulse frequency, etc, or something else.
MileHigh
Talking about the official 10-coiler YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2KtZ45nXA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2KtZ45nXA)
To quote John Bedini:
"This is the little coil from the back that is going to light it up, so that's the excess energy just from the mechanical on the wheel."
"If you gear this correctly you can run a water pump all day long. (...) And you are going to pump it for no extra energy in this deal."
Let's take a look at the idea that mechanical energy output from the motor is "free." The implication being that when you run the 10-coiler, the power consumption from the source battery and the charging power going into the charging battery will be the same if you have a mechanical load on the wheel or not. In other words, the motor can give you free mechanical power output and still charge batteries at the same rate with no increase in current draw from the source battery. I am being a bit simplistic here because we know the RPMs will drop, but you get the point. Keep in mind that John Bedini has never (from what I am aware) further qualified what he means by "free mechanical output power."
What is a distinct possibility is that an experimenter will put a mechanical load on the motor and see the current consumption from the source battery go down and then be utterly convinced that the Bedini motor is outputting mechanical power for free.
Nothing could be further from the truth and experimenters have to be very careful not to jump to conclusions.
What you can say with 100% confidence before you start the test is that there is a very good chance that the overall electrical impedance of the motor (from the point of view of the source battery) is going to change when you add a mechanical load to the motor. You don't even know if the impedance is going to increase or decrease.
If the motor's impedance increases, the current consumption will go down. If the motor's impedance decreases, the current consumption will go up.
We also know with 100% confidence that the speed of the wheel will go down when you add a mechanical load to it.
Therefore when you add a mechanical load, the rotor slows down, and the pulse rate will decrease, and this will tend to reduce the current consumption of the motor. This will increase the effective impedance of the motor.
At the same time, when the rotor slows down, the transistor switches on for a longer time for each pulse, and this will tend to increase the current consumption of the motor. This will decrease the effective impedance of the motor.
Which one will predominate as you start adding a mechanical load to the motor? I don't know the answer to that, but at least I know one of several parameters that I want to look at to get a complete picture of what is going on, and that parameter is the source battery current consumption.
So you have to ask yourself the question, "Why should the mechanical output of the rotor be free?" Personally, I can't think of a single reason for this to be the case. However, you can always run bench tests to check for this. What kind of tests should you run to check to see if the allegations of free mechanical power output from the Bedini motor are true or not? What parameters do you need to look at while the motor is running load-free and while the motor is under mechanical load?
A little sidebar:
"This collects energy, and then sends the potential energy to the secondary battery, so that the battery charges itself."
If you want to be picky, this sentence is an oxymoron. You are charging the battery so the battery can charge itself?
To be more liberal, we are assuming that Bedini is alleging that you will get more energy out of the charging battery than you put into if from the inductive current pulsing charging method. That sounds a lot less glamorous than "radiant charging" but it's a lot more descriptive. I will repeat that someone would have to produce data that clearly demonstrates that this is in fact true but I am not aware of any. In a previous posting I outline why this would not be true and challenge Bedini experimenters to run their own tests to prove or disprove this claim themselves.
MileHigh
Some ideas for checking if the mechanical output is free or not.
For starters you are going to need a mechanical load that is larger than a typical fan load. It's possible the fan load will be too small to measure. If your motor axis is horizontal you could put a gear system on the end of the shaft to give you a vertically rotating shaft. (It's called a 'crown and something' gear I forget.) Then you could put a propeller in a bowl of water. You could change the water level to change the mechanical load on the motor.
Your basic setup would be without the charging battery, you would have the big cap in parallel with the resistor instead of the charging battery. You also need the low-pass filter setup between the source battery and the motor. There is a current sensing resistor in the low-pass filter and you put a multimeter across that to measure your motor's current consumption.
Assuming that your source battery has an imperceptible voltage drop as you run the motor, then the voltage across the current sensing resistor gives you enough information to get a real-time power consumption of the running motor. You know the current through the resistor, and you know the supply voltage for the motor, which is on the "far" side of the resistor. So you multiply those two values together to get your real-time motor power consumption.
Every time you make a change to the motor, you might have to wait 30 seconds for everything to stabilize, and then take your power measurement. You could simply punch the voltage reading into a spreadsheet cell, and see your real-time power reading displayed in watts in another cell in the spreadsheet.
You use the big cap in parallel with the resistor in place of the charging battery. This setup allows you to do a real-time measurement of the average power output of the discharging drive coil(s) due to the spikes. Use a load resistor where the voltage across the cap typically stabilizes at 20 volts or higher. This will minimize the power dissipation in the diode.
You do another spreadsheet cell where you can punch in the voltage reading across the big cap, and see your real-time average coil output power displayed in another cell.
Now for the most important cells in the spreadsheet. One cell to display the percentage of the input power that is output by the coil(s), and another cell to display the percentage of the input power that is lost as heat. You want to display at least two figures after the decimal point. The reason these cells are so important is that this data is independent of the current consumption (or impedance) of the motor.
Now you are ready to run your tests. Fire up your motor, let everything stabilize, and punch in your two voltage readings and look at the percentages of the power from the source battery that become heat power and coil output power. You punch in those two voltage readings and like magic you see the percentages displayed.
Now add your mechanical load. Wait for everything to stabilize. Advance one line down in the spreadsheet, and punch in your two voltage readings and see the percentages displayed again.
So you can tweak your trimpot, make more measurements with and without a mechanical load, and so on and so on. You can enter some text in a cell about each measurement for reference.
Do about 30 sets of measurements and you will have amassed enough data to draw some conclusions about if the mechanical output from the spinning rotor is free or not.
I am quite certain if you do this that you will consistently see the percentage of source battery power that is lost as heat increases when you add a mechanical load to the rotor. Don't forget that any mechanical load on the rotor ultimately becomes heat. This would be hard data that tells you clearly that the mechanical output from the rotor is not "free" at all. Some of your source battery power has to be expended to produce the mechanical output from the rotor.
For any keeners, this is a relatively simple test to do. You need a low-pass filter between the source battery and the motor, a big cap in parallel with a resistor in the place of the charging battery, and two multimeters. Then you have to create the formulas for a single row in a spreadsheet, and the formulas are trivial if you know what you are doing. Then just copy that row of formulas as many times as you need and you will be ready to take measurements and punch in your data.
Milehigh
P.S.: Notice I never once mentioned making any RPM measurements on the Bedini motor? That's because that's irrelevant data for purposes of this test. By the same token I never make any mention of trying to measure the mechanical load on the motor. Almost nobody will have a pony brake setup, I think it is also called a dynamometer. Without that, it's almost impossible to measure the mechanical load. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this test, the only thing you need to know is that you have added a mechanical load, you don't need to know how much of a mechanical load. You can assume if your mechanical load makes the rotor speed drop by at least 20% that that this is enough of a mechanical load to make a noticeable change in your percentage readings.
I like to use an efficient DC permanent magnet motor (which is also a generator) as a mechanical load.
If you have two identical units, you can map the efficiency of the devices by coupling the shafts, then measure input power and using a load resistor on the output unit, measure the power dissipated by the resistor.
They can be run at several voltages hence RPM's to get a rough efficiency curve of the tandem devices.
Also characterize the devices with a few different load resistors.
The losses between input and output power can be roughly divided between the two devices. This can be factored in when later one of them is applied to the DUT.
Ion, using a motor/generator as the mechanical load is a GREAT idea. Sometimes things that are right in front of your face are the hardest to see! Thanks for the suggestion!
It was a long posting and I had to edit it to polish and polish. I hope it is clear enough. But for all the length, the idea of simply making two voltage measurements and then seeing your spreadsheet crunch your numbers is very appealing to me at least!
Also, certainly you can play with the source voltage for the motor if you use a variable power supply for the motor instead of a battery. I am trying to keep it simple (another FAIL? lol) so I didn't mention that.
In a motor setup like this, as you play with different settings, it all will eventually stabilize at a new balance point. There is always a negative feedback mechanism at play. So you are basically changing settings and making measurements of the new balance points. Nothing is stopping people from making graphs, pie charts, etc, if they want to. Two day's worth of work for anyone with a Bedini motor setup and you should be able to complete the test for the claim that the mechanical output from the motor is free.
MileHigh
A final thought or two.
If you use a variable power supply instead of the source battery then you can make a definitive "Cadillac" measurement:
Note for this setup you will need a third multimeter that measures the voltage across the variable power supply. This will also require the modification of your spreadsheet formulas to account for this voltage.
Case A: Run your motor without a load and make your measurements and get your percentages. Also make note of the power consumption of the motor for Case A.
Case B: Add your mechanical load and let everything stabilize. Make note of the new power consumption of the motor for Case B. We will assume that the power consumption of the motor will have changed.
Now, with your variable power supply, tweak the supply voltage and monitor your power consumption. Make the power consumption of the motor in Case B identical to Case A, and then note the percentages again.
You have set up a perfect "apples and apples" comparison when you do this: You supply the motor with the identical power for with the mechanical load, and for without the mechanical load. You can then compare the percentage split between waste heat power and coil output power in both cases.
This will give you definitive hard data on whether or not the mechanical output is free. The trade-off is that the setup is more complex requiring an extra voltage measurement and upgraded spreadsheet formulas.
MileHigh
Here are some YouTube links showing scope shots for the 555 oscillator setup that I have mentioned in the past: a 555 bistable multivibrator connected to a 555 monostable mulitvibrator. He also does some basic frequency calculations on paper from his scope measurements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_WIfmBOEA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_WIfmBOEA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TDm0AFb8b8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TDm0AFb8b8)
This could be used to make the front-end for a solid-state Bedini charging setup or for the solar panel impedance-matching battery charger that I described before.
MileHigh
Just for the heck of it, I am going to copy/paste relevant postings that I made in the thread "Beyond the Joule Thief" into this thread. The reason for this is that my discussion in that thread is very close to what a solid-state SSG is all about....
>>>
So what is the ultimate Joule Thief? How can you really get more efficiency?
The answer is to abandon the whole Joule thief concept and do it with a microcontroller or a pair of CMOS 555 timer chips.
What is a Joule Thief really?
A Joule thief is nothing more than an inductor connected to your voltage source on one side, and an opening and closing switch that connects to ground on the other side. The end of the inductor that connects to the switch also connects to a diode to collect the energy spikes and pump them into a load or into a capacitor.
When you reduce it to its basic form, a Joule Thief is a pulsing inductor that gets its energy from a voltage source, typically a battery. The pulsing inductor discharges it's energy into a load, typically an LED.
A timing source controls the switching of the Joule Thief. You pay a price in power consumption and have limited control over the timing source when you make a standard Joule Thief circuit. The timing source comes from the trigger (a.k.a. base) coil and that consumes juice.
Therefore the solution is to switch over to a more intelligent timing source and get rid of the Joule Thief circuit altogether.
The more intelligent timing source could be a microcontroller. All microcontrollers have built-in hardware timer registers that can control the frequency and duty cycle of a square wave on an output pin. This gives you the ability to have software control over the timing signal generated by the hardware that is built into the microcontroller. You could write a simple program that reads some of the I/O bits that are configured as inputs. You could have switches that control frequency up and down and duty-cycle up and down so that you could adjust your frequency and duty cycle of your timing source "live" while the microcontroller runs. The microcontroller would consume a small fraction of the power that the Joule Thief consumes in overhead to do the timing function.
Another option would be to use two CMOS 555 timers. One 555 runs at a variable frequency and connects to a second 555. This gives you the running frequency. The second 555 runs in "one-shot" mode and gives you an adjustable pulse width to turn on the switch. This setup would consume a small fraction of the power compared to the JT also.
There you have two options for a rock-steady, reliable, and flexible timing source for switching the inductor current on and off. Both of them would consume almost no power. You could have a separate 4.5-volt source for powering the timing reference.
Then, it would be up to you to pick the switching transistor and inductor/toroid setup. You would have the ultimate flexibility here, pick your transistor, pick your toroid, decide how many turns of wire. There is nothing stopping you now. You know that you have a reliable and flexible timing source, and you can mix and match any coil configuration you want. You could probably fire Xenon flash tubes from disposable cameras, neons, as many LEDs as you want, charge any capacitor at any rate that you want, control exactly how much energy you put into the coil before it discharges, the sky is the limit.
For example, if you want to light a CFL, then you could lower the switching frequency to 70 Hz, just above the human eye's ability to perceive flickering. Then you could chose your coil/toroid, and then play with the "on" pulse width to put the exact amount of energy that you want into the CFL for every "burn." Or you could fire the CFL at a much higher frequency and have a continuously sustained plasma inside the tube. That may have certain advantages. Like I said, the sky is the limit.
By using a microcontroller or a dual CMOS 555 timer setup, an astable multivibrator triggering a monostable multivibrator, then you have complete control over efficiency and power consumption. For every load there is an optimal configuration of inductance and switching time to give you the best performance. If you also factor in cost, then the optimal configuration may change.
One serious option is to go air core. Why go air core? Because all toroid cores burn off energy, they are "lossy." If you use an air core inductor, then there are no energy losses associated with a ferrite core because there is no ferrite core anymore.
What I described above is the next logical step in experimenting with Joule Thieves - move past them and do a completely new design that does away with the constraining Joule Thief "transfomer" and switch over to a computer-controlled or programmable-555-timer-controlled switching function that drives your choice of transistor and coil.
MileHigh
Here is my second "Beyond the Joule Thief" posting that is directly applicable to solid-state SSG designs also.
The thing that you get when you go solid-state is complete control over all of the parameters related to the pulsing of the current into the charging battery. You could literally shape and form the nature of the pulse if you wanted to.
>>>
Supposing you do implement an advanced timing setup for your "Beyond the Joule Thief."
Some of the variables that you can play with are the following:
The source voltage for the coil. Yes you can use a 1.5 volt battery if you want, but there are no limits now.
The inductance of the coil. Larger inductors can store more energy, giving you a higher energy spike.
The initial current when the transistor switches off. This is critical to have control over the initial current, for example you might want to tune it to the optimum current for a given LED.
The operating frequency. Go crazy here and experiment. For LED lighting applications the optimum frequency would be about 70 Hz.
The pulse width for the transistor ON time. This is very critical in controlling how much current is flowing through the inductor when it switches off and for controlling how many L/R time constants you want to charge the inductor with.
The amount of energy in the pulse. Here you can mix and match your source voltage, the pulse width, and the inductance of the coil to dial up any amount of pulse energy you want at whatever initial current you want. If you are firing neons, then set your pulse energy to be quite low. If you are going to drive an ignition coil and you want to create some real fireworks, you set your pulse energy to be quite high.
The list goes on and on.
MileHigh
Agreed, a lot can be done with todays upower PIC controllers. A lot can also be done with a few transistors if you are very creative.
About 25 years ago or more I designed a simple three transistor offline switchmode controller. The basic arrangement used a FET as a low side switch of the inductor, one transistor to sense inductor current for switchoff and another for the frequency generator/turn on. This circuit is still in production today, after hundreds of thousands have been produced, even though much more intelligent designs are available (at a higher cost).
I've designed both ways in addition to using 555's and other timer chips.
When you work for a company that is trying to shave costs in every way possible, you design with a high degree of synergy and choose components carefully. Many times you do the very best you can with discretes before moving on to integrated circuit solutions.
Of course this philosophy does not apply to high density LSI circuitry and above. It shines in the low power arena, but people are no longer using their brains when it is easier to pull a ready made chip off the shelf, complete with circuit and app notes.
I see a lot of people becoming less and less familiar with how to apply a simple transistor e.g. in a blocking oscillator (hate to use the word "Joule Thief").
The base drive does not have to suck a lot of power, but if one is not good at analyzing simple one transistor circuits one will not know how to overcome this problem as is now seen in many JT designs.
Enough rant for now.....I'm mobile when I get back to the lab maybe I'll post that circuit.
I'm just glad some folks graduated from rubbing bare wires or reed switches.
Ion:
Yes simple parts are still used in many high-volume applications. You see that in the clips where people open up disposable cameras to look at the electronic flash circuits. In the "old digital design days" when PALs were just coming into vogue, you would try to make sure that you had a few extra gates unused or some PAL input and output pins unused on your circuit board. When you debugged the board you had those few extra gates lying around to implement fixes.
All:
I am still browsing around online looking at Bedini stuff. The "Bedini SG:Self-Runner" that Rick Friedrich developed and John K. replicated was probably the highlight of the season in 2007 and it must has caused a tremendous buzz.
Here is the main Peswiki link for Rick Friedrich's replication (Includes links to Rick's videos.):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Self-Runner (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Self-Runner)
Here is the link for John K's replication video:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5205888621309318996&hl=en-AU# (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5205888621309318996&hl=en-AU#)
I will make a few comments on the next posting.
MileHigh
(http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Self-runner1.JPG)
I am trying to insert the image of the self-runner block diagram above, not sure why it is not working. You will have to open the first link in the previous posting to see the block diagram.
Anyway, this device is not a self-runner. This is from 2007 so I doubt that there will be much interest.
The main problem is that the pick-up coil on the top of the wheel is not dumping any real energy into the charging battery. The coil is open-circuit for most of the time when the wheel is turning. In Rick's case, a commutator then shorts the "output" from the coil (through the FWBR) into the source battery. In John's case, a relay shorts the pick-up coil output into the source battery while disconnecting the source battery from the Bedini motor at the same time.
In either case, when the switch closes to connect the coil output to the source battery, there is no current flowing through the pick-up coil. Also there is no capacitor across the FWBR to collect any energy from the rotating wheel. Therefore by definition there is no energy available to pump into the source battery, because there is no energy stored in the pick-up coil, and there is no storage capacitor. The coil is only generating EMF. Rick and John may believe that "pure EMF" from the coil is charging the battery but that's not true. So when the switch closes in both cases, the "output" from the FWBR gets instantly clamped to the source battery voltage.
In both cases, whatever energy that might be pumped into the source battery would be coming from the magnet(s) that might be moving across the pick-up coil during the brief period when the switch is closed. Neither of them checked that, so we don't know. When John K checks the timing for his relay-based switch he shows it to you relative to the magnets that are moving past the main drive coil, and not past the pick-up coil, which is what he should have been looking at.
So this "self running" setup for Rick's version, and for John K's replication, is simply a standard Bedini motor setup with an extra pick-up coil where the pick-up coil is possibly pumping an insignificant amount of energy into the source battery. Whether or not the pick-up coil is pumping any energy into source battery depends on the timing of the switch closing and where the rotor magnets are relative to the pick-up coil, and neither of them checked this.
It's interesting to note that Rick actually tried putting a capacitor across the DC output of the FWBR because that's normal practice. He doesn't mention the value of the capacitor, which he should have. Rick says something like, "the 'effect' goes away when he adds the capacitor and the motor starts to really slow down."
The motor slows down when Rick adds the capacitor across the output of the FWBR because for the first time, he is really putting a mechanical load on the rotor! The pick-up coil is charging the capacitor in this case for a dump of that energy into the source battery, and that causes a mechanical drag on the rotor. In other words, when he finally sets up the "self-charging" system properly and it is really supposed to "self charge," the motor croaks. Instead of trying a smaller capacitor, Rick gets rid of the capacitor and now the rotor turns at a normal speed. By removing the capacitor, he removes any possibility to recharge the source battery through the pick-up coil as he originally intended to.
There are so many other holes in these presentations that I won't go there in detail. Both Rick and John look at the battery voltages. The last third of John's clip focuses on the multimeter displaying the voltage for the source battery. If he sees a 1/100th of a volt increase in the displayed voltage this is interpreted as "evidence" that the battery is recharging. Neither of them try to make any measurements of of what's going on in terms of power and energy.
The claim that these two motors are self-runners is false. They both had large enough battery sets such that with swapping and the whole nine yards, both batteries would run out of juice within a few days or perhaps within a week or more. The "source battery recharging" circuit in both setups is simply not working.
This kind of stuff is in a way just too much. I think that some soul-searching needs to be done here, by everybody. What people need is some basic knowledge and then to try to keep working on the learning process as time goes on.
MileHigh
I think that I am going to wind down with respect to looking at all things Bedini and leave it at that, and wind down the thread unless conditions change.
I think that it is fair to say that this thread gives you a lot of good legit information about Bedini motors. It truly explains how a Bedini motor works and explains how to make real measurements, but without going into the nitty-gritty details. This thread takes away the mystery from Bedini motors and shows you how they are in fact simple pulse circuits. Do not be fooled into believing that something special is going on here, because it is clearly not true.
At this point, if a real Bedini experimenter wants to join in and discuss his setup and what he is trying to accomplish, that would be fun and interesting. Otherwise I won't be posting much more.
To the Bedini lurkers: I think some of you are following this thread and you have some questions or want to comment but you are reluctant. I say a lot of things in this thread that go against the grain, and that puts peer pressure on you from other Bedini enthusiasts to keep lurking but not join. Here is where the real challenge with respect to "open mindedness" confronts you. If you really want to join the thread to learn about your Bedini motor then you are welcome to join and I will be happy to try to answer your questions.
For any Bedini enthusiasts that are coming to the thread late, I strongly recommend that you read the entire thread first!
MileHigh
The increase in source battery voltage is easily explained even on "peswiki"
here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Batteries:Increase_Voltage_Under_Load
Those videos don't last long enough to see the source battery wind back down.
QuoteI think that I am going to wind down with respect to looking at all things Bedini and leave it at that, and wind down the thread unless conditions change.
Good job and good finish MH. Now we sure could use your point of view on the TPU. How about starting by reading Dr. Schinzinger's tests at his lab at U of C. Then watch all the SM videos. Your input will be greatly appreciated.
We can point you to some puzzling aspects of his devices.
Yeah MH - come on over to TPU-land.
Well, back to some comments around here, this time about something new, battery charging. I noticed that Rick Friedrich posted a preliminary user manual for the new Renaissance charger model for solar panels, the "Tesla Solar Power Amplifier."
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/message/13281 (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/message/13281)
I am wondering if this and other Renaissance Charger LLC models have UL (Underwriters Laboratories) approval. Personally I would not buy any kind of battery charger that is supposed to charge big lead-acid and other batteries unless it has UL approval.
This comment by Rick caught my eye:
QuoteA smaller
solar system usually consists of 4 or 8 six-volt batteries rated at about 225AH.
These weigh about 62 pounds. They are connected in series and parallel
arrangements for 12 or 24 volts.
In my opinion it would be potentially very dangerous to connect big lead-acid batteries in parallel. Batteries are voltage sources and if you clamp all of their output voltages together so they are at the same potential, there is the possibility that one or more of the "stronger" batteries will start to discharge into the "weaker" battery. I believe there is the possibility of setting up a positive feedback loop where as the batteries heat up the discharging current flow becomes larger and larger, and this could destroy your batteries and cause a fire. This is known as thermal runaway, and there have been some famous cases in the news about laptop lithium-ion batteries simply failing and going into thermal runaway.
For putting big batteries in parallel, the simple solution is to add power diodes on the discharging side, and on the charging side of the batteries, so that they are in a "quasi parallel" configuration so that it is impossible for one battery to discharge into another battery. In my opinion you pay a small price for the diode voltage drop as compared to eliminating the possible risk of fire. I hope you are listening Rick, John, and John.
Batteryuniversity.com is just a spin-off website from a commercial website so they are not not necessarily a neutral and unbiased source of information. However, I read through some of it and it looks legit to me.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-24.htm (http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-24.htm)
QuoteA high resistance or open cell is less critical in a parallel circuit than the serial configuration but the parallel pack will have reduced load capability and a shorter runtime. It's like an engine running only on three cylinders. An electrical short would be more devastating because the faulty cell would drain the energy from the other cells, causing a fire hazard. Figure 4 illustrates a parallel configuration with one faulty cell.
Figure 4: Parallel connection with one faulty cell.
A weak cell will not affect the voltage but provide a low runtime. A shorted cell could cause excessive heat and create a fire hazard.
Note the above discussion is not specifically about lead-acid batteries but I think it is directly applicable.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-13.htm (http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-13.htm)
The above link is all about charging lead-acid batteries, there is a lot of good information there.
Everybody sees the UL (or CSA in Canada) sticker on almost any electrical device that they purchase. To repeat, I would not buy any type of battery charger if it is not UL approved.
MileHigh
I had a look at one of the Bedini groups on Yahoo:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/messages/ (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/messages/)
What's quite interesting is that there are quite a few people that believe that the 10-coiler can "power a house" and they are making serious inquiries for how to go about doing this.
Sure you could get a huge battery bank and inverters and the whole nine yards. Factoring in the inverters, batteries, wiring, the 10-coiler, and the labour, it would cost a small fortune.
Why would anybody do this?
If you believe that some "magic" happens when you recharge the charging battery bank and you can get more out than you put in, then there is no reason for this setup to not work. Certainly the YouTube user "MachineOfTime1" (http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u (http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u)) believes in the "magic" because he is investing a lot of time and money into automated battery swappers and inverters to go along with his 10-coiler, the whole nine yards.
If you don't believe that there is any "magic" then you are looking at a system where you use mains power to charge the source battery bank, and then use the source battery bank to charge your charging battery bank. The you run your inverters off of the charging battery bank which then powers your house. This is a pointless exercise, where ultimately it is the mains power that is powering your house and the batteries are just storing energy that came from the mains power feed.
Obviously, if you don't believe that there is any "magic" going on then there is no point in getting a 10-coiler Bedini motor if you want to power your house. The YouTube user "prestonstroud" (http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud (http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud)) clearly states that he is getting no extra energy when he swapps batteries back and forth and he is not a happy camper at all. He clearly indicates that he pursued this project with expectations of getting extra energy out of his system based on what he gathered from the "Bedini scene."
So, if I was in a position to consider buying a 10-coiler to "power my house" the first thing I would need to see is convincing proof, hard data, that clearly demonstrates that when I charge batteries with my 10-coiler that I get more out than I put in. Without that irrefutable proof, there is no way I would purchase a 10-coiler and all of the other hardware that goes along with a setup to power your home off a bank of batteries.
We will look into this in some more detail in the next postings and I will propose a simple test to check for this that does not require a formal regimen of load testing with a lot of measurements.
MileHigh
Sterling Allen had a debate with Rick Friedrich about Rick's 15-minute video clip demonstrating his Bedini motor setup and some of the data that Rick presented.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/RickFriedrich_SSG/index.html (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/RickFriedrich_SSG/index.html)
Sterling presses Rick for some hard data for the commonly accepted allegations of over unity when you charge the charging battery with spikes from the Bedini motor.
Rick balks and here are two paragraphs that illustrate this:
QuoteThe truth is no amount of data would be enough. You would always belittle it until perhaps the whole world finally had it in every home and laughed at disbelieving it. I say this because you have not shown any idea of the amount of free mechanical in these systems. I have given you a very simple way of looking at that in comparing it in the most direct way with conventional motors. All you have to do is replace the circuit and drive the same motor and load. One gives you no return, the other does. One gives you more Watts with less work and one gives you less W with more work. SAME MOTOR (not even an identical motor). When you do that then I will start to take your response more seriously. When you understand what it takes to move a big fan and notice how much it was taking with that fan with the SSG then I'll see.
Again, I have tested and compared identical work done with identical speeds, both AC and DC motors. I have run ceiling fans, computer fans, and even cage motors for the furnace blowers, and many others. In each case I drove the motor with significantly less Watts. This was done with all types of meters used. With or without batteries. Even with transformers connected to the wall with the wall watt meters connected between, running it either way to compare the difference. You saw two of these running on the SSG with some numbers. This shows you it can be done. This is not proof, but it is all that is needed to take this seriously. You already know that it can charge batteries. So the fact that I can get the same fan running while charging batteries ought to take away that skeptical attitude that keeps demanding more.
Sorry Rick but we
do need some
hard data.
It is very obvious to even the most casual reader when reading the Yahoo Bedini thread or the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread that the majority of the participants in the threads believe that they can get extra energy from the batteries in their Bedini setups.
If you present some hard data that backs up the claim of getting extra energy out of the system, and two other parties do the same, then you would start getting some attention.
But it has to be solid hard data, and unfortunately based om my qualifying of Rick's electronics knowledge and skill set, in my opinion he would not be able to perform these tests properly. Unfortunately, the same thing applies to John Koorn, based on reading him and looking at his one clip.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the same problem with not having enough knowledge to perform proper tests applies to all or nearly all the main contributors to the 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum. I read the entire thread and I am quite sure about this qualification of the participants.
That leaves the majority of the 10-coilers on the forums and Rick Friedrich and John Koorn in a conundrum. You are working within a "Bedini belief system" but you don't have the skill sets to test those beliefs to see if they are true or not. A case in point is the belief that the "mechanical output of the rotor is free." Not a single person has presented any evidence that this is the case. In fact it is not the case and I describe tests earlier in this thread so you can confirm this for yourself.
MileHigh
Okay so here is the simple test to check for excess energy from a Bedini setup. It could be a 10-coiler or any other Bedini motor configuration.
In the following description of what to do, I am going to mention some action items that are very basic. If you don't know how to perform the tasks or don't understand what is being discussed, then feel free to post asking your questions and I will be pleased to answer them.
Here is the logic behind the simplified test: Swap your source and charging batteries back and forth, and each time you do this discharge 20% of the energy from the charging battery. If the system is over unity then this should not matter and you should be able to do hundreds of battery swapping cycles.
If I recall correctly a mid-sized car battery stores about 200 ampere-hours of energy. Let's assume for the sake or argument that this is the case.
In my example I will work with a brand new pair of 200 amp-hour batteries. You will also need a car headlight or some other way of discharging the batteries.
For starters, using your amp meter connect the headlight to the battery and measure the amps.
Take a fully charged source battery and set it aside for the moment.
Take your fully charged charging battery and connect the headlight to it and leave the headlight connected for long enough so that the intensity of the light drops noticeably. Measure the voltage with the headlight connected and if it is less than 11 volts, then you can consider the charging battery to be fully discharged.
So you are ready to start your test, you have a brand new fully charged source battery and a brand new fully discharged charging battery.
Here is the test:
1. Charge the charging battery with the source battery.
2. Discharge 40 ampere-hours worth of energy from the charging battery with your headlight.
3. Swap the source battery and the charging battery.
4. Go to step one.
If there is any "magic" in the Bedini motor spike like so many people believe, you should be able to run this test indefinitely.
If there is no magic then you can expect that after eight or nine charge-discharge cycles that both batteries will end up dead.
I can assure you that both batteries will end up dead. Before you buy a Bedini 10-coiler and all of the other required hardware and battery banks to "power your house" I strongly urge you to do or see evidence of a test like the one described above. This would be a bare minimum. You really should see serious scientific load testing with Joules-in and Joules-out as I have discussed earlier in this thread.
MileHigh
The tests for the 10 coiler should be run on as small a scale as possible before people invest a lot of money in this. That's why I also posed the question earlier as to which type of battery technology it will work on, specifically which electrolytes help the "magic" along.
I would use a transfer relay that automatically switches the batteries at a preset voltage discharge level of the source battery.
In this way the test can be left to run unattended for as long as necessary (till both batteries go flat).
I would also hook up a dual pen strip chart recorder to log the battery voltages throughout the testing, or a data logger if you have one.
If I can I will predict that JB will put the 10 coiler on the back burner soon (kits will remain available), for some new device he will have conjured out of his (hat)?
That will be the new sliced bread and will leave a trail of disgruntled 10 coil kit buyers, and a few true believers while a whole new wave of buyers line up for the latest "wave of the future".
This seems to be the pattern over the last 30 years, and someone is laughing all the way to the bank.
Ion:
Thanks for your comments. As a general rule for myself personally, whenever I read about strange or unusual claims in the free energy domain, I wonder if someone is simply fabricating this information in order to seduce believers into parting with their hard-earned money. It's human nature on both sides of the equation.
I stumbled upon Peter Lindemann's comments about Sterling's Bedini replication and testing that was done in 2004:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Replications:PES:Sterling_Allan:Lindemann_Coaching (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Replications:PES:Sterling_Allan:Lindemann_Coaching)
QuoteOct. 10, 2004
[Moved from discussion page for Sterling's replication index.]
Sterling,
I took a look at your video. Everything looks pretty good. At this point, I highly recommend that you finish soldering everything and finalize the circuitry. It is obviously wired correctly.
Next, I also recommend that you stop disconnecting the output or input to take your current readings. As you have seen, they will not change significantly until the battery voltage drops. Even then, you have established that the measurable "efficiency" of the recovery circuit is about 28% (.05/.18). This is enough to establish that the unit does NOT produce more WATTS of electricity than it is running on.
What recharges the second battery is the accumulation of the "radiant spikes" that are way over 90 volts (enough to light the neon bulb). This is an accumulation process that works best when left uninterrupted. Please keep in mind that you have built a "flea power" device. The point is that everything that happens will happen slowly!
Your batteries seem to have sufficient capacity to run the unit for long intervals without any problems. I recommend that you simply switch the batteries from front to back every 12 hours (twice a day) at regular intervals such as 9am and 9pm. This will keep the batteries running below their C-20 rate and not super-deep discharge them. Then, just watch.
As I have said before, don't be surprised if the system runs down after a few days and the batteries need to be recharged with an external charger. The battery conditioning process that allows the continuous running can take up to 15 cycles to establish, so just keep going. Commit to running the experiment for 30 days and simply documenting what happens, without drawing any conclusions.
Lastly, I would remind everyone watching this process that THIS is NOT how science is done. This is JOURNALISM about science. These systems, when properly built and studied, work every time. Sterling is not a scientist, he is a journalist. He was offered all of our help to build and test this system and we recommended that this be done PRIVATELY and QUIETLY until he had it working. Then, publish the complete method and path to success. He has chosen to put all of these recommendations aside, and publish the PROCESS of discovery.
The conversion of radiant energy to usable electricity happens in the BATTERIES in this system. The motor and it's recovery circuit DOES NOT produce more ELECTRICITY than it uses! The process of conditioning the battery chemistry to respond to this alternate way of charging takes a little time. I hope everyone watching can be patient while this happens.
Peter Lindemann
We don't know what the voltage of Sterling's source and charging batteries were but lets assume for the sake or argument that he was using two 12-volt batteries. Standard disclaimers about the unknown current measurement techniques, a 28% charging efficiency for Sterling's unknown setup seems to be in the ballpark.
For the highlighted "radiant spikes" comment, I am not sure if Peter is implying that there are high-voltage spikes when the charging battery is connected, or if he is oversimplifying things. Obviously there are no high-voltage spikes when the charging battery is connected because the discharging inductor is a current source, not a voltage source.
The other two highlighted statements above indicate that Peter Lindemanm is clearly stating that a Bedini motor is a free energy device. The only "catch" is that you have to have the patience to keep at it until the batteries are "conditioned." This is arguably a pretty convenient "pitch" because very few experimenters will have the patience to stick around for the long haul.
Then Peter talks about how science is supposed to be done. Well, I can challenge Peter, or Rick, or the two Johns, or any astute Bedini experimenter to do some serious scientific experiments. There are some good ideas in this thread, perhaps you have some of your own.
I will categorically state that after the batteries are conditioned that there is zero chance that you will have a self-runner. It's a "free energy" fantasy and no more than that.
MileHigh
Eric Kreig issued a challenge to JB:
http://www.nuscam.com/eric_krieg_challenge.htm
The link above also references this link:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/bedini.htm
Stirling writes:
QuoteAfter all I learned in this process, I can confidently say in hind sight that
never did I see evidence that "radiant energy" was being tapped. All test
results (and I did a slew of experiments) can be attributed to the energy
inherent in the batteries.
QuoteI will concur that the rate of charge of the output batteries versus the rate
of discharge of the input batteries as measured by volt change versus amps
measured does show a disparity that could be of scientific interest. I know
that part of the reason for this will be because a regular amp meter is not
picking up the spikes that an oscilloscope will show, which will give a much
more accurate amp reading.
But still, from a "free energy" point of view, we're not interested in unusual
scientific phenomenon if it is not going to lead us to tapping free energy.
QuoteOn a final note, for the sake of those reading on, I need to make reference to
another statement made by Peter that to me was/is a major red flag. While
visiting John's lab, when I was brainstorming experiments to run on the Bedini
SG to prove radiant energy, Peter said, "You can't prove it." And the context
at the time was not just the Bedini SG but the phenomenon in general. At the
time, I just thought to myself, "I'll show you wrong on that. If it's there,
of course you can prove it." That he would say such a thing indicates to me
that you don't have it and never have.
A few more comments... They come to mind now and then.
We know that if you rewire a small or large computer fan so that it operates like a Bedini pulse motor it runs more efficiently. The experimenter Imhotep ("the one who comes in peace") on the Energetic Forum practically became a bloody rock star when he did some "how to" clips so that people could do the fan conversion for themselves. This was about two years ago. People went crazy. The name of the thread was somewhat exaggerated, "Free energy at last, step by step, a must see." There was no free energy to be found but what the heck, it's good marketing.
And we can't forget that while the fan is running it can be recharging a charging battery.
So there is an implicit question there that is posed by Bedini enthusiasts, "Why isn't everybody doing this?"
Let's have a reality check here and look at this with respect to computer fans. There are actually a lot of downsides to this fan implementation and they explain why it is not being done in the real world.
1. The fans can't self-start with the Bedini wiring configuration.
2. There is the distinct possibility (would have to be confirmed through experimentation) that although the modified fan speed may be comparable to an unmodified fan while offering reduced power consumption, the available torque under even a minimal extra load might be insufficient to ensure the proper operation of the fan for the long term. Note that a standard fan "bounces back" when you apply friction with your finger whereas there is a decent chance that a Bedini fan will croak.
3. Average users have no interest in swapping batteries or more realistically having a "charging output port" on their computer box. Without a charging battery connected you have a nasty spike that you have to somehow deal with. When you don't have a battery jacked into the port a switch built into the female jack receptacle could switch in a load resistor for you. That makes your parts cost and complexity go way up. You can't rely on average users to disconnect their batteries when they are fully charged. It's simply not doable.
4. This one is the biggie: The spikes generate electromagnetic interference. You simply can not sell electronic products in the marketplace that produce excessive EMI. Almost every electronic product has to be tested to see how much EMI interference it generates. You will ruin radio and television reception in the surroundings if you don't meet the stringent EMI radiation requirements. The airwaves are strictly policed and for good reason.
So the notion that rewiring a computer fan to run as a Bedini-style pulse motor makes it a superior fan is false. The companies that manufacture and sell computer fans are conscious of the desire to reduce the power consumption of the fan, but there are other factors that come into play. Cost is the biggie, cost is king.
Same thing for ceiling fans and just about any other rewiring of a fan or motor to "Bedini-ize" it. It's NOT going to work in the real world. The radio interference issue is probably the main Achilles Heel.
MileHigh
Another posting about the 10-coiler based on lurking on the public Yahoo Bedini_Monopole3 discussion group. This is the place for beginners to get up the learning curve before they graduate to the private group.
A lot of the 10-coilers are struggling to get their motors to turn. There is a lot of confusion with respect to the polarity of the signal from the pick-up coil for firing the transistors and there is a crude trial and error process that they are following for the base resistor setups for the transistors. Apparently they are supposed to mix and match with a bunch of huge 50-watt resistors, trying series and parallel combinations to look for a combination that works.
There is another issue with respect to the inductance of each coil. Since the inductance of 8 parallel wires that make up the coil is 1/64th the equivalent inductance of a single-wire coil, the charging time-constant of the coil is 1/64 the amount of time for the single-wire equivalent. That means that the coils fully energize quite quickly, and that could mean that shortly after a given magnet passes TDC, the coil is already fully switched on. That means that you are energizing your electromagnet too soon, and you are not getting any usable torque to keep the wheel spinning when the magnet is very close to TDC. It's only a few degrees later as the rotor turns that you start getting usable torque from your energized coil. For the big 10-coiler setup, there is a very good chance that you would be better off to delay the firing of the coils so that that they only start to energize when the magnets on the rotor are offset a bit from the the TDC of the coils and you will get more usable torque that way. Another way of stating this is that there is a decent chance that you are burning extra energy for nothing to get your required torque with the 10-coiler assuming that you energize very close to TDC.
Knowing that you are playing with 50-watt base resistors and you have a big pick-up coil, it sounds like you are burning a lot of extra energy just to do the pick-up coil timing system. The higher the effective base resistance you use for your base resistors, the more energy that you are burning for nothing through the base resistors just to turn on the transistors.
There is another problem with using the waveform from the pick-up coils to switch the transistors on and off. The switching on and switching off of the transistors is dependent on the slope of the voltage waveform coming from the pick-up coil. If the slope is not too steep, then the transistors will switch on and off slowly. This is to be avoided at all costs because the transistors become partial conductors during the switching process and act like resistors and therefore dissipate power unnecessarily. You never want to operate the transistors in this region of partial conduction, you want them to be ON or OFF, nothing in between.
So, let's break up this problem into a few parts and let's see if we can improve on this situation. Here is what I think is needed to make the transistor firing system "smarter."
1. Flexible timing starting from TDC so that you can get more torque put into the rotor for each time you energize the coils. You also want as fast as possible switching on and off for each transistor to eliminate wasted power dissipation in the transistors themselves.
2. A properly matched base resistor setup for each transistor so you use the least amount of energy possible to switch on each transistor.
3. Some method of visually confirming what your transistor timing system is doing so you can tweak it and not be running your system "blind."
MileHigh
Okay so let's tackle these three points one by one. I am going to give high-level descriptions of everything, no specific circuits. If somebody wants to do any of this they are going to have to work with someone in a Bedini group that knows how to take the high-level descriptions and turn them into actual circuits. Also, we are going to assume that the circuits described below are being powered from a 12-volt source battery.
1. Flexible timing starting from TDC so that you can get more torque put into the rotor for each time you energize the coils. You also want as fast as possible switching on and off for each transistor to eliminate wasted power dissipation in the transistors themselves.
This part is actually quite easy. You need a 555 timer chip configured as a monostable multivibrator (a.k.a. one-shot) that is is triggered by the low-to high transition through zero volts from the pickup coil. So this 555 circuit is always triggered at TDC by the passing magnet. The length of the pulse is your delay from TDC before you switch on the transistors. The length of the delay is controlled by a timing capacitor and a potentiometer. You choose your component values so that the potentiometer gives you from nearly zero delay to an appropriate amount of delay as per your motor setup. You can label this potentiometer "Delay"
The output from this triggers another 555 monostable multivibrator. This second 555 circuit generates the actual pulse that switches on your transistors. So you need another timing capacitor and potentiometer to determine the length of the ON pulse for the transistors. You can label this potentiometer "Duration."
So, to summarize, you have a "Delay" potentiometer and a "Duration" potentiometer for controlling how much delay after TDC and for how long you switch on the transistors as the rotor turns.
An important note is that you loose the simplified self-timing that you get with a standard pick-up coil-based system when you do this. So there will be a learning curve where you give the rotor a spin by hand and start adjusting the delay and duration potentiometers and see the resultant RPMs and charging that you get from the motor.
This system has a couple of big advantages, (a) You are consuming almost no power from the pick-up coil at all, you are only using the EMF from the coil to trigger the timing system. Therefore the pick-up coil will not load the rotor down with any Lenz's Law drag at all. (b) You can get more bang for your battery energy buck in terms of torque to make the rotor spin by adjusting the delay in firing the coils, (c) You have a certain measure of control over the back-EMF pulse output power from the coils by adjusting the duration that they are energized.
MileHigh
Moving on to the second point:
2. A properly matched base resistor setup for each transistor so you use the least amount of energy possible to switch on each transistor.
If I understand correctly in a 10-coiler system you have 9 energizing coils, and each energizing coil has eight filaments, and each wire filament has its own transistor + diode setup.
For starters, let's just talk about a single filament and its transistor and diode and associated base resistor.
I am not sure if in the standard 10-coiler configuration you are ganging all of the transistor bases together and using one big fat combination of 50-watt resistors to supply the base currents together or what. Let me just say how I would do this setup.
Each individual transistor should have its own individual base resistor. We are going to say that the ON/OFF signal going to the base resistor is either 12 volts or 0 volts. I am not going to discuss basic transistor switching design here. Here is a very basic description: If you short one of the filaments of the coil to ground and measure the current through it, that tells you how much current the transistor has to sink when it is switched on. If the current gain specification for the transistor you are using is 50, that means that you have to put 1/50th that amount of current through the transistor base input. Supposing the short-circuit current is 2 amps. Therefore you have to put (2/50) amps through the transistor base input to switch it on fully for the coil load. Therefore the resistance you need is ((12-0.6V)/(2/50A)) = 285 ohms. Then you add a "safety factor" and decrease the base resistance by a bit, say to 250 ohms.
That's it, there is no need to play with the base resistors after that is done. We are assuming that you are not going to let your source battery voltage drop much past 12 volts.
Honestly I wonder if for the 10-coiler, the individual transistors can even pull enough current to fully switch on the coils. The short-circuit current for each strand of the coils might be much higher than 2 amps, but I am just speculating here.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that each individual base resistor is going to be 250 ohms. That means the base current for each transistor is going to be ((12-0.6)/250) = 46 milliamperes.
So you have the "Delay" pulse that needs to switch on (9 x 8 ) = 72 transistors. Each transistor base input will sink 46 milliamperes.
To do this I would use nine octal CMOS buffer chips. These are off-the-shelf parts. You may need the high-output-current versions, you would have to check the spec for the chip in question.
So here is the setup:
The "Duration" pulse from the second 555 monostable multivibrator gets fed into all of the inputs of the octal CMOS buffer chips. Each output from each of the CMOS buffer chips goes into a 250 ohm base resistor for each individual transistor.
This allows you to turn on and off 72 transistors at the same time from a single control signal. Honestly I wince at that and I wonder if the source battery could possibly supply all of that current to all 72 strands in the nine coils. But, I did not design the thing and all that I can say is that I would be suspicious. I would turn on all of the coils and measure the source battery voltage. If the source battery voltage were to croak and drop below 10 volts in my opinion you would need a bigger and beefier source battery to meet the very high current demand. On the other hand, it's possible that the amount of time the transistors are actually on when the motor is running is such that the coils never become fully energized so you don't have to worry too much about the maximum current draw of the motor. Whichever way you look at it, it looks scary to me.
Note for this setup, the transistors always see a sharp and fast transition from OFF to ON to OFF. This is exactly what you want.
MileHigh
Finally the third and last point:
3. Some method of visually confirming what your transistor timing system is doing so you can tweak it and not be running your system "blind."
This one is very easy and incredibly useful.
Get black construction paper and glue it to the out edge of the rotor so that you make a ring that's about one inch thick. Then carefully paint a straight white radial line that is exactly lined up with the TDC of each magnet.
Take your "Duration" signal from the second 555 monostable multivibrator and use that signal to drive a buffer chip that switches on and off about eight super-bright white LEDs. You can run this whole setup off of a separate battery or power supply.
Arrange the eight super-bright LEDs in a line next to one of the coils.
So as the motor gets up to speed the LEDs will illuminate the white lines and give you visual confirmation of what you timing is for firing the coils relative to the TDC of the firing coil. As you play with your "Delay" and "Duration" potentiometers you will see the timing changes in a scope-like display where the LEDs are set up. It would be incredibly useful to have visual confirmation of what your transistor firing timing is relative to the spinning rotor.
MileHigh
Just some peanut gallery comments from lurking in the Yahoo Bedini group:
QuoteNo. The purple flash indicates that the bulb is experiencing a higher voltage.
The metal electrodes within the bulb are evaporating as they break down. When
the circuit is powered off you will see that there is a black discoloration
inside the neon bulb. This indicates it is about to fail completely.
We have said probably hundreds of times that we do NOT recommend operating the
SSG with no charging battery connected, as every time you do this there is a
good chance that all of your semiconductors will be irreparably damaged. So
every time you operate the SSG without a charging battery just to see the purple
flash, you really should retest and probably replace all the transistors and
diodes.
Marcia
Actually Marcia, you don't have to worry about the diodes, they should be fine.
What everyone in the Yahoo Bedini groups should try to understand is how a discharging inductor actually works. Without that fundamental piece of knowledge you are are all crippled in your ability to understand what you are doing. From my readings, it is clear to me that Rick Friedrich and John Koorn do not understand this fundamental concept either. They are welcome to come here to discuss and learn. They are both in leadership positions so it is incumbent on them to know this stuff so they can teach others properly.
Moving on, some other goodies. To quote Rick:
QuoteWe just spent the last 5 days at the Coeur D'Alene Fair. It went well. I brought
and tried to sell my electric 1990 Honda which all the youth loved. I ran all
the kits constantly and had a really good response. Only two smart guys with too
many degrees to be good for anything had a problem. I asked the one guy how the
battery was charging in the SG circuit and he stood there for 20 minutes with a
smerk on his face and then put the picture frame down and walked away without a
word.
I find that incredibly hard to believe. You are referring to your framed picture with your schematic of a Bedini motor. Anybody with a reasonable knowledge of electronics would be able to explain to you exactly how your motor works and exactly how it charges the battery. To be quite honest Rick, you are the one that needs to be taught how a Bedini motor works.
Finally, there is a
huge flaw in the charging battery COP testing method that I wrote to some members in the Yahoo group about:
A poster to the group said the following about his or her charging battery COP testing:
QuoteI went with the higher number (20ma) for the Test Run.
The Test went from 12.47V to 14.50V in 20 hours and 51 minutes.
(5 AmpHr Battery)
Rested for 6 Hours down to 12.9V
Then Discharged for 2 hours and 33 minutes with a constant current Draw
of 250ma
to 12.2V
Rested for 5 Hours up to 12.5V
Is a Battery COP of 1.53 realistic???
Quoting myself:
QuoteThere is a fundamental flaw in this logic. Please don't be offended and
permit me to make my case and suggest how to overcome this flaw with a
copy/paste from my posting on my thread about the COP issue. I hope
that's fair enough.
The flaw is this: You are putting some energy in the charging battery
and measuring the ampere-hours. That's fine. HOWEVER, you are then
discharging the the charging battery in an arbitrary fashion. You have
no true idea of how much energy was *originally* in the charging battery
before you started the test. Then you discharge the charging battery at
250 ma down to 12.2 volts and measure the total time and then crunch the
numbers and get a COP of 1.53. I am assuming that 12.2 volts is your
"cutoff" point for making your COP measurement. It sounds like it makes
sense, but you have a fundamental problem because you didn't know how
much energy was in the charging battery *before* your started charging
it.
I hope all three of you can see this. In effect, your COP measurement
is dependent on the *total* energy in the charging battery and not
dependent on how much energy you put into the charging battery when you
ran your test. The big problem is that you don't know how much energy is
in the charging battery when you start your test.
I hope that the three of you can recognize this flaw in the logic. The
COP value is going to vary depending on how much total energy is in the
charge battery at the end of the charging cycle. You may know how many
ampere-hours you put in the charging battery, but you DON'T know how
many ampere hours were sitting in the charging battery before you
started charging it!
In the group there was some acknowledgment of this problem because a posting was done stating that they were going to review their charging battery COP testing method. This was more than a week ago and since then there have been no updates. Their current COP testing method is junk, they never account for how much energy might already be sitting in the charging battery before they start the COP testing. I have to assume that this has been going on for years. This will almost guarantee that you get artificially high COP numbers that suggest that "some magic" is going on in the charging battery because of the charging method. This is a major problem that has to be fixed.
MileHigh
Here is an interesting little conversation that I had with someone on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEZuRKKdRk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEZuRKKdRk)
The experimenter below was commenting on a Bedini motor clip where the description is "Creating overunity for charging batteries.By useing magnents,and coils." He thought that the person posting the clip might have found the "secret sauce" so I had the following brief conversation with him:
<Experimenter>: Please can you share your build details. If this is really overunity then there are many people who would love to replicate it ( including me ). I've built various versions of this machine but obviously with different sized coils etc and none of them have performed with the effect you describe. They all lose energy if you keep swapping the batteries around the overall energy in the batteries decreases little by little.
<Me>: Don't be fooled into thinking that if you find the "right" configuration that you will get over unity. You results showing the continuous loss of energy as you keep swapping batteries are the right results. Any other configuration will do exactly the same thing. The Yahoo Bedini group people want you to believe that "magic" happens in the charging battery but it's not the case. Most Bedini experimenters don't know enough about electronics to understand what's going on.
<Experimenter>: After a lot of experimentation I came to the same conclusion. I questioned one of the moderators about if they had seen overunity and they mentioned a few names (eg Tesla) of people who had proved it. Funny how the people making the claims are either dead or making money from it eh ? And all the while Bedinie's faithful flock keeps growing and wasting countless hours doing tests. The money doesnt bother me much but I feel like I've been fooled into wasting so many hours of life.
<Me>: I looked at lots of the video clips and the postings of the moderators Rick Friedrich and John Koorn and quickly realized that they don't really know what they are talking about or doing when it comes to electronics. I know a fair amount about electronics so I am confident in my appraisal. I started a Bedini 10-coiler thread on the website overunityresearch and you are welcome to pass by.  There are lots of good tech points and sometimes the talk is tough, with justification.
QuoteOkay so let's tackle these three points one by one. I am going to give high-level descriptions of everything, no specific circuits. If somebody wants to do any of this they are going to have to work with someone in a Bedini group that knows how to take the high-level descriptions and turn them into actual circuits. Also, we are going to assume that the circuits described below are being powered from a 12-volt source battery.
1. Flexible timing starting from TDC so that you can get more torque put into the rotor for each time you energize the coils. You also want as fast as possible switching on and off for each transistor to eliminate wasted power dissipation in the transistors themselves.
This part is actually quite easy. You need a 555 timer chip configured as a monostable multivibrator (a.k.a. one-shot) that is is triggered by the low-to high transition through zero volts from the pickup coil. So this 555 circuit is always triggered at TDC by the passing magnet. The length of the pulse is your delay from TDC before you switch on the transistors. The length of the delay is controlled by a timing capacitor and a potentiometer. You choose your component values so that the potentiometer gives you from nearly zero delay to an appropriate amount of delay as per your motor setup. You can label this potentiometer "Delay"
The output from this triggers another 555 monostable multivibrator. This second 555 circuit generates the actual pulse that switches on your transistors. So you need another timing capacitor and potentiometer to determine the length of the ON pulse for the transistors. You can label this potentiometer "Duration."
So, to summarize, you have a "Delay" potentiometer and a "Duration" potentiometer for controlling how much delay after TDC and for how long you switch on the transistors as the rotor turns.
An important note is that you loose the simplified self-timing that you get with a standard pick-up coil-based system when you do this. So there will be a learning curve where you give the rotor a spin by hand and start adjusting the delay and duration potentiometers and see the resultant RPMs and charging that you get from the motor.
This system has a couple of big advantages, (a) You are consuming almost no power from the pick-up coil at all, you are only using the EMF from the coil to trigger the timing system. Therefore the pick-up coil will not load the rotor down with any Lenz's Law drag at all. (b) You can get more bang for your battery energy buck in terms of torque to make the rotor spin by adjusting the delay in firing the coils, (c) You have a certain measure of control over the back-EMF pulse output power from the coils by adjusting the duration that they are energized.
MileHigh
Excellent idea MileHigh. I will try that today.
Fausto.
Fausto:
Good luck it would be very interesting to see that kind of setup. If you read the whole thread you probably saw a few references to swapping the charging battery for a large capacitor in parallel with a resistor just to measure the average output power to the charging battery from the main coil. The average output power is simply the capacitor voltage squared divided by the resistance. I suggest using a resistor value so that when the motor is running at a typical speed the voltage across the capacitor stabilizes at about 15 volts.
If you did this setup you could then experiment with the "Delay" and "Duration" potentiometers and monitor the voltage across the capacitor. Then you could convert the output voltage measurement to the actual output power from the motor in watts by using a calculator or a spreadsheet. You could do this in real time, it is a trivial calculation. This gives you real knowledge, where you can say with confidence that for a certain "Delay" and "Duration" setting your Bedini motor is outputting and average of X.XX watts of power into the charging battery.
Just to be clear I will repeat a key fact: When you measure the output power of the motor with the capacitor-resistor setup, you can then swap the capacitor-resistor out and put back the charging battery. Exactly the same amount of average output power will then be pumped into the charging battery. It is a fundamental property of a discharging inductor, it does not matter what the load is, it always outputs the same amount of power.
Also, if you have a scope you can easily measure your pulse frequency. Since you know the average output power, and the pulse frequency, you can then easily calculate the number of Joules of energy per pulse.
Knowledge is "power" and knowing the average output power of your Bedini motor and the number of Joules per pulse is very interesting. You are moving out of the "fog" and into the "light" of self-enlightenment.
With this knowledge and by making a few other simple measurements you can easily calculate the inductance of your coil. In other words, your don't need to buy an inductance meter, you can do the calculations yourself so that you get a better understanding of what is going on.
Probably the most interesting exploration would be by varying the length of the "Duration" pulse and then measuring the amount of energy per output pulse from the discharging coil. What you will find out is that eventually you hit a "wall." Another way to put it is that the "law of diminishing returns" comes into play here. You probably know that as the coil becomes energized with current, eventually you reach a plateau and the current does not continue to increase as the "Duration" pulse gets longer. If you know how an RL circuit works, eventually the current reaches a maximum value which is the battery voltage divided by "R." "R" in this case is modeled by a few resistors in series: 1) the output resistance of the battery, 2) the "ON" resistance of the transistor, and 3) the resistance of the coil.
So as you increase the length of the "Duration" pulse the amount of energy per output pulse from the coil will at first increase. Then as you continue to increase the length of the "Duration" pulse the output pulse energy will continue to increase but more slowly. Eventually you will get to the point where you will see that further increases in the length of the "Duration" pulse will not give you increasing energy in the output pulse from the coil. At this point the drive coil starts to act as a pure resistor and you are simply pouring battery energy down the drain if you increase the "Duration" pule past a certain amount of time.
Again, this gives you real knowledge about your motor. You will know for yourself what length of "Duration" pulse is your preference for generating a given amount of average output power to the charging battery. If you are familiar with the L/R time-constant for charging an inductor, most people would say that charging the inductor for one time-constant or less is preferable. This strategy reduces ohmic resistive losses in the coil itself for a given amount of energy stored in the coil.
MileHigh
Fausto:
A few more comments for your consideration:
In addition to all of this, I will also repeat something that I am sure that I said earlier in the thread. If you put a low-pass filter between the supply battery and the Bedini motor itself, then you can make very accurate measurements of the average power consumption of the entire motor. If you did this, then you could measure the average motor power consumption and the average output power to the charging battery as you experiment with different values of the "Delay" and "Duration" variables. It can be argued that the "sweet spot" is the combination of "Delay" and "Duration" that gives you the maximum ratio for (average coil output power)/(average motor power consumption).
Note that all of this could be done in real time, all that you need are a few multimeters and a calculator. Find the sweet spot and then put your charging battery in place and you now have optimized the configuration and timings for you Bedini motor.
Note also that I never mention the motor RPMs, another recurring theme in this thread. The RPMs of a Bedini motor are meaningless if your goal is to optimize the charging efficiency of your motor. I define charging efficiency as (average coil output power)/(average motor power consumption).
Just a final comment about Bedini motor RPMs. Many Bedini enthusiasts are very interested in seeing how fast they can get their motors to spin. When they do this they are forgetting about charging efficiency and just having fun. The faster the motor spins, the more source battery power is wasted in having the rotor overcome air friction. I believe that the air friction is proportional to the square of the rotor speed. Therefore a very high speed Bedini motor rotor is simply wasting a significant percentage of the source battery power and turning it into heat power via air friction.
In other words, a very high speed Bedini motor is simply pouring source battery power down the drain and turning it into heat power due to the increased air friction. This is power that is lost forever and never goes into the charging battery.
MileHigh
Fausto:
You said:
Quote(15:15:53) Plengo: Hello guys, I have a quick question
(15:16:25) Plengo: when I connect my SSG to my battery it costs me a certain amount of voltage and amparage
(15:16:53) Plengo: when I connect a resistor in series with the charging battery that cost increases, that being, amparege goes higher
(15:17:02) Plengo: is not that suposed to be the opposite?
It's hard to give you a real answer without all of the information. When you change one variable associated with your Bedini motor it takes perhaps one minute for the motor to stabilize again. That means changing one variable results in all of the other variables changing until a new stability point is found. You are not telling us if the RPMs changed, what resistor value you added, etc.
Certainly there is an explanation for this, it simply requires that you investigate this in more detail.
I can ask you two questions: 1) What value of resistance did you add? 2) Let's forget what you observed after you added the resistance. What at least can you say should happen when you add the resistance?
MileHigh
I am going to respond to some issues raised on a thread on the Energetic Forum that start at this posting by John K:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6159-r-charge-bedini-solar-power-charger-4.html#post110318 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6159-r-charge-bedini-solar-power-charger-4.html#post110318)
QuoteOriginally Posted by baroutologos
The big flaw of Bedini circuits is that they claim OU in batteries and you get NONE.
As a desulphator SSG sux also. tried and know.
The alum stuff, is a nightmare. I have converted a Bosch lead acid battery to alum and from 6Ah capacity droped to 0.5Ah. Alum with "radiant charge" does not shows any merit.
Not to mention the battery could not keep charges up. It took way to long actual time hooked on an improvised desulphator to be restored, but not as it were before.
What about Bedini circuits anyway?
baroutologos,
All I can say is that you did not build them right. Every Bedini circuit I have built has shown that the battery's load time is increased after every cycle. The only exception is when I didn't build it right, or it wasn't tuned optimally. Every charger I have bought from Renaissance Charge has done what they claim it will do. They all extend the life of your batteries.
John K.: For starters we can't forget that you are a reseller of Bedini products in Australia. Therefore you have a vested interest in keeping the "buzz" about Bedini stuff all positive. People should be aware that your comments are biased because of your financial interests. I am noticing a pattern with respect to your postings. Whenever anybody posts some doubts about the claim then you reply with a "salesy" posting that attempts to "right the ship" and claim that everything associated with Bedini "technology" is true and all is good. You are the gopher for the Bedini interests that is running defensive tackle. Again, you have vested financial interests in promoting Bedini products.
To claim that Baroutologos' builds are not good is a hollow argument. You don't know what his builds are like. You are falling into the trap that we have all seen before on these forums. The trap is the claim that "the device wasn't built correctly and that's why it isn't working." I have read this countless times before and your claim is false. I am going to assume that Baroutologos
did do his builds properly and the Bedini motor does not work as Baroutologos claims. The Bedini claim is that "magic" happens when an inductor discharges current pulses into a battery and extra energy is created like that such that you get COP > 1 when you run charging battery load testing. This is
not true and I have already shown that your
battery COP testing is deeply flawed. There was a posting about two weeks ago on the Yahoo group where Rick stated that you were going to review your flawed battery testing procedure but I have not seen any updates. Have a look at my explanation on the Bedini measurements thread to learn the proper way to measure how the charging battery gets charged.
QuoteThe trick is building the circuit for what the batteries want as the batteries are part of the circuit. Then you have to make sure it is tuned for what you want it to do.
The above statements are meaningless. What do the batteries want, John? As far as the tuning goes, from what I have read you tune the motor for minimal current consumption from the source battery. This results in weaker current pulses from the discharging drive coil.
QuoteThere are many other tricks that show some very interesting things that can't be explained in the normal EE sense with these circuits. When you understand the concepts and principles that John Bedini has already shown us, you can start to experiment with ways that you can combine different circuits to achieve different applications.
I am going to repeat this one more time:
Everything about a Bedini motor is explainable with standard and very basic EE concepts. Your statement is not true and reality is that you and Rick are the ones that don't understand how a Bedini motor works because you don't understand how an inductor works.
QuoteFor example, you might want to use the high voltage, low current, high frequency outputs of the SG circuit to charge a battery directly or to charge up a capacitor. On the other hand you might want the low voltage, high current, low frequency output of a charged capacitor and dump that energy into a battery or a another capacitor once every second. There are many other different possibilities you can use these circuits for.
John, the statements you make above are very revealing about your level of understanding about electronics. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
QuoteThe point being, that there are different circuits for different applications. Many other people have posted their test results in the public forum for people to see for themselves what the Bedini circuits can do. When so many other people have been successful and you say that it does not work then tell us a bit about your setup and we might be able to help you improve it.
Those test results are most likely all wrong because your test procedure is no good. I explained to you that if you don't know what the energy level in the charging battery is
before you start your COP testing that the resultant data will be junk. In your testing you look at ampere-hours in vs. ampere-hours out without factoring in the voltage drops or increases as you discharge or charge the battery. This is a huge mistake. As I have explained, you have to measure the
power that is going into the charging battery, and then convert that into
energy. Then measure the energy that you can extract from the charging battery, and you must know the energy already in the charging battery
before you start your COP testing. Your battery COP testing does none of this, it is junk.
MileHigh
I just want to comment on my own postings. I know that sometimes they are quite tough, and I know that is something that we should all try to keep in check. On the other hand, it can be refreshing to sometimes just lay it on the line, and state what you think and feel.
Perhaps the following example will at least give my harsh comments some context.
Here is the link to the YouTuber "MachineOfTime1":
http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u (http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u)
He seems like a really nice guy and he purchased a 10-coiler kit from Rick. On top of that he has spent thousands of more dollars and invested hundreds of hours in a complex automatic battery swapping and inverter system. He clearly believes that his is going to be able to provide some of the mains power for his house with the 10-coiler as the "power source." His latest clip is called "Perpetual Self Runner."
I have looked at all of his clips and have qualified him with respect to his electronics knowledge. He is clearly a beginner, and his knowledge is basic at best. He measures his battery voltages and uses that as an indication of their state of charge. He firmly believes that he is well on the way towards making an over unity system to provide the energy needs for his house. He might work on this project for a few more years and end up spending tens of thousands of dollars.
The problem is that when he does his testing he is clearly convinced that he is doing something special when that is not the case. So far every test he has done draws on the energy that is stored in his big lead-acid batteries. So he does tests where he thinks he is demonstrating over unity when all that he is doing is discharging big batteries that would take days if not weeks before they fully discharge.
Chances are he will go on like this for months and months, convinced that his Bedini motor is recharging his batteries so that he can keep on swapping them for an endless supply of free energy. Who knows how much more time and money he will invest in this system.
This is clearly wrong, and this is a good guy that is chasing a pipe dream and wasting his time. If he understood how to do some proper testing and make proper measurements, he might realize the error in his ways and stop his project and save himself thousands and thousands of dollars. He already has enough hardware in place to do some serious testing and figure out for himself that there is no 'magic' associated with a Bedini motor charging a charge battery with inductive current spikes.
So when John K. plays defensive tackle when anybody expresses their doubts about Bedini "technology" it's wrong. He is helping perpetuate the myth that you can get COP > 1 when a Bedini motor charges the charging battery. This hurts people financially and emotionally in the long run so I am trying to set the record straight with this thread.
If you are serious about your Bedini motor and believe that you can get over unity out of it, then I encourage you to read this and other Bedini threads on overuniyresearch.com. The intention behind this thread is to help Bedini experimenters find out for themselves if a Bedini motor setup has any merit, or if it has no merit at all.
I am telling you that a Bedini motor is nothing more than an energy loss mechanism, and when you use it you get less energy out of your batteries. The hope is that you will prove this for yourselves, with some assistance from this thread if required. This thread is about finding the truth about Bedini motors, and sometimes the truth can be harsh.
MileHigh
Quotethis is a good guy that is chasing a pipe dream and wasting his time.
And good old J. Bhoudini man of a thousand mirrors blowing smoke rings on that pipe.
I really feel sorry for all the good people that are parting with their money for this stuff. Shame on the man.
Tell him to build an AVEC.
(got hv resistors and pulser is back up, just need more time)
Let's have a peek into the issue of "impedance matching" by sampling some opinions about starting here on the EF:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6159-r-charge-bedini-solar-power-charger-4.html#post110280 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6159-r-charge-bedini-solar-power-charger-4.html#post110280)
Quoting Aaron:
QuoteAnd you choose to ignore the point of 1:1 - that ratio
is balanced to itself in regards to the input output.
They ARE matched to each other.
Then for WHATEVER coil you have, you can then
use it optimally for batteries that are matched to it.
That much is common sense.
I am assuming the 1:1 turns ratio that Aaron is referring to is for the composite pick-up and drive coil. The pick-up to output coil turns ratio has absolutely nothing to do with impedance matching for charging the charge battery. My impression is that when Aaron says "That much is common sense." he is ducking the issue because he doesn't understand it.
With respect to impedance matching, I have explained multiple times on this thread how a discharging inductor, like in a Bedini motor after the transistor switches off, has an effective output impedance of infinity. I realize that this is a difficult concept for people to understand but I have tried to explain this earlier in this thread on several occasions. Because the output impedance of the coil is infinity, there is no impedance matching with the charging battery at all. The drive coil will discharge its energy into any type of charging battery, no matter what its input impedance. Therefore impedance matching between the drive coil and the charging battery is not an issue, because there is NO impedance matching in this particular case.
If you want to learn more, please read this thread from the beginning!
A sampler of some other opinions:
Quoting SeaMonkey:
QuoteThe DC resistance of the coils in many of
Bedini's "devices" is too great. Much power
is lost within the coils themselves.
While they may indeed charge batteries,
the impedance mis-match prevents efficient
transfer of energy. Much power is lost.
SeaMonkey is confusing AC transformer-type impedance matching with how a discharging inductor works, where the output impedance is close to infinity.
Quoting John K.:
QuoteThis basic theory and understood easily by most who have researched impedance matching.
It has been well discussed amongst various forums that it is advantageous to match the impedance of the SSG coil to the impedance of the source battery, for most efficient energy transfer. This is where multi-coil SSGs will perform better with a large source battery that has relatively low impedance. Once you calculate the total impedance of the parallel windings of the coil/s and match that (without going under it) to the source battery.
However, I don't think it is well understood, even by those that have built an SSG, that the SSG "sees" the charge battery as a high impedance (or in other words the battery "sees" the SSG as a "lower" impedance). Due to the "impedance mismatch" the battery charges by lowering it's impedance to try and "match" the impedance of the SSG coil.
The SSG is an "impedance matching oscillator" circuit in this sense. Using a bulb in the base resistor circuit also acts as a "servo" to keep the SSG in tune as the charge battery's impedance is lowered.
Hope this makes sense...
Unfortunately none of what John K. is saying makes any sense at all. I am not going to rebut it point by point but every point that he makes is wrong. Reading between the lines I will assume that John Koorn, Rick Friedrich, and all of the members of the Yahoo Bedini groups do not understand this issue.
MileHigh
There is a little bit of action on the EF Bedini 10-coiler thread so I will comment!
http://www.energeticforum.com/110426-post381.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/110426-post381.html)
QuoteUncleFester
Originally Posted by Ecancanvas View Post
Hey Bit's,
Watched your u-tube post of Perpetual Self Runner on it you talk about winding a inner coil in reverse before installing your motor windings. could you discuss why this would be beneficial. I have been working on "ricks self runner", and playing around with the induction windings trying to make it a self runner, Close but not there yet.
Thanks
As I understand it winding in opposite directions cancels the field. In other words the primary coil it would not see any load even though you were pulling power from the second winding that is wound opposite direction. Collapse of the field should be faster though as well in this configuration.
Tad
There is no such thing as "winding a coil in reverse" or "winding a coil in opposite directions." Nor is there any kind of "winding trick" that you can do to make a load on a coil magically disappear. Certainly if you have a coil that consists of two windings, a pick-up coil and a power coil, they are coupled to each other and interact with each other just like in a normal transformer. That's why you see scope shots where the the transistor fires multiple times for a single magnet pass. The power coil is coupling back to the trigger coil and during the magnet pass time it's like you have a temporary oscillator set up between the trigger coil, the transistor, and the power coil. Call it a sort of "Joule Thief on the Fly" if you want.
Going back to the issue of "winding a coil in reverse," the real terminology is to talk about the North-South polarity of the coil relative to how you are driving current into and out of the two wires of the coil. If you reverse the two connections of the coil then you drive the coil with the opposite North-South polarity.
What this means is that people that think their coil is wound the "wrong way" and then completely unwind their "clockwise" coil and then rewind it in a "counter-clockwise" fashion are wasting their time. All that they had to do was reverse the connections to the coil to get exactly the same effect.
MileHigh
Another update from the 10-coiler Bit's-n-Bytes on his project:
QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark:
Hi Bits
Some how I missed that post on the TS thread. So essentially your just winding an addition wire on the outside of an SG coil in the opposite direction, is that correct? And if so, you state your outside winding is 5 filar, why? Did you use each winding with a bridge to "power" 5 loads or did you series them together or have I misunderstood?
Thanks, Mark
No, the inner coil goes to the FWBR, and the outer coil (5 filar in my case, because I had extra spool) is hooked up normal SG fashion. What happens when the coil is pulsed (normal SG operation) the magnetic lines of flux, rise and fall across the inner coil produce AC voltage. In my case, 35v to 56V. The rotor is driven by the normal SG action. Now if you collect this voltage obtained from the inner coil to a sizable cap, you have nice usable voltage. I can matain about 11v - 12v, 1 amp without any noticable drag on the wheel. Multiply this by 9 (coils) and you have some serious usable energy.
Jeff
So let's take a look at what Jeff is really doing. He is going to be adding extra energy pick-up coils to each of his main drive coils on his 10-coiler Bedini motor. When his transistors fire and energize the drive coils, this will also transfer power into the extra energy pick-up coils. The pick-up coil outputs will pass through some full-wave bridge rectifiers and then charge a large capacitor or capacitors.
So lets look at the energy audit trail for this piece of "added value" that Jeff is adding to his setup. When the coils energize, some of the source battery energy will be siphoned off by the pick-up coils and go into a capacitor. That's it, as simple as that. So all that Jeff is doing is adding an extra load on his source batteries when the transistors switch on and that energy is captured in a large capacitor. Certainly this is not "free energy," he is paying for this by adding an extra load on his source batteries.
From looking at Jeff's clips, he may then use the charged capacitor(s) to power a "cap pulser" board of his own design. This board will boost the voltage and rectify it so that he can pulse energy back into a battery. This will most likely be one of the source batteries that is off-line and not being used at the moment (he has a relay switching setup to round-robin the source batteries).
So Jeff may be using his source battery bank to recharge one of his source batteries that is off-line. This is nothing more than a grandiose exercise in loosing energy by recirculating it for no reason.
He will loose energy in the following places:
1. The diodes in the first full-wave bridge rectifier
2. In the "cap pulser" board (which includes a second full-wave bridge rectifier)
3. In the off-line source battery because batteries are not 100% efficient when you charge and then discharge them
If Jeff really does what I think he is going to do, I am going to guess that he will loose up to 50% of the energy that he sucks out of his source battery bank and then pumps back into an off-line source battery. The whole thing will be a grandiose exercise in wasting energy.
A few comments about charging up a capacitor with a pick-up coil going through a full-wave bridge rectifier. As the capacitor is charging, the coil is pumping this energy into the cap and there is a Lenz drag on the rotor, or in Jeff's case a load on the source battery bank. However, once the capacitor is charged to its maximum voltage, then current stops flowing and there is no more load on the system. Some experimenters might not realize this. The capacitor is a real load, but once it is charged up it effectively disappears from the circuit and there is no load.
Anyway, Jeff is supposed to modify all nine drive coils and add the "energy pick-up coils" to them in an attempt to "add value." I will be watching to see what happens. Unfortunately, in all likelihood this setup will simply pour energy down the drain.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.15, 00:22:29
I just want to comment on my own postings. I know that sometimes they are quite tough, and I know that is something that we should all try to keep in check. On the other hand, it can be refreshing to sometimes just lay it on the line, and state what you think and feel.
Perhaps the following example will at least give my harsh comments some context.
Here is the link to the YouTuber "MachineOfTime1":
http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u (http://www.youtube.com/user/MachineOfTime1#p/u)
He seems like a really nice guyI really am. and he purchased a 10-coiler kit from Rick. On top of that he has spent thousands of more dollars and invested hundreds of hours in a complex automatic battery swapping and inverter system. He clearly believes that his is going to be able to provide some of the mains power for his house with the 10-coiler as the "power source." His latest clip is called "Perpetual Self Runner."
I have looked at all of his clips and have qualified him with respect to his electronics knowledge. He is clearly a beginner Nope, no beginner here, In fact have design many systems that are still in the industry today. Take a look, http://www.ageranger.com/images3/Jeff-W-DOD.jpg (yep that's me back in the early 80's, and his knowledge is basic at best Before you evaluate me, in front of your followers on this forum, maybe you should do some research. I currently hold 3 engineering certifications, received Presidential citations for my contributions to this industry and have over 40 years of electrical knowledge.He measures his battery voltages and uses that as an indication of their state of charge. He firmly believes that he is well on the way towards making an over unity system to provide the energy needs for his house. He might work on this project for a few more years and end up spending tens of thousands of dollars.
The problem is that when he does his testing he is clearly convinced that he is doing something special when that is not the case. So far every test he has done draws on the energy that is stored in his big lead-acid batteries. So he does tests where he thinks he is demonstrating over unity when all that he is doing is discharging big batteries that would take days if not weeks before they fully discharge.
Chances are he will go on like this for months and months, convinced that his Bedini motor is recharging his batteries so that he can keep on swapping them for an endless supply of free energy. Who knows how much more time and money he will invest in this system.
This is clearly wrong, and this is a good guy that is chasing a pipe dream and wasting his time. If he understood how to do some proper testing and make proper measurements, he might realize the error in his ways and stop his project and save himself thousands and thousands of dollars. He already has enough hardware in place to do some serious testing and figure out for himself that there is no 'magic' associated with a Bedini motor charging a charge battery with inductive current spikes.
So when John K. plays defensive tackle when anybody expresses their doubts about Bedini "technology" it's wrong. He is helping perpetuate the myth that you can get COP > 1 when a Bedini motor charges the charging battery. This hurts people financially and emotionally in the long run so I am trying to set the record straight with this thread.
If you are serious about your Bedini motor and believe that you can get over unity out of it, then I encourage you to read this and other Bedini threads on overuniyresearch.com. The intention behind this thread is to help Bedini experimenters find out for themselves if a Bedini motor setup has any merit, or if it has no merit at all.
I am telling you that a Bedini motor is nothing more than an energy loss mechanism, and when you use it you get less energy out of your batteries. The hope is that you will prove this for yourselves, with some assistance from this thread if required. This thread is about finding the truth about Bedini motors, and sometimes the truth can be harsh.
MileHigh
MileHigh, I have received your invites to come to this forum and have chosen not to do so. But when you want to bash me, without even knowing who I am, I need to show you in front of your followers here, that you are NOT right most of the times. You say that I am a beginner, see above. I would like to see your credentials publicly displayed here as I have, so you can truly show your fans who you are. I said that I am nice guy, I am going to stand by that statement and not going to go any further as I would be simply wasting my time.
Hi Jeff,
Welcome to the thread and I apologize if I offended you. Now that you are here, it would be great if you took the time to actually read the thread. There is also a small thread started by Plengo about how to do measurements on Bedini motors that is worth reading.
If you say I am not right most of the times, and if you are not talking about the one specific posting where I tried to qualify you, then tell me where I am wrong and we can try to debate it if you want. This thread is all about helping Bedini experimenters understand their setups so they can make informed decisions themselves. A lot of them could use some basic electronics instruction. You are saying that you would be "wasting your time" and for me that is indicative of closed-mindedness.
All that I can say Jeff is that I looked at your clips, and I did not hear language that indicates that you are experienced with working with electronics on a component level. From the article you linked to I am wondering if you have worked more on the systems level. Even the way you used your scope to me made it appear that you were not comfortable using it. I looked at your clip where you use the inverter to put power back into the grid and it is obvious to me that you were simply drawing power from the big battery bank that you have set up. In your latest clip you are showing your system for drawing power out of the drive coils with an extra pick-up coil wired into each drive coil. You state, "If you wind the coils the same way, you'll have "Transformer" action and run the drive batts down to nothing. Don't know if your familar with the term "Buck" "Boost" or not. Wind the coils opposite and you'll negate most transformer action. End result, energy without killing the drive batts." That statement doesn't make any sense. Your pick-up coils are going into FWBRs and then going into your capacitor(s). It's simply impossible for you to wind the coils in the "opposite" direction and negate most of the transformer action. It doesn't matter which way they are wound. Plus the truth is that you don't have to "wind them the opposite way," all that you have to do is reverse the connections to the coil.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your intention is to swap batteries back and forth between your source and charging banks so that you can eventually extract "excess" energy and run that "excess" energy into an inverter to power your house with your own self-generated mains power. You think the 10-coiler is the heart of this system and it can do that for you because you can get a COP > 1 when you charge the charging battery bank with inductive current spikes. That's a tall order Jeff, and to conclusively prove that you have to factor in the fact that your bank of batteries contains a lot of energy. That will require some simple proof-of-concept testing. For example, you could charge your charging batteries, then connect them to some car 12-volt sealed-beam headlights and drain off 25% of the energy in the charging bank. Then swap banks, charge the "new" bank of charging batteries (formerly the source bank) and drain off 25% of the energy in them again. Keep on doing that back and forth. If you system really works then you should be able to do this indefinitely right now, you have all of the equipment in place. On the other hand, if the system croaks after five or six battery bank swapping cycles, then that will be proof that the Bedini 10-coiler rig is doing nothing of value at all. The simple fact is that the Bedini 10-coiler is nothing more than an energy loss mechanism. However, I know that you don't believe me, so I am suggesting to you that you prove it for yourself. All that you have to do is get a few car headlights and calculate how long your battery bank needs to power them to drain off 25% of the energy in the bank and you are good to go. I am suggesting to you that you do that proof-of-concept test of the 10-coiler before you invest any more time or energy into your setup.
You asked me about my qualifications. I will tell you but let me propose a deal. Read this thread in its entirety and the much smaller Bedini measurement thread first. Then post that you have read it and give me your comments about what you feel my knowledge level is first. Then I will give you my qualifications. I hope that's a fair deal.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.16, 15:35:59
You asked me about my qualifications. I will tell you but let me propose a deal. I hope that's a fair deal.
MileHigh
No deal! You want to judge me? Show me your qualified (or not).
Jeff:
I have an EE degree and worked as an EE 20 years ago in digital design. I don't work as an EE any more. I have thousands of hours of experience on the bench with a scope and a logic analyzer. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of Bedini motor clips and read many Bedini threads, but I haven't built one.
I don't like to say that because if you say it it creates bad vibes and there is a culture of bashing education and EEs on the free energy forums. So I prefer to not say it and just let my words speak for themselves. This is the first time that I have ever posted it publicly, and I am only doing it because you asked me to.
So, now that's over with, will you read the threads? How about that car sealed-beam headlight test that I suggested?
MileHigh
P.S.: Jeff, I just wanted to also say thank you for your great work in the DOD. Thanks for being part of a team that defends our freedom and way of life. Some people take that for granted but I don't.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.16, 16:14:56
Jeff:
I have an EE degree and worked as an EE 20 years ago in digital design. I don't work as an EE any more. You may have noticed, that I design my own boards, program my own chips, and know quite a bit about the power industry. Hmm, EE in Digital, Power, and Programming, not to stand on my soapbox, but I bring a wealth of skills to the equation. I have thousands of hours of experience on the bench with a scope and a logic analyzer. I have watched I have DONE many clipshundreds and hundreds of Bedini motor clips and read many Bedini threads, but I haven't built one. Thanks for your honesty, may I suggest you do?
I don't like to say that because if you say it it creates bad vibes and there is a culture of bashing education and EEs on the free energy forums. So I prefer to not say it and just let my words speak for themselves. This is the first time that I have ever posted it publicly, and I am only doing it because you asked me to.Thank you
So, now that's over with, will you read the threads? How about that car sealed-beam headlight test that I suggested?
MileHigh
I have read all of your threads. Can't say that I agree with you on most items. I will analyze your suggested test and if it has merit, perform it but I will not become your test bench. I suggest that you build these devices and test, instead of now being an "Arm Chair EE". I have said my piece now. Your welcome to continue to follow my work and give constructive feedback, but unless you can create the exact same test setup that I have, along with the experience / knowledge / ingenuity, and credentials, then I respectfully ask you keep your judgments about me out of the equation.
Hi Jeff,
If you read my threads and don't agree on most items, I would be very interested in knowing what you don't agree with. Certainly the suggested test has merit, do a charge cycle, burn off 25% of the energy in the charging batteries, swap and repeat. You should be able to do this 100 times with the batteries always fresh and ready to pump out energy. That's the whole idea behind your project. If you do it I can tell you that everything will start to croak after five or six cycles, and both sets of batteries should be nearly dead after 10 cycles or less. If you do do that test and are serious, then you should start the test with fully charged source batteries and fully discharged charging batteries.
I won't pass judgment on you, and you are welcome to contribute here if you want. I would be more than happy to try and help you out if I can. The simple fact is that this thread discusses Bedini motors at a much higher technical level than the Energetic Forum 10-coiler thread. I am pretty sure that also applies to the Yahoo Bedini group threads also. Some of the points in the EF thread are even ridiculous, like the quest for a good earth ground connection. If you could let other 10-coiler experimenters know about this thread it would be greatly appreciated.
I won't be building a Bedini motor, and I adamantly refuse to have that fact somehow "disqualify" me from discussing the 10-coiler and Bedini motors and testing in general. The hope is that this thread helps people understand their motors so they can figure out for themselves if the claims are true or not.
To be honest, I have a feeling that my thread may have been dismissed out of hand in the Yahoo groups and some people may discourage others from reading it.
Someone said this about me:
QuoteNot to worry John. I wouldn't have even responded to him the first time
So I am pretty sure that the "John" is John Koorn, one of the "leaders," and he may be discouraging people from reading my thread. For what it's worth, I have fully qualified John and it's all in the thread. Plus John is a reseller of Bedini products and you have to factor that in.
Please don't fall into the trap of putting on blinders because there are things being discussed here that you are told by someone else that you don't want to hear. That is the absolute antithesis of having an open mind and wanting to learn. It even suggests a kind of totalitarianism where you are accused of "thought-crime" if you look elsewhere for information.
MileHigh
This thread is EXCELLENT. Every Bedini experimenter should read this. Good job MileHigh. I am a experimenter of Bedini stuff and I am learning a lot about your logic ans explanations. Even though I "believe" now in the "radiant stuff" this believe will change into a direction where truth will be the evidence.
I would say science is like that, you observe, repeat, theorize, study it and learn and as you do it you see the reality of things and the process starts again.
It is very easy indeed to fall for mistakes and fakes and false ideas (I am not implying Bedini in that). I have fallen once into the "wrong" religion and it is easy when one does not use logical and critical thinking. That being said, not all is just evidence in the beginning and learning and acquiring knowledge is extremely important elements in the process of becoming mature in those things.
Back to science:
I have this SSG circuit running in self-oscillation mode. No RPMs, no wheels, nothing spinning, no magnets. When the output of the SSG is connected to the battery for example it uses a certain amount of power, lets say 12v at 300ma. When I connect a little lamp (lets say 3 ohms) in series with the battery, this lamps lights and the power usage drops , lets say again to 12v and 100ma. The numbers are not perfect here but shows what I observed. I could do a more formal test and publish data but what drives the logic is what I want.
To me sounds a little strange that when the impedance of the whole output is higher (battery + lamp's resistance) the input consumption goes down. Obviously I don't understand much of electronics to see what is happening but I trust that you will be able to explain this to me. One more thing is that when I disconnect the output from the battery and all, the neons goes lit and consumption goes higher, lets say 12v 400ma.
Many thanks,
Fausto.
Hi Fausto,
Thank you very much for your comments about the thread.
Let me try to answer your question.
QuoteI have this SSG circuit running in self-oscillation mode. No RPMs, no wheels, nothing spinning, no magnets. When the output of the SSG is connected to the battery for example it uses a certain amount of power, lets say 12v at 300ma. When I connect a little lamp (lets say 3 ohms) in series with the battery, this lamps lights and the power usage drops , lets say again to 12v and 100ma. The numbers are not perfect here but shows what I observed. I could do a more formal test and publish data but what drives the logic is what I want.
The first thing worth mentioning is that there is a big difference between an SSG running normally with the rotor turning and self-oscillation mode.
When the rotor is turning you have a "mechanical oscillator" that controls the transfer of energy supplied from the source battery to the charging battery load in discrete chunks of energy. In this case the theory says that as long as your rotor RPMs remain constant, then your can change the charging battery "load" (eg.: add a light bulb in series with the charging battery) and the average current consumption from the source battery should not change. You can say in this case the input power consumption from the source battery and the output power into the load are decoupled from one another.
When the SSG circuit is running in self-oscillation mode, you basically have an oscillator. It's not truly an SSG circuit anymore. In this case you need to understand how the oscillator is working. The "load" in this case is just one component in the overall makeup of the oscillator. You cannot say that changing the "load" component in the oscillator will not affect the power consumption of the oscillator. You simply don't know if this is true anymore. For example, when you added the light bulb in series with the charging battery it may have changed the frequency that the oscillator runs at, and that may have affected the power consumption of the circuit.
QuoteTo me sounds a little strange that when the impedance of the whole output is higher (battery + lamp's resistance) the input consumption goes down. Obviously I don't understand much of electronics to see what is happening but I trust that you will be able to explain this to me. One more thing is that when I disconnect the output from the battery and all, the neons goes lit and consumption goes higher, lets say 12v 400ma.
A way you can look at this is to say that the oscillator itself has an certain average impedance. When you added the bulb you changed a component in the oscillator and you created a whole new oscillator circuit with a different impedance, and so the current consumption changed. The same thing applies for when you disconnected the charging battery and the neon started lighting. You changed a component in the oscillator and you created a whole new oscillator circuit with a different impedance. There is probably a good chance that the operating frequency of the oscillator increased when you did this. It is often the case that increasing frequency results in increased current consumption from the source battery, but it's not always the case.
So you can see that I gave you a long answer above. The short answer to your question is that I don't know why you observed the current consumption change. You have to look at the circuit in more detail with your scope probes and try to see what is going on. One thing for sure is that when your SSG circuit is in self-oscillation mode, you can say that input power consumption from the source battery is NOT decoupled from changing the component in your oscillator that you call the "load."
This story reminds me of something that I already mentioned in this thread. Do you remember about two years ago when people started playing with car ignition coils to light up CFL lights? We can also call the entire CFL/ignition coil circuit an "oscillator." Then people started making earth ground connections and noticed that the CFL light would get brighter. Many people believed (and still believe) that "extra power was coming up from the earth ground." That's NOT what was happening. When they made the earth ground connection they were simply changing or adding a component to their oscillator circuit that resulted in a lowering of the average impedance of their oscillator. We don't have to worry about exactly why this happened. However, the lower average impedance of their oscillator circuit meant that there was higher current consumption from the source battery. The higher current consumption meant that there was more battery power flowing into the oscillator circuit and as a result the CFL light got brighter.
I hope that helped!
MileHigh
I remember alot of people connecting to ground on the CFL oscillators and actually decreasing their input current MileHigh.
Not to mention that a while ago you said there was absolutely no impedance or impedance matching at all in the SG circuit but here you state that connecting to ground lowers the impedance?
Im sorry, but I just cant get past the fact that you have not built or explored these simple devices yet you talk as if its your backyard. Show me your devices that dephase and utilize the inductive discharge for separate loads and we can agree that you have at least dabbled in the area. All the education in the world means squat if you havent practised it. While there are some valid points you have made, and while there are some invalid points that may be made from the other side of the camp, you just dont have it all covered up in one neat little package like you seem to imply. For example your comment in another spot that there are pulses of current, not pulses of voltage coming out of the monopole depending upon what sort of impedance it sees (once again another mention of impedances). Well you cant just have pulses of current, so there must be a voltage associated with it as well. Yes the battery is a complex mix of resistance and capacitance and probably even inductance, all of which change during the charging process and are dependant on the batteries size/condition etc.
Ive moved my experimenting away from batteries, basically because I want to test out other ideas and dont have the budget for large battery banks and multiple coils. Ive even seen and done some of the tests you suggested in the other thread, using incandesant bulbs on the recovery side, permanently shorted to a capacitor. My good friend Erfinder has run at least 6 x 60watt 240v lamps as a load on the backend instead of the charging battery. I have done the same, though its difficult to light the bulb to full brightness with the current transistor. As power is increased to the front end the spike grows larger on the scope, you must adjust your load otherwise your chips blow.
Bottom line is, guys like Bits and John choose who they prefer to converse with. Neither of them are bashing you behind your back, at least not to me and not on any other forum I visit. No one is trying to keep people away from this thread. But its hard to converse with someone who only sees it HIS way, sees nothing special or USEFUL about it, despite never actually building one. I only know of one other person who has bothered to scale this thing up in terms of input and let me say, it starts to get VERY potent....
Hi Ren,
You made a lot of interesting points, let me try to respond to them.
For the CFL ground connection, I am not surprised if it decreased their current consumption also. It could go either way depending on the specifics of the circuit. I must have seen 20+ clips like that where the experimenter made the ground connection and saw the light increase in intensity. They didn't measure the current consumption from their batteries. They simply assumed extra power was coming up from the ground. Anyway, it's just an example of drawing the wrong conclusion and it was a long time ago.
QuoteNot to mention that a while ago you said there was absolutely no impedance or impedance matching at all in the SG circuit but here you state that connecting to ground lowers the impedance?
You are mixing apples and oranges here. A Bedini motor in normal operation is a pulse circuit. There is no impedance matching between the discharging drive coil and the charging battery load. If you think that there is, then I invite you to explain that. For the CFL circuit and the connecting to ground issue, it's not a pulse circuit anymore, it's an AC oscillator. Impedance matching is not an issue here either, but the impedance of the oscillator relative to the source battery is. So impedance matching and just measuring AC the impedance of an oscillator are two different things.
QuoteIm sorry, but I just cant get past the fact that you have not built or explored these simple devices yet you talk as if its your backyard.
I already mentioned that I don't buy that argument. You have to read what I say and decide if it has merit or not. Certainly debating issues is great also.
QuoteShow me your devices that dephase and utilize the inductive discharge for separate loads and we can agree that you have at least dabbled in the area.
Please clarify what you mean by "dephase," I am not sure what you mean. Same thing for the separate loads. I can tell you that a long time ago I did lab work where I analyzed pulse circuits in a fair amount of detail. I have looked at the pulses, measured the energy in them, measured the time constants, and so on.
QuoteAll the education in the world means squat if you havent practised it.
I have practiced it but I haven't played with Bedini motors. But I will repeat that I have looked at hundreds of Bedini clips and read lots of threads. There is also a powerful counter-argument to that Ren. All of the practicing in the wold means next to squat if you are jumping in without having any real understanding or experience in working with electronics. People can play with this stuff for years and still not really know what they are doing.
QuoteFor example your comment in another spot that there are pulses of current, not pulses of voltage coming out of the monopole depending upon what sort of impedance it sees (once again another mention of impedances). Well you cant just have pulses of current, so there must be a voltage associated with it as well.
Yes, a discharging inductor produces pulses of current and you can measure a variable voltage signal as a result of this. A discharging capacitor produces pulses of voltage and you can measure a variable current signal as a result of this. The case for the capacitor is easy to understand and intuitive. The case for the inductor is not so easy to understand and it is not intuitive. However, once you get over the knowledge "hump" then it is easy to understand. I can suggest some tests that will make this fact clear as a bell if anybody wants to take me up on the offer.
Also, the output from the Bedini motor drive coil is always in the form of pulses of current. In the quote above you say "depending upon what sort of impedance it sees." It doesn't matter what the impedance of the load is, the output is always in the form of a current pulse. If the impedance of the load is very high, the current pulse will be very short. If the impedance of the load is very low, the current pulse will be very long. If you have an ideal inductor and load is zero then there is no current pulse, the current simply flows forever. This is all related to understanding how an inductor really works. If you understand this stuff then everything I am saying makes sense. If you don't understand this then the challenge for you and all Bedini experimenters in the same situation is to try to learn this stuff.
A capacitor's output current will vary depending on the impedance of the load. An inductor's output voltage will vary depending on the impedance of the load. Yes indeed, I mentioned impedance again, so what about it? Can you see an elegant symmetry in what I just stated in the last few paragraphs? If the vast majority of Bedini experimenters had this level of understanding it would be a whole new ball game.
The key to understanding a Bedin motor is to look at the pulses of voltage on your scope display and realize that they are actually the resultant effects of current pulses. Certainly both capacitors and inductors produce pulses that consist of pulses of voltage and pulses of current, one goes with the other. But if you have more understanding then everything that I am stating will become crystal clear.
For example, why do the voltage spikes go away when you connect your charging battery? I bet you that the vast majority of Bedini experimenters can't answer that question. That's why this thread is here, the question is not being answered on any other threads as far as I can see.
MileHigh
Ren:
Sorry for the long reply, but I think it is worth it to plug away at these issues. Most of what I stated in my previous posting has already been stated in the thread but what the hey.
Continuing on:
QuoteYes the battery is a complex mix of resistance and capacitance and probably even inductance, all of which change during the charging process and are dependant on the batteries size/condition etc.
As far as batteries go, they are modeled as an ideal voltage source in series with an output resistance. Certainly that output resistance can change as you indicate above. Forget about capacitance and inductance, they don't apply.
Another key thing for experimenters to learn would be to measure the output resistance of their batteries. That's probably the best way to measure the state of health of a battery. That gives you a real tangible piece of data to work with.
QuoteAs power is increased to the front end the spike grows larger on the scope, you must adjust your load otherwise your chips blow.
Yes and it would be good for all experiments to learn how to measure the amount of energy in the spike. It just gives you more information to work with, and hopefully some satisfaction in being able to do that. It's covered in the Bedini measurement thread started by Plengo. At least that's how I would feel about it.
QuoteBottom line is, guys like Bits and John choose who they prefer to converse with. Neither of them are bashing you behind your back, at least not to me and not on any other forum I visit. No one is trying to keep people away from this thread. But its hard to converse with someone who only sees it HIS way, sees nothing special or USEFUL about it, despite never actually building one. I only know of one other person who has bothered to scale this thing up in terms of input and let me say, it starts to get VERY potent....
I know that I have talked tough and I am not twisting anybody's arm to come here. At the same time you are fully aware of the culture on the free energy forums. It is far too easy to put on blinders if people are saying things that you don't want to hear because it can upset your hopes for your project. On the other hand cod liver oil tastes disgusting but it is supposed to be good for you.
My viewpoint may sound inflexible but that's not really the case. For example, the ball is in your court with respect to the impedance matching issue for the Bedini motor output. I am willing to listen to you. For the utility of a Bedini motor, yes I have talked tough. If you or anyone wants to debate that, that's fine. We can look at some data together, and it may require further testing be done by someone. That fact should not be an excuse to cop out and disappear. If you are serious about your research and someone tells you your data and/or test procedures are suspect, and you have conviction, then you should, in my opinion, want to make your argument more convincing.
I can think of two big Bedini motor "value propositions" that can be challenged.
The first is that the inductive pulse charging method gives you COP > 1 in the charging battery. In fact, the COP can be so good that it can overcome all of the losses associated with the Bedini motor such that you can swap batteries back and forth and continuously extract energy from the setup. Here is an example of where I have to talk tough. From what I could see the Yahoo Bedini group COP testing method is junk and I explain precisely why in the thread.
The second is that the 10-coiler is the "big time" and really packs a punch. You could even set it up to power your house with massive banks of batteries and voltage inverters to produce 60 Hz mains power.
Ren, I can offer a thought experiment for you. Supposing five Bedini enthusiasts that are very happy with their setups and love them come to this thread. They show their data and then we look at it together. They learn some new stuff and fine tune their measuring skills and within a few months they have all made a 180 degree about-face and come to a new understanding. What would you say then?
The chances of that happening are very low, but that's what this thread is here for. It's hear to help people find out for themselves what their Bedini setups can do and what they can't do.
QuoteI only know of one other person who has bothered to scale this thing up in terms of input and let me say, it starts to get VERY potent....
It all sounds great, but some serious measurements and numbers have to be there to back up that potency!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.18, 03:35:08
Hi Ren,
You are mixing apples and oranges here. A Bedini motor in normal operation is a pulse circuit. There is no impedance matching between the discharging drive coil and the charging battery load. If you think that there is, then I invite you to explain that. For the CFL circuit and the connecting to ground issue, it's not a pulse circuit anymore, it's an AC oscillator. Impedance matching is not an issue here either, but the impedance of the oscillator relative to the source battery is. So impedance matching and just measuring AC the impedance of an oscillator are two different things. Didnt you just say below that the inductive discharges pulse will vary depending on the impedance of the load? Of course it STILL outputs a current/voltage pulse either way, but what is the quality of that pulse? So doesnt the load effect the qualities of that pulse like you said? Cannot the impedance of the primary coil MATCH the impedance of the discharged energy (load)? Would this not qualify as an IMPEDANCE MATCH? ANd of course you are aware that the Monopole motor (all norths out) does produce a sine wave when scoped, despite this being a pulsed DC operation. Does that come into account?
I already mentioned that I don't buy that argument. You have to read what I say and decide if it has merit or not. Certainly debating issues is great also.
Please clarify what you mean by "dephase," I am not sure what you mean. Same thing for the separate loads. I can tell you that a long time ago I did lab work where I analyzed pulse circuits in a fair amount of detail. I have looked at the pulses, measured the energy in them, measured the time constants, and so on.By Dephase I mean out of phase. The inductive discharge occurs out of phase from the initial pulse. The inductive discharge cannot draw more power from the source, because it only occurs when the switch opens, and is only connected to the positive terminal of the source.
I have practiced it but I haven't played with Bedini motors. But I will repeat that I have looked at hundreds of Bedini clips and read lots of threads. There is also a powerful counter-argument to that Ren. All of the practicing in the wold means next to squat if you are jumping in without having any real understanding or experience in working with electronics. People can play with this stuff for years and still not really know what they are doing. Of course, and Im trying hard to not make any blanket statements here. I at least have had some experience on both sides, studying some of the conservative logic and methods along with experimenting with the circuit in question, and trying to draw my own conclusions.
Yes, a discharging inductor produces pulses of current and you can measure a variable voltage signal as a result of this. A discharging capacitor produces pulses of voltage and you can measure a variable current signal as a result of this. The case for the capacitor is easy to understand and intuitive. The case for the inductor is not so easy to understand and it is not intuitive. However, once you get over the knowledge "hump" then it is easy to understand. I can suggest some tests that will make this fact clear as a bell if anybody wants to take me up on the offer.
Also, the output from the Bedini motor drive coil is always in the form of pulses of current. In the quote above you say "depending upon what sort of impedance it sees." It doesn't matter what the impedance of the load is, the output is always in the form of a current pulse.Yes but you yourself say that the shape of that current pulse will differ depending on the load! If the impedance of the load is very high, the current pulse will be very short. So a pulse is a pulse. Nothing special there? Is that what you are trying to say? If the impedance of the load is very low, the current pulse will be very long. If you have an ideal inductor and load is zero then there is no current pulse, the current simply flows forever. This is all related to understanding how an inductor really works. If you understand this stuff then everything I am saying makes sense. If you don't understand this then the challenge for you and all Bedini experimenters in the same situation is to try to learn this stuff.
A capacitor's output current will vary depending on the impedance of the load. An inductor's output voltage will vary depending on the impedance of the load. Yes indeed, I mentioned impedance again, so what about it? Can you see an elegant symmetry in what I just stated in the last few paragraphs? If the vast majority of Bedini experimenters had this level of understanding it would be a whole new ball game.
The key to understanding a Bedin motor is to look at the pulses of voltage on your scope display and realize that they are actually the resultant effects of current pulses. Certainly both capacitors and inductors produce pulses that consist of pulses of voltage and pulses of current, one goes with the other. But if you have more understanding then everything that I am stating will become crystal clear.
For example, why do the voltage spikes go away when you connect your charging battery? I bet you that the vast majority of Bedini experimenters can't answer that question. That's why this thread is here, the question is not being answered on any other threads as far as I can see.Because you have changed the load impedance
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.18, 04:15:27
Ren:
Sorry for the long reply, but I think it is worth it to plug away at these issues. Most of what I stated in my previous posting has already been stated in the thread but what the hey.
Continuing on:
As far as batteries go, they are modeled as an ideal voltage source in series with an output resistance. Certainly that output resistance can change as you indicate above. Forget about capacitance and inductance, they don't apply. Im sorry but an astute engineer would never disregard parts of the circuit like that. I spoke in length with a good family friend who was an electrical engineer for NASA and he was the one that brought this up, not me.
Another key thing for experimenters to learn would be to measure the output resistance of their batteries. That's probably the best way to measure the state of health of a battery. That gives you a real tangible piece of data to work with.
Yes and it would be good for all experiments to learn how to measure the amount of energy in the spike. It just gives you more information to work with, and hopefully some satisfaction in being able to do that. It's covered in the Bedini measurement thread started by Plengo. At least that's how I would feel about it.
I know that I have talked tough and I am not twisting anybody's arm to come here. At the same time you are fully aware of the culture on the free energy forums. It is far too easy to put on blinders if people are saying things that you don't want to hear because it can upset your hopes for your project. On the other hand cod liver oil tastes disgusting but it is supposed to be good for you.
My viewpoint may sound inflexible but that's not really the case. For example, the ball is in your court with respect to the impedance matching issue for the Bedini motor output. I am willing to listen to you. For the utility of a Bedini motor, yes I have talked tough. If you or anyone wants to debate that, that's fine. We can look at some data together, and it may require further testing be done by someone. That fact should not be an excuse to cop out and disappear. If you are serious about your research and someone tells you your data and/or test procedures are suspect, and you have conviction, then you should, in my opinion, want to make your argument more convincing.
I can think of two big Bedini motor "value propositions" that can be challenged.
The first is that the inductive pulse charging method gives you COP > 1 in the charging battery. In fact, the COP can be so good that it can overcome all of the losses associated with the Bedini motor such that you can swap batteries back and forth and continuously extract energy from the setup. Here is an example of where I have to talk tough. From what I could see the Yahoo Bedini group COP testing method is junk and I explain precisely why in the thread.
The second is that the 10-coiler is the "big time" and really packs a punch. You could even set it up to power your house with massive banks of batteries and power your house.
Ren, I can offer a thought experiment for you. Supposing five Bedini enthusiasts that are very happy with their setups and love them come to this thread. They show their data and then we look at it together. They learn some new stuff and fine tune their measuring skills and within a few months they have all made a 180 degree about-face and come to a new understanding. What would you say then?
The chances of that happening are very low, but that's what this thread is here for. It's hear to help people find out for themselves what their Bedini setups can do and what they can't do.
It all sounds great, but some serious measurements and numbers have to be there to back up that potency!
MileHigh
Fair enough in response to your last line. I will be on my way then, and perhaps return one day with some "measurements and numbers" to back it up.
Regards
Hi Ren,
Thanks for your comments.
For the impedance matching issue you stated:
QuoteDidnt you just say below that the inductive discharges pulse will vary depending on the impedance of the load? Of course it STILL outputs a current/voltage pulse either way, but what is the quality of that pulse? So doesnt the load effect the qualities of that pulse like you said? Cannot the impedance of the primary coil MATCH the impedance of the discharged energy (load)? Would this not qualify as an IMPEDANCE MATCH? ANd of course you are aware that the Monopole motor (all norths out) does produce a sine wave when scoped, despite this being a pulsed DC operation. Does that come into account?
I have another way to explain this one to you, but permit me to hold off on it for now. I'm nearly 100% certain that you know that an impedance match is to get the maximum power transfer from the source to the load. To answer your question above yes, the load affects the quality of the pulse.
You are strong in your convictions and that's great, so I have some follow-up questions to pose to you. What is the output impedance of the primary coil? What is the input impedance of the charging battery load? Where is the match?
For the monopole motor, I am aware that it produces a sine wave on a pick-up coil. You can also see pieces of a sine wave on the drive coil. But beyond that I am not sure were you are going with that and how it relates to impedance matching. If you can clarify that would be great.
Your comments about the dephasing:
QuoteBy Dephase I mean out of phase. The inductive discharge occurs out of phase from the initial pulse. The inductive discharge cannot draw more power from the source, because it only occurs when the switch opens, and is only connected to the positive terminal of the source.
Okay, sure. I will just add to that statement. When the transistor is on, the drive coil is being charged with energy. Then the transistor switches off and the coil discharges its stored energy into the charging battery. So yes, some energy is stored and displaced in time and released in a new time phase. So going back to your original question yes there are many devices that do this function. People are more familiar with capacitors as energy storage devices but inductors are also perfectly viable energy storage devices. A Joule Thief comes to mind right away.
On Bedini motor pulses:
QuoteYes but you yourself say that the shape of that current pulse will differ depending on the load! If the impedance of the load is very high, the current pulse will be very short. So a pulse is a pulse. Nothing special there? Is that what you are trying to say?
What I am trying to say is that it is worth it to study how and why the pulse shape is formed by a discharging inductor. There is nothing special just like you would say there is nothing special when looking at the pulse shape of a capacitor discharge.
Think about this: You know both caps and coils store energy. The smaller the resistance you connect across the capacitor the faster it discharges. It's common sense. You know that if you short a capacitor out you get a spark, all of the energy is dissipated in a split second. So what about a coil? One more time, there is a symmetrical answer, but it is not common sense and not so intuitive. For a coil, as you increase the resistance across it, the faster it discharges. If you open-circuit the coil, you get a spark, and all of the energy is dissipated in a split second. So you can see the symmetry one more time.
What happens when we explore the symmetry in the other direction? It's simple and easy and makes sense: If you open-circuit a capacitor then it doesn't discharge, it simply keeps on storing its energy. If you short-circuit a coil, then it doesn't discharge, it simply keeps on storing its energy.
My question about the spikes going away:
QuoteFor example, why do the voltage spikes go away when you connect your charging battery? I bet you that the vast majority of Bedini experimenters can't answer that question. That's why this thread is here, the question is not being answered on any other threads as far as I can see.Because you have changed the load impedance
Absolutely correct. Following up on the stuff that I said above: If the load impedance is zero, then there is no voltage spike at all! The higher the load impedance, the higher the voltage spike. So if you put a 1-ohm resistance as the load, then you can look at the voltage spike on your scope and measure the initial current flowing through the coil. You can change that to a 10-ohm resistance, and you will still measure the same initial current going through the coil, but this time the voltage spike will be shorter in duration.
A fun follow-up question, and I already asked it before: What is the load impedance of the charging battery?
MileHigh
Hi Ren,
Are we having fun? lol
To respond to the issue about batteries:
QuoteAs far as batteries go, they are modeled as an ideal voltage source in series with an output resistance. Certainly that output resistance can change as you indicate above. Forget about capacitance and inductance, they don't apply. >>> Im sorry but an astute engineer would never disregard parts of the circuit like that. I spoke in length with a good family friend who was an electrical engineer for NASA and he was the one that brought this up, not me.
Sure let me give you more thoughts on this because it is an important issue.
It all depends on the size of the battery and the application. Any battery has capacitance and inductance in the same sense that any component has capacitance and inductance associated with it. The question once came up on YouTube somewhere else where someone asked, "What's the simplest inductor?" The answer is, "A piece of wire."
In this application, typically a lead-acid battery driving a Bedini motor, the inductance and capacitance associated with the lead-acid battery are insignificant by many orders of magnitude. There is no capacitance to speak of within the battery itself. Don't be confused by the plates inside the battery with capacitor plates. The only capacitance associated with the battery would really be associated with the interconnect wires, but that would be about the same size as the interconnect wires within the Bedini motor itself.
For the inductance, one more time there is no inductance within the battery to speak of. You are back to looking at the minuscule inductance associated with the interconnect wires, and the same argument applies.
Let me give you a silly but applicable analogy. The main components of the lead-acid battery are the ideal voltage source in series with the output resistance. That's the elephant. The capacitance and inductance associated with the lead-acid battery are like two fleas on the elephant.
As a general statement, it is very important to understand the relative importance of the circuit elements that make up the models for your components. Frequency comes into play here also.
Another example, take a 1000 uF capacitor. Nobody worries about the inductance associated with the capacitor because it is insignificant in comparison to the capacitance by many orders of magnitude. Supposing that capacitor is used in an application to conduct a 30 KHz AC signal? That should work fine. However, what if you now want that same capacitor to conduct a 20 GHz AC signal? Now you start to worry about the very small inductance associated with that capacitor because chances are that it will block that AC signal.
Going back to batteries, for sure there may be specific applications where the inductance and capacitance associated with the battery may come into play. Some microcircuits that operate at high frequency that use very small batteries may be examples of where you need to worry about this.
But for a big fat and dumb lead-acid battery powering a Bedini motor, you never have to worry about the battery's associated capacitance and inductance.
MileHigh
@MileHigh,
QuoteAlso, the output from the Bedini motor drive coil is always in the form of pulses of current. In the quote above you say "depending upon what sort of impedance it sees." It doesn't matter what the impedance of the load is, the output is always in the form of a current pulse. If the impedance of the load is very high, the current pulse will be very short. If the impedance of the load is very low, the current pulse will be very long. If you have an ideal inductor and load is zero then there is no current pulse, the current simply flows forever.
I can see the logic on the variation of voltage and current since both are the components of the power. Since power coming out of the coil is always constant for a given input of power it only changes the V or the I depending on the R of the load.
Now I am confused about your statement above which I colored. You say for the inductor current output will be:
1) resistance load high = short pulse = higher current
2) resistance load low = longer pulse = lower current
Is that correct? It sounds not intuitive.
Fausto.
Fausto,
The coil stores then releases energy. The energy released will be less than what was stored because of the DCR losses associated with the coil. There will be a small amount of energy dissipated (lost) in this coil resistance.
Regarding load impedance, the coil's output voltage during the kickback will "adjust" such that all the energy that was stored, can be released (minus the losses). In effect, the coil current is at the same level or amplitude regardless of the load impedance. Only the length of the current pulse varies, as does the voltage of the pulse.
load impedance high = pulse voltage: high, voltage/current pulse duration: short, current pulse amplitude: 1 unit
load impedance low = pulse voltage: low, voltage/current pulse duration: long, current pulse amplitude: 1 unit
.99
Poynt:
Thank you for adding that clarification. It's easy to forget and leave out all of the details, so your added commentary is appreciated.
Fausto:
To add to Poynt's comments, there is a rule about discharging inductors. The rule is that when they start to discharge their energy, the initial current flow is the same value as the instant before the discharge starts.
For example, suppose an inductor has one ampere of current flowing through it, and the low impedance is 10 ohms and the high impedance is 100 ohms. With those initial conditions, let's look at Point's comments were we "plug in the values:"
load impedance 100 ohms = pulse voltage: 100 volts, voltage/current pulse duration: short, current pulse amplitude: 1 ampere
load impedance 10 ohms = pulse voltage: 10 volts, voltage/current pulse duration: long, current pulse amplitude: 1 ampere
In both cases above the pulse shape is like an exponential decay. You probably have seen this shape for the voltage decay when you discharge a capacitor on your scope. It's the same shape for a discharging inductor. Note also that in both cases exactly the same amount of energy is being discharged from the coil.
It's worth mentioning that the rule for a discharging capacitor is that when it starts to discharge, initial voltage level is the same value as the instant before the the discharge starts.
MileHigh
Fausto:
Let's discuss the power issues and impedance matching issues for the two examples in the previous posting; a 10-ohm load and a 100-ohm load.
Let's assume that for both cases the pulse frequency is one pulse per second.
In both cases the average output power is the same.
We assume that for both the 100-ohm load and the 10-ohm load the inductor discharges all of its stored energy before the next pulse arrives. Therefore by definition the average output power has to be the same.
This confirms the statement that I have said many times in this thread:
The average output power output for a periodically discharging inductor is independent of the load.
Here is another way of stating the above property for a periodically discharging inductor:
Impedance matching does not apply for a periodically discharging inductor, like in a Bedini motor.
In a Bedini motor the condition of the charging battery will not affect the motor's ability to pump power into the battery. The battery can be an old and highly sulfated battery with a high input impedance or a brand new battery with a very low input impedance. It does not matter, the Bedini motor will be able to pump the same average power into the battery independent of the input impedance of the battery. The same thing applies to the interconnect wires. The thickness of the wires will affect the ohmic losses in the wire itself, but besides that there are no special impedance matching requirements associated with the wires because there are no impedance matching issues associated with the output of a Bedini motor.
Earlier in the thread I explain how the output impedance for a discharging inductor is actually infinity. That's a difficult concept to understand. For more information just go through the thread and do a string search on "infinity."
We know that for the 100-ohm load the pulse is shorter in duration. Therefore, for the higher impedance 100-ohm load the average power of the pulse only is high. For the lower impedance 10-ohm load the pulse is longer in duration so the average power of the pulse only is low.
Finally, you ask yourself the question, what happens to the average power of the pulse only as the impedance gets higher and higher? The answer is that the the average power in the pulse only gets higher and higher.
What does this look like in real life? I am sure that you have seen on your bench or you have seen YouTube clips where someone open-circuits a coil that has current flowing through it. You see a spark go through the air. That is the manifestation of the load impedance getting so high that the coil generates a very very short discharge pulse at a very very high voltage for a very very high average power for the pulse only. In other words, all of the energy stored in the coil is discharged in a split second at an extremely high average power level.
Note one more time that there is a equivalent for this situation with a charged capacitor. If you make the load on the capacitor zero ohms then it discharges all of its stored energy with a very very high pulse of current over a very very short amount of time at an extremely high average power level.
MileHigh
I stumbled across this John Bedini posting so I will make some comments:
>>>
--- In Bedini_SGatyahoogroups.com, "john_bedini" <john_bediniaty...> wrote:
>
> Answer to some questions,
> The magnets around the wheel are only used for a trigger signal. What
> is driving the wheel is hidden from your view, what is hidden from
> your view is also the charging signal. The driving force of the wheel
> is scalar or magnetic south poles between the north poles. Make
> yourself a timing light by taking a green or red led with a 330 ohm
> resistor in series with it. Place skinny white strips down the center
> of the magnets around the wheel, connect the led across the coil and
> then tell me where the coil pulse is and what is driving the wheel.
> The force that is driving the wheel is the same force charging the
> battery. Do the test take one fully charged battery and one
> discharged battery, hook them up and see if you get one to one if you
> do you have just seen a unity machine, but please do not leave out
> the wheel rotation in you calculation, mechanical power is equal to
> work done, its a figure of 29% so what kind of machine have you built?
> You will find that the scalar south is driving the wheel and not the
> north pole.
> John
>>>
Quote> The magnets around the wheel are only used for a trigger signal. What
> is driving the wheel is hidden from your view, what is hidden from
> your view is also the charging signal. The driving force of the wheel
> is scalar or magnetic south poles between the north poles.
The magnets around the rotor wheel actually serve two functions: 1) to generate the trigger signal, 2) to act as one half (passive half) of the drive mechanism that makes the rotor turn. The other half is the energized drive coil which acts like an electromagnet and forms the second half (active half) of the drive mechanism.
QuoteThe driving force of the wheel is scalar or magnetic south poles between the north poles.
The "scalar" or "virtual south" pole on the rotor does not in any way whatsoever act as the driving force of the wheel. The "lack of a north pole" "looks like" a south pole to the pick up coil or for an external generator coil. It's because electro-motive force is generated in the pick-up coil by changing magnetic flux with respect to time. When a rotor magnet is moving away from the pick-up coil that results in the pick-up coil "seeing" decreasing magnetic flux with respect to time. That "looks like" an approaching south pole. The rotor has to be moving for these effects to be seen. The word "scalar" is meaningless in this sentence.
Quote> The force that is driving the wheel is the same force charging the battery.
This is correct. To be more detailed the force that is driving the wheel is the energy being provided by the source battery that is turning the drive coil into an electromagnet. At the same time some of the source battery's energy is being stored in the inductance of the coil. When the transistor switches off that stored electrical energy is discharged through the diode into the charging battery. Make no mistake about it, the energy in the spike comes from the source battery, and from nowhere else.
QuoteDo the test take one fully charged battery and one
> discharged battery, hook them up and see if you get one to one if you
> do you have just seen a unity machine, but please do not leave out
> the wheel rotation in you calculation, mechanical power is equal to
> work done, its a figure of 29% so what kind of machine have you built?
You will not get one to one. We know that the charging battery current is typically about 25%-35% of the source battery current consumption for approximately the same source and charging battery voltages. That is telling you right there that the Bedini motor is not efficient at all in charging the charge battery and is an underunity machine. If you work out a real before/after battery energy measurement technique you will be able to prove this for yourself.
Bedini's comments about the 29% mechanical power out are pure nonsense. The mechanical power output from a Bedini motor is zero. The spinning rotor is equivalent to a resistor pouring energy down the drain and turning it into heat. In the real wold you do NOT call that mechanical output power. You absolutely must put a real-world external mechanical load on the Bedini motor's rotating shaft to say that you are getting mechanical power out from the Bedini motor. Do not let anybody including John Bedini pull the wool over your eyes with respect to this very important issue. This is explained earlier in this thread in more detail.
Quote> You will find that the scalar south is driving the wheel and not the north pole.
The "scalar" south is doing no such thing. That's another nonsensical statement. To repeat, what is driving the motor is the drive coil acting as an electromagnet interacting with the magnets on the rotor. That is the only thing that is driving the rotor.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.18, 22:54:32
Bedini's comments about the 29% mechanical power out are pure nonsense. The mechanical power output from a Bedini motor is zero. The spinning rotor is equivalent to a resistor pouring energy down the drain and turning it into heat. In the real wold you do NOT call that mechanical output power. You absolutely must put a real-world external mechanical load on the Bedini motor's rotating shaft to say that you are getting mechanical power out from the Bedini motor. Do not let anybody including John Bedini pull the wool over your eyes with respect to this very important issue. This is explained earlier in this thread in more detail.
The "scalar" south is doing no such thing. That's another nonsensical statement. To repeat, what is driving the motor is the drive coil acting as an electromagnet interacting with the magnets on the rotor. That is the only thing that is driving the rotor.
MileHigh
So all fans designed to push air have zero mechanical power and do no work besides dissipating heat like a resistor? Seriously Milehigh, can you not see that mechanical work is done? Ive seen a ride on lawn mower DRIVEN by one of these machines, not at any great speed, but it is actually moving with a person on it. I dont care if it only goes 1 kilometer an hour to me that is mechanical power. It takes mechanical power to move 250 odd kilos of weight along a road. At the very least you should be able to see that placing a coil next to the rotor will allow you to generate SOME current in a conventional generator fashion. Surely this power cannot be there without some form of mechanical power.
I thought this would have been obvious....even for you.
Regards
Ren:
You are jumping the gun again. Watch, I am quoting myself and then I will quote you:
QuoteYou absolutely must put a real-world external mechanical load on the Bedini motor's rotating shaft to say that you are getting mechanical power out from the Bedini motor.
QuoteSo all fans designed to push air have zero mechanical power and do no work besides dissipating heat like a resistor?
A fan is a mechanical load on the rotor! So we are agreeing with each other! The fan puts a mechanical load on the rotor shaft - torque times angular velocity equals mechanical power. That is useful work from the motor.
The issue is when you stare at a spinning Bedini motor all by itself, just spinning, and someone like Bedini says something like, "The mechanical puts it into over unity territory if you add it to the charging." The implication being that just staring at a spinning Bedini motor it is doing mechanical work. That's not the case. Adding a fan changes the situation, and then the motor is doing real mechanical work.
QuoteAt the very least you should be able to see that placing a coil next to the rotor will allow you to generate SOME current in a conventional generator fashion.
Of course I agree with that. In fact on the Bedini measurement thread I got into a discussion on how to properly measure the output from a generator coil setup.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.22, 01:29:43
Ren:
You are jumping the gun again.
MileHigh
Sorry, but I dont think I am at all.
I saw this quote straight from your message:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.18, 22:54:32
Bedini's comments about the 29% mechanical power out are pure nonsense. The mechanical power output from a Bedini motor is zero.
MileHigh
In my world when you say the mechanical power output is zero, that is what you mean. You seem to contradict yourself in the very next message.
Regards
Just for fun, some comments about where the electrical energy goes that you pump into a Bedini motor. These are very generic comments that apply to any motor.
The sound that you hear when the motor is turning could in theory be measured and you could say that the motor is putting out a certain average amount amount of sound power in watts. The sound bounces off the walls and floor and ceiling and other objects in the room. The sound obviously disappears so what happened to the energy associated with that sound power? The answer is that the walls and other surfaces are "lossy" and as a result the sound heats up the floor, ceiling and walls. So all of the sound energy becomes heat energy.
Heat energy is kind of like the "end of the line" and is the last stop as a place for the energy to go.
The motor makes your table or bench vibrate with a certain amount of vibrational power in watts. It's the same deal for this vibrational power. It is eventually dissipated and becomes heat power. So it's accurate to say that while your Bedini motor is running it is heating up your workbench.
All of the friction power associated with the bearings becomes heat power and that heats up the bearings, which then heats up the air.
All of the air friction due to the spinning rotor also becomes heat power and that heats up the air. This one might not be too obvious to some of the readers but it's true. If you wave your arms in the air, you actually end up heating up the air.
This brings up back to what happens when you connect a fan to the shaft of a Bedini motor. You are indeed getting a certain amount of mechanical power in measurable watts out of the Bedini motor in terms of torque times angular velocity. That mechanical power spins a fan that pushes a certain amount of air per second at a certain velocity. That looks just like air friction or the waving of your arms. So that useful work output by the Bedini motor ultimately becomes heat power and heats up the air.
We also of course know that all of the electrical power that is dissipated in the resistance of the coils, wires, transistor, diode, etc, becomes heat power also, and that heats up the air.
So you look at all of the above and you notice that everything becomes heat power in the end. That's why when you look at a Bedini motor and if you factor out the power that is being pumped into the charging battery, a spinning Bedini motor with no mechanical load on it is a glorified resistor. Except for charging the battery, there is no mechanical output. Therefore a standard Bedini setup does two things with the energy supplied by the source battery, 1) it produces heat, and 2) it charges the charging battery.
Note that I am intentionally listing the production of heat power first, and charging battery power second. That's because more of the power supplied by the source battery is becoming waste heat as compared to the power that is going into the charging battery.
MileHigh
Ren:
QuoteIn my world when you say the mechanical power output is zero, that is what you mean. You seem to contradict yourself in the very next message.
I am not contradicting myself. I am scrutinizing what Bedini is saying and I have seen it repeated by many Bedini experimenters. This observation is made by Bedini and other experimenters without ever saying that some sort of a mechanical load has to be put on the motor. What is clearly implied is that just by virtue of the fact that the motor is spinning, then you are getting a "mechanical output."
You have probably looked at just as many Bedini clips as me and you have heard that statement many times. Nobody ever mentions that they have to put a mechanical load on the rotating shaft of the motor and they seem to believe that they are getting mechanical output just by staring at it spinning.
I stand by what I said, the mechanical output of a Bedini motor in a standard setup with a charging battery is zero.
In addition, in the 10-coiler infomercial, Bedini mentions the small pick-up coil to power the LEDs that light up the clear plastic frame and he says something like "the free mechanical is powering the LEDs." That's not magical free energy that is coming off the spinning rotor of the 10-coiler. That energy comes from the battery. I even give suggestions on how to test that for yourself.
What are your thoughts on Bedini's statement about the "29% mechanical power?" What do you think that means? How did he arrive at that number? I would like to know because I can't figure that one out.
MileHigh
Ren:
Just to emphasize my point, let's look at the Bedini quote again:
Quotebut please do not leave out
> the wheel rotation in you calculation, mechanical power is equal to
> work done, its a figure of 29% so what kind of machine have you built?
Do you sense that John Bedini is implying that you have to add a mechanical load? I sure as hell don't. He is clearly stating that the "wheel rotation" is "work done" a.k.a. "mechanical power (out)."
Read it again, what do you think he is implying?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.22, 02:34:54
Ren:
Just to emphasize my point, let's look at the Bedini quote again:
Do you sense that John Bedini is implying that you have to add a mechanical load? I sure as hell don't. He is clearly stating that the "wheel rotation" is "work done" a.k.a. "mechanical power (out)."
Read it again, what do you think he is implying?
MileHigh
I agree with what you say , the only thing that come in mind is Bedini loaded it until it come close to stop and calculated a ratio with the input vs output from the mechanical work done, just by placing coils around to act like a generator, its easy to know but we need to factor the result in the charging battery too , if 50% less power go to the charging battery its not 29% mechanical power anymore but if the charging battery charge at the same rate joule in/joule out (always in comparaison with the input power with the mecanical load vs charging power output and input power with no mecanical load vs charging power output), that can confirm the 29% mecanical power (torque meter can be used too or coils setup to act like a generator).
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.22, 02:34:54
Ren:
Just to emphasize my point, let's look at the Bedini quote again:
Do you sense that John Bedini is implying that you have to add a mechanical load? I sure as hell don't. He is clearly stating that the "wheel rotation" is "work done" a.k.a. "mechanical power (out)."
Read it again, what do you think he is implying?
MileHigh
I dont have to wonder what he is applying. Attach a fan blade to the shaft, rewire a fan if you cant be bothered building one from scratch, hell, you are overcoming magnetic cogging, friction in the bearing and air resistance without it anyway. All of which require SOME mechanical. Im not here to argue percentages, nor am I here to pick Johns sentences apart, and wonder what he is implying. Im here to argue with your blunt statement that the mechanical power is ZERO. And that the rotor is the equivalent of a resistor, heating up and "pouring" energy down the sink. Which is ridiculous, my circuits dont heat up at all (nor does my rotor) even at higher voltages.
No matter how small the mechanical power is, it is still present. Otherwise, by your defiiniton it would continue to spin indefinately, as it would have to see no mechanical resistances to qualify as having no mechanical power. If it overcomes anything that seeks to bring it to a halt then by definition it has to have mechanical power of some sort.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here. Ive already butted my head up against the wall trying to explain what I thought was very clear to see.
Ren:
As I have explained, the most basic energy analysis of a Bedini motor is that it produces heat and charging, giving you a power pie-chart cut into two pieces. If you add a fan to the rotor shaft, then it produces heat and charging and drives a mechanical load, and the power pie-chart is split three ways.
Here is an analogy: You are in an automotive research center in the engine design department. You are looking at a new engine design and the engine is idling and connected to a transmission. The whole assembly is sitting on a mounting in the middle of the lab. Otherwise there is nothing connected to the transmission. You ask the engineer, "What's the current mechanical output in horsepower?" He will say to you, "Currently the mechanical output is zero. When you see the engine idling like that, all of the power output is just overhead to keep the engine running. However, we have a special automotive pony brake that we connect to the output of the transmission to run our tests. Only when we connect up the pony brake to the transmission output shaft can we start to measure usable horsepower from the motor."
So in the case of the Bedini motor, all of the torque produced when the rotor is turning at its normal speed is being used to overcome bearing and air friction to maintain a certain RPM. They are in balance and cancel each other out so that the net output torque is zero. Let's suppose that the rotational speed at this balance point is 1000 RPM. Then you attach a fan to the shaft. Now you are getting usable torque from the Bedini motor and it is exporting mechanical power to outside world. You also notice that the rotational speed dropped to 940 RPM when you attached the fan.
What this means is that you can plot a performance curve for your Bedini motor. Let's say the vertical axis is RPMs and the horizontal axis is torque. The curve starts on the upper left at zero torque and maximum RPM. As you move to the right and the torque starts to increase the RPMs start to drop. So you end up plotting a line that starts at the upper left of the graph and slants downwards to the lower right. The lower right is maximum torque and minimum RPM. As you might imagine, you could also plot other types of performance curves to describe the behaviour of the motor.
Quotemy circuits dont heat up at all (nor does my rotor) even at higher voltages.
The key thing is to be aware that your circuits are producing heat, even though sometimes it might not be perceptible, it is still there. Same thing for the spinning rotor agitating the air. You know that it takes some torque times an angular velocity to overcome the air friction on the spinning rotor. That mechanical power has to go somewhere and it becomes heat power that heats up the air.
You have to keep in mind that all of the generation of heat power is by definition power that you have lost, because it serves no useful purpose for your application. You put a Bedini motor in a "black box" and run it for one hour, and you put a solid-state Bedini setup in another black box and run it for an hour. After the test is over in both cases you end up with excess heat and a charged battery inside each black box. You can't tell which black box contained the Bedini motor vs. the black box that contained the solid-state Bedini. That's just another way of illustrating to you that the mechanical output is zero from a standard Bedini motor setup.
MileHigh
"Let's suppose that the rotational speed at this balance point is 1000 RPM. Then you attach a fan to the shaft.
Now you are getting usable torque from the Bedini motor and it is exporting mechanical power to outside world.
You also notice that the rotational speed dropped to 940 RPM when you attached the fan."
@ MileHigh...
True but this same thing is happening on a fossilfuel engine. Only thing is that the engine automalticly adjust itself by using more fuel to keep the desire RPM.
If u should take that away and load that engine heavy enough it will slow down and even stop spinning. That sound like what a bedini is doing.
The thing is people tend to make a comparison between a Bedini and conventional fossilfeul engine.
Can u drive a Big dump truck with a small 1liter engine from a suzuki alto? That is like the comparison of a bedini with a combustion engine.
If we approche these devices this way we will not get the job done.
Example, the setup i have now.
Someone ask me if i can run my house on it, well i can if i use a combustion engine to run it. But thats not the point or the approche here.
I want to drive it with a pulse motor so the approche will/must be different.
I feel like we humans have gone stuck and we are affraid to take a step backwards so we can improve in the future.
U can load the shaft of a bedini but one have to take several things in considiration otherwise it wont work.
U can even load the shaft without decreasing its primal RPM.
A hint, give alittle and than take alittle though we are programmed to only take as much as possible.
And one just have to find a good balance between the system and its load. (not like a truck example above)
About the heat, there maybe some heat but not much depending on the setup.
The rotor going through the air does produce some heat by its friction between the air but at the same time it produces a nice wind fortex that cools off the bearing, itself and the whole unit.
Putting it in a box will definately kill it...haha...put a combustion engine or any kind of engine in a box and see what happends...haha
Oke i hope that makes some sence but than again i may be a complete fool at this though :P...haha
@ Ren...
Are u the person i think u are...if so...how u been m8.
And hows your ceilling, i do hope u havent got more holes in it by now...haha...inductive launcher, housten we got a problem.
oke, abit offtopic.
Modify 6 times for typos... :( ::)
Hi BiDaDiKuNuKu:
QuoteTrue but this same thing is happening on a fossilfuel engine. Only thing is that the engine automalticly adjust itself by using more fuel to keep the desire RPM.
Yes I agree with you. You could easily have a speed governor connected to the Bedini motor so when you add the fan to it, the increased load is compensated for by increasing the power supply voltage so that the Bedini motor maintains a constant RPM. In engineering terms it's called a "negative feedback loop" and they are built into car engines but they aren't normally built into Bedni motors. The main point is still about where your battery power is going and how much of that battery power is doing useful work for you.
Here is another example from the automotive world: Some cars have "trip meters" and they tell you your miles per gallon (or liters per 100 Km) in real time as you drive your car. The idea is to encourage motorists to drive in a way to increase their fuel economy. However, when you come to a red light and stop, then look at your miles per gallon, the trip meter display says that you are getting zero miles per gallon (or infinity liters per 100 Km!).
The whole point of this exercise is to make people aware that when you say "you also have to include the mechanical output" for a Bedini motor when discussing if it might be an over unity device, that this is a false statement. I have seen John Bedini state it, Rick Friedrich state it, and perhaps a dozen other experimenters state it. Unfortunately, they are all incorrect. It's all about the truth. It's not "mechanical power," it's waste heat power.
When you say, "you also have to include the mechanical output" to someone, you are planting a false idea in their head. You are setting up a knowledge structure and a value proposition about a Bedini motor in the minds of the enthusiasts that is not true. This thread is about helping experimenters find the truth about their Bedini motors.
If you want to connect something mechanical to a Bedini motor and measure the mechanical output power, that's fine and go for it. However, when you do that, if you still want to have the same amount of charge power going to the charging battery, then you have to either adjust the trimpot for the base resistor and increase the power consumption of the motor, or perhaps increase the source voltage for the Bedini motor.
So what this means is this: If you want to have the same charging power from your Bedini motor after you add a mechanical load, then you have no choice but to increase the power that you are supplying to the Bedini motor. In other words, any mechanical output that you want to get from a Bedini motor is NOT FREE. Bedini says this and it is simply not true. You have to pay for it. This can all be proved through experimentation. There are two or three postings in the middle of this thread devoted to testing if the mechanical output from the Bedini motor is free or not free. If someone was determined to check this for themselves it can be done.
MileHigh
Quote"Let's suppose that the rotational speed at this balance point is 1000 RPM. Then you attach a fan to the shaft.
Now you are getting usable torque from the Bedini motor and it is exporting mechanical power to outside world.
You also notice that the rotational speed dropped to 940 RPM when you attached the fan."
I got it. Usable is the key here. While just spinning with no load the load becomes the friction, air movement, heat and so on for such X of input of power. Tending to zero net output as it all balances and no MORE USABLE power is extracted.
So when one say "K mechanical power is free" it should be qualified to what Y more of cost it will come. If Y is not defined or implied zero so the statement becomes false.
Did I got it correct MileHigh?
Fausto.
@ MileHigh,
I got your point and i`ve did not stated that bedini is overunity...maybe bedini did but not me... ;D
"When you say, "you also have to include the mechanical output" to someone, you are planting a false idea in their head. You are setting up a knowledge structure and a value proposition about a Bedini motor in the minds of the enthusiasts that is not true. This thread is about helping experimenters find the truth about their Bedini motors."
I did not want or intend to plant anything in the minds of the bedini enthusiast. ??? :o
I only said what that i can load the shaft on my pulse motor without my pulse motor using more energy. ;)
But one must take some things in considiration. But than again my setup isnt like a bedini setup.
Bedini is a pulsed motor and so is mine but with some twist here and there.
But if one is using a normal bedini system that would be a different story "i think"
I think i`ll leave this thread here for the real bedini expert since my setup isnt a bedini but still its a pulse motor.
Have fun ;D
Fausto:
Yes you got it. Any mechanical power output from a Bedini motor has to be usable torque that actually does something tangible. It could be driving a fan to blow air, or driving a water pump, etc.
BiDaDiKuNuKu:
QuoteWhen you say, "you also have to include the mechanical output"...
The first "you" in my statement does not refer to you personally. It is more like saying, "When they say..." I think in one of your clips you state that you speak four languages, which is amazing. I am sorry if there was any confusion.
QuoteI only said what that i can load the shaft on my pulse motor without my pulse motor using more energy.
Yes, this is a property of a pulse motor. In many cases when you (not you personally) put a load on the shaft of a Bedini motor the power consumption of the motor actually goes down. This is another case where many Bedini enthusiasts misunderstand what they are observing. What's happening is when you put the mechanical load on the Bedini motor, it slows down. Since it slows down it is consuming less pulses of current per second from the source battery, and therefore the power consumption goes down.
Many enthusiasts see the power consumption drop when they put a mechanical load on their Bedini motors and think that this is even an indication of free energy. They think that the power consumption should increase when they add the mechanical load. What is happening is that the "average impedance" of the motor changes from the point of view of the drive battery. If the average impedance increases, then the power consumption will go down. If the average impedance decreases, then the power consumption will go up.
Depending on how the specific Bedini pulse motor actually works, the power consumption could increase or decrease when you put a load on it. This has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The reason for this is that the lower pulse rate would normally indicate lower average current consumption. At the same time the lower pulse rate may result in the transistor being on for a longer amount of time for each pulse, and that might increase the average current consumption. I am pretty sure that I discuss this in more detail earlier on in the thread.
If you leave the thread as a contributor, I hope that you will continue to read it anyway. I hope that some of the information has been helpful to you.
MileHigh
@ MileHigh...
"you" in general way of speaking, got it m8... ;)
About me speaking 4 languages, sounds cool but afhther years of speaking all 4 some what at the same time with different persons my brain tends to fuse them like its trying to make a new language...one can hear that in my vids to...anyway ;D
About me contributing on this thread, i dont know about that.
But i`ll hang around and read here and there and asking some stuff even though i dont like to ask much.
Like i stated earlier, i am no expert on these stuff but i still give it a go.
That might be my advantage... :P
About the bedini decreasing amp draw when one put a load on it.
In all the stuff i made whenever i put a load on it, just my hand, light bulp, radio or whatever the case with me the amp draw always goes up.
But than again i never have made a bedini like bedini say one must.
I`ve used the circuit but my coils, rotor and magnetes arrangements where and still are different... ;D
Peace!
VZ2DAY
@MileHigh,
this thread is really good. I have been reading it many times to get the concepts correct in my mind.
So concerning an inductor, I understand, as you said, its initial current discharge is the same as its initial current right before the "discharge" phase.
So is it correct to assume it is impossible to have a coil in "charged and disconnected" state? Since, as soon as one try to disconnect a coil it will discharge? While a cap you can have one disconnected from anything and still hold the charge?
Another questions is: when you say that the amount of energy leaving the primary is the energy that is going to the secondary battery via the coil, (less losses) since it will have to discharge into the secondary, the only special thing is that the coil will "adjust" itself to the "load" and change the voltage and time of discharge? So that's, may be, what Bedini means when he mentions impedance matching and you say that there is NO impedance matching because the coil does it?
Another question: when they propose the one ohm resistor test as a proof that there is "no current" going into the battery would be equivalent to the following process:
coil charges with a certain amount of energy, lets say 10watts from whatever current and voltage that it received from the primary. If the load is the one ohm resistor, so the voltage cross the resistor will be very low and current very low but a long pulse? But still the same amount of power delivered in that "time it takes to discharge", again less or almost equal to 100% of initial power, in this case 10watts? So they see a small current and claim the battery being charged with "no current"?
If this is correct, should not the resistor still get as hot as 10 watts equivalent?
many thanks,
Fausto.
Hi Fausto,
I am really glad that you are enjoying the thread and learning. That's the reason I made it.
QuoteSo is it correct to assume it is impossible to have a coil in "charged and disconnected" state? Since, as soon as one try to disconnect a coil it will discharge? While a cap you can have one disconnected from anything and still hold the charge?
Yes you are correct, the moment you disconnect the coil it will instantly discharge its stored energy. Think about the fact that the coil stores the battery energy because of the flowing current. So if you have no current flowing through the coil then it is impossible for any battery energy to be stored in the coil.
With a coil, in theory you can keep it charged but you have to connect the two terminals of the coil together so that current continues to flow through the coil. In other words you have to short-circuit it. Of course we know that there is resistance in the wires of the coil, so if you short-circuit the two terminals eventually the current will stop flowing through the coil.
For example, you could connect a coil to a battery, wait a few seconds, and then close a switch that shorts the two terminals of the coil together. Naturally this will also short the two terminals of the battery together, so immediately after you close the switch you have to disconnect the battery. The coil will then store the energy that came from the battery because current will continue flowing through the coil.
QuoteAnother questions is: when you say that the amount of energy leaving the primary is the energy that is going to the secondary battery via the coil, (less losses) since it will have to discharge into the secondary, the only special thing is that the coil will "adjust" itself to the "load" and change the voltage and time of discharge? So that's, may be, what Bedini means when he mentions impedance matching and you say that there is NO impedance matching because the coil does it?
Yes the coil will adjust its voltage depending on the load. However, there is no impedance matching going on. Let's look at a similar scenario with a capacitor. You have a 1000 uF capacitor charged to 10 volts. You connect a 100-ohm resistor across the capacitor and discharge it. You then do the same thing again but this time you use a 1K-ohm resistor. In both cases the capacitor gets discharged. With the capacitor, does it sound like impedance matching to you? I am assuming the answer is "no." It's the same thing for an inductor.
Impedance matching means that you want the internal impedance of the power source (say like a 1.5-volt battery) to be the same as the impedance of the load. So if a 1.5-volt alkaline battery has an internal impedance of 0.1 ohms, then you have to put a 0.1-ohm load resistor across the battery to get the maximum power transfer rate. Discharging inductors and capacitors are completely different from the alkaline battery example.
If John Bedini or others make the false claim again that the Bedini motor output is doing "impedance matching" then just ask them what the value of the impedance match is. I don't think they will be able to give you an answer and they will try to deflect the question away. Look at my example above, I give you a clear example where the value of the impedance match is 0.1 ohms.
The short answer is that both an inductor and a capacitor can discharge all of their stored energy for many different load resistances. "Impedance matching" implies that there is a single correct load resistance. Therefore by definition there is no impedance matching associated with a Bedini motor drive coil output.
QuoteAnother question: when they propose the one ohm resistor test as a proof that there is "no current" going into the battery would be equivalent to the following process:
coil charges with a certain amount of energy, lets say 10watts from whatever current and voltage that it received from the primary. If the load is the one ohm resistor, so the voltage cross the resistor will be very low and current very low but a long pulse? But still the same amount of power delivered in that "time it takes to discharge", again less or almost equal to 100% of initial power, in this case 10watts? So they see a small current and claim the battery being charged with "no current"?
If this is correct, should not the resistor still get as hot as 10 watts equivalent?
You are confusing power and energy. Power is in watts and energy is in joules. Coils store energy in joules.
For a one ohm resistor, the pulse will be a long pulse. The initial current will be whatever current was flowing through the coil the instant before the transistor switched off.
Fausto, your answer has already been answered several times in in the thread.
Instead, let me request that you to do two things:
1. Review power and energy concepts several times so that you can reread your last question above and see the mistakes.
2. Do three tests with your Bedini motor where you replace the charging battery with 1-ohm, 10-ohm, and 100-ohm resistors. Look at the voltage across the different resistors with your scope when the motor is running. You know the resistance, so when you look at the voltage you also know the current. What can you conclude about the power and energy in each case?
Thanks,
MileHigh
Fausto:
Now I am going to give you a short answer to a short version of your last question:
QuoteAnother question: when they propose the one ohm resistor test as a proof that there is "no current" going into the battery
The short answer is that when someone says that a Bedini motor charges a battery with "voltage but almost no current" they are completely wrong.
The discharging drive coil ALWAYS outputs a spike of current and a corresponding voltage spike.
Current has to flow, and the resultant voltage is variable. There are no exceptions to this because we are dealing with a discharging inductor, and
a discharging inductor is a current source.
The simple truth Fausto is that the vast majority of people that experiment with Bedini motors are not aware of these facts. If you do the simple experiment with the three different load resistors it should help you understand this.
MileHigh
@MileHigh,
perfect. Excellent. That is what I thought. I do understand your arguments and yes I think I do understand the difference between watts and joules. I really meat 10 watts as an instance in time of the energy not the long running accumulation of it in joules. Just as an example of transfer of power/energy in a timeless fashion.
Thank you. Your answers are very valuable. I don't understand why people would be concerned with your arguments. If Bedini claims are not to the dot or even incorrect I think there is nothing wrong to understand both camps and adjust oneself to the reality in front on them.
I am loving this learning experience and I am still playing with this motors. Nothing better than things like this to get involved. After all we are trying to change the world into a better place.
Fausto.
@milehigh
QuoteThe short answer is that when someone says that a Bedini motor charges a battery with "voltage but almost no current" they are completely wrong.
LOL, are you still trying to confuse everyone here?, a discharging coil (an inductive discharge) will raise it's voltage in proportion to to the resistance/impedence it encounters and raise it's voltage in proportion to the rate of change of the switching mechanism which is a form of resistance. If the resistance is infinite to an inductive discharge then the voltage is infinite ( E=IR) and as the energy cannot change the current (I) must approach zero. Now if the discharge voltage spikes to hundreds of volts and the energy is constant then obviously there can be almost no current or do you not agree with ohms law?. As well if two conductors attached to a battery have a potential difference across them higher than the battery potential such as in an inductive discharge then this is defined as a charging action thus the battery must charge, Im really not sure which part of this you do not understand.
QuoteThe discharging drive coil ALWAYS outputs a spike of current and a corresponding voltage spike. Current has to flow, and the resultant voltage is variable. There are no exceptions to this because we are dealing with a discharging inductor, and a discharging inductor is a current source.
Once the circuit is disrupted(opened) then the coil becomes a source in itself as the collapsing magnetic field is cutting the conductors of the coil, now how do you think the coil became a source? It became a source because as Ampere stated the field can be considered as "seperate" from the force which created it but all forces must translate back to the source. When the coil current is disrupted the coil becomes independent of the source because the magnetic field is independent of the source and can generate any voltage proportional to the resistance it encounters in which case it can become a current or a voltage source. Did the collapsing field induce a current? No, the collapsing field induced a potential difference by cutting the coil conductors and if the coil is in a circuit then this potential difference will lead to an electric current thus the voltage came first, it is a voltage source first and the current is a result of the voltage discharging itself into a circuit.
QuoteYes the coil will adjust its voltage depending on the load. However, there is no impedance matching going on. Let's look at a similar scenario with a capacitor. You have a 1000 uF capacitor charged to 10 volts. You connect a 100-ohm resistor across the capacitor and discharge it. You then do the same thing again but this time you use a 1K-ohm resistor. In both cases the capacitor gets discharged. With the capacitor, does it sound like impedance matching to you? I am assuming the answer is "no." It's the same thing for an inductor.
Right, can a capacitor raise it's voltage in proportion to the resistance it encounters? Well no it cannot thus it would seem obvious that a discharging capacitor has little in common with a discharging inductance.
QuoteThe short answer is that both an inductor and a capacitor can discharge all of their stored energy for many different load resistances. "Impedance matching" implies that there is a single correct load resistance. Therefore by definition there is no impedance matching associated with a Bedini motor drive coil output.
The first problem here is that a battery is not a resistor and if you put them side by side most everyone might say--"hey they are not the same thing" and these people would be correct in my opinion. A battery will raise it's voltage in proportion to the voltage of the source charging it and we call this action "charging" where a resistor will not because it is not "charging" it is dissipating energy as heat, they are not the same thing. One could also ask why all the new battery chargers use boost converters exclusively where 20 years ago they used transformers, one word --efficiency. I wonder why Mr.Bedini was pulse charging his batteries with an inductive discharge 20 years ago like we are today when all the EE's were using lossy transformers, did he know something they didn't, lol? I also have to wonder why Tesla started using impulse currents(inductive discharge) exclusivelty almost 100 years ago, one word---efficiency. The fact of the matter is that a battery will raise it's voltage and resistance in response to the action of "charging" and the inductive discharge will raise it's voltage in proportion to the batteries rise in resistance as it must, does this sound like impedance matching?. My battery chargers and the batteries they charge run cool, not hot, not warm---cool and I do not believe anyone should need to be a rocket scientist to understand why this is the most efficient way to charge batteries.
Regards
AC
double post
AC:
QuoteLOL, are you still trying to confuse everyone here?
What are you trying to prove AC? What a great way to start off a posting. What is this business with the fake condescending attitude and the swagger?
At least half a dozen times in the past you have tried to put forward strange propositions and I rebutted them. You didn't come back to try to argue your points further. The best that you could do was to go off on ridiculous tangents as a means to reinforce your points. Then you crumbled and faded away every time. In your most recent posting, besides the attitude, you clearly show that you know some stuff, and at the same time you clearly show your technical limitations.
The person that is confused is you, AC. Almost everything you said in your last posting should be ignored because it is wrong.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.09.28, 06:48:33
@milehigh
The fact of the matter is that a battery will raise it's voltage and resistance in response to the action of "charging" and the inductive discharge will raise it's voltage in proportion to the batteries rise in resistance as it must, ...
Regards
AC
AC, I would think that a battery's internal resistance would
decrease as it's state of charge increases. ???
.99
Actually the term "battery impedance" is common in the industry and does decrease with charging. Testing "battery impedance" is widely used to determine the the quality of the cells.
I have some battery impedance test equipment made by Biddle (AVO). It operates by applying a fixed known AC current across the battery terminals and measuring the AC voltage.
Attached is a paper describing "Battery Impedance Testing" and some battery models.
Thanks ION. good paper.
I was looking for a battery model quite some time ago while I was working on the RA circuit. Nice to have that now.
The paper does seem to support the notion that it is the resistive parts (the dominant portion of the total impedance) of the model that increase in value as the SOC decreases. This makes sense anyway.
.99
AC,
In my experience, an inductor does act very much like a constant current source during it's de-energizing cycle (i.e. during it's inductive kickback). And this is well supported by the theory of how inductors function.
.99
@MileHigh and allcanadian,
interesting points both of you. I am a little confused for sure.
Both arguments seems logical to my mind, but clearly you both have a difference of opinion.
Milehigh, would you mind dissecting allcanadian points one by one in where the error is. Forgive me to ask this, in no way I looking for useless arguments. It is interesting to me to know the real logic in this matters.
many thanks,
Fausto.
Fausto:
I will try to respond to AC's points. I may be very technical also.
Quote(An Inductor) will ... raise it's voltage in proportion to the rate of change of the switching mechanism which is a form of resistance.
This is incorrect. AC is modeling a switching-off transistor as a resistance that increases in value with respect to time. That is fine. An inductor will raise it's voltage in proportion to the instantaneous value of the resistance of the switch. At the same time the inductor is discharging its stored energy so the amount of current flowing through the resistance of the switch is also decreasing. Therefore there are two effects happening at the same time. This could be described by a differential equation and you could solve the differential equation to get the plot for the voltage of the discharging inductor with respect to time.
The most important point here is that the inductor outputs a voltage that is proportional to the instantaneous resistance of the load and the instantaneous amount of current flowing through the inductor, and not the rate of change of the resistance of the load with respect to time.
QuoteIf the resistance is infinite to an inductive discharge then the voltage is infinite ( E=IR) and as the energy cannot change the current (I) must approach zero.
This is incorrect. As the resistance tends towards infinity, the time duration of the current spike tends towards zero. Note that there ALWAYS IS a measurable current flow, but the length of time of the current flow decreases towards zero.
QuoteNo, the collapsing field induced a potential difference by cutting the coil conductors and if the coil is in a circuit then this potential difference will lead to an electric current thus the voltage came first, it is a voltage source first and the current is a result of the voltage discharging itself into a circuit.
This is incorrect. The magnetic field was built up by the input current flow, and so when the coil is open-circuited, the magnetic field now generates an output current flow. This demonstrates the natural symmetry in the way an inductor stores energy and releases energy. The voltage across the inductor terminals are a result of the current flow. A discharging inductor acts like a current source with an output impedance of infinity.
QuoteWell no it cannot thus it would seem obvious that a discharging capacitor has little in common with a discharging inductance.
This is incorrect. Imagine two test setups. The first setup has a 1-Henry inductor connected to a 1-ohm resistor and there is 1 amp of current flowing through the inductor. The second setup has a 1-Farad capacitor connected to a 1-ohm resistor and there is one volt of potential difference across the capacitor. For both cases above when you start the two tests the voltage and current waveforms will be identical. In addition, if you increase the resistance for the inductor test and you decrease the resistance for the capacitor test, then the voltage waveform for the inductor test will be identical to the current waveform for the capacitor test. Also, the current waveform for the inductor test will be identical to the voltage waveform for the capacitor test. In all cases they will be exponentially decaying waveforms. Capacitors and inductors are very similar to each other.
QuoteA battery will raise it's voltage in proportion to the voltage of the source charging it and we call this action "charging" where a resistor will not because it is not "charging" it is dissipating energy as heat, they are not the same thing.
This is incorrect. To use the phraseology "a battery will raise its voltage" in this context is a very poor choice of words that would never be spoken by an electrical engineer. I won't go into a detailed technical discussion here. I will say that AC's sentence doesn't even make sense. As a bare minimum, you would have to say that the voltage at a battery's two terminals will increase as a function of the current that you are supplying to the battery. Certainly you can clamp a battery's terminal voltage to an external voltage source that has a low enough output impedance to overcome the battery's output impedance. Then you end up charging the battery because current ends up flowing into the battery. The bottom line is that this is an extremely awkward way of expressing this idea and an extremely poor choice of words that would never be used by someone that truly understands electronics.
Ion posted a model for a battery that I have not looked at yet, but I will assume that the explanation for why a battery terminal voltage will increase when the battery is being charged is explained in the document.
Quotewe call this action "charging" where a resistor will not because it is not "charging" it is dissipating energy as heat, they are not the same thing.
Certainly they are not the same thing, but AC is missing the point. In both cases, for a simple load resistor and for a charging battery, the energy source is pumping power into the "load." In one case the "load" is a resistor, and in the other case the "load" is a charging battery. So in both cases it is valid to consider issues related to impedance matching, because impedance matching is all about how well an energy source can transfer power into a load.
QuoteOne could also ask why all the new battery chargers use boost converters exclusively where 20 years ago they used transformers, one word --efficiency....
AC's comment above about boost converters, and the Tesla comment and other comments in the paragraph I quoted from above have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
QuoteThe fact of the matter is that a battery will raise it's voltage and resistance in response to the action of "charging" and the inductive discharge will raise it's voltage in proportion to the batteries rise in resistance as it must, does this sound like impedance matching?
No, it does not sound like impedance matching at all. Go back and look at my battery example. Impedance matching has to do with maximizing the power transfer between the energy source and the load. In a Bedini motor the load can change impedance and the power transfer remains the same, there is nothing to match.
QuoteMy battery chargers and the batteries they charge run cool, not hot, not warm
So what, this is purely anecdotal evidence. Chances are that you have never measured the power output of one of your buck-boost chargers so you don't know if the battery should get perceptibly hot or not. Even if the energy transfer is more efficient, the power that gets pumped into the charging battery is still going to be split into power that actually charges the battery and power that becomes waste heat. If that waste heat production is below a certain threshold then you won't be able to perceive it. For all you know after 20 minutes the surface temperature of your battery could increase by 1.5 degrees C and you would not be able to perceive this slow increase in temperature by putting your fingers on the battery.
I have never seen any scientific attempt to back up the argument that "Bedini chargers keep the charging batteries cool." On the other hand, I have read some postings where some Bedini experimenters inadvertently overdo it with their setups and end up boiling their charging batteries.
Milehigh
@Milehigh,
once again thank you for the detailed explanation.
I am noticing a process of thinking that sometimes is lacking and is not that obvious in others (including me). You mention the relation of one variable as a function of another variable. Many times I see we miss that.
Like in the example:
QuoteQuoteIf the resistance is infinite to an inductive discharge then the voltage is infinite ( E=IR) and as the energy cannot change the current (I) must approach zero.
This is incorrect. As the resistance tends towards infinity, the time duration of the current spike tends towards zero. Note that there ALWAYS IS a measurable current flow, but the length of time of the current flow decreases towards zero.
You are saying that the voltage is not directly related to the simple way of looking at E=IR but also considering which one is playing the "function" and which one is playing the "variable" plus a hidden variable "time". In your description you say that the "
time duration of the current spike" is the function in relation to the "variable current". After that we can apply those two now as being the variables to the function E which than would cause voltage to change, again not losing sight of the hidden variable "time".
In other words we have here TWO functions interrelated by time which makes the whole process not that intuitive when looking at only one function.
So E = IR, would be broken into E = function(I) x function(R). Where I = time x Variable and R = time x Variable (whatever Variable here would be in this example). So changing I or R will dramatically change E as a result. Missing
time variable would cause one to incorrectly calculate I or R therefore E too.
Did I got it or am I still missing something in this thinking process?
Fausto.
Fausto:
I think that you are understanding the two variables. Just for fun, let me look at that issue again hopefully with a new perspective.
Let's just do an imaginary experiment that simulates the two-variable example, but on a much slower time scale. This is a perfectly valid way of understanding what is going on.
Let's imagine that you have a very large inductor and a 10-ohm potentiometer. We are going to imagine that you run a test where you discharge the very large inductor through the potentiometer, and it takes one full minute to fully discharge the inductor when the potentiometer is set to 5 ohms.
Test 1: You get 1 ampere of current running through the inductor and you discharge it through the potentiometer when it is set to 5 ohms.
You observe the voltage across the inductor for one minute. You notice that the voltage starts at 5 volts, and as the time goes on the voltage slowly decreases to almost zero volts after one minute. The voltage and the current in this case is a standard exponentially decaying waveform.
Test 2: You get 1 ampere of current running through the inductor and you discharge it through the potentiometer when it is set to 5 ohms, but you play with the potentiometer and turn the resistance up as you watch the voltage decrease.
For this test you start with the potentiometer set to 5 ohms. Therefore the voltage will start to decrease starting from 5 volts.
When the voltage decreases to 4 volts, say after 10 seconds, you turn the potentiometer so that the resistance increases to 10 ohms. At 10 seconds the current was (4/5) = 0.8 amperes. Therefore when you turn the potentiometer to 10 ohms, the voltage will automatically increase to 8 volts. Then the voltage will resume its exponential decay, and it will decay more quickly because now you are burning power more quickly.
Test 3: You get 1 ampere of current running through the inductor and you discharge it through the potentiometer when it is set to 5 ohms, but you play with the potentiometer and turn the resistance down as you watch the voltage decrease.
For this test you start with the potentiometer set to 5 ohms. Therefore the voltage will start to decrease starting from 5 volts.
When the voltage decreases to 4 volts, say after 10 seconds, you turn the potentiometer so that the resistance decreases to 1 ohm. At 10 seconds the current was (4/5) = 0.8 amperes. Therefore when you turn the potentiometer to 1 ohm, the voltage will automatically decrease to 0.8 volts. Then the voltage will resume its exponential decay, and it will decay more slowly because now you are burning power more slowly.
So in this thought experiment test #2 looks like the case where an inductor is discharging through a transistor that is in the process of switching from ON to OFF.
MileHigh
To go back to a more general description of what is going on when an inductor discharges through a transistor that is transitioning from ON to OFF where the transistor resistance is a function of time, there are three time-dependent variables.
The equation for the resistance of the transistor is exclusively a function of time and not dependent on anything else:
1) Load_Resistance = r(t) where r(t) is some kind of an equation with time t as a variable
The equations for the coil current and the coil voltage are a function of the initial current, the inductance, the variable resistance, and time:
2) Coil_Current = i(t) where i(t) is some function of i(t=0), L, r(t), and t
3) Coil_Voltage = v(t) where v(t) is some function of i(t=0), L, r(t) and t
With calculus and the differential equations that describe how an inductor works you can determine the solution and derive the equations for 2) and 3) above.
In the Wikipedia entry for "RL circuit" this problem is solved for the case when R is constant. The solution to this problem is an exponentially decaying voltage and current waveform where the time-constant for the decay is L/R.
MileHigh
Fausto:
Just one more comment about what happens when an inductor discharges through a resistance. You MUST remember that if the initial current is always the same, then the amount of energy stored in the inductor is always the same.
Therefore every time the inductor discharges it will discharge the same amount of energy, no matter what the load resistance is.
If the resistance is low, it discharges that energy with a low-voltage spike over a long period of time. The initial discharge current is always the same current that was flowing through the inductor the moment before it started to discharge through the resistor.
If the resistance is high, it discharges that energy with a high-voltage spike over a short period of time. The initial discharge current is always the same current that was flowing through the inductor the moment before it started to discharge through the resistor.
If the resistance goes towards infinity, it discharges that energy with a voltage spike that goes towards infinity over a period of time that approaches zero. The initial discharge current is always the same current that was flowing through the inductor the moment before it started to discharge through the resistor. This is where AC was wrong.
If the resistance is zero, then the inductor does not discharge and the current flows forever. There is no voltage spike at all, zero volts.
When you go back to the reality of a Bedini motor discharging into a charging battery, you should be able to make the connection with the state of the charging battery. You can easily draw some general conclusions:
If the battery has a high impedance because it is old and sulfated then the current spikes going into the battery will be shorter and higher in voltage.
If the battery has a low impedance because it is new then the current spikes going into the battery will be longer and lower in voltage.
A battery's input impedance does not look like a resistor. It looks like a non-linear resistor. Just the same, you at least have an idea of what should be going on when you think about how an inductor discharges into a resistor and relate that back to a charging battery.
MileHigh
To whom it may concern:
Read the document called Battery Management that I uploaded earlier. Look closely at the language used throughout the document as it is the language of ENGINEERING. You will notice charts and graphs, testing and results.
Now for comparison read some of the Bhoudini razzle-tazzle and hocus-pocus. Very slippery indeed.
By the way Bhoudini did not invent inductive pulse charging to recover sulphated batteries, it has been well known from before his time.
Newer chargers use boost converters for one main reason: COST. With costs of copper and steel rising, using high frequency switchmode with much smaller magnetics makes good economic sense. You get a few additional benefits which we need not go into here.
Even conventional 60 Hz wall warts have given way to switchmode designs.
Still some folks are content spinning their wheels.
@MileHigh and ION,
thank you both for such valuable information. It all makes sense.
Now I see why Bedini tries to stress the the "magic" is not on the machine but "in" the battery. In one of his DVDs he mentions that you will not find OU on the machine but in the battery.
Now, It sounds like the fundamental way to prove or disprove Bedini's concepts would be by what he proposes concerning the load test where he claims you can run SSG or its variations (I am not sure which one is the correct one) where one battery would charge 4 others and one should later switch them and repeat the process to infinitum.
You MileHigh, also seems to stress on the process of measuring the input and output that I also think will prove beyond a doubt the lack of OU, it will demonstrate losses in the process and you also stress (I think the fundamental now) that one should now do the looping or switching the batteries test and see if indeed will run continually without stopping.
So Am I right to state that showing the results of the switching batteries would either demonstrate OU or not and if shows OU we have a clear misunderstanding of Bedini's explanation and if does not demonstrate OU at least we can say Bedini's is indeed not communicating correct physics?
Fausto.
Hi Fausto:
Bedini says the "magic" happens in the battery like you said. Certainly if you measure the power consumption of the Bedini motor drawn from the source battery and then measure the power output going into the charging battery you will find that there are losses in the Bedini motor.
Learning how to make these input and output measurements properly is still a valuable exercise. Understanding how the discharging drive coil works is also a very valuable exercise.
So, let's take a look at the battery measurement issue, because that's where we are looking for the "magic."
Let's take the example of Rick Friedrich's Yahoo Bedini group because they are supposed to be the serious Bedini experimenters.
From what I understand they do the following:
They charge the charging battery and measure the current going into the charging battery and calculate the ampere-hours.
Then they discharge the charging battery and measure the ampere-hours.
Then they compare the discharging ampere-hours to the charging ampere-hours to calculate the COP.
What are the problems with this test procedure:
1. They ignore the efficiency of the power transfer from the source battery to the charging battery. They only measure the current going into the charging battery, they ignore the losses from the source battery. In a typical Bedini motor you might only get 25%-35% of the power provided by the source battery actually becoming power that goes into the charging battery.
2. The measurement of the average current going into the charging battery is suspect, you are not sure if your analog ammeter will give you an accurate result because of the "extreme pulsing" nature of the current going through the ammeter.
3. They are ignoring the corresponding changing voltage of the charging battery when they pulse current into it.
4. They are ignoring the fact that if the impedance of the charging battery changes as you charge it, then we know that the average current going into the battery will change. The Yahoo Bedini group is not aware of this important fact.
5. Points #2 , #3 and #4 above mean that their ampere-hours measurement is invalid. What they should be doing is measuring the average power going into the charging battery as explained in the Bedini measurement thread. Then they can calculate the total energy that they put into the battery.
6. When they do load testing when they discharge the charging battery they measure the ampere-hours. One more time they are not factoring in the decreasing voltage of the charging battery when they discharge it. They should be measuring the energy that they can draw from the charging battery.
7. They are not accounting for the amount of energy that may have been in the charging battery before they start charging it.
When you look at all the points above my conclusion is that the Yahoo Bedini group's method of calculating the battery COP is seriously flawed and will give you invalid data. And also in the real world you have to make your measurements starting at the power supplied by the source battery, and not at the power supplied into the charging battery. You simply cannot ignore all of the power that is lost in running the Bedini motor itself.
To be serious, all of the battery COP testing would have to be based on ENERGY in and out, and not based on ampere-hours in and ampere-hours out. Also you have to account for the energy that is in the charging battery BEFORE you start your COP testing. All of this is discussed in more detail earlier in this thread.
So yes Fausto, to test for any claims of OU for a Bedini motor, it has to be based on swapping batteries back and forth or making precise energy measurements on the batteries themselves or both.
As I suggested to Jeff (Bit's-n-Bytes) a few weeks ago, he could swap batteries back and forth and between each swap drain 25% of the energy out of the charging battery before he starts the swap. All of his fancy microcontroller battery switching and swapping systems are just "window dressing." The most important thing that he should do is do a proof-of-concept first with his 10-coiler. He doesn't need any fancy extra electronics to do this. If the proof-of-concept test works then great. If the test shows no OU, then he can save his time and money by not investing in all sorts of fancy electronics and switching hardware and software. If he decides after looking at his data that the 10-coiler Bedini motor is not a device that can produce free energy and power his house, that may be the end of his project.
MileHigh
@MH
Thanks for the last posts. I have a question about what AC also said about the increase in resistance as voltage rises in a battery although my way of asking this is more low end.
So let's say a 12 volt battery has 6 volts in it. You connect a battery charger that pulses a 12 volt discharge into the battery that is at 6 volts. Would it not be unreasonable to assume that when the battery is at 6 volts it is very easy for the charger to bring it up to 7 volts, but when the battery is at 11 volts, the charger will take longer to bring it up to 12 volts. Or is this function purely linear. I think maybe that is what AC was referring to when he says the battery resistance increases as voltage increases in the battery.
Hi Wattsup:
I still haven't read the battery document that Ion posted, you may want to read it for yourself.
From what I know about standard 12-volt lead-acid batteries, a battery that measures 6 volts would most likely be very old and very sick or damaged in some way. Apparently the Bedini charging method, a.k.a. charging a battery with pulses of current from a discharging inductor, can rejuvenate a battery like this. On the other hand, there has to be some limit to this and I suspect that a 12-volt lead-acid battery that measures 6 volts may indeed be too far gone.
To add some more information to this picture, you would want to measure the output impedance of the battery also. I suspect that a 12-volt battery that measures 6-volts open-circuit with a multimeter would have an extremely high output impedance. Again, this would be another indication that the battery was most likely shot. A high output impedance is also sometimes called a "fluffy charge." In my opinion everyone that experiments with free energy should learn how to measure the output impedance of the batteries that they work with. This data is more important than the open-circuit battery voltage reading and compliments the battery voltage measurement.
QuoteWould it not be unreasonable to assume that when the battery is at 6 volts it is very easy for the charger to bring it up to 7 volts, but when the battery is at 11 volts, the charger will take longer to bring it up to 12 volts.
This sounds reasonable to me. Certainly you can expect the voltage to jump up quickly and then start to slow down as you approach 12 volts. Again, all this would be in the context of the fact that you are working with an extremely unhealthy battery. I think we have all seen this effect when trying to recharge any type of totally dead battery.
If you look at a healthy discharged lead-acid battery, I think the lower range for the open-circuit voltage might be somewhere around 12 volts. I will gladly be corrected by someone with more experience with this because I have almost none. Then as you charge it it gets back to normal, about 12.6 volts. Of course for up to 90% or more of the discharge cycle for a lead-acid battery, the open-circuit voltage and the voltage under a moderate load is the same, close to 12.6 volts.
My feeling for when people charge batteries up to 14 or 15 volts is that they are really pushing current into their batteries when the battery doesn't want it anymore, it is already fully charged. So for lack of a better term, you are "frying the battery's brains" when you push it up to 14 or 15 volts. You are just cooking the battery at this point, you are not even charging it. People get excited about it and they are making a mistake here. I will assume that there is a good chance that they are damaging their batteries.
So my gut feel when you push a battery too far like this is as follows: The input charging impedance of the battery actually starts to increase after the battery is fully charged. The battery is becoming overstressed when it is fully charged and you still are pushing current into it. In effect the battery has become a big resistor in this condition and all of the energy that you are putting into it is simply being dissipated as heat internal to the battery. Since the input charging impedance of the battery is increasing due to the extra electrical stress due to the unwanted current flow, this manifests itself as increased voltage across the terminals of the battery. This voltage reading is a fake voltage and only exists because you are pumping current into the battery. I believe that once you disconnect the charging, within less than an hour the voltage will go down much closer to its normal resting voltage. So here I would agree with AC when he says that the battery resistance increases as the voltage increases. Again, I will stress that I believe that you are outside of the normal operating "envelope" for the battery in this case and you are actually damaging it and shortening its life.
For a lead acid battery, if the open-circuit voltage is too high or two low, it's bad. The battery chemistry is functioning normally at about 12.6 volts. The voltage is determined by the nature of the chemical reactions that generate the voltage for each cell in the battery. These voltages normally fall in a narrow range. So a battery that measured 15 volts is outside of that normal range and it's a fake voltage reading. Like I said before, you are frying the batteries brains like the brain on drugs/fried egg in a skillet cliche.
So I just shared some thoughts and inferences about batteries with you. I don't play with 12-volt lead-acid batteries. I would assume that the battery document that Ion uploaded (or linked to) has more accurate and valuable information.
MileHigh
@MH
Thanks again for your kind reply. I understand what you are saying. There is one point though and that is that such conditions can exist with perfectly well working batteries also. I have many times brought down voltage on a 12 vdc 7ah battery down to less then 6 volts and then re-charged it back up to work again just fine. It is not only defective batteries.
Charging a 12 volt battery with a 12 volt charger, the charger is usually putting out higher voltage then the 12 vdc to overcome the batteries minimal 12vdc charge requirement.
The complications start when you are charging back to your battery with voltages in the hundreds of volts but very little amperage. Such a reactive power charging, seems like the battery then changes its internal make-up like a normal battery would have internals like liquid cement but with high reactive re-charge, its becomes more like very light whipped cream.
In general, a battery (mainly car batteries) cannot absorb more then 20% of its amperage rating. This means that if you have a 100 amp 12vdc car battery with the recharge coming from a 100 amp alternator only 20 amps will be effectively absorbed by the battery at any given time.
In looking a Bedini designs, I feel this is where some go very wrong in the re-charge side since they are using regular or deep cycles car batteries. The design has to include a method of paralleling the coil outputs in order to capitalize on the amperage issue. If you are charging your battery with anything less then 20% of the battery amperage then you are cheating yourself out of the maximum re-charge potential.
Maybe one last thing as a side note on the Bedini 10 coil design which I find very interesting. I do think however that instead of using one feed car battery and one charge car battery, such a design would work better with each coil running off its own 7ah 12vdc battery but the flyback from one coil would be sent to the next battery in the loop and so on. This way each battery would see the flyback as coming in from another source other then itself. With such a scheme, then all you have to do to prove OU is to charge all the batteries, then run the system without the re-charge and see how long it takes for the device to die down. Then with the re-charge, if the device keeps turning and turning without any evident voltage drop and the time is now 10 or 20 or 100 times longer, or non-ending, then I think this can be a safe bet of OU activity.
Sorry if all this is not so relevant.
Wattsup:
Your comments about a method for determining OU based on some sort of battery discharge testing are totally relevant, that's the end-game for any 10-coiler or regular Bedini enthusiast. I focused a lot on how the motor actually works, how to tune it, how to make measurements on it, so that a true keener would be able to understand what was going on "under the hood" and not just blindly say "radiant spikes" all the time. They have to understand that the "radiant spikes" are actually inductive current spikes, and the energy in those inductive current spikes comes from the source battery and nowhere else. If you want to you can measure how much energy is in each individual spike. Instead of just blindly turning a trim-pot for the base resistance and tuning your motor like that, you can put your scope on the motor to tune it and make sure that it is functioning properly. I realize that this requires some basic electronics knowledge, and it's all laid out on the table for any keeners to follow-up on if they want to. I will repeat that any notion that a Bedini motor is "outside of conventional understanding" is ridiculous.
Yes, I forgot about the fact that a new battery could be drained to the point were it would read 7 volts. I think that battery experts would call that an "over-drained" state for a new battery. I would assume that it's not healthy to do that to a new battery either.
QuoteMaybe one last thing as a side note on the Bedini 10 coil design which I find very interesting. I do think however that instead of using one feed car battery and one charge car battery, such a design would work better with each coil running off its own 7ah 12vdc battery but the flyback from one coil would be sent to the next battery in the loop and so on. This way each battery would see the flyback as coming in from another source other then itself. With such a scheme, then all you have to do to prove OU is to charge all the batteries, then run the system without the re-charge and see how long it takes for the device to die down. Then with the re-charge, if the device keeps turning and turning without any evident voltage drop and the time is now 10 or 20 or 100 times longer, or non-ending, then I think this can be a safe bet of OU activity.
Your idea is interesting but it gets a bit more difficult to measure for OU. It's still possible to do though. You can measure what the power drain on each battery is, and what the recharging power on each battery is. You end up with a net power drain on each battery that can be related back to the amount of energy stored in each battery to estimate a run time. You also would have to factor in the decreasing voltage and decreasing RPMs of the motor over time. Plus for any battery there is no abrupt cut-off point where it stops outputting power.
Personally if I myself was doing the testing I would cycle my batteries and make measurements on them until got to the point where I really 'knew' them. Supposing that you have a battery that has a 1 mega-joule capacity. You could charge it and discharge it to get to understand exactly how it cycles. Then start your testing where you know with a high degree of confidence that the charging battery has exactly 200 kilo-joules worth of energy in it before you start your test. Then with your Bedini motor pump exactly 500 kilo-joules into it. Then discharge it completely and see how much energy is in it. Do this at least 10 times, and then repeat for two other charging batteries. If the battery consistently demonstrates that it is charged with more than 700 kilo-joules then you might have something interesting. In all of this testing I am talking about making charging/discharging measurements on the charging battery only, I am ignoring all of the losses associated with the Bedini motor itself.
The reason I would start the test with 200 kilo-joules in the battery is because I want to avoid starting with a fully discharged battery because I am afraid that there could be non-linear behaviour between a fully discharged state and 200 kilo-joules. By the same token I want to avoid fully charging the battery because I am afraid it might be non-linear between 700 kilo-joules and 1 mega-joule also. The reason I would do the testing 10 times consecutively would be for the same reason, there might be some latent 'extra energy' in a brand new battery and multiple test cycles would hopefully flush that out. As anecdotal evidence, I think we have all had the feeling that the first few cycles of usage with a rechargeable battery seem to contain more energy, and then after that the battery settles in and performs nominally.
The "Plan B" I would advocate was the one I mentioned to Jeff. Charge and swap, and each time drain 25% of the energy out of the just-charged charging battery. If there is any Bedini-Bearden "magic" going on, this should run indefinitely, even with all of the energy looses associated with the Bedini motor itself. This would be just as valid a "brute force" method, and the only thing you have to work out ahead of time is how to discharge 25% of the energy from the charging battery, which is a trivial thing to do.
The "Plan B" "brute force" method demands that the 10-coiler setup produces so much "magic" that the COP you get from charging the battery with inductive current spikes will be big enough to overcome all of the losses associated with the 10-coiler Bedini motor itself, and the 25% energy drain that you put on the freshly charged charging battery. This is a perfectly reasonable proposition because that's what the believers believe, that they can swap battery banks back and forth and use the "extra energy" derived from the COP to do something useful, like run an inverter to create AC mains power.
MileHigh
Good conversation men! I can only add, from my experience designing battery chargers for a company, that we considered 10 to 10.5 volts the dead point for a lead acid battery. At that point 90 percent + of the charge was gone, beyond that you could damage the battery discharging it futher. Over charging the battery to higher voltages also damaged them decreasing life time. When charging them we designed the chargers to output between 13.8 and 14.2 volts, but what has not been talked about is that the chargers are designed to trickle down when 14 volts is reached, you do not continue to pump full charging current in at the fully charged voltage.
Battery terminal voltage will always settle back to about 12.5 volts on a good battery when disconnected from the charger.
As I have mentioned before, the Bhoudini devices could be laid to rest with a very simple circuit that using a DPDT relay, swaps two small lead acid batteries at a predetermined interval. I could sketch the whole circuit on the back of a folded napkin.
It would use a PUT R-C timer to clock a D-Q flip flop which would change the relay state at the user predetermined interval. You could also count the number of pulses and use that to change relay state.
I would use small capacity (1-2Ah) lead acid batteries so we would not have to wait forever for the test to run uphill or downhill. But large batteries could be used if you happen to have them on hand.
This could run unattended and the battery voltage fed to a strip chart recorder or data logger for record keeping purposes.
This is the test the Bedites will not do.
Room3327:
Looks like you have some battery experience. I also have designed some battery chargers over the years and was lucky enough to inherit some battery test equipment and good textbooks on Lead Acid Batteries from an elderly fellow who worked at C&D Batteries in Plymouth Meeting PA.
I have in my collection a C&D ferro-resonant constant current charger, used to keep large or small banks trickle charged in series connected systems. I also obtained some AVO battery test equipment some time back.
I also have a GE ELEK-TRAK tractor fully battery operated and maintained by myself for the last 30 years. Runs on six deep discharge golf cart type batteries. Built in ferro-resonant charger. No gasoline, just plug in to the wall for an overnight charge. These are becoming quite rare and there is a collectors club online.
ION,
Yes I have some battery experience, but like most things with me it was awhile back. If I could only remember everything I know.
As I recall ferro-resonant transformers were a pain in the rear to design so I can understand there are not many around, and I just threw out a ferro-resonant charger, 75 volts at something like 20 amps, didn't even think about it, maybe I should have hung on to it but too much junk piled up on me. Apparently you have quite a collection of equipment, pretty nice stuff. Now if we can just figure out what to do with all the stuff we have?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.09.28, 13:59:12
AC,
In my experience, an inductor does act very much like a constant current source during it's de-energizing cycle (i.e. during it's inductive kickback). And this is well supported by the theory of how inductors function.
.99
Poynty? What do you mean by constant current? If the voltage is changing surely the current is changing? Never heard of a theory that supports a 'constant current' frankly. I think you could probably average the current. Unless the resistance across the coil sort of compensates? Is that what's happening?
Rosemary:
There are bench power supplies that can be configured to work as voltage sources or current sources. One configuration tries to output a constant voltage for any variable current output and has an output impedance that approximates zero. The other configuration tries to output a constant current for any variable voltage output and has an output impedance that approximates infinity.
In simple terms you can say that an output impedance of zero means that for any load the output voltage will remain the same. By the same token you can say that an output impedance of infinity means that for any load the output current will remain the same.
Capacitors and inductors are energy storage devices and in a sense they can be looked at as small temporary power supplies when they are discharging their stored energy. A capacitor acts like a constant voltage source with an instantaneous output impedance of zero and an inductor acts like a constant current source with an instantaneous output impedance of infinity. However, both devices store a finite amount of energy and therefore cannot maintain a constant voltage or current indefinitely if they are driving a load.
For a capacitor, the voltage tries to remain constant with a variable current output. For an inductor the current tries to remain constant with a variable voltage output. If you examine their behaviour over a very short period of time you can say that they do maintain a constant voltage output or a constant current output.
Some experimenters might want to do their own research to learn how these components work in the time domain and also in the frequency domain. Needless to say, there are vast information resources available online, in books, and at educational institutions. If someone is serious about experimenting with a Bedini motor it would be extremely helpful to know this stuff.
MileHigh
Well stated MH!
One might add that power supplies approximate a pure current source or pure voltage source by means of sensing and regulation circuits. This is the "tries" that MH speaks of.
In the real world, the power supply will have a finite current output capability, or will have a limited headroom of voltage available. You will find yourself "up against the stops" if you exceed these practical limits.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.09.30, 20:13:30
Poynty? What do you mean by constant current? If the voltage is changing surely the current is changing?
By "constant" it means that no matter what load is placed on the inductor, it will deliver the same value of amperes at the time just after the switch opens as was present just before it opened.
In a thought experiment, we will energize the inductor to the same value of current each time, just before we open the switch. For each test we load the inductor with a different value resistor. In each case the de-energizing current will be the same, i.e. "constant"; but the output voltage varies, along with the duration of the kickback.
.99
Poynt:
Thanks for the simple explanation. I thought that you would reply also so I decided to give a more generic response to the question ahead of time.
All:
There is enough information in this thread and the Bedini measurement thread to "bootstrap" yourself to get to the point where the information all makes sense and everything starts to fit together in your mind. Many of the important concepts have been discussed several times over. To bootstrap yourself you might want to take a trip to your local bookstore and buy a few books on electronics or perhaps find an electronics course online or both. If you get up the learning curve your experimenting should be much more rewarding.
What would really be interesting at this point in time would be if someone shares their data with us after having read both threads. The idea would be that we could interactively discuss their setups together and see what happens. I think that's a long-shot for the experimenters in the Yahoo Bedini groups, but they are certainly welcome if they want to drop in here also.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.01, 00:40:51
By "constant" it means that no matter what load is placed on the inductor, it will deliver the same value of amperes at the time just after the switch opens as was present just before it opened.
In a thought experiment, we will energize the inductor to the same value of current each time, just before we open the switch. For each test we load the inductor with a different value resistor. In each case the de-energizing current will be the same, i.e. "constant"; but the output voltage varies, along with the duration of the kickback.
.99
Thanks for trying here Poynty - and Milehigh. But I'm still in the dark. I simply cannot see how amperage will be constant. It varies with voltage and resistance and since both voltage and resistance are varying in a collapsing waveform - then amperage will vary accordingly. Why does this ever change? But I suspect I'm drifting off topic and I don't want to sully MH's excellent thread here. Maybe I'll pick up the significance as MH explains things.
Regards,
R
Rosemary:
In Poynt's example the resistance is not varying. It seems to me that you are simply making the assumption that the current has to change. Why are you making this assumption?
The current will slowly decrease as the inductor discharges, just like the voltage on a capacitor will slowly decrease as it discharges, but we are not talking about that aspect here.
Here is another thought experiment for you: Imagine you have a giant inductor that takes hours to discharge through a 1-ohm resistor. You monitor the current with an amp meter and the giant inductor is actually discharging through a potentiometer that varies between zero and five ohms.
As the giant inductor is discharging you vary the resistance of the potentiometer and look at the current reading on the amp meter. You notice that as you vary the resistance the current does not change.
For a normal sized inductor, exactly the same thing happens but on a much shorter timescale. This is what is erroneously called "radiant energy."
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. I'll try this again - and if it doesn't work - then we must just accept that we're on a different page. In the event that one delivers a fixed current through a fixed resistive load - then one can assume that current flow is fairly stable. This is very evident from a DC supply - and subject to the 'sum' of the ac waveforms - from an ac supply.
The minute one applies switches to inductive loads then conditions alter radically - whether ac or dc. The voltage from collapsing fields in a switching circuit can exceed the voltage applied by the source. And the current flow that results from these changing voltages also varies accordingly. Then - to compound the problem, the actual resistance on the inductor also varies according to the voltage and the frequency of the switches. There is nothing, as I understood it, that is stable under these conditions - least of all current flow. Hence the need to apply vi to a wide sample range in each cycle in order to establish the actual current value x voltage to determine the wattage as the power delivered.
But I think I'm talking about something that is elementary and you guys are probably talking about some exotic aspect of this that I simply do not know nor understand. But for now, I think I need to stick to what little I've learned. Sorry for the hiccup.
Rosemary:
I think it's more like your example is the complicated one and Poynt's example is the simple one. If you simply discharge a inductor with a certain initial current flow "I" through a resistance of value "R", then the initial current at the start of the discharge is I and the initial voltage is v = IR.
QuoteThe voltage from collapsing fields in a switching circuit can exceed the voltage applied by the source. And the current flow that results from these changing voltages also varies accordingly.
The current flow in Poynt's simple example will only decease. By the same token if you make the resistance dynamic and change it with respect to time then the voltage can go up and down, but the current flow will continue decreasing. The current flow will never increase. I get the impression that you think it can increase. Also, if you look at a very short slice of time where the resistance is increasing, the current remains constant.
When you talk about a switching circuit like you are working with, then things get more complicated because it's not a simple circuit anymore.
QuoteThen - to compound the problem, the actual resistance on the inductor also varies according to the voltage and the frequency of the switches.
What you mean here is the impedance of the inductor. It's only affected by the frequency, it's not affected by the voltage. When you ignore the resistance of the wire itself, the inductor does not have any resistance.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.01, 14:48:29
Rosemary:
What you mean here is the impedance of the inductor. It's only affected by the frequency, it's not affected by the voltage.
MileHigh
Got it. ;D Thanks MileHigh
Just for the sake of digging further into Bedini motor issues, there was a lively discussion on the Yahoo Bedini forum in 2005 that is documented by Sterling Allen at the following link:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/index.html (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/index.html)
I am going to comment on some of the comments made by John Bedini and Peter Lindemann in this posting. No doubt you are going to see where I disagree with what they are saying. You can always look back through this thread and in the Bedini measurement thread to find the details and explanations for what I am saying. Needless to say there are strong disagreements. The theme of this thread is finding the truth about the claims made about Bedini motors.
PL says:
QuoteYour Bedini_SG motor actually does EVERYTHING it is supposed to do. First and foremost, IT WORKS! Second, it runs like a motor and recharges a second battery. Third, it produces mechanical force at about 25% efficiency, measured as foot-pounds per second out in relationship to watts of electricity in. This is an aspect of the machine you have never attempted to verify. Fourth, even though the MEASURABLE electrical output meters at about 30% of the input, the secondary battery (under ideal conditions) charges at over 90% of the input. This discrepancy is evidence of our statements that the Radiant Energy is 1) present, 2) responsible for most of the battery charging effect, and 3) non-responsive to the standard meters. This is the basis of my statement that "you can't prove it!"
Here is the famous claim about the mechanical output being 25% of the input power consumption. JB and PL both make this claim, and they are challenging Sterling Allen to check this out for himself. This question has to be bounced back to JB and PL, have either of
them ever demonstrated the mechanical output and compared that to the power consumption of the motor? My gut feel is that they haven't done this, and this claim was plucked out of the aether. Please someone give me a link if I am wrong. If you have read this thread, then you know that doing this and making proper measurements would not be trivial. Just extracting 25% mechanical energy from the motor would require making an accurate real-time power consumption of the motor measurement and attaching a pony brake to the shaft of the motor. Then you would have to slowly increase the mechanical load on the rotor while measuring RPMs until you got to the point that the mechanical load in watts was 25% of the power consumption in watts. The power consumption of the motor would change as you add a mechanical load, you would have to find this balance point very carefully. Quite honestly, my gut feel is that there is a possibility that a typical Bedini motor would stop dead before you got to the point where there was a 25% mechanical load on it. So it's five years later and the question of the moment is has JB or PL ever demonstrated some measurements on the mechanical output and power consumption of a Bedini motor?
PL makes the often-heard claim about the "magic" from the inductive current spikes and makes the standard "radiant energy" claim. There is no magic and there is no radiant energy.
PL says:
Quoten the last few months, John and I have built two large, multi-coil machines. One of them runs on 24 volt, 450 amp-hour batteries and charges a second equally large battery bank. The second one runs on 24 volt, 1600 amp-hour batteries and charges a second set of equal size. This last unit is our first set of experiments with a battery large enough to run a solar home! At the end of the charge cycle, these 1600 amp-hour batteries are boiling at 31.2 volts!
This is all anecdotal information. Have PL or JB ever shown some hard numbers about this research? I seriously doubt it. Note also that PL seems to think that it's cool to charge a 24-volt battery bank to 31.2 volts and possibly damage the batteries. He should know better. As I stated a few postings back when we had a good discussion about batteries, this extremely excessive battery voltage reading is a fake voltage, it's not even real.
JB says:
QuoteI measure the cells by differential equations I can tell you the state of charge from one moment to the next.
This is a nonsensical statement as far as I am concerned.
JB says:
QuoteThe next question you asked, why do I not tie the grounds together, because when you do that you have no hope of a unity system, it's known as a closed loop system, these systems run under unity and always will.
The real answer is that you can't ever have the source battery and the charging battery sharing the same ground. The charging battery has to be in the discharging current loop that the drive coil is in. Just look at any Bedini schematic and follow the current loop for the discharging drive coil and notice that the charging battery is in that current loop. You may have noticed that I have never mentioned this "closed loop vs. open loop" (not to be confused with current loops) business in my postings because it is not relevant or applicable. A Bedini motor is a simple pulse circuit and nothing more.
MileHigh
More on the JB and PL discussion that was archived by Sterling Allen:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/index.html (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/index.html)
JB says:
QuoteThe answer is all about the impedance in the cells, the lower the impedance the more power you can get from the cells, once again you can not put any electrons back into the battery, it already has what it needs. If you force electrons at it, it will boil away the water in the cells causing heat, heat will damage the process that takes place in the battery, each time you do this the battery will become weaker and weaker until it is useless.
The real shocker here is that JB uses the phrase "put any electrons back into the battery." This really really freaks me out. There is no such thing as "putting electrons into the battery" and I can't be 100% sure, but it appears at least that JB is implying this. If he is indeed implying this then it would be a major shock. Only people that know nothing about electronics think that you can "put electrons in" and "take electrons out" of a battery.
PL says:
QuoteThis book reclarified the TWO fundamental methods for the production of Radiant Energy discovered by Tesla. This process is generally referred to as the "fractionation of electricity". Tesla discovered that this process could be accomplished in two ways, generally named "inductive fractionation" and "capacitive fractionation."
Yes, when you play with capacitors and inductors you can get various current and voltage spikes. In many ways they are similar devices and the differential equations that describe how they work are also very similar. I am repeating myself here because we have to demystify these concepts. The spikes are not "radiant energy." There are hundreds and hundreds of enthusiasts on the free energy web sites that are convinced that these devices are "drawing in energy from the environment" and it is simply not true.
PL says:
QuoteRadiant Energy is a huge reservoir of potential in the Earth and can be tapped directly from Nature or extracted from ordinary electricity. The key to the EFFICIENT extraction of this energy is IMPEDENCE MATCHING! John and I have stated these things repeatedly. ... Radiant Energy is similar to electricity in many ways, but it is also different from electricity in many ways. They both will light lightbulbs, run motors, and charge batteries, but they do it in different ways. ...
PL is dead wrong, see my previous comments. Also his comments about impedance matching in this case are pie-in-the-sky.
JB says:
QuoteThe simple SG motor is not so simple after all this, it works very hard to charge your secondary battery with no real measurable current.
Not true, you can easily measure the current. JB is just reinforcing the false claim that "voltage alone charges the battery with almost no current." The whole charging process is based on current being output by the discharging drive coil and this is explained many times in this thread.
JB says:
QuoteBen it's all about impedance, it's very important. Look at the size of the cables on the input and the output of this machine and battery bank. ... The impedance of the output wires is the next problem, you must match the impedance of the load within one mill- ohm, this means big cables in and out. The energy floats over everything, the scope may not sample fast enough to see it. Ben Is right about impedance problems. ... as I said the coils must match the battery impedance within one mill-ohm impedance ... Ben has not chimed in but this is all about the impedance of the system. ... You are much closer than you think, and the efficiency of the system goes up as you approach the proper impedance.
Everything that John Bedini says about impedance matching for a Bedini motor is garbage. I know that is a tough pill to swallow for ardent Bedini fans but that's the truth. It's all explained in this thread. As far as the source battery goes, impedance matching does not apply there either. With all the talk by JB and PL about "impedance matching" from what I can gather they don't ever give any concrete examples. If someone ever gets into a discussion with them about alleged impedance matching for a Bedini motor as a suggestion they should force the issue and ask for specifics.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
I think I need to step in here - but just know that I'm not going to entertain a huge debate on this subject. I just want to state my objections to your observations and then that's it. I'll be off.
To begin with I KNOW that it's more than feasible to put batteries in series with another battery supply source that the supply only discharges and the second bank of batteries only recharges from that supply. If the rate of discharge/recharge from both batttery banks are equal - then the cost of energy supplied is zero. If there is a motor running as well then that energy represents a value over and above the supply which, conventionally and certainly on these forums is termed over unity.
Now. The stated objection to the possibility that electrons are responsible for this 'increase' is argued here.
Then there's the pesky problem of charge balance. The chemical analysis that is so ably applied by our chemistry experts determines that every single electron inside a cell is fully accounted for in the formula relating to an electrolytic interaction. This chemical process will systematically move to neutralise the electrolyte without losing a single electron from the original molecules within the cell or any of the atoms which form the electrodes to that cell. Yet the puzzle then is this. When we recharge that flat battery we are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source replenishes that cell with electrons. And this restores that condition where potential difference is again evident. Where are our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?
The problem with using batteries is that the efficacy of the supply/recharge cycles is dependent on a chemical analysis. But. Here's the thing. Imagine a constant DC supply source recharging another constant DC supply source - and then do the math. It's going to contradict thermodynamic requirements any which way you cut it, the more so as 'heat' is assumed to be lost at various points of that circuit - with or without a load. So. We're actually always seeing the theoretical potential of OU provided only we 'recycle' that current to some sort of storage source. I would go so far as to argue that in the supply of any current from a utility supply source that returns that energy to the supply then there is a net zero loss of energy. In as much as work has been performed then the actual question is 'WHAT' is lost? To turn a motor or to light a light has certainly not been managed at the loss of electrons. But I suspect I'm in a minority of one on this conclusion. LOL.
I'm afraid I'm quoting myself, but I suspect that Bedini and Lindemann are both drawing attention to the fact that it's unlikely to be electrons that are the 'excharge' carriers that are in operation and, frankly, I agree with them. My intense objection to any reference to 'radiant energy' is that it implies the exchange of 'heat' somehow - somewhere - and the work being doing by the source battery here is absolutely NOT transferring heat. But I'm not sure of this because I'm not familiar with Bedini's or Lindemann's theories.
In any event. If you are going to argue against their conclusions - I wonder if it would be as well to first argue the question related to what is transferred in current flow. That would at least get to the heart of the matter.
Regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary,
I will try to respond to a few of your points.
QuoteTo begin with I KNOW that it's more than feasible to put batteries in series with another battery supply source that the supply only discharges and the second bank of batteries only recharges from that supply. If the rate of discharge/recharge from both batttery banks are equal - then the cost of energy supplied is zero. If there is a motor running as well then that energy represents a value over and above the supply which, conventionally and certainly on these forums is termed over unity.
This putting batteries in series and then keeping another battery in the circuit in a "backwards" orientation so that it charges while the circuit is running is a fairly common theme that you see on many threads. Honestly, there is no utility in doing this, this configuration is an energy losing proposition because you can never escape the two efficiencies; the batteries that power the circuit are losing energy as heat as they discharge, and the battery that is being recharged is also losing energy as heat as it's charged. It's an inescapable double whammy. So there is always a cost to doing this, it is never zero.
Then when you have a motor as the load, that's your desired destination for the source energy supplied by the main batteries. So you are looking at the source energy in the main battery bank going to three places, 1) internal losses in the main battery bank itself, 2) energy going into the "backwards" charging battery which is not a 100% efficient process, and 3) energy that goes to the real load which is the motor. So when you say, "that energy represents a value over and above the supply" you should reconsider that statement in the context of the above analysis.
QuoteYet the puzzle then is this. When we recharge that flat battery we are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source replenishes that cell with electrons. And this restores that condition where potential difference is again evident. Where are our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?
I think we have touched on this once in the past, and of course Bedini seems to be implying the same thing. We are
never told that the utility replenishes the battery cell with electrons. If you are recharging a battery (let's use current here) current flows into the positive terminal and out the negative terminal. This is the way it is, it's cast in stone. However, when the current is flowing through the battery to charge it, it undergoes a voltage drop. The current flow times the voltage drop represents a tangible amount of power, and over a period of time it represents a tangible amount of energy. With a battery you end up with a charged battery and the supplied energy has been transformed into chemical energy. With a toaster you get toast. It goes back to the roller coaster idea one more time. If the roller coaster cars roll down hill and you don't extract any energy from them, then they roll go back up a new hill to almost the same height. If the roller coaster cars roll down hill and you put the breaks on then you extract that energy as heat and you can't go up the next hill anymore, you stay on the ground. That's what's happening when you charge a battery or you make toast, the current "falls downhill" and you extract the energy from it and it exits from the battery negative terminal at ground potential.
QuoteImagine a constant DC supply source recharging another constant DC supply source
Assuming that we are discussing idealized models here, then this statement doesn't make any sense.
QuoteI would go so far as to argue that in the supply of any current from a utility supply source that returns that energy to the supply then there is a net zero loss of energy.
The current that is returned to the supply utility is at ground potential. As per my example above, you have sucked all of the "juice" out of the current. The "juice" is the energy so there is a 100% loss of energy.
QuoteMy intense objection to any reference to 'radiant energy' is that it implies the exchange of 'heat' somehow
Actually they are never referring to the heat type of "radiant energy" or implying any heat exchange. John Bedini and Peter Lindemann's version of "radiant energy" is an almost mystical entity with multiple descriptions. It might also be called "cold current" or "negative energy" or "the dipole" for example. They claim that it can't necessarily be measured, and if you try to measure it you might somehow ruin its effects. There is a belief that it is there but you can't measure it or see it, but certain circuits will allow you to transform the "radiant energy" into real tangible energy, like in a charged battery or a charged capacitor.
It's all complete and utter crap, all of it. It represents a complete failure on their part to simply understand how the energy supplied by the battery travels through the circuit and after losses some of it ends up in the charging battery. It is as simple as that, Electronics 101, and the same principles apply to any circuit you might want to look at.
QuoteI wonder if it would be as well to first argue the question related to what is transferred in current flow.
That has been explained to you, I suggest you contemplate this.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35
This putting batteries in series and then keeping another battery in the circuit in a "backwards" orientation so that it charges while the circuit is running is a fairly common theme that you see on many threads. Honestly, there is no utility in doing this, this configuration is an energy losing proposition because you can never escape the two efficiencies; the batteries that power the circuit are losing energy as heat as they discharge, and the battery that is being recharged is also losing energy as heat as it's charged. It's an inescapable double whammy. So there is always a cost to doing this, it is never zero.
So what if the batteries lose or gain heat? Their measure as a supply source is based on potential difference. I don't think it's relevant if the batteries get hot. If the potential difference on the one is on the increase at the same rate that the other is on the decrease - then there is still zero loss in the only measurement that counts - which is the voltage imbalance that is able to then generate energy proportionately.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35Then when you have a motor as the load, that's your desired destination for the source energy supplied by the main batteries. So you are looking at the source energy in the main battery bank going to three places, 1) internal losses in the main battery bank itself, 2) energy going into the "backwards" charging battery which is not a 100% efficient process, and 3) energy that goes to the real load which is the motor. So when you say, "that energy represents a value over and above the supply" you should reconsider that statement in the context of the above analysis.
This is only true in as much as it complies with mainstream ASSUMPTION. Heat is not materially effecting the potential difference in either the source or the supply battery. The current flow that you say is going 'backwards' is consistent with the measured energy from the battery. If the recharge is in series with the supply then the rate of current both discharged and recharged will be equal. The only variation will be to the measured charge in both batttery systems. And as the one increases over the other then the net recharge will measure greater wattage recharged than delivered. And the energy that turns the motor? That's jam.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35I think we have touched on this once in the past, and of course Bedini seems to be implying the same thing. We are never told that the utility replenishes the battery cell with electrons. If you are recharging a battery (let's use current here) current flows into the positive terminal and out the negative terminal. This is the way it is, it's cast in stone.
Really MileHigh? Cast in stone - no less? I think that the ASSUMPTION that energy flows from the negative to the postive is simply to accommodate the ASSUMPTION that current flow comprises electrons and electrons are KNOWN to have a negative charge. But NOTHING is 'cast in stone' as you put it. ALL is assumption - or philosophy. And btw - I think you may recall yours and many others early claim that the battery cannot recharge itself. The series recharge battery effectively disproves this claim. I think?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35However, when the current is flowing through the battery to charge it, it undergoes a voltage drop.
Not sure of your point. The recharge battery does not experience a voltage drop. But the supply battery
does.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35The current flow times the voltage drop represents a tangible amount of power, and over a period of time it represents a tangible amount of energy. With a battery you end up with a charged battery and the supplied energy has been transformed into chemical energy. With a toaster you get toast. It goes back to the roller coaster idea one more time. If the roller coaster cars roll down hill and you don't extract any energy from them, then they roll go back up a new hill to almost the same height. If the roller coaster cars roll down hill and you put the breaks on then you extract that energy as heat and you can't go up the next hill anymore, you stay on the ground. That's what's happening when you charge a battery or you make toast, the current "falls downhill" and you extract the energy from it and it exits from the battery negative terminal at ground potential.
It's an excellent analogy as it applies to roller coasters. But the flow of current does not 'change' as a result of 'braking'. It reduces/increases depending on the resistance in series with the 'flow'. Then it is measured to be equal - goes in at the same rate as it comes out - so to speak. For the analogy to be appropriate you'd have to argue a change in that rate or - better yet - a complete cessation to curent flow.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35Assuming that we are discussing idealized models here, then this statement doesn't make any sense.
Just to remind you - I referred to dc supply that was not chemically dependent - or I meant to. What I was really trying to point out is that the measure of voltage is the issue at hand. Not an analysis of the actual battery recharge/discharge. Once you start an alaysis of the chemical interactions then you're onto shaky grounds indeed.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35The current that is returned to the supply utility is at ground potential. As per my example above, you have sucked all of the "juice" out of the current. The "juice" is the energy so there is a 100% loss of energy.
Only true if there is a cessation of current. There never is.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35Actually they are never referring to the heat type of "radiant energy" or implying any heat exchange. John Bedini and Peter Lindemann's version of "radiant energy" is an almost mystical entity with multiple descriptions. It might also be called "cold current" or "negative energy" or "the dipole" for example. They claim that it can't necessarily be measured, and if you try to measure it you might somehow ruin its effects. There is a belief that it is there but you can't measure it or see it, but certain circuits will allow you to transform the "radiant energy" into real tangible energy, like in a charged battery or a charged capacitor.
Also not quite true. I think - to their credit - that both these gentlemen have the rare distinction of actually measuring their systems. But I do agree that their theory is as full of holes as is mainstream theory.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35It's all complete and utter crap, all of it. It represents a complete failure on their part to simply understand how the energy supplied by the battery travels through the circuit and after losses some of it ends up in the charging battery. It is as simple as that, Electronics 101, and the same principles apply to any circuit you might want to look at.
LOL I note a certain amount of irritation here MH. The fact is that we none of us know the answer. But don't tell me that mainstream assumption is an improvement on the OU reaches that John and Peter look to. At least the latter are looking to prove what mainstream deny. It's likely to confrontational.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.04, 04:54:35That has been explained to you, I suggest you contemplate this.
No MileHigh. It has not been explained to me - certainly not in a context that I can find logical.
Anyway. I said I wasn't going to debate and here I am - in argument, yet again. I think I need to retire. I love your thread, grossly biased as it is, it is also, nonetheless, very well articulated. So. Ignore my posts here MH and continue with the discussion. And sorry to have intruded.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
It's apparent to me that you still have a ways to go to understand energy and how energy works within electronic circuits. When you understand these concepts you can visualize what's going on in your head and then make measurements to confirm your hypothesis. If you measure something that appears to be unusual, you then do some more investigating and rethinking of your original hypothesis and ultimately you arrive at a solution that makes sense where all of the pieces fit together perfectly.
I would advise you to try to be flexible for your project. I do check in on it and from what I understand you are on the verge of having a real and serious analysis done on the system by the engineering staff at a South African university. I am assuming that the perspectives that you will hear from them are going to be very similar to the types of comments that you hear from Poynt99 and myself. Whatever happens, I hope that within a few short months you finally get the answers that you have been looking for.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. I often wonder if you're following the progress. But it's been painfully slow. There's nothing wrong with the measurement protocols applied to all our reported tests. That much consensus is everywhere. In other words the evidence as shown - is considered to be conclusive. But they need to see that evidence for themselves.
The delays are simply due to the speed of campus research. Their students have multiple programmes and one requires hands on student involvement. Therefore are there delays. But we've got a year's research here - or certainly not less than 6 months. And the hope is to cover a great deal more research than was covered in our own tests - effectively to establish the parameters required to realise the gains on a more predictable basis and with some better handle on the required materials.
But again. While you feel I have a lot to learn about energy - and I'm sure you're right, I also feel that you also need to look at this learning curve MileHigh. There are some real implicit and explicit contradictions in conventional 'energy' concepts that are long outstanding and have never been addressed. And it's really not an argument to say that you're right. One needs to understand on basis you consider that you're right. Else we're not even dealing with philosophy. We're actually then dealing with theology. The proof of Dark energy has actually upended an awful lot of conventional thinking - which problems have absolutely NOT been addressed by engineers. Dark matter - dark enrgies are proof of a new and heretofore UNKNOWN FORCE. That's big news - by any reckoning - and I see very few engineers even entertaining this fact. They really need to get up to speed with this - especially as it relates to conventional concepts of 'energy exchange'.
Actually I now know I'm off topic. But I've always known - somehow - that you've tolerated these test results our ours. Nor sure why. But it's a comfort.
Kindest again
Rosemary
Just more comments on some very recent discussions on the Bedini Yahoo group:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/message/13681 (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/message/13681)
Ian Koglin posted the following:
QuoteG'Day Jonathan
In reference to your statement below
>Separate question. I've hooked up the 2 amp trickle charger to the
>primary battery during part of some tests to keep that battery above
>12.2volts-- I've read on this list that the battery will compensate for
>any ripple from the charger-- is this true? A recent post from Guy
>Bradley warned against it.
I have used a useless battery in this way so as to have a buffer using a 12v
charger as the primary I have found as mentioned several times that this will
destroy the battery (it was useless as a battery anyway) and that it is best not
to use a power supply. This means it is annoying having to continually charge
the primary battery between runs, you really need a battery as the primary that
will be able to run the SSG while charging the Charge battery.
If you do not have a battery as the primary source to run the machine then
you will miss out on being able to see the reaction between the Primary battery and
the charging battery.
Regards Kogs
I can not think of any possible ill effects on the primary source battery if you hook up a battery charger to it while you run your Bedini motor. It's certainly possible that the source battery will fluctuate back and forth between charging and discharging while it powers the Bedini motor. So what? There is no logical reason to suspect that this will have a negative impact on the battery.
The Bedini SSG schematic:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/RickFriedrich_SSG/Schematic2.jpg (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/RickFriedrich_SSG/Schematic2.jpg)
Ian Koglin alleges that there is a "reaction" between the primary battery and the charging battery. He seems to be implying that some kind of "special" reaction is taking place. It almost looks like this could be the case because when you look at the SSG schematic you can see how positive of the primary battery is connected to the negative of the charging battery. So there is a direct electrical connection between the two batteries. However, take a closer look at the schematic. Note how the positive of the charging battery also gets charged through the diode and drive coil, which is also connected to the positive of the primary battery. Therefore both the negative and positive terminals of the charging battery are related to the positive terminal of the primary battery. It's like the charging battery is "sitting on top of" or "riding" the positive potential of the primary battery. However, there is
no current flow connection between the two batteries. Current can flow into the charging battery when the drive coil discharges. That's the only time it can happen. This has no affect on the primary battery.
So the only "reaction" between the primary battery and the charging battery is as follows: The primary battery energizes the the drive coil with about 30% of the energy per cycle, and loses about 70% of the energy per cycle. Then that 30% of the energy gets discharged into the charging battery. So as the primary battery discharges, the charging battery charges. These two events take place in separate and independent time slices, due to the diode and transistor acting like a pair of switches. So the two batteries don't really react with each other.
MileHigh
Following up on my previous posting, Tom C. says this:
Quoteto add to what ian says, the battery is a chemical conversion device with
electrons as the output. it does not like to be charged and discharged at the
same time, no battery does, that is why we are counseling against using a power
supply. as you can see JB "splits" the positive so the primary battery is part
of the "magic" of the SG
Tom C
Tom alleges that the primary battery is part of the "magic" of the Bedini motor. I don't believe it.
I rebutted the "(source battery) does not like to be charged and discharged at the same time" argument in my previous posting.
I would like to know what "splitting the positive" means. If they mean that "splitting the positive" has to do with the charging battery "sitting on top of" or "riding" the positive potential of the primary battery then I don't buy it. When you look at the two batteries, you do indeed have "two positives." Starting from the primary source battery you go "up" one potential level to the potential of the positive terminal potential. Then you go "up" another potential step to the charging battery's positive potential. So in that sense the batteries are in series. One more time, if this is the "splitting of the positive" then so what? I don't see any "magic."
Perhaps the "magic" they are referring to is related to their charging battery COP testing. I have already pointed out the major flaws in their COP testing method. In addition to this, they ignore the roughly 70% power losses related to inefficiencies in running the Bedini motor itself.
I can only hope that one day someone measures the charging battery COP the way that I have suggested doing it a few times in this thread. You have to shake off the current measurement approach and do it based on energy measurements. It's a little bit more complicated but you should end up with valid charging battery COP data.
In all likelihood the Bedini Yahoo group are collectively deluding themselves with respect to their charging battery COP data. A month ago I mentioned that there were serious flaws in the COP testing to some of the leaders of the group. Someone posted that they were going to reevaluate how they did their COP testing but there has been no more public mention about this important issue as far as I am aware.
MileHigh
Just a comment or two about the "Renaissance November Workshop Convention" with some comments plucked from the EF.
Peter Lindemann:
QuoteAnd just for clarification, "Watson's machine" is just Bedini's design built larger! Bedini started teaching this in 1984 and has never stopped.
I suggest that you come to the Conference, so your heart may be opened and your misunderstandings healed.
Electricity:
QuoteTake the Watson generator for example, there are numerous attempts at replications with not a single success post. I see this devise as a practical solution to most home energy needs.
Mark:
QuoteOk, credibility may not be the word I was looking for. Maybe I should have said sales tactics like this leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I think you get my point. I just believe that when people advertise a product or promote something that they should make truthful, honest statements that don't mislead or leave anything that can be misinterpreted.
All of what you wrote I'm sure is true and thats how it should have been posted, not last chance, never again. I'm just tired of seeing ads that read, the final secret, all the info you'll need, and etc... and its simply not true. I just want the facts and the simple truth nothing more.
I looked at the agenda for the conference about a month ago and I did not see anything earth-shattering. The main thrust of the event is a show and tell for Bedini motors.
The sad thing is that in all likelihood they will not explain to the attendees how a Bedini motor actually works. Nobody will leave that conference with the understanding that a Bedini motor is just a way to energize an inductor and then route the energy stored in that inductor through a diode into a target battery. Nobody will be taught why a discharging inductor is capable of making "voltage spikes" that can go from a low of zero volts to a high of several thousand volts. Nobody will be taught that a discharging inductor acts like a current source, and not as a voltage source.
I can only suspect that the only person at the conference that knows this is John Bedini himself, and he will not be teaching this material to the attendees. That would be letting the proverbial cat out of the bag. Just like Peter Lindemann would like you to believe that there are "electric motor secrets," John Bedini wants to keep the "Bedini motor secrets" all to himself. The reason for this is to keep the gravy train flowing.
This conference is an example of the "free energy" cottage industry in action. The cost for this conference is $250 per head. The majority of the attendees will probably leave the conference as satisfied customers. It's safe to assume that they will have all have had experience "tuning" their complimentary Bedini motors, but they will leave the conference still ignorant of how one actually works.
It's a sobering thought. A Bedini motor in schematic form is a very simple pulse circuit. Understanding how that pulse circuit actually works is fundamental to understanding how a Bedini motor works, but this will not be taught to the participants.
I will assume that the question of energy in vs. energy out will not be seriously discussed in a meaningful way either. The same old allegation that the battery outputs more than you put into it will be made, and chances are this allegation will not be challenged by any of the participants.
The best way to learn about a Bedini motor is to read the Bedini threads on this web site and at the same time take the equivalent of an "Electronics 101" course.
MileHigh
For what it's worth, here is a good rebut to Rick Friedrich's often repeated comment that "Bedini motors are outside of conventional understanding."
Electrical Engineering
Technical electives must be chosen from the approved list in the Undergraduate Calendar. Some technical electives may not be offered in a given academic year.
The courses listed may be changed due to continuous modernization of the curriculum.
Electronics September Entry
Year 1
Fall
Course Number Course Name Credit
COEN 231 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 3
ELEC 273 Basic Circuit Analysis 3.5
ENGR 201 Professional Practice & Responsibility 1.5
ENGR 213 Applied Ordinary Differential Equations 3
ENGR 233 Applied Advanced Calculus 3
Winter
Course Number Course Name Credit
COEN 243 Programming Methodology I 3
COEN 312 Digital Systems Design I 3.5
ELEC 251 Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics 3
ELEC 264 Signals & Systems I 3
ENCS 282 Technical Writing & Communication 3
Year 2
Fall
Course Number Course Name Credit
COEN 244 Programming Methodology II 3
COEN 311 Computer Organization & Software 3.5
ELEC 311 Electronics I 4
ELEC 364 Signals & Systems II 3
ENGR 202 Sustainable Development & Environmental Stewardship 1.5
Winter
Course Number Course Name Credit
ELEC 312 Electronics II 4
ELEC 321 Introduction to Semiconductor Materials & Devices 3.5
ELEC 365 Complex Variables & Partial Differential Equations 3
ELEC 370 Modeling & Analysis of Physical Systems 3.5
ENGR 301 Engineering Management Principles & Economics 3
Year 3
Fall
Course Number Course Name Credit
ELEC 331 Fundamentals of Electrical Power Engineering 3.5
ELEC 351 Electromagnetic Waves & Guiding Structures 3
ELEC 372 Fundamentals of Control Systems 3.5
ENGR 371 Probability & Statistics in Engineering 3
ENGR 391 Numerical Methods in Engineering 3
Winter
Course Number Course Name Credit
COEN 315 Digital Electronics 3.5
ELEC 363 Fundamentals of Telecommunications Systems 3.5
ELEC 390 Electrical Engineering Team Design Project 3
ELEC 442 Digital Signal Processing 3.5
Year 4
Fall
Course Number Course Name Credit
ELEC 030 Technical elective
ELEC 031 Technical elective
ELEC 032 Technical elective
ELEC 033 Technical elective
ELEC 490+ Capstone Electrical Engineering Design Project 4
Winter
Course Number Course Name Credit
ELEC 040 Technical elective
ELEC 041 Technical elective
ELEC 490+ Capstone Electrical Engineering Design Project (4)
ENGR 392 Impact of Technology on Society 3
General Education elective 3
Electronics/Systems Electives
Courses are listed in groups to facilitate course selection.
A. Communications and Signal Processing Credits
ELEC 441 Modern Analog Filter Design 3.50
ELEC 462 Digital Communications 3.50
ELEC 463 Telecommunication Networks 3.00
ELEC 464 Wireless Communications 3.00
ELEC 465 Networks Security and Management 3.50
ELEC 472 Advanced Telecommunication Networks 3.50
B. Computer Systems Credits
COEN 313 Digital Systems Design II 3.50
COEN 316 Computer Architecture and Design 3.00
COEN 317 Microprocessor Systems 4.00
COEN 320 Introduction to Real‑Time Systems 3.00
COEN 345 Software Testing and Validation 4.00
COEN 346 Operating Systems 4.00
COEN 352 Data Structures and Algorithms 3.00
COEN 421 Embedded Systems and Software Design 4.00
COEN 432 Applied Genetic and Evolutionary Systems 3.00
SOEN 341 Software Process 3.00
SOEN 342 Software Requirements and Specifcations 3.00
SOEN 343 Software Architecture and Design I 3.00
C. Electronics/VLSI Credits
COEN 451 VLSI Circuit Design 4.00
ELEC 421 Solid State Devices 3.50
ELEC 422 Design of Integrated Circuit Components 3.50
ELEC 423 Introduction to Analog VLSI 4.00
ELEC 424 VLSI Process Technology 3.50
ELEC 425 Optical Devices for High‑Speed Communications 3.50
D. Power and Control Systems Credits
ELEC 430 Electrical Power Equipment* 3.50
ELEC 431 Electrical Power Systems 3.50
ELEC 432 Control of Electrical Power Conversion Systems* 3.50
In the context of the above, Bedini motors are outside of Rick Friedrich's understanding.
MileHigh
A very interesting quote from Peter Lindemann:
http://www.energeticforum.com/117446-post305.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/117446-post305.html)
QuoteMore Secrets Revealed.....
>Originally Posted by kippered
>Quote:
>My monopole is now running also
>now just to tweek it for performance...
Kippered,
Great to hear you have your motor kit running. The system is designed to run from a small 12 volt, 7 amp-hour battery, charge a capacitor and dump that into a different 12 volt, 7 amp-hour battery. Meanwhile, when it gets up to speed, a whole string of LEDs light up from the extra generator coil that is putting out about 24 volts. When you have the whole thing working, I'll tell you how to modify it so it will run itself, light the LEDs and charge the back battery faster than the front one goes down.
Peter
The Bedini motor in question is most likely the one that was given out to the attendees of the Renaissance November workshop convention that took place last weekend.
Peter is claiming that he can turn a small Bedini motor into a self-runner, an over unity device.
Looking forward to further updates on this one!
MileHigh
Here is the schematic for the complimentary Bedini motor given out at the convention:
(http://r-charge.com/3PoleSchematic.jpg)
I can't want to see how Peter Lindemann is going to work his magic and turn it into a self-runner.
I was looking around on Peswiki.com and I saw some stuff about the EFTV videos:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Videos:New_%22Energy_from_the_Vacuum%22_Documentary_Series_DVD_release_-_John_Bedini (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Videos:New_%22Energy_from_the_Vacuum%22_Documentary_Series_DVD_release_-_John_Bedini)
Rick Friedrich says this about EFTV #2:
QuoteWhat is also very helpful is that the video is in two parts. The beginning has an old (2000) Energenx promotional video which gives an excellent explination of what the Bedini's company has done and is capable of doing. Several older models are presented and explained. This is followed by more continued dialoge (from the volume 1 in this series) with Tom Bearden who tells us more about John's unique childhood of grinding rocks to make numerous transistors, and later some of his training and early work in the service and audio industry.
What? Grinding up rocks to make transistors? I am not an expert here but I am 99.99% certain that this is an impossible thing for a teenager to do. This is equivalent to the John Searle story where as a 16-year-old boy in post-war England where rationing was still enforced he miraculously managed to build several flying saucers.
A transistor is a piece of ultra-pure silicon that has been doped with impurities that are adjacent elements in the periodic table to make "N" regions and "P" regions (a.k.a. "holes"). These two regions are created in a single piece of silicon to create a current amplifier based on the influx of current in the base region. It's a very high tech thing to do even today and it must be done in a "silicon foundry." You simply can't collect rocks and grind them up to make transistors. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
MileHigh
Update from Peter Lindemann:
QuoteTwo ways to do it
Hi Everybody,
OK, here's the deal (or at least one set of possibilities). The idea is this. Once you have the basic system recycling the electricity from the front batteries to the back batteries while running the motor, any mechanical energy produced is the major portion of the "free energy" created by the machine. The extra generator coil can then "convert" this free mechanical energy back into "new" electricity, or electricity that was not in the system before.
The way the system is wired is to take 100% of this "new" electricity and use it to light some LEDs. The voltage of that system is about twice the voltage of the batteries, or about 24 volts. So, if you light only about 12 volts worth of LEDs instead of the full amount, you now have about 12 volts worth of output to play with. This can be applied to either the input battery to offset the battery drain at the front, or added to the capacitor and dumped to the battery in the back along with the rest of the recovered energy from the coils.
Either way will give you the bias you need to run the system, light some LEDs and charge the back battery faster than the front runs down.
Have fun!!!
Peter
My comments:
1. Peter is riding the myth that the mechanical energy is "free." This has never been proven as far as I am aware. Earlier in this thread there are some tests that you can run to see if this is true or not.
2. Peter talks about having "12 volts to play with." Get real, you have to specify power in watts.
3. Peter makes the grand statement that the charging battery will charge faster than the source battery discharges. The data that I have seen so far indicates that the charging battery charges at about 30% of the rate that the source battery discharges. That means that 70% of the source battery's power is lost as heat during the charging process.
That's a reality check.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.20, 03:40:00
What? Grinding up rocks to make transistors?
While I don't see much else claimed as possible, this is.
It can and has been done with sheet glass, a razor blade, silica and mica from busted rocks. Apparently, also required was a solid whipping from Dad for breaking the glass, taking the blade from his razor and playing with his torch.
The instructions were in a 50's Boy Scout magazine or was it a comic book? I don't remember.
Yeah, I remember the "Project" to make a transistor, although we did it with a little better than rocks.
We ARE talking the olden days, when such was not unheard of. Who remembers whisker transistors, etc.?
These modern people, without the experience in original "You had to make it yourself" requirements
might find this hard to believe, but seeing and having to test and hand in a stupid report on the
results can make a believer out of many. Too bad that tech has gone so far that the original basics
are lost to the modern graduate. Just like computers. How many could program an original PDP8
in binary from the front panel switches, depositing one word at a time? THAT was programming.
Of course, this type of stuff seems useless today, but I wouldn't disregard some of the insight or
experience that can be obtained. Unfortunately, it makes it harder to find "Free" energy, cause
you see things a little different.
For a stupid example, take the "Old" Bedini SSG. I HAVE seen a modified design, without the
wheel, using a permanent magnet as a bias and allowed to free run. This setup WILL put out
a little (VERY LITTLE) more power than what goes in. Many would say, WOW, Free energy.
(Many state the true operation is impossible as well, but decide for yourself...) The real trick
that I found in this case was, the magnet was being de-magnitized. The unit would slowly
run down and then you had a very weakened magnet. I didn't go through the math, but I
would be willing to bet that if you added up the Power used to create the magnet, that it
was not very efficient energy storage, but without noticing that little detail...... Several said
that just getting power from a "Permanent" magnet was "Free Energy", but that is not the
case if the magnet doesn't survive. A permanent magnet generator could be made two ways,
in this situation. One: Uses power from the input shaft only. Runs forever, but not "OU".
Two: Phases in a "Tricky" way to pull the "Magnetic Charge" out of the magnets. Very easy
to prove that it puts out "Free Energy", as long as you "Forget" to notice that it dies when
the magnets die. And, of course, many have sworn that you "CAN'T" get power from a
magnet, even if demagnitizing it. I have a different theory, but as I have not gone through
the "Entire" process of detailing the entire thing, I CAN"T PROVE either way, so theory it
remains. (I have done the kill a magnet routine, but not with enough detail for proof.)
All of the above rambling ignore the "possibility" of drawing power from "Other" sources, but
that is another story, anyway. I just had to "Butt In" on the "Breaking Rocks" "Joke".
Just a stupid take on "Charging" batteries. Most educated will laugh, but here it is. IF you
could accept that it "Might" be possible to create, oh say HHO, by using a specific method
that could break down the water in a "Different" way than standard Faraday methods, and
further suppose this method WAS more efficient, then it is the SAME concept that could
be used to alter the "Chemical" state of the battery's charge, without going through the
"Brute Force" method of shoving "Electrons" through it. Wild and Crazy, ignorant of me
to even say, and Yet, The possibility MUST exist, as there ARE proven ways to do just
such a thing with water. (No, I am not privy to such methods, nor do I even have a clue
as to where to begin, but some here certainly do....)
Again, just some thoughts about the reality of the situation, from long experience. No
need to prove me wrong, as what I believe possible matters not to the wise.
I begin to wonder what I am doing here. I never seem to offer useful information.
Over 55 years ago at age 10, I was lucky enough to have been given a personal tour of the Lansdale Transistor manufacturing plant (A division of Philco-Ford). There I learned of many aspects of the manufacture of transistors, the early point contact types, surface barrier etc. The Czolchralski method of "pulling" a crystal was amazing to watch, as well as the slicing, dicing, and packaging operations.
I was given a small bag of transistors as a treat, and I was the luckiest kid on earth, now able to build pocket wireless transmitters and shirt pocket radios where previously, tubes made them too heavy to lug around.
Comparing crushed rocks to this precision manufacturing is no contest, yes it may work some of the time, but you wouldn't want your computer using them.
BTW Here's a cool site that explores homemade semi's. Checkout the home page also. Nyle Steiner is having fun!
http://sparkbangbuzz.com/zinc-osc-2/zinc-osc3.htm
From Loner:
QuoteI begin to wonder what I am doing here. I never seem to offer useful information.
I get that feeling too sometimes especially, when what I think are good posts get completely ignored.
Your input is valued. Don't ever leave. Every gentleman of reason, fellow explorer has a place here.
For what it's worth, my new code is to spend less time trying to prove other's work is flawed, and more time on
how electrons might be caused to be accelerated in one direction, in a closed circuit that does not utilize standard inductive techniques.......a tall order but this is the starting point.
Gentlemen,
You're Words Inspire!!
when you share them here !
It is like Manna from Heaven!
And thats how I really Feel!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.11.20, 13:22:35
Gentlemen,
You're Words Inspire!!
when you share them here !
It is like Manna from Heaven!
And thats how I really Feel!!
Chet
Chet: something you or someone could do that would be positively helpful: Make a transcript of the audio portion of the two SM video's I just referenced in the "TPU Was it Real" thread.
Thanks for being here!
Hey Guys,
I stand corrected, I just missed that! I remember building a crystal radio, I wonder if they still sell the kits. They supplied a commercial diode with those kits of course, and not a "cat's whisker."
Amazing, I will have to keep it in mind if I am ever stranded on a rocky island and need to build an S.O.S. transmitter! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.20, 16:31:06
Hey Guys,
I stand corrected, I just missed that! I remember building a crystal radio, I wonder if they still sell the kits. They supplied a commercial diode with those kits of course, and not a "cat's whisker."
Amazing, I will have to keep it in mind if I am ever stranded on a rocky island and need to build an S.O.S. transmitter! lol
MileHigh
My dad and I played with a "cat whisker" radio using a Galena crystal in 1953 or so. I was fascinated. I tried blue blades, pencil lead and other rocks, but finally found the secret a few years later. It was all about "Q" and the Litz wire coil with ferrite slug and a 1N34A germanium diode was the cat's meow. Then the CK722 transistor was introduced to the hobbyist at just 99 cents.....I had to have one!!
ION
MY Home Compu has no audio[getting fixed],I'll do it when I go away next week on Holiday at my inlaws [it will help keep me sane] !;o}
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.11.20, 17:46:45
ION
MY Home Compu has no audio[getting fixed],I'll do it when I go away next week on Holiday at my inlaws [it will help keep me sane] !;o}
Chet
Chet: This would be a very valuable though arduous task. I appreciate your willingness to take this on. It will yield some gold nuggets not obvious from the distraction of just watching. Thank You
Here is a recent posting about the new Bedini demo motor given out at the Renaissance November workshop convention by Peter Lindemann:
QuoteThink it Through.....
Gentlemen, (and Ladies)
The motor kits delivered at the conference, and the predecessor designs, are all capable of indefinite operation. All of the necessary components are there. But, as with all things in this world, everything must be optimized.
First, the 9 volt batteries supplied with the kit are for demonstration purposes. They must be replaced with some small, 12 volt rechargeable batteries. 4 or 7 amp-hour gel-cells are preferred.
Second, the generator coil is designed to produce about 24 VAC at about 5,000 rpm. This final voltage (whatever it is for your model's top speed) determines how many LEDs you can light ABOVE the battery level.
Back popping the front battery is the most difficult method to get to work, although a workable method for off-setting the input was clearly explained in the Electric Motor Secrets thread and has been there for years.
Charging a cap on the back end with both the recovery from the motor coils AND the excess from the generator coil (after lighting a few LEDs) is the simplest and most reliable method.
Free running bearings, choosing the right number of LEDs based on the operational "top speed" of your system, running the system at "room temperature" so the batteries charge efficiently, etc, etc, etc,.....including everything John has been harping on for years..... are all necessary aspects of an operational success story!
Look at what John just posted in the "Electricity Watson Machine" thread. Its your own way of thinking that is stopping you.
Quit trying to build a "self-running machine" and start closely observing and working with the machine that is in front of you. Go through each system in the machine and find out it's range of activity. Chart them and take notes. Let the machine "teach you the truth" about itself and how well it embodies what "you believe" it embodies. When you find differences between "what you thought it was doing" and "what it is really doing", make adjustments.
When you are done with this process, it WILL be running itself.
We have told you EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
Beyond this, you must learn it for yourself.
Peter
I can't disagree with the spirit of what Peter is saying, except for the line "it WILL be running itself." If you do your investigations properly, then you will conclude that it will NOT be running itself. Make no mistake, this is a device that burns off source battery energy as heat, and charges a second charging battery. The device burns off MORE source battery energy as heat than it puts energy into the charging battery for a NET LOSS in energy every time you run it. Some people may try to tell you that "extra energy from the vacuum" goes into the charging battery during the charging battery because you are making use of "radiant energy." This is NOT happening and you can easily verify this for yourself if you really want to.
So, if you are going to analyze this motor and really figure out what it's doing, you can determine for yourself if Peter's claims (and others) about this device are true or not. In the next posting I will give you some suggestions for how to go about doing this.
MileHigh
I am going to discuss analyzing this motor using high-level concepts only. All of the low-level descriptions of how to go about making the real measurements, etc, are in the Bedini threads on this web site.
For starters, the most basic measurements you can make on the motor are the average power consumption from the source battery and the average power output to the charging battery. You typically will want to vary the base resistances for the transistors (this motor has three power coils) and see how the performance changes in terms of power consumed and power transferred into the charging battery.
So, I am throwing down the challenge to people with this new motor, or Bedini motor experimenters in general: How many watts of power is your motor consuming from the source battery? How many watts of power is the motor pumping into the charging battery? I have seen so many Bedini motor clips and read so many threads and I almost never read about anyone making a serious attempt to make these measurements.
This is the most fundamental data about your new motor, average power in and average power out.
The real way to make these power consumption and power output measurements for irregular pulsing voltage and current waveforms is in the Bedini measurement thread on this web site.
When you add the generator coil and want to measure the power output from it, the first thing to do is get rid of the LEDs because it's almost impossible to measure the power consumption of LEDs with ordinary bench equipment. They are non-linear devices so you can forget it.
For the generator coil, you want to add a simple resistor as the load, and you need a "True RMS" multimeter to measure the RMS voltage across the load resistor to calculate the coil output power. In addition, you can measure the resistance of your coil. Then you have enough data to determine how much average power is burned off in the generator coil itself because you know the RMS current through the load resistor, and the same current flows through the generator coil.
You also want to try varying the load resistance for the generator coil because that will change how much power the generator coil outputs at a given RPM.
That's enough food for thought to start the process for doing a serious evaluation of how your new Bedini motor actually works.
Think of each time you do a run test of your Bedini motor, there is a "data vector" of measurements and derived data that describe the operation of your motor.
Here is a sample "data vector" for a run of your Bedini motor:
1. Source battery voltage (Why not check with your scope to be sure it is truly constant?)
2. Source battery size and type and ampere-hour rating
3. Charging battery voltage
4. Charging battery size and type and ampere-hour rating
5. RPMs
6. Average source battery power consumption
7. Average output power to charging battery
8. Generator coil load resistance
9. Generator coil winding resistance
10. Generator coil output power
11. Power dissipated as heat in generator coil itself
12. Transistor type
13. Base resistance(s) setting
14. Transistor ON time
15. Transistor pulse frequency
You note that I am not listing the run time and the source and charging battery start and end voltages. The data vector is only concerned with the real-time running operation of the motor itself. I may make some comments on batteries and battery testing in a later posting or you can read the Bedini threads on this web site.
The most shocking thing for some of you is that you are going to see that average output power to the charging battery will be much less than the average source battery power consumption. The output power to the charging battery might only be about 30% as much as the motor's power consumption.
Once you generate the first data vector for your Bedini motor, you can start experimenting by varying one parameter and seeing how that affects all of the other measurements. You can follow your own lines of investigation, never forgetting that you want to make all of the measurements for each new data vector.
Another "shocking" thing that you are going to see is that if you start outputting significant amounts of power with the generator coil that the motor will slow down a lot, and this will affect the motor's power consumption and also affect the output power to the charging battery. You will quickly come to the realization that the old line about Bedini motors, "the mechanical is free" is NOT TRUE, and you have to pay a price to drive the separate generator coil with mechanical power from the rotor.
So that's it, I am throwing down a challenge to all of the Renaissance workshop attendees that were given their sample Bedini motors. The challenge is to make test runs with your Bedini motor and generate all 15 pieces of data in the data vector for each run.
This is a good starting point for really understanding how your motor works. Since many of you have the same motors, you can easily compare notes. There is no doubt that doing this involves some REAL WORK and discipline to make all the measurements and record all of the data. There is a tangible reward at the end though, and you have a more or less standardized set of data that you can exchange with other experimenters that have exactly the same motor.
If anybody wants to cross-post this in any of the other forums, please feel free to do so.
MileHigh
I am going to respond to the "litmus test fail by milehigh" thread started by Wilby Inebriated on OU:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10043.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10043.0)
The proposition is that because I did not know that transistors could be made from minerals in the ground (i.e.; rocks) that I have failed the litmus test for general knowledge about energy, physics, and electronics, and therefore all of my technical comments should be discounted. In addition, a person with a single posting under their belt suggested that I should apologize to John Bedini for making my comments.
I was corrected by some posters around here and then freely admitted that I was ignorant about this matter.
I was ignorant about a small piece of historical trivia about transistors. Not knowing a small piece of trivia about transistors that dates back to the 1950s is not a valid litmus test with respect to my general technical knowledge.
On the other hand, supposing that I stated that "transistors are voltage amplifiers" as fact. This is a statement about transistor technology that is wrong because transistors are devices that amplify current, not voltage. We are not talking historical trivia anymore. That would indeed be a litmus test failure because it would demonstrate that I didn't understand how transistors work.
So, using the phraseology of inimitable Wilby Inebriated, it's a logical fallacy for Wilby to suggest that I failed the litmus test because I did not know a relatively obscure piece of historical trivia about transistors.
As far as apologizing to John Bedini goes, in reviewing my posting you can summarize what I said as "It makes no sense at all to think that you can grind up rocks to make transistors." It's actually a rebuttal to a story told by Tom Bearden that I thought was a tall tale. My comments we never addressed to John Bedini directly and I think that it's fair to say that even die-hard believers in free energy would question some of the comments of Tom Bearden.
However, I will repeat that I admitted my ignorance and in that sense I retract my statements directed at Tom Bearden about this issue, and by extension I retract my statements that were ultimately about John Bedini.
As a final thought for Bedini fans to contemplate, it's about central issue that the whole Bedini motor concept is based on. Bedini alleges that coils discharge "radiant energy" and there is something "special" about this "form of energy." The simple fact is that Bedini is not giving you the straight goods about what happens when an inductor discharges. If you are really serious about your Bedini motors you should take it upon yourselves to research how an inductor works in general, and specifically how a discharging inductor works. You can read in the Bedini threads on this web site, or open up some electronics, electrical engineering, or physics books, do research online, and so on. Gather information from at least five "conventional" sources and work on understanding and mastering what the hell is really going on when an inductor stores energy supplied to it by an external power source and then discharges that stored energy. Assuming that you have mastered that, then go back and read through and watch material from John Bedini himself and you just might have a much different perspective on the man and what he says. I am not trying to tell anybody what to think, rather, I am suggesting that you do the research yourselves.
MileHigh
MH,
My opinion is you have no reason to apologize.
I have the same problem at home. My pet doesn't feel enough attention so he drops a ball at my feet and waits for me to toss it. If I ignore him he starts barking until I either throw the ball or walk away.
Sometimes I just don't feel like playing fetch.
MH
I agree, there is no reason to apologize, least of all to JB who is bilking people with his hocus pocus.
As for your attacker, I have yet to see him post anything technical. He seems to be like a lawyer in training, going around on forums nit picking at people that he could never ever hold a technical conversation with.
I tend to ignore him. Sometimes, when an eagle lands in a chicken coop, there is one lead chicken who will try to rile the rest of the birds that like him, cannot fly, and have them peck the eagle's wings off.
You Sir, are okay in my book. Your technical posts are right on.
The other guy should seek to get his medication changed. He is either a paid disruptor, or someone who just enjoys creating chaos. Either way his agenda is nefarious.
Milehigh,
No one knows everything there is to know, we all make mistakes, and we are all missing pieces of the whole picture. Those who understand what you are saying don't need an appology, those who do, obviously, need to study more! But you could try a little more humility with everyone, obviously there are some well educated people at this forum starting right at the top with Poynt, so no need to be talking with and appologising to the peanut gallery.
Good stuff MH ;) As you can see, it wasn't a big deal with most of us here that you apologize, but it shows character anyway, and that should be recognized.
@Room3327,
Thanks for your confidence, it's appreciated.
We've got a pretty darn good team of individuals here, and I'm just glad to be a part of it. :D
.99
Thanks for your support guys and I am going to switch back into 10-coiler mode again because the topic has been heating up after the Renaissance November workshop convention.
There are two important postings:
The first is from Mark:
http://www.energeticforum.com/117771-post5.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/117771-post5.html)
QuoteHeys Bits
I need some clarification. Someone posted that Rick said your 10 coiler, cap pulser, battery swapper set up could only light up 60 watts of light bulbs while self running (maintaining the voltages in all the batteries). You posted it saves you about $40.00 a month on your electric bill which computes out to around 400 watts output 24/7.
Can you please confirm with your (10 coiler, cap pulser, battery swapper) set up how many watts of continous 24/7 output do you have while maintaining the voltages in all your batteries? Is it 60 watts, 400 watts or somwhere in between?
THanks, Mark
The second is from Seselaa:
http://www.energeticforum.com/117776-post6.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/117776-post6.html)
QuoteThis is what I ave learned, Please quote me on this.
From what I have learned is that t is $4200 for the 10 coil monopole kit, plus $5300 for 20 additional coil kit. So $9500 total for US buyers, more for other countries. This is roughly $1000 off from a month ago.
Truth In Heart CREDIT CARD ORDERING CENTER
I have been reading a lot on the monopole, Bits setup is highly modified with extra components not yet available for sale.
So if you can perform these modifications and add other components like battery swappers and others, than you may get 416 watts out.
For off grid use.
416 watts/hr
= 24 volt x 17 amp.
I will respond in the next post.
MileHigh
Bits (Jeff) hasn't responded to the questions yet and it's important to state that Bits (Jeff) is only the designer of the intelligent battery swapper, he does not sell the 10-coiler kits or represent the company that sells the 10-coiler kits. However, he is clearly affiliated with them and is working on projects with them.
The kits are sold here by "Truth in Heart" a company that I believe is owned by Rick Friedich and John Bedini and others.
http://potentialtec.com/kits.html (http://potentialtec.com/kits.html)
Note that nowhere on the Truth in Heart web site does it state that the 10-coiler and related kits produce excess energy or can be configured to become self-runners.However, by the same token many claims have been made by people directly or indirectly affiliated with these products and the associated automated battery swapper after the Renaissance November workshop convention. The claims are that they are over unity devices that can be configured as self-runners so that you can connect and inverter to them and generate continuous mains power at a certain wattage level.
For example, Bits said this:
http://www.energeticforum.com/117738-post335.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/117738-post335.html)
QuoteAbsoulty this is big! I think folks are starting to get it, albeit slowly. Redrechie, thank you. Now for my viewpoint, we have for many years tried to illustrate there are better methods to produce energy and clean up our environment. Some of these methods still go not being noticed because they are not "Packaged" for the normal consumer. I was asked by some attendee's at the conference the very question of, "When can I buy and distribute this to the world". I had to answer with "This conference is to Teach this technology and if we give in to the status quo, then we are just repeating the very mess that we are in today". Let me explain, if we allow 1 or 2 corporations to secure the right s to these inventions and technology's, then we have just allowed ourselves to be held hostage AGAIN. But, if we teach the world to be able to create and use the free energy, at will and adapted for our own use, we finally can break free. Redrechie, you are right, just imagine your car with a 10 coiler in it as you pass the fueling stations AND the power pedestals for charging. We have shown all this is possible with just a few items at the conference. John's wheel producing over 1.5 million joules of energy, Rick driving a electric lawn mower plus his electric car, The 10 coiler running on its own power and Peter sharing (teaching) the secrets of the Lockridge device and Patrick's latest vid. All I can say is WOW and look out 2011.
Jeff
Earlier than that Bits stated this:
http://www.energeticforum.com/116789-post192.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/116789-post192.html)
Quote> quote=electricity;116784
> Anyway, I am only interested in practical usable devices, so do we now have enough disclosure and knowledge to build one yet?. Or does it > still take a decade to light each light bulb ?
Thanks for your great effort, I myself do not see a need for that circuit.
The only thing I can say is you missed out and now you are still asking the same old questions, "are we there yet"? Electricity, you missed out. Beginning with Rick entering in the conference on a lawn mower which not only propelled itself while charging it's own battery's, me demostrating the 10 coiler powering itself while running a load (The whole conference), Rick driving his electric Porsche to the conference (10 miles @ night with full lights. I followed him), Gordy riding his electric motorcycle, Peter telling us ALL about the lockridge device (including secrets never told before), Jeane Manning giving a revelation speech, and finally John, showing his machine that ran for the entire second day on "Perpetual" (yes I said it) motion until he generated power out of it, and you have the nerve to say that you do not have a need for that circuit? The only thing that I can say is that you are on the wrong forum and I wish the best for you. Please help us by taking your "Business as usual attitude" elsewhere. I myself have worked a lifetime to see this day and can say "We did it"!!!!!
Bit's
Okay I will bring this all together in the next posting.
MileHigh
Okay, we have a potentially disastrous situation here for an over-eager consumer that is looking for a free energy system to tie into their home power grid:
Someone may be utterly convinced that they can purchase a 10-coiler kit and Jeff's battery swapper and the cap pulser and an inverter and two banks worth of batteries and have an over-unity system that provides a continuous source of mains power for their home at a certain continuous wattage level.
However, the product descriptions on the Truth in Heart web site make no claims that this is actually doable.
Therefore there is the potential for someone to spend close to $10,000 (TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS) and end up with a system that is only a "super-duper battery charger" and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT with NO LEGAL RECOURSE FOR GETTING A REFUND.
Jeff, it's up to you and your associates, Rick Friedrich and John Bedini to produce hard data and concrete evidence that the 10-coiler and supplementary hardware produce free energy like you and others are unofficially claiming on the Energetic Forum web site in the aftermath of the Renaissance November workshop convention.
Right now Truth in Heart can sell someone thousands of dollars worth of equipment with no legal obligation to refund their money when the integrated system does not work.
Jeff, this statement by you, "me demostrating the 10 coiler powering itself while running a load (The whole conference)" is most likely pure anecdotal evidence with no measurements or numbers to back it up unless you can prove otherwise. In all likelihood, even though you used small batteries with the 10-coiler for the weekend workshop demo, the batteries contained enough energy to keep the 10-coiler running all weekend.
It's time for you and the Renaissance/Truth in Heart groups to back up your product with official claims in the form of an official spec sheet for the full integrated system with full specifications and full test data supporting the claim.
In my personal opinion, it's likely that nothing like this has ever been done and you haven't done your own rigorous internal testing to confirm the proof of concept with hard data that you have in your possession right now. And the reality for you Jeff, is that with your battery swapper up and running with a fully configured system and fresh batteries, you will find that to your dismay that it doesn't work. At 60 watts continuous power draw from the inverter, it may take one full month, or it may even take two full months if you have to big battery banks, but eventually the system will be fully drained of all battery energy.
The only way you could possibly convince me that what you are promoting is true is to have certified testing done where the total energy drained off the system is at least 10 times the total energy available in both battery banks when you start the testing.
Bits/Jeff, in the aftermath of the "buzz" from the Renaissance November workshop convention, the time for anecdotal evidence is over and it's time to back up your claims with real data.
As far as the timing goes, I am not saying that you have to have the proper data to back up the claim today or tomorrow, but there has to be a project that has already been started or will be started soon to verify the claims that are being made.
MileHigh
"No one ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of people"
Bottom of the Truth In Heart Web Kit Sales page:
Choose below if you would like to donate to further this ministry. All help is appreciated.
$1 $2 $5 $10 $20 $50 $100 $200 $500 $1000
Now it's a ministry........run like hell folks
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.21, 15:31:33
The most shocking thing for some of you is that you are going to see that average output power to the charging battery will be much less than the average source battery power consumption. The output power to the charging battery might only be about 30% as much as the motor's power consumption.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh,
I've seen you in action in many posts and display a great level of knowledge. I find your posts very interesting and on the exact spot about the issue.
I'd like to ask regarding your above statements saying "might only be about 30% of the motor's power consumption". What is the theoratical ideal % in your opinion?
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2010.11.22, 06:33:10
Hello MileHigh,
I'd like to ask regarding your above statements saying "might only be about 30% of the motor's power consumption". What is the theoratical ideal % in your opinion?
Thank you for the compliment.
It's hard to give you a theoretical ideal percentage but I will try to answer that in the context of what might realizable for an experimenter to build.
You would need a drive coil with low resistance, so use wire that's as thick as possible with fewer turns. I would completely get rid of the conventional pick-up coil driving the transistor's base input resistor because it dissipates too much heat and the slew rate it generates is too slow. One possible option might be to wire a pick-up coil EMF signal to an ultra-low-power operational amplifier configured as a comparator, and have the output of the operational amplifier drive a 555 CMOS timing circuit that drives the base input of a FET or MOSFET. You need to control the start timing for the pulse to center it on the repulsion sweet spot between the drive coil and the rotor magnet, and that's where the comparator comes into play. You need to control the ON pulse and keep it as short as possible to minimize the i-squared-R losses in the drive coil. That's just my first guess on a very-low-power timing circuit. There is a very good chance that there is a better way to do it.
A very narrow pulse will have relatively little energy in it so the rotor will not spin too fast. This is fine because you want the rotor to spin slowly to minimize the air friction losses. The rotor itself should be made as a solid disk with the magnets embedded in the edge of the disk to also reduce air friction.
If you do all that, you will have a slowly turning Bedini rotor running on very narrow pulses that are timed to be centered on the magnetic repulsion sweet spot between the energizing coil and the rotor magnets. The amount of battery power consumed to support the timing circuit will be minimized and the signal to the FET or MOSFET transistor will have very fast OFF-ON and ON-OFF transitions. It won't charge batteries particularly quickly but it will hopefully do a much better job at converting the source battery power into inductive current pulses that charge the charging battery.
I will take a guess that by working in this direction and adjusting and tweaking you could get the power transfer efficiency into the 60%-70% range. So that would be about twice as efficient as your typical Bedini motor.
MileHigh
Okay I am going back to the 10-coiler + inverter issue because it's important.
This posting is again addressed to Jeff/Bits.
Jeff said:
QuoteOk Ozy, I know you were not at the conference and you want hard and fast calculations and figures. Here is the same message that I told folks asking the same questions as you are seeking. First you cannot take these systems and put a hard figure to what they will output. It is true I illustrated about .5 amps going back to the grid in my vid. Did you happen to see what size batts I had in that illustration? They were very small but it showed just a hint of what the 10 coiler could do. That said, in my setup at the conference and the questions I answered, if you take 2 battery banks, consisting of 4 ea 12V batterys in series then you now have 2 banks capable of producing 48V @ "your total amapacity" figured at a C5 or C20 rate. You'll note that I said "YOUR" meaning everyones setup will be different. Continuing on with this illustration, 1 bank is under load (Grid Tie) the other is being charged (from the 10 coiler). How fast can the 10 coiler recover the charge for the batts being charged? Who knows. Depends on the health of your batts, temp, etc., etc. The optimal setup is that your Grid Tie will be sized to your battery banks at the proper C? rating, and the 10 coiler recovers the drained bank in that same period. I'll call this the "Charge" and "Discharge" window. Properly configured, it has been my testing experience, the 10 coiler will recover a healthy battery bank in 2 - 5 hours. I am going to caveat this statement by saying that I am not allowing a discharge cycle of the batts to fall below 12.2 volts / batt. This is the fully discharged cycle resting voltage. So the batt swapper is brought in to control the load / charge process to insure that you have properly charged batteries and also to provide a continous load setup. With this said, "YOUR" battery bank / Grid Tie setup is the numbers you need to use in your Calc. to determine "How much can the 10 coiler output". Make sense?
Jeff
Jeff:
"First you cannot take these systems and put a hard figure to what they will output."You have to make the transition from anecdotal comments to real hard nuimbers. Your swapper is part of a system that purports to generate free energy. You absolutely
must put a figure on what it can output. Just choose a typical battery bank configuration that someone would use and then quote how much continuous power the system can generate with the 10-coiler with the battery swapping going on in the background. You can forget about the grid-tie feature and simply drive a 60-watt or 100-watt light bulb or whatever you think is appropriate. You have to back this up with hard evidence. For example, you could drain 10 times the total available energy in both battery banks while driving a 100-watt light bulb continuously and that would be convincing.
"They were very small but it showed just a hint of what the 10 coiler could do."People don't want to be teased anymore especially when the system is quite expensive. They need hard data. Precisely what can the 10-coiler do?
"the other is being charged (from the 10 coiler)""and the 10 coiler recovers the drained bank in that same period."One battery bank is driving a load, presumably the inverter. The 10-coiler is charging the other bank. So what is powering the 10-coiler? A third bank? It's important to state that the 10-coiler never charges a bank of batteries without drawing from
another bank of batteries.
"So the batt swapper is brought in to control the load / charge process"What's powering the battery swapper itself? The microcontroller itself doesn't consume that much power but you have to keep one or more relays on continuously and that consumes some power. How much power does the battery swapper consume and where is it coming from?
MileHigh
One more comment for Jeff:
QuoteMark, I just tried to illustrate in my last comment to Ozy that their are many varibles. The first mistake that everyone is making is trying to wrap a math problem around this. Without giving you the answer, can you verify your cost per KWH is exactly the same as mine? Of course not! Then how can you equate a $40.00 a month saving from my bill to a 300KWH delta. Quit trying to apply convential means to this non-convential energy. Build a setup just like I illustrated at the conference, size the battery banks to fit your needs and you my friend will have savings, WHICH WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN MINE.
And just as a side note, my grid tie, the one I illustrated to you in the video put's out anywhere from .5 to 1.2 amps. It senses the "Availble Voltage" and ramps up or down as necessary. Once again, your assumption was a fixed .5amps.
Jeff
Jeff, I am going to make the assumption that you noticed a roughly $40 decrease in your electricity bill for at least a few months when you started working with the 10-coiler and the grid-tie setup. Again, this is anecdotal evidence and should be treated as such. As far as I am concerned this is just a number that you are throwing out there. It could be because you used less hot water and did less washing and drying or ate out more, etc.
Again, I am suggesting a control test with a 100-watt light bulb running 24/7 with the 10-coiler, battery swapper, cap pulser, and grid-tie inverter connected to the light bulb only, and not to your home grid. How many mega-Joules of energy do you start with? Let's assume that between the two battery banks you have 20 mega-Joules of energy. That's enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb load for 2.3 days.
Therefore there is a very easy proof-of-concept test that you can do.
Assuming 20 mega-Joules of energy between your two battery banks, please run a test where you power a 100-watt incandescent light bulb continuously for 25 days.25 days is nothing in "free energy forum time" as you well know. A month goes by in the blink of an eye. In your current setup, how much total battery energy are you working with? You can relate that back to a 100-watt incandescent light bulb load and run the test like I am suggesting above. I have already forewarned you that both battery banks are going to die. Here is your chance for you and Rick Friedrich and John Bedini to prove me wrong.
MileHigh
Jeff you said this:
QuoteOzy, I am trying to give you Bloody answers, but you ain't listening. You are not able to even solve the simplest equation. Let me tell you again, with no lecture, if you are able to solve the equation, which is the grid tie will drain the first battery bank in 5 hrs, and the second bank in 5hrs, the 10 coiler will charge up the first bank in 2 - 5 hrs. This leaves a cushion of 4 hrs in a 24 hr period that the ten coiler will take to charge up both banks. You will be able to sustain a 24/7 load to your grid tie. What it produces on the back end, is not relevant in that whatever it produces is a total gain. Remember the 10 coiler is producing it's own drive, and charging itself. If your looking for name plated output, I cannot help you.
Can you elaborate on your scheduling? Because I am also confused.
I assume that the 10-coiler is drawing energy from the second bank at the same time the second bank drives the inverter, is that correct?
Where is the 10-coiler getting the energy to charge up both banks during the 4 hr cushion time?
"You will be able to sustain a 24/7 load to your grid tie."At what output power level and for how long?
"Remember the 10 coiler is producing it's own drive, and charging itself."Can you elaborate on this?
Jeff, Aussieaussieaussie on the Energetic Forum was asking you legitimate questions. In previous postings I have also asked you some important questions. We hope to see your replies.
MileHigh
This is a response to Aussieaussieaussie on the Energetic Forum in the discussion "Renaissance November Workshop Convention:"
QuoteDon't listen to Milehigh with lightbulbs and such - this just screams scam because how do I know how brightly they were lit?
Please tell me what is your objection to putting a watt meter on the inverter?
Give me an honest answer why you are against taking this measurement and I will leave it be. MIB, NDA whatever.
But if you don't have a good reason then do the bloody test.
I realize you are not prepared to do it MileHighs way, that would take a lot of time and effort. But how can you disagree with a $20 watt meter on the inverter?
"
Don't listen to Milehigh with lightbulbs and such - this just screams scam because how do I know how brightly they were lit?"
Aussie, I don't think that you are getting it. I am assuming that the grid-tie inverter can output a clean 120 VAC sine wave to the 100-watt light bulb. Jeff would just have to verify that the AC voltage was correct. Then it's a no-brainer, you can assume that the light bulb load will be 100 watts +/- 10%.
"
I realize you are not prepared to do it MileHighs way, that would take a lot of time and effort."
What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Once Jeff starts the 25-day test, then he has nothing to do. Just check once a day that the light bulb is lit. This would take almost no effort at all.
Let me outline a possible scenario for you:
We are going to assume that the grid-tie inverter is smart, and won't complain about low battery voltages for a while. But within a few days both battery banks will start to get too low in voltage. Then the smart grid-tie inverter is going to start beeping and flashing lights complaining about the situation. Meanwhile Jeff's swapper algorithm is gong to helplessly swap banks back and forth at the fastest rate his software algorithm will permit. It will also start to beep and flash lights because both battery banks will be too low in voltage.
Within a few days the smart grid-tie inverter will beep incessantly complaining of under-voltage and the smart battery swapper will also be complaining. The 10-coiler will start to slow down. This will last a day or two and then the smart-inverter will refuse to power the light bulb because all of the available battery voltages have dropped below a critical threshold.
So, if the system truly works like Jeff claims it does, it should sail through the 25-day non-stop test and just keep on swapping battery banks back and forth and sucking in free energy from the vacuum.
However, the problem is that for all of Jeff's hard work writing code and designing PCBs, it looks like this "reality check" has never been done. It's analogous to the optics problem that the Hubble Space Telescope had when it was first launched in 1990.
So I predict that if the test is ever done, withing two days you will start hearing under-voltage beeps and the smart grid-tie inverter and smart battery swapper will try to compensate, but it will be a losing battle. Within two more days the grid-tie inverter will refuse to power the light bulb because it will know that no matter what battery bank you give it, there will simply not be enough juice.
You will end up with both banks of batteries drained as far as the smart hardware will let them get drained and no further. The setup will die within four or five days max, and will not run the full 25 days. The reason for this is that the 10-coiler does not "extract extra energy from the vacuum." The 10-coiler is just like any other Bedini motor, and that means it is an energy loss mechanism and there is no "vacuum energy" to be found.
The proof in the pudding would be found by running the 25-day test with a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.24, 06:31:01
...
You will end up with both banks of batteries drained as far as the smart hardware will let them get drained and no further. The setup will die within four or five days max, and will not run the full 25 days. The reason for this is that the 10-coiler does not "extract extra energy from the vacuum." The 10-coiler is just like any other Bedini motor, and that means it is an energy loss mechanism and there is no "vacuum energy" to be found.
The proof in the pudding would be found by running the 25-day test with a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
MileHigh
MileHigh - I was absolutely with your argument all the way down to this penultimate paragraph - with special reference to '...that means it is an energy loss mechanism and there is no "vacuum energy" to be found." Until then I could buy into your impartiality. This is absolutely NOT the conclusion. It only means that there's not enough energy returned to the supply to keep it running - and that observation then based on the assumption that it WILL fail. Surely to be entirely objective you'd do better to wait and see? And since when does this disprove vacuum energy? Vacuum energy or Dark Energy is NOT something that needs to be proved to exist or not. It's already been proved. Exhaustively. You just need to read up about it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Let's say we separate the scientific concept of vacuum energy from what a Bedini motor does. In other words, I am not casting a wide net when I say "vacuum energy" in my posting. The flavour of "vacuum energy" is the one that says somehow when you use a Bedini motor to drain one battery and charge another battery, at the end of the charging process somehow you have gained energy when you look at the remaining energy in both batteries.
I am not even going to touch your comment about "energy returned to the supply." That's something that you believe about your specific experiment and it has no relation to a smart grid-tie inverter taking 12-volt DC power from a battery and turning that into 120 VAC mains power.
So the "reality check" test has been suggested to Jeff (Bit's-and-Bytes) to see if his setup can supply a continuous source of 100 watts of 120 VAC power to an incandescent light bulb for 25 days while the 10-coiler runs and batteries are swapped back and forth in the background.
This assumes that you are working with 20 mega-Joules of total battery energy when you start the test and the test is designed to extract about 200 mega-Joules of energy from the system. If you have more or less than 20 mega-Joules of battery energy when you start the test then you have to tweak the test parameters accordingly.
Ultimately I really don't care how you describe the alleged free energy mechanism because it doesn't matter. This is a simple test to see if the system really works or not like Jeff claims it does.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
I think we both want something similar here, so please don't take this as an introduction to a debate.
In a perfect world, yes, a proper independent test would be great - but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Your test duration is 25days which is fine, but I don't think Bits is prepared or willing to do this so...
I am proposing a very simple test, really a clarification on a previous test on a you tube video.
Watt meter on inverter instead of simple amp meter, and a load test to find out what this device is capable of at this stage of testing.
Simple.
Yes, there is still a large element of 'faith' that has to be given to Bits for this to be conclusive. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - you may not.
But I guess my biggest concern is you seem to have a conclusion with no data - which in my mind is very very silly....
I am but a simple scientist who likes to see the data before I replicate and form my own conclusions.
We will see if my attempts to obtain data is in vain soon I guess.
Ozy
Hi Ozy,
Welcome to the site!
There is an issue related to your test that you need to think about. So you put a watt meter on the setup. Just to be sure of what you mean, do you mean the following: The inverter 120 VAC output connects to the watt meter (like a Kill-a-Watt meter) and that connects to some sort of a load? For the sake of argument, let's use a 100-watt light bulb again.
What then? What do you mean by a load test? The point being that no matter how you look at it, you have to extract more total energy from the batteries than the batteries store in the first place. To put it another way, if you ran a test for five hours, it would mean nothing because the batteries can easily power a 100-watt load for five hours.
So can you clarify your proposed test?
I just want to make another brief point. All of your questions to Jeff and other people on EF are valid. Jeff has a military background and he knows that every single piece of electronic equipment he worked with had a full set of specifications provided by the manufacturer or the system integrator without exception. By the same token Ash trying to imply that you have to "buy in" to the technology to learn to use it and then perhaps you can join the "question club" is preposterous. $10,000 USD is real money and you have every right to ask questions about the performance and specifications of some sort of integrated 10-coiler plus inverter setup. Any person with common sense would agree with this. In fact, like I stated earlier in the thread, they should release an official .pdf document with the specifications and any order placed with them should include the published specifications as the performance criteria that they have to meet. If they can't meet the published performance criteria then you should have a full right of refund. Do not order anything from them without all of this on paper.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
Haha, I wasn't even asking for a 'test' as such really just clarification on how much output he was getting in his current configuration.
What he posted and others was very vague and I just wanted the results from the horses mouth.
So I proposed a simple experiment:
Hook a watt meter up in between the inverter and the load. Slowly add more load each day until you start to see the system loosing voltage - remove the last load you added.
Bingo. Read watt meter and you have a rough figure of the usable output from the machine. Now we improve! Yay!
There are many many ways to prove the system works, but as no free energy device has ever sat through a proper independent test, I don't see this one going through that process anytime soon. :)
You seem pretty sure this doesn't work, so please present your reasons why (other than theoretical)?
Have you heard any reports of other people who have built large bedini machines?
Thanks,
Ozy
Ozy,
Just another comment where we can safely make some assumptions about the grid-tie inverter. If we had the model number we could look it up. Ask Jeff if he can give you the manufacturer and model number.
We are going to assume that it is a medium to high-end device. That means it's display can already tell you how many watts it is providing to the load, the power factor, the total number of joules (or watt-hours), etc. Almost certainly for a varying source battery voltage it can maintain a rock-solid 120 VAC under load as long as the battery power doesn't croak under the strain.
We can safely assume the grid-tie inverter is a very smart device and a Kill-a-Watt meter would be redundant. Knowing the model number would likely confirm my assumptions.
As far as Jeff's last clip goes, it was all anecdotal evidence. He showed it pumping 60 watts of power into his home grid for a minute, so what? Jeff explained that the device "listens" to the mains voltage in the house. If it drops a few percent then it pumps current into the L1 power line. Okay, so if that's the case, is the device recording the monthly number of joules it pumped into the line? Did Jeff correlate that with his electric bill? There are too many unanswered questions and all of the evidence is anecdotal.
In Jeff's grid-tie clip all that you really saw was a grid-tie inverter drawing power from presumably charged batteries pumping some power into his L1 home power line. There was no evidence at all that the 10-coiler was doing anything to support this activity.
The only way to prove that the 10-coiler and the battery swapper add value is to suck much more energy out of the battery banks than the batteries hold. If Jeff claims that he has overcome the conservation of energy, then he has to prove it. Also, 25 days is nothing. It's just three weeks and change, a blink of an eye. If Jeff puts out a clip roughly every two months, why can't he run a test to see if his setup works?
MileHigh
Hi Ozy,
QuoteHook a watt meter up in between the inverter and the load. Slowly add more load each day until you start to see the system loosing voltage - remove the last load you added.
Bingo. Read watt meter and you have a rough figure of the usable output from the machine. Now we improve! Yay!
You are missing the point here. What you are testing in your test is the power output capability of the inverter under load. Secondarily you are testing the ability of the battery bank to supply the required current to the inverter so the inverter can do its job.
This indeed will show you what the maximum power output from the device is. That's one specification, but it's a secondary specification.
You can't forget, this is supposed to be an over unity machine, that's what Jeff is saying. He is saying to you and everyone else that the battery banks can recharge each other indefinitely by using the 10-coiler to move energy from one bank to the other and vice-versa. Something "magic" is supposed to happen with the 10-coiler that makes extra energy appear in the batteries. That is the reason you want to buy this machine and that's the primary specification that we are missing. How much continuous power can it put out 24/7 non-stop where you have extracted at least 10 times the amount of energy that the batteries contain at the start of a test run. Nothing else is acceptable. That's why you have to test it like I stated.
QuoteYou seem pretty sure this doesn't work, so please present your reasons why
The reason it's not going to work is because a typical Bedini motor only transfers about 30% of the source battery energy to the charging battery when you run it for a certain amount of time. 70% of the source battery energy is lost as heat and never makes it to the charging battery. The 10-coiler almost certainly has similar performance. The reality is that it is a commonly held belief that the charging battery somehow has extra energy in it that comes "from the vacuum." I have never seen any hard numbers from any Bedini experimenters over the past three years proving this allegation of extra energy, have you? There is no logical reason to expect that the chemical energy in a battery magically increases above and beyond the energy that is put into it when the battery charging energy source is a series of inductive current spikes from a discharging inductor.
MileHigh
Boy u can type!
In the video I never saw a LCD screen on the inverter, so thats why I was pushing the watt meter so much.
Also, he claims it has saved him money off electricity bill right? = running all the time = +watt meter = daily results.
He tells us the watt total and the battery voltage, we can all watch in awe! See simple.
I agree a proper test would be ideal. But my idea was to use baby steps.
The 10-coiler almost certainly has similar performance.
This is an assumption... :(
There is no such thing as magic, magic is a word used to describe something you do not understand.
If this is real then surely someone else will be able to replicate and we might finally get our answers.
Who knows, if Jeff/Bits pulls his finger out of his ass and his ego out of the clouds and gives me some simple answers, that person may even be me!
Ozy
Hi Ozy,
It's a reasonable assumption of around 30% for the 10-coiler's efficiency in transferring the average power supplied by the source battery and turning that into average power that is being pumped into the charging battery. It is fundamentally no different from any other Bedini motor.
I am willing to bet you that if you asked Jeff or Rick what the power transfer efficiency was they wouldn't know anyways. It's not easy to measure either so the average experimenter would have to read the Bedini measurement thread on this web site to do it properly.
I get the feeling that Jeff has never tried to do a serious test along the lines that I am discussing. Look at the example of Rick making an entrance in a converted lawn mower running on a window motor. I read several statements to the effect that this could also run indefinately with battery bank swapping. So if people witnessed it run for 20 minutes why should they believe that the claim about the converted lawnmower was true? People on the forums have to have the courage to ask the real questions.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.24, 09:37:38
I just want to make another brief point. All of your questions to Jeff and other people on EF are valid. Jeff has a military background and he knows that every single piece of electronic equipment he worked with had a full set of specifications provided by the manufacturer or the system integrator without exception. By the same token Ash trying to imply that you have to "buy in" to the technology to learn to use it and then perhaps you can join the "question club" is preposterous. $10,000 USD is real money and you have every right to ask questions about the performance and specifications of some sort of integrated 10-coiler plus inverter setup. Any person with common sense would agree with this. In fact, like I stated earlier in the thread, they should release an official .pdf document with the specifications and any order placed with them should include the published specifications as the performance criteria that they have to meet. If they can't meet the published performance criteria then you should have a full right of refund. Do not order anything from them without all of this on paper.
MileHigh
I absolutely agree with this.
Ozy,
I am going to respond to Jeff's posting:
QuoteOh good God, Ozy, here is the information you want, the grid tie inverter puts out 210W of continuos power @ 120 V with a 24 volt input. This device scales up and down accordingly based on the input voltage level. This means the output can swing between .5 and 1.2 amps. Didn't I say this before. DONT WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND A MATH PROBLEM HERE or you'll miss out. This is my device, yours will be different. If you continue to focus only on the Grid Tie's output, you'll miss the excess energy that I take from the radiant output of the 10 coiler and pipe that back into the battery swapper to recharge the drive batterys of the 10 coilers input. You'll also miss out on the kenetic energy the wheel is developing (how ever this has not been tapped in my setup) The input of the 10 coiler draws any where from 2 to 3.5 amps @ 24V in the sweet spot. Once again DONT WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND A MATH PROBLEM HERE, each 10 coiler is different, you may get adequate charging at 1 amp. You may also run the input at 36V which then changes these parameters totally. Now go procure a 10 coiler and begin to test. Don't lose site that I have not even begun to stack more batts on the output (which will change the output figures drastically). Here is the most important point that you need to WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND, "Radiant Spikes" on the output can often times exceed 1000V, but lets use the 1000V as a figure. All Batts on the output "Feel" this delta no matter what configuration, however, the closer you get to this 1000V mark, your "delta" gets smaller, less charging effect. I know that you probably just missed this point so I am going to repeat it. If my batts are configured for 24V on the output, then the batts "Feel" a radiant spike of 1000 - 24 = 976V. However if these batts are configured for 48V, then 1000V - 48 = 952V. I am only using these numbers for illustrative purposes. Yor machine will be different in the way that you have "Tuned" it. Didn't I say this before? This is the reason why you think that I am giving you the run around, I am not. Here is what is going to happen, you and many others will take these numbers that I have just given to you albeit for ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY purposes, and you are going to shout to the world these are the outputs of the 10 coiler and my setup. If you do, I reserve the right to put this post before the same and say "I told you so". LISTEN to what I am telling you, the key is a properly tuned machine, to attain the largest "Radiant Spikes" on the output, with the least draw on the input. With the abilty to also use my battery swapper in this scenario and capture the radiant sikes into my cap pulser, I am able to run the machine self sustained. Going forward, I am attempting to run this machine with no batts. Should I get this working (and I will) what will be the claim then?? This will be the last I say on this to you. Heed the advice of Aaron and take this to the 10 coiler thread. Stop the bashing Ozy, you are wearing out your welcome.
Jeff gave you the spec for the output capability for the inverter he is using. That's fine, but like I said before that's a secondary issue.
Jeff seems to want you and others to not "WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND A MATH PROBLEM" but the truth is that's what this device is all about, the performance numbers and specifications.
As far as his device being "different" from yours, let's take a look at this. Why not assume that you have a system with the same 10-coiler, grid-tie inverter, battery swapper, and cap pulser. That's a reasonable assumption, they are not going to change these components. The only possible variable is the battery banks. So either you use car batteries or deep-cycle golf cart batteries. Batteries are a commodity item and they can be bought simply based on their specifications, regular or deep-cycle and the ampere-hour rating. It would be very easy to define a standard configuration for the two battery banks and go from there and base the continuous power output specification on using the same battery bank configuration. So there is no major "difference" that makes it insurmountable to quote the specifications for Jeff's setup. He just has to quote the standard battery bank configuration that he is using that the specifications are based on.
The "kenetic energy the wheel is developing" is just a "Bedini-ism," it's almost a meaningless statement. Bedini says "the kinetic energy is free" but that's not really true and that can be confirmed through testing.
Whether the setup runs at 24-volts or 36-volts is almost irrelevant. The inverter will draw from either DC voltage to convert that into mains power and by the same token the 10-coiler will still charge the battery banks at a rate proportional to the source battery voltage, the RPMs, and the transistor ON time. We have to assume Jeff's battery swapper can be configured for 12, 24, or 36-volt operation.
""Radiant Spikes" on the output can often times exceed 1000V, but lets use the 1000V as a figure. All Batts on the output "Feel" this delta no matter what configuration, however, the closer you get to this 1000V mark, your "delta" gets smaller, less charging effect. I know that you probably just missed this point so I am going to repeat it. If my batts are configured for 24V on the output, then the batts "Feel" a radiant spike of 1000 - 24 = 976V. However if these batts are configured for 48V, then 1000V - 48 = 952V."This is the shocking statement. My best guess is that Jeff was focused exclusively on the battery swapper and he took it for granted that what Rick Friedrich was telling him was gospel truth without checking it out himself. I am just grasping at straws here because even Rick should not be saying this. The 10-coiler packs a real current sourcing punch when it outputs a pulse of current into the charging battery bank because each physical coil consists of eight separate coils all discharging in parallel for a very high charging current. HOWEVER, this current pulse is going into a bank of large batteries. The voltage rise you see on the positive terminal of the charging battery bank might go five or ten volts above the nominal +12.6 volts of the battery bank, but no more. Jeff does not seem to realize that the "1000V" is associated with the coil discharging in a no-load situation. i.e.; normally you have neons to protect the transistors in this case. Once you connect the charging battery bank the high voltage spikes disappear. So there is some kind of major disconnect going on with Jeff and how the 10-coiler actually operates for charging batteries. Jeff SHOULD KNOW THIS no matter what the case and you can draw your own conclusions here.
MileHigh
Good Grief!
We've seen this all before. It's a sad repeating pattern of 'scuse the phrase; just plain ignorance.
::)
.99
Ozy,
Okay a few more comments on Jeff's statement, copied here again:
QuoteOh good God, Ozy, here is the information you want, the grid tie inverter puts out 210W of continuos power @ 120 V with a 24 volt input. This device scales up and down accordingly based on the input voltage level. This means the output can swing between .5 and 1.2 amps. Didn't I say this before. DONT WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND A MATH PROBLEM HERE or you'll miss out. This is my device, yours will be different. If you continue to focus only on the Grid Tie's output, you'll miss the excess energy that I take from the radiant output of the 10 coiler and pipe that back into the battery swapper to recharge the drive batterys of the 10 coilers input. You'll also miss out on the kenetic energy the wheel is developing (how ever this has not been tapped in my setup) The input of the 10 coiler draws any where from 2 to 3.5 amps @ 24V in the sweet spot. Once again DONT WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND A MATH PROBLEM HERE, each 10 coiler is different, you may get adequate charging at 1 amp. You may also run the input at 36V which then changes these parameters totally. Now go procure a 10 coiler and begin to test. Don't lose site that I have not even begun to stack more batts on the output (which will change the output figures drastically). Here is the most important point that you need to WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND, "Radiant Spikes" on the output can often times exceed 1000V, but lets use the 1000V as a figure. All Batts on the output "Feel" this delta no matter what configuration, however, the closer you get to this 1000V mark, your "delta" gets smaller, less charging effect. I know that you probably just missed this point so I am going to repeat it. If my batts are configured for 24V on the output, then the batts "Feel" a radiant spike of 1000 - 24 = 976V. However if these batts are configured for 48V, then 1000V - 48 = 952V. I am only using these numbers for illustrative purposes. Yor machine will be different in the way that you have "Tuned" it. Didn't I say this before? This is the reason why you think that I am giving you the run around, I am not. Here is what is going to happen, you and many others will take these numbers that I have just given to you albeit for ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY purposes, and you are going to shout to the world these are the outputs of the 10 coiler and my setup. If you do, I reserve the right to put this post before the same and say "I told you so". LISTEN to what I am telling you, the key is a properly tuned machine, to attain the largest "Radiant Spikes" on the output, with the least draw on the input. With the abilty to also use my battery swapper in this scenario and capture the radiant sikes into my cap pulser, I am able to run the machine self sustained. Going forward, I am attempting to run this machine with no batts. Should I get this working (and I will) what will be the claim then?? This will be the last I say on this to you. Heed the advice of Aaron and take this to the 10 coiler thread. Stop the bashing Ozy, you are wearing out your welcome.
Jeff makes some comments about the "tuning" and how it can be different from one 10-coiler to the other. He seems to be saying that this will make a difference and because of this you can't compare his performance numbers to anybody else's. One more time, you are looking at a piece of hardware that is built up from the same components. They all use the same structure, the same coils, and the same transistors. As long as the source battery bank voltage is the same then there no reason at all for two copies of the 10-coiler to not run with approximately the same performance. Jeff talks about "tuning" as if it is some indescribable thing. You can specify the RPM, the base resistances, the triggering time relative to TDC, the transistor ON time, the average power consumption from the source battery bank, the average power output to the charging battery bank, and so on. I simply don't accept that you can say a physically identical 10-coiler will be "tuned differently" from someone else's and therefore you can't compare performance numbers. What Jeff and company really should be saying is "Here are the optimized tuning parameters for 12, 24, and 36-volt source battery operation."
"With the abilty to also use my battery swapper in this scenario and capture the radiant sikes into my cap pulser, I am able to run the machine self sustained."As far as I am concerned, this is a statement being made by Jeff based on purely anecdotal evidence at this point and lots of hope. Bringing it all back home, my suggestion is that before Jeff even goes there, he has to pass the "reality check" test and power a 100-watt incandescent light bulb 24 hours a day for 25 days to prove to himself and others that his setup is a free energy machine.
"Going forward, I am attempting to run this machine with no batts. Should I get this working (and I will) what will be the claim then??"If this was true you would win the Nobel Prize for physics. You think you can eventually run the 10-coiler off of two very large capacitor banks after you have tuned the motor so that everything is perfectly optimized. That's a tall order and you will never be able to do this. I won't be holding my breath waiting for the good news from you on this one.
MileHigh
Ozy,
I am going to respond to the following comment by Redrichie:
QuoteAussie, aussie, aussie...I think you must have A.D.D. something fierce. It is one thing for honest questioning, which only some of your questions seem that way. But seriously, asking the man who is a very well respected individual, and whom a lot of us look up to if he tested his device properly takes some real "huevos". Come on, my friend. REally? did he test properly? Nope Im sure he threw it together in a few days and said...YEP self runner. just for you guys. Go ahead and laugh at my waste of 10g's because I didnt test it properly before I showed it to The inventor!! LOL
Redrichie is just cowering to the implicit peer pressure on the Energetic Forum that says, "Don't ask any tough questions. Just shut up and listen when a perceived authority figure that's connected with John Bedini says something." Redrichie is dead wrong here and just becoming a member of the Energetic Forum sheeple.
Look at the example of the dialog with John Bedini for the "Ferris Wheel Regauging Motor" on the Energetic Forum. People ask John questions and agonize over his cryptic responses, and then they ask him more questions and then get more cryptic responses and agonize more and try to connect the dots themselves. It's ridiculous and it's another example of the sheeple in action. As was stated on another thread in this forum, the "Ferris Wheel" was shown at the conference, and nobody knows what it really does. There are no specifications, no clear explanations of what it does, just the usual guessing game. We guess that it drains one bank of batteries and charges another bank of batteries, that's all we know. Chances are that's all we'll ever know.
Ozy, your questions are perfectly valid.
What you will also notice is that Jeff has never definitively stated that his setup can output power continuously over a very long period of time such that the total amount of energy drawn from the system is much larger than the total energy capacity of the batteries. He has never said this and he has consistently avoided the question. I can only guess that it's because he has never made that test and all of his statements relating to the power output from the device are made from anecdotal evidence only.
Jeff gave you a "pop quiz" test the other day that you couldn't answer. He gave you all the data you needed. SO WHAT??? You shouldn't have to answer his pop quiz to "get the rights" to ask perfectly reasonable and intelligent questions. It's just ridiculous.
I will repeat myself. If Jeff did the real "reality check" 25-day test, to his shock and dismay the battery banks would croak and the 100-watt light bulb would go out before one week passes assuming that he starts off with 20 mega-joules worth of battery energy.
Ozy, you might not believe me but trust me you are wise to hold off on spending any money on this system. People are actively encouraging you to buy first and experiment for yourself later and if you don't get any free energy it might be your fault and tough luck for you. That's simply ridiculous.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.09.16, 16:14:56
Jeff:
I have an EE degree and worked as an EE 20 years ago in digital design. I don't work as an EE any more. I have thousands of hours of experience on the bench with a scope and a logic analyzer. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of Bedini motor clips and read many Bedini threads, but I haven't built one.
I don't like to say that because if you say it it creates bad vibes and there is a culture of bashing education and EEs on the free energy forums. So I prefer to not say it and just let my words speak for themselves. This is the first time that I have ever posted it publicly, and I am only doing it because you asked me toMileHigh
@Milehigh, I just want to make sure with all of your ranting, this quote from you stays in the fore front. You have not built one, you have not practice EE for 20 years, except what you spew to all of your followers from the arm chair, you build nothing. I don't get it. You want everyone else to give you information so that you can Rant some more. You might be a little more respected if you would show what you can do, instead of preach to the world for what you cannot.
@All If your a current follower of Milehigh, you may want to think twice. I have no problems demonstrating my contributions!
"Just Tough talk" Your words!
Bit's
Jeff:
You are trying to put forth the proposition that because I haven't built a Bedini motor that I am not qualified to comment. It's a false proposition based on flawed logic. If I built a Bedini motor I would learn nothing. On top of that if I built one I could do a thorough analysis the likes of which you have never seen in your life. Your logic is flawed because I can take my real-world bench experience and my educational background and apply that to getting up the learning curve and understanding how a Bedini motor works without having built one. I did this three years ago. This is fact. I know more about how a Bedini motor works than Rick Friedrich does. I have looked at Rick's clips and I am 100% certain that what I am saying is true.
The questions put out to you by Ozy and myself are still on the table waiting to be answered.
Quote"Just Tough talk" Your words!
I responded to your tough talk and my words say a lot. I hope that everyone following the 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum comes over here to get an alternative and more reaslistic viewpoint. The ones that are really reading and understanding know what the real deal is. They clearly understand now that your setup is not a free energy machine and they agree with me that you are just a good guy hedging your bets. They know that the only way for you to prove that your 10-coiler and battery swapper setup is a free energy machine is to run the "reality check" test that was described in previous postings.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.25, 02:38:59
Jeff:
You are trying to put forth the proposition that because I haven't built a Bedini motor that I am not qualified to comment.
MileHigh
Not trying to IMPLY,but SAYING that you are. You are not qualified to make any assumption regarding my setup, because you have not properly tested, independently in your own "1000 of hours" of bench testing you say you have done. This is the first mistake of any independent LAB. Think about it, if you went to a Doctor and he said you had a life threatening issue, would you not seek another totally independent source to substantiate or dispute his findings? Come on man, get out of your arm chair and go build the damn thing, and stop spewing garbage. If your respected in this trade, you'll do your own independent studies and post the results. Over 400 people seen my machine working, yet none has seen yours. How can you continue to display this ignorance. More over, how can people still believe in what you say? You show no results, but give great lip service!
Bit's
Hello Bit's
I've been following this dialogue - very interesting. Why not just do that test MH suggested? It'll put paid to his objections. And it's not complicated. And I'm sure there's many of us would like to see the result. If you could get it onto video it'd be even better. There's no other way to put paid to MH's predictions if he's wrong. And it would be a really cool way of showing those gains - if they're there.
Wow!
MileHigh, this is really for you. I will be the first to say that I don't fully agree with certain things that you have said, although not in reference to this situation. This whole thing, however, is just ridiculous. Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we? I understand.
I'll admit, first, that I have NOT been to the forum that your quotes are from. To Many, this means I am biased. So Be It.
Second, I am assuming that you have not mis-quoted the people that have thrown out this "Garbage" system. If you have, then I am sure I will hear about it, but for now this seems a fairly high probability of truth. (Nothing is 100% these days...)
IF there were ANY reality to their claims, then the concept of "Self-Running" is the FIRST thing to be tested. I could give a DA** what it's output is, or what it might save in "Cost". That data IS NOT Relevant to a "Self-Runner" nor, therefore, to this type of device. The only relevant data would be, as you have actually stated, is can it output more than what it takes to run? Simple, no MATH required, and no meters, checks or otherwise. The specific inference is "Power BACK to the Grid", which is not the same as PF correction, etc. I wonder what they were thinking???
If it has any use as claimed, again, by only what I have read here so my "assumptions" could be off, self-running is the "FIRST" and "ONLY" piece of data that needs to be proven. All else is NOT needed as if the concept is provable, THEN we all can tune the things for ANY output we desire. The ONLY reason for NOT doing a simple "Lightbulb" test would be the fact that it would fail. Of all the obvious.... What could those people think, that we are ALL fools? Could the general public be THAT gullible?
I am not one to normally "Rant" like this, but this is SO obvious that I felt "Someone" had to just come out and say it, as most here seem too gentlemanly to make such an observation. I may even be "Censored" or "Banned" for saying this, but it is right there in front of all that have read this. I felt it was worth the risk.
In case there is a question of qualifications, I'm still an EE (Well, maybe a bit more...), use my scope daily (Well, almost...), try to stay in field work as that's where the "Fun" is and I get to see more new concepts (I could NEVER handle a desk...), and HAVE built SEVERAL Bedini type devices. (There ARE certain "Other" things going on there, but that is a different story...) THIS device is supposed to output "Directly Useable Power back to the Grid". That defines standard electricity to me and not "Radiant Energy" or anything unusual, so ALL descriptions of such are, again, not of any value to me. Just more smoke, as it were. This is direct standard electrical power, so no amount of words will make that requirement "Disappear".
(Note to the "Opposition?": Even if I wanted to technically go very deep into the misc conversions, etc., final output to input is ALL that needs viewing for a system. I'll show where the energy comes from, easily, if you show me an OUT>IN and are willing to let me view the design. Of course, if it's real, I might even have to make a couple measurements myself, to prove the theory. Anyone up to that? Any of those people that might be listening (OK, reading...), are you even willing to try? I'd assume the silence will be deafening, though I'd love the work. I Will include the exact specs of where the "Other" energy enters and HOW it was caused to enter, after you make the initial simple proof, using standard electron flow, as THIS device purports to. [It can feed the grid, right?] I'll be listening, on this very thread, on this forum. The gauntlet is down and my sword is drawn. Please don't bother with the "Intellectual Rights" argument. I'll back you all the way and sign off on an NDA, if you prove a self runner. It would not be the first time I have done that....)
SO, for me, MileHigh, it all comes down to your "Simple" and correct Test. Take Whatever batteries you will use, and run any simple load. Get a time, however approximate, and record that. Use ANY method to determine the discharge state. (I suggest small batteries, as that would take a shorter time, but that is completely up to the tester and really makes no difference, just takes longer......) Now, setup the "System" and run the same load. As long as the load is smaller than the max output of the device, it had better run forever or the thing is a obvious scam. For that small load, there would be NO checks needed, as it either works or it doesn't. Depending on how far over the max load you go would be the ONLY way the device should run down, and even then the runtime had better be longer than without the system. If the designer isn't going to, or hasn't run this FIRST and basic test, then ANYTHING else stated has lost all creditability with me and becomes the old "Baffle them with BS" routine. Enough Said.
OK, I'm done. Milehigh, good shot with the hammer. (Hit the nail on the head?) I now must say "Sorry" to all that I have insulted with my crude remarks, with the exception to those that would put forth such a system without any proof or tests that had any value. I certainly appreciate people that open my mind to weird possibilities, and respect them for that. While there are those that "Worship" these certain people, I only value the truth and knowledge. If this was what they truly believed, I could accept that, and define them that way in my own head, but anyone trying to cloud truth for the sake of monetary gain gets on my bad side. That's obvious, in this case. Sorry again for losing my temper.
Actually guys - here's the thing. IF there's some sort of retail cost involved - then the performance actually NEEDS to be proved. Loner's right. Otherwise it stinks of 'scam'.
Jeff:
This is posting #313 in this thread. Probably about 120 or more of the postings in this thread are me giving a solid technical analysis of how the 10-coiler works and how a generic Bedini motor works and how to test it. Then there is a thread that I wrote up for how to make measurements on a Bedini motor. Yet you say that I'm "spewing garbage."
You have also revealed your ignorance about Bedini motors and inductors when you wrote up that business about subtracting 1000 volts from your battery voltage. My suggestion to you is that you get some books and do some research online and then read this thread in its entirety from the beginning. You are the microcontroller hardware and software guy, not the Bedini motor guy. Doing the research and reading this thread and the Bedini measurement thread will get you up to speed.
For example, what's average power consumption from the source batteries and the average power output to the charging batteries for your setup? I bet that you don't know the answer to that question, even though you have been working with the 10-coiler for months now. The answers to how to make these measurements can be found in the threads around here. Probably the best way to "tune" the motor would be to monitor the two power levels in real time and vary the base resistances.
I know what I am talking about and my words speak the truth. You can't just say, "I have a free energy machine" without backing it up. You have been avoiding this issue for months. I suggested that you do a "reality check" test months ago. So now here we are post-Renaissance workshop and people are flying high. It's time to come back down to the ground. Do the test, do it privately for yourself if you have to.
When the test fails I would love to be a fly on the wall when you have the conversation with Rick Friedrick and John Bedini about it. You can always simply walk away from the whole thing if you want to. I am telling you, seriously, the 100-watt light bulb test will prove to you that there is nothing going on. You owe it to yourself to do the test.
MileHigh
Bits, My apologies, both for not directly responding to you, and for my lack of knowledge on your posting on other forums/threads.
You state that over 400 people have seen your system in operation. I assume you mean in "Self-running" mode?
That would be the only viable test worth anything, which is why I make that assumption.
(IF it cannot self-run, what are you talking about? I.E. No self-run, No free energy. Simple fact...)
I await your informed response with eager anticipation. (Ready to join in the "Fight", as it were.)
and MH. It's irritating - IN THE EXTREME - to see your endless predictions. Why not just wait for the results before you declare it's outcome. Your own bias is as unscientific as all those Bedini enthusiasts. Neither do any of you any good at all.
If you're going to 'crow' then do it AFTER the event. Not before. I think, by now, we all know where you come in on this.
there once was a man of the night
whose interest was only in spite
he would damage the joy
in any new toy
by any means at all - even kicking it to death
using fair means or foul in that fight.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.11.25, 04:44:26
Bits, My apologies, both for not directly responding to you, and for my lack of knowledge on your posting on other forums/threads.
You state that over 400 people have seen your system in operation. I assume you mean in "Self-running" mode?
That would be the only viable test worth anything, which is why I make that assumption.
(IF it cannot self-run, what are you talking about? I.E. No self-run, No free energy. Simple fact...)
I await your informed response with eager anticipation. (Ready to join in the "Fight", as it were.)
Sterling has done a nice job in describing the
event;
http://pesn.com/2010/11/23/9501730_Bedini_Renaissance_Conference_a_turning_point/
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Yes about 400 folks there and seen it with there own eyes. Not only the 10 coiler, but the lawn tractor, electric car and John's big wheel.
Bit's
Bits - with respect. I think what MH is calling for is the simple evidence of the system working over time. I'm not sure that the conference extended a required 25 days or thereby.
And in the absense of an extended test - what power analyses are available? Are there any data dumps we could work with? Something? I'm asking because I really want to know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Loner:
Thanks for your comments. Part of my rationale for structuring the test with a 100-watt light bulb and using Jeff's standard setup is because in the culture of "free energy" any possible deviation from the "standard setup" is considered a possible reason for the test failing. So to accommodate the "requirements" of the pro free energy enthusiasts you have to try at all costs to not change things.
With respect to the amount of continuous power you can allegedly get from the setup, there is a rationale for it being finite. For a given charging session, the source battery energy first passes through the Bedini motor. About 70% of that energy is lost as heat. Then the theory is that the remaining 30% of the energy that goes into the charging battery is somehow magically increased in magnitude. So just to end up with a 20% surplus of energy, the energy that goes into the charging battery has to somehow quadruple.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments!
Rosemary:
Sorry to irritate you but I have already stated my conclusion about a possible test several times in this thread. If I am wrong I will admit it after the fact. Plus I had some things said about me that led me to taking the direct approach. I would be more than happy to wait for the outcome if the test is ever actually done.
To back up my comments, I have read many postings in various Bedini threads over the years where people have followed a disciplined regimen of testing and have concluded that the Bedini motor did not somehow make the energy in the charging battery increase after a charging session. I'm sorry I can't give you any links. The YouTube user Preston Stroud has a setup that is similar to the 10-coiler and he is not a happy camper at all and feels that he was sold a false bill of goods. There are many people over the years that have reported that a Bedini motor does nothing. Then there is the common sense argument that there is nothing special about pulsing current into a battery from a discharging inductor. There is no rational reason to expect that the charging battery will magically show an increase in energy, none! The term "radiant energy" used by Bedini in the context of a discharging inductor that's part of a Bedini motor is nonsense. Any first-year physics or engineering student would tell you that.
MileHigh
Hehe, may I recommend Bits, that if you are not prepared to do a proper test of your machine - maybe posting here is a waste of your time?
It is very clear that MileHigh requires proper proof not just claims of self running.
If your machine runs as you say Bits, then it wont be long before more people replicate, and one of these people will take the time to do a proper test and make MileHigh happy.
I guess we all thought you would be the one to show us this proper test, but if we have to wait for someone else, so be it.
I will happily give them the credit for the first replication of a self running ten coiler - sorry bits, no proof, no credit.
Science is great! The first person or the one with all the accolades is always the one that PROVES there system first.
Nothing is True until proven so!
And just to show that I am equal and unbiased - MileHigh - you should really build a bedini machine. If you post all the time to a thread debunking the bedini systems, then common sense would dictate you would of at least build an SSG or Fan Kit. Would bring you a lot more credibility!
Also, Bits, Sterlings article clearly uses quantifiers when he discusses the machines present. Been a good journalist he has used words like apparently convincing and supposedly could run continuously to state clearly that no evidence was given and these claims should be taken with the same amount of salt given to all his articles say AVIG and TWM for example? Its a nice article, but you get the feeling he isn't 100% convinced of the claims been made. Seems sterling has tried to get definitive answers before, with no success ;D
Thanks,
Ozy
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.11.25, 05:07:38
Bits - with respect. I think what MH is calling for is the simple evidence of the system working over time. I'm not sure that the conference extended a required 25 days or thereby.
And in the absense of an extended test - what power analyses are available? Are there any data dumps we could work with? Something? I'm asking because I really want to know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
As Milehigh as so eloquently posted my results as stated to Ozy in the other forum, then decided to pick apart the results and provide a complete (actually incomplete in my book) analysis without even getting out of the arm chair. How can anyone even begin to seek the truth? I ran for 2 days straight and could of run longer. You want 25 days from me, but from Milehigh you accept total analysis withing 20 seconds after he posts, from a guy who has not practice EE in 20 years, admits he never built one and has only watch the videos. Are you Guys, Gals really serious? Don't accept my results, build it, replicated my setup, you'll see.
Bit's
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.25, 05:12:25
There is no rational reason to expect that the charging battery will magically show an increase in energy, none! The term "radiant energy" used by Bedini in the context of a discharging inductor that's part of a Bedini motor is nonsense. Any first-year physics or engineering student would tell you that.
MileHigh
MileHigh - I agree that the term 'radiant energy' is somewhat odd. But the fact is that as many people who report a loss or failure of these motors' efficiencies - as many others report on their success. I'm inclined to support Lindemann's opinion and expertise. And I'm sure it would defy any sense at all for him to support this if there were nothing there. Also - I have first hand experience of the benefits in recharging a battery from counter EMF. I assume that the same could very well be done with back EMF from a motor. But I'm open to correction. I've never tested this.
And a first year student could indeed comment. But I'd be more interested in his comments after he's graduated.
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2010.11.25, 05:21:51
As Milehigh as so eloquently posted my results as stated to Ozy in the other forum, then decided to pick apart the results and provide a complete (actually incomplete in my book) analysis without even getting out of the arm chair. How can anyone even begin to seek the truth? I ran for 2 days straight and could of run longer. You want 25 days from me, but from Milehigh you accept total analysis withing 20 seconds after he posts, from a guy who has not practice EE in 20 years, admits he never built one and has only watch the videos. Are you Guys, Gals really serious? Don't accept my results, build it, replicated my setup, you'll see.
Bit's
Bit's - I'm not sure how to access the appropriate thread at EF.Com forum. I'm banned and I can't always get in. If I were inclined to support MH's analysis then I'd not be asking for your own. And if I didn't generally support this drive to better ways of getting our energy then I would not be wasting my every waking hour at it. I'm asking - in good faith - for some evidence of these claims. I am unduly optimistic - and I assure you that there are many others equally so. They just don't post here. I assure you that while this thread is devoted to an entire rejection of any Bedini claims - the readers here are not necessarily in synch with that object. It's just that they're less vocal.
Again,
Rosemary
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2010.11.25, 05:21:51
As Milehigh as so eloquently posted my results as stated to Ozy in the other forum, then decided to pick apart the results and provide a complete (actually incomplete in my book) analysis without even getting out of the arm chair. How can anyone even begin to seek the truth? I ran for 2 days straight and could of run longer. You want 25 days from me, but from Milehigh you accept total analysis withing 20 seconds after he posts, from a guy who has not practice EE in 20 years, admits he never built one and has only watch the videos. Are you Guys, Gals really serious? Don't accept my results, build it, replicated my setup, you'll see.
Bit's
Jeff:
Can you describe your show setup? I mean really describe it, say in three paragraphs. What size of batteries in ampere-hours? Your battery swapper was it running? I read something about the 10-coiler charging a bank of target batteries and you had to have light bulb(s) on the charging bank to prevent the batteries from being overcharged. What was the light bulb(s) wattage?
I am asking you for a complete description of your setup so that we can comment on it. Battery energy is a must, and all the critical pieces of information to get a sense of what was going on energy-wise.
Thanks,
MileHigh
P.S.:
Quotefrom a guy who has not practice EE in 20 years, admits he never built one and has only watch the videos.
Read this thread and you will take those words back. It will be abundantly clear to you that I know what I am talking about. It's time to stop "spinning."
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.25, 05:51:30
Jeff:
Can you describe your show setup. I mean really describe it, say in three paragraphs. What size of batteries in ampere-hours? Your battery swapper was it running? I read something about the 10-coiler charging a bank of target batteries and you had to have light bulb(s) on the charging bank to prevent the batteries from being overcharged. What was the light bulb(s) wattage?
I am asking you for a complete description of your setup so that we can comment on it. Battery energy is a must, and all the critical pieces of information to get a sense of what was going on energy-wise.
Thanks,
MileHigh
P.S.:
Read this thread and you will take those words back. It will be abundantly clear to you that I know what I am talking about. It's time to stop "spinning."
May I second this. And MileHigh I don't think anyone doubts your abilities. What I personally question is your bias. It tends to make me question your analysis.
Rosemary:
When you distill it down to the bare essentials, we are asking ourselves if energizing an inductor and then discharging it into a battery results in more chemical energy stored in the battery than was contained in the current pulse from the inductor. My "bias" is the common sense laws-of-thermodynamics bias.
There is no "radiant energy" for sure, because we understand exactly how an inductor discharges. Bedini doesn't want to explain this to people. Nor can "radiant energy" be measured in any way, you are supposed to accept it is there because Bedini and Bearden say so. Then you have Bedini talking about Bloch walls in inductors and bar magnets. There are no Bloch walls to be found. Bedini has hijacked the meaning of "Bloch wall" and redefined it and uses it for his own ends. I was shocked when I saw Bedini talking about Bloch walls in standard bar magnets, because they don't exist. I was so shocked I started a separate thread about it.
So the truth is that the burden of proof for the proposition falls on Bedini and his supporter's shoulders. I don't have to prove anything and in that sense I don't have a bias.
MileHigh
Bits-n-Bytes, I begin to understand some of what is going on. (Technical data vs. Personal opinion...)
As I have insufficient information, I can make no further comments. I have seen my basic Tesla switch not work correctly, and HAVE seen a unit made by another actually do things I considered impossible. I have learned to keep an open mind. As I mentioned - not enough data.
I am going to keep watching and listening, as I don't expect you to suddenly provide enough information for me to actually make a hard and fast decision. From the small pictures I saw, and the non-technical information presented with them, it would seem that MileHigh's concerns are valid. It would also seem that a careful validation of the batteries charge state, after two days, would also be enough "Proof" to state that there WAS a level of energy influx. Sorry, I have insufficient data for me, the ultimate skeptic, to make a decision either way, although just that fact states a little more than I care to admit, at this time.
ARGGGG. This now requires me to research further, get information from multiple sources (Facts, not opinions, of course.) so that I may make some kind of determination. I didn't see any real tech info on the "10 Coil" device, but I'm sure the info is out there.
Be assured, I WILL get more info, and return when I can be more assured of the accuracy of my response. Unfortunately, I must agree with the three stages part, and do know of certain military devices with certain "Similar" types of properties, but I have seen many more fake devices than real, and have been involved with several manufacturing companies that have gone out of business, chasing a dream that had not been properly vetted before beginning production. I won't allow myself to repeat certain mistakes.
I still feel that MileHigh has a good point, but, as he just asked for the data needed, you may have already done the exact test requested, just not in the way suggested. I.E. Is there a specific gravity charge level reading for each cell in a before run and after run condition? Little specific things like that make all the difference. I'd be overjoyed to peruse any detailed data you wish to share.
If this type of information is or has been already posted somewhere, links would be greatly appreciated. Verification of any data supplied would wait until needed, as I will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone, until final verification time comes. AT that point, I have to actually see and build it myself, so you can't help me there, other than specs... Don't think I feel I deserve any special attention but as there seem to be quite a few watching this, this might be a good place to tabulate data, or links to data, if you like. Not my place to even suggest it, but I guess I have. (You don't need to make it easy for me. I'll find the data if it is out there.)
TO All: These type of questions and comments may seem cruel to some, and, like I felt earlier, not cruel enough to others. They ARE necessary to truly vindicate people that come up with great things, as there are too many out there that just want to make a buck. This type of grilling is the best way. As someone just said: "If it is true, you can prove it." I first read that in my 7th grade science class, which is longer ago than I will admit, but remember reading it in the extra books I used to study. On the other hand, if this turns out to BE just another one of those high efficiency devices, then the word scam WILL be attached to it and all involved. I would be willing to bet that certain names will have a bad reputation for a lot longer than their lifetime. (It works both ways. Tesla had to die before getting 1/10th of his deserved credit. We certainly don't want a repeat of that. Then again, I could mention other names that have the opposite fame. No need to go there, either.)
I know I sound wishy-washy on this one, but I would like to think it's just open-minded thinking on a subject that I truly haven't enough information to decide with certainty whether it fact or fiction.
I guess I should have been more aware of this a long time ago, but the crazy charge field stuff has been keeping me busy. (Yeah, that's just an excuse, and not even a good one.) :)
By the way, MileHigh, Do you actually believe that "Radiant Energy" does not exist in any way, or are you stating that it doesn't exist in this specific application? If you can say, with complete honesty, that you understand "Exactly" how an inductor discharges, then that is another discussion we must have, at another time, in another thread. (That implies you understand "Exactly" what a magnetic field is, which I was under the impression is still an open topic, for most physicists...) Just for reference, there are many. well respected people, not related to the OU movement at all, that would have very strong opinions on these subjects. Does a Magnetic field exist in the vacuum of space, or is it the mass it encounters that pull it back into being from the distortion of 'aether'/'dark matter' or some other descriptive and undefined word? These are very difficult experiments to preform, but some are worth it, just for the experience. Then again, many don't have the "I need to see it to believe it!" bug, like I do.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.25, 05:51:30
Jeff:
Can you describe your show setup? I mean really describe it, say in three paragraphs. What size of batteries in ampere-hours? Your battery swapper was it running? I read something about the 10-coiler charging a bank of target batteries and you had to have light bulb(s) on the charging bank to prevent the batteries from being overcharged. What was the light bulb(s) wattage?
I am asking you for a complete description of your setup so that we can comment on it. Battery energy is a must, and all the critical pieces of information to get a sense of what was going on energy-wise.
Thanks,
MileHigh
P.S.:
Read this thread and you will take those words back. It will be abundantly clear to you that I know what I am talking about. It's time to stop "spinning."
Milehigh, as you have taken most of my post from the EF forum, you have my entire setup. You also have all of the values that I told Ozy earlier today. Certainly you have provided an inaccurate analysis right here on your very own forum. As for the bulbs, they where both 60W. I had to put them on the 2 bats configured in series because they were over charging. They were at 37 volts at the time I installed them. Come on Milehigh, you really need to build one and test for yourself. This way you'll have all of the values at your figure tips. You must really practice what you preach. There is no spinning, you your self admit that you haven't practice in 20 years, never have built one, and just watch videos. This is "tough talk" by your standards as those are your words. I guess I am just asking you to live by your own standards. When you build one and start the testing , please let me know so that I can help you, but until then, kindly keep your analysis to the facts.
Bit's
Quote from: Loner on 2010.11.25, 06:46:00
If this type of information is or has been already posted somewhere, links would be greatly appreciated. Verification of any data supplied would wait until needed, as I will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone, until final verification time comes. AT that point, I have to actually see and build it myself, so you can't help me there, other than specs... Don't think I feel I deserve any special attention but as there seem to be quite a few watching this, this might be a good place to tabulate data, or links to data, if you like. Not my place to even suggest it, but I guess I have. (You don't need to make it easy for me. I'll find the data if it is out there.)
Your best bet is here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5374-bedini-10-coil.html
This has a few answers that you seek, please join us over there, if something is unclear just ask Bits! ;D
We don't have the complete picture yet, but we are certainly getting somewhere!
TO All: These type of questions and comments may seem cruel to some, and, like I felt earlier, not cruel enough to others. They ARE necessary to truly vindicate people that come up with great things, as there are too many out there that just want to make a buck. This type of grilling is the best way. As someone just said: "If it is true, you can prove it."
Bravo, well said!
Ozy
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.25, 06:17:59
Rosemary:
When you distill it down to the bare essentials, we are asking ourselves if energizing an inductor and then discharging it into a battery results in more chemical energy stored in the battery than was contained in the current pulse from the inductor. My "bias" is the common sense laws-of-thermodynamics bias.
There is no "radiant energy" for sure, because we understand exactly how an inductor discharges. Bedini doesn't want to explain this to people. Nor can "radiant energy" be measured in any way, you are supposed to accept it is there because Bedini and Bearden say so. Then you have Bedini talking about Bloch walls in inductors and bar magnets. There are no Bloch walls to be found. Bedini has hijacked the meaning of "Bloch wall" and redefined it and uses it for his own ends. I was shocked when I saw Bedini talking about Bloch walls in standard bar magnets, because they don't exist. I was so shocked I started a separate thread about it.
So the truth is that the burden of proof for the proposition falls on Bedini and his supporter's shoulders. I don't have to prove anything and in that sense I don't have a bias.
MileHigh
MileHigh. May I say how grateful I am that you answer me at all. It seems that Bit's and Loner talk through me and past me and around me that I may as well not be here at all. I wonder if it's because I'm a woman or if it's because my comments and requests are irrelevant all on their own - regardless of my gender. I'd be sorry to learn this. Either way. It certainly seems to be enough for Bit's to justify NOT posting those results here. More's the pity as there are more than just you and me interested in all this.
But having said all that I'm afraid the truth is that NO-ONE knows how an inductor discharges. There are a few flawed theories that propose certain things. But they're none of them correct. Certainly not that correct that any self-respecting theorist will fall on his pen and die by it. And certainly NOT correct if you're proposing that they discharge electrons in any way, shape or form.
I often think that the real objection to me on EF.Com was that I had an alternate theory to Bedini et al. I think they rather prefer it that a MAN promote a theory. LOL. Certainly there was NO justification in banning me for saying 'if anyone claims to understand everything about Leedskalnin he would first have to duplicate the miracle of Coral Castle'. And I suspect that Bedini feels the right to claim his theory in terms of his results. I personally think that all theory needs to be tested by time and evaluated by prediction. That sort of takes the speculation out of the exercise. And frankly - radiant energy has already be 'bagged' - by Newton - then Einstein. It just means something else as applied by that group of so called 'theorists'. And I know absolutely nothing about Bloch walls - but will read up on it in due course. I only have respect for their work and where they're pointing. That's more or less where it begins and ends. I just wish they could prove their results with something that's unequivocal. And it seems that Bit's is going to ignore my/our request. Makes one think.
Anyway MileHigh. Notwithstanding your apparent role as dissenter - I have endless respect for you - on many, many levels - outside of your evident reliance on conventional theory. That definitely needs a refresher course.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Jeff:
I basically told you what I remember about your setup in reading the posts over the past week and a half. I don't ever recall the ampere-hours or the number of batteries specified. I am not going to wade through all the posts again. I am asking you to do us all a courtesy and give us a definitive description of your setup.
In that vein, do you know what the average power consumption of the 10-coiler was during the workshop? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I would not be surprised if you didn't know the power consumption. In that sense, the whole thing is moot, right? You had some fully-charged source batteries with a certain number of mega-joules in them, that we can determine. I am assuming that the 10-coiler was running with an unknown power consumption. If that's true, game over. You have no clue if the setup was supposed to run two days or not run two days because you are missing critical data to answer that question.
I am assuming that you put two 120 VAC 60-watt light bulbs in series across the 37 volts in the charging battery bank. Did you put an ammeter in series with the light bulbs when they were lit? Did you check what the battery voltage stabilized to? It would be interesting to know how much power the light bulbs were dissipating.
I am assuming that you were talking about a 24-volt bank of batteries that were being over-cooked by the 10-coiler. So the 37-volts was a "fake" voltage reading due to the pulsing from the 10-coiler and the most likely scenario is that the two bulbs were burning off essentially 100% of the energy coming from the 10-coiler.
But like I said, do you know the average power consumption from the 10-coiler during the conference? Without that piece of data, the whole exercise is a non-starter. The only thing that you are left with in anecdotal evidence, "The 10-coiler ran for two days."
By the way, did you run it overnight?
Finally, I have worked in high tech for more than 30 years, and I have never been more than a 30 second walk away from a real engineering development lab. Please drop the "build it" argument.
MileHigh
I don't like light bulbs on the charge batteries. Way too many variables come into play!
Also I have seen a scam using that exact method.
Because the lights are running off essentially high energy pulses, they appear bright but are actually using much less power.
So two 60w bulbs quickly can become say 30w of power usage. Batteries account for the rest.
I much prefer the grid tie inverter setup, measurements can be taken with a normal multimeter or watt meter - without the 'error' / 'mystery' because it's standard AC Sine wave.
Of course we have to trust Bits, that his setup runs perpetually in this configuration... but hey... he seems like a nice guy doesn't he?
Ozy
aetherevarising, I was not aware I was talking around and through you. Maybe I'm missing something. Don't feel that just because I don't comment on something means I didn't read and digest it. If the info is good and correct, there is no need for me to comment. The info stands for itself.
MileHigh, now that you have "Asked", I will Third it (Others have asked, too). Any information would be appreciated, Bits.
(Links to previous posts welcome. I refuse to go back to any EF link. I needn't explain that here.)
Quote from: aussieaussieaussie on 2010.11.25, 07:25:16
I don't like light bulbs on the charge batteries. Way too many variables come into play!
Also I have seen a scam using that exact method.
Because the lights are running off essentially high energy pulses, they appear bright but are actually using much less power.
So two 60w bulbs quickly can become say 30w of power usage. Batteries account for the rest.
I much prefer the grid tie inverter setup, measurements can be taken with a normal multimeter or watt meter - without the 'error' / 'mystery' because it's standard AC Sine wave.
Of course we have to trust Bits, that his setup runs perpetually in this configuration... but hey... he seems like a nice guy doesn't he?
Ozy
Actually aussieaussieaussie - the fact is that if switching a light at high frequencies also results in a lowering of the power without a noticeable change in it's performance - then that's a REALLY valid means of saving energy. We should be using it. Everywhere. Regardless. I would have thought. If your average light filament can take that degree of punishment then why are all you clever guys not building those switches?
But I do NOT think that anyone here is a scam artist. It's just that it would be much preferred to see some data that we can all apply.
Ozy,
When you put 120 VAC incandescent light bulbs across a more or less DC battery voltage the critical thing to do is measure the current through the lights and voltage across the battery bank. The resistance of filaments varies and that's why you have to make real measurements. There was some pulsing in the voltage due to the 10-coiler firing but we will cautiously assume that we can ignore it for this discussion.
I will repeat the most critical point again for emphasis: I am assuming that they set up two battery banks, fired up the 10-coiler, and within a short time noticed that the charging battery bank was being overcooked so they found some light bulbs. I can't remember if the battery swapper was being used. Then they just let the setup run. Leading up to the workshop, they must have done a dry run to make sure it would last the two days. That's it.
Without measuring the average power consumption from the 10-coiler, you can't say anything whatsoever about the 10-coiler demo being "over unity" or whatever. No average power consumption data means you can't say much at all.
MileHigh
In my experience a standard filament bulb will last anywhere from 3-7 days before blowing running like this, LED will last a lot longer - I found some started to fail at around 30 days.
Thats why I don't like bulbs with Free Energy Devices - unless they are clearly on an inverter!
I want answers too, I think it was best put on another thread here:
"I will never understand people. If I came up with a device that seemed to be OU, The first thing I would do is ask all of you people on here to debunk it, or help find out where the energy is coming from. If you couldn't, then I might start to think, hey maybe I got something here."
Ozy
MileHigh,
Settle down.
Firstly, this 'test' run at the convention, wasn't a test.
It was said in another thread that all the machines at the convention where shut down overnight because of fire concerns.
Until Bits says different I have to assume that this remark is still valid, and therefore it wasn't a test... more of a demonstration.
They only real test published so far is the inverter one at between 60-210watts of output depending on battery level.
This is the ONLY test you could possibly analyze.
Ozy
Loner:
QuoteBy the way, MileHigh, Do you actually believe that "Radiant Energy" does not exist in any way, or are you stating that it doesn't exist in this specific application? If you can say, with complete honesty, that you understand "Exactly" how an inductor discharges, then that is another discussion we must have, at another time, in another thread. (That implies you understand "Exactly" what a magnetic field is, which I was under the impression is still an open topic, for most physicists...) Just for reference, there are many. well respected people, not related to the OU movement at all, that would have very strong opinions on these subjects. Does a Magnetic field exist in the vacuum of space, or is it the mass it encounters that pull it back into being from the distortion of 'aether'/'dark matter' or some other descriptive and undefined word? These are very difficult experiments to preform, but some are worth it, just for the experience. Then again, many don't have the "I need to see it to believe it!" bug, like I do.
I believe in the conventional scientific and lay definitions of radiant energy.
As far as how an inductor discharges, I prefer to put aside the "big 'philosophical' questions" that are often asked to challenge you, "Do you really know what voltage is?" or "Exactly what is a magnetic field?" An inductor is an energy storage device and operates exactly how the differential and integral equations that describe it say it should operate. If you want to challenge the Enlightenment when calculus was developed and how some smart people quickly realized how differential equations can mathematically model the physical and electrical world we live in you are going to have to have that discussion with somebody else. Yes a magnetic field exists in the vacuum of space. Empty space has a known permeability.
Sorry, but that's as far as I am willing to go. Feel free to start a new thread about this stuff if you want to!
MileHigh
Quote from: aussieaussieaussie on 2010.11.25, 07:48:30
MileHigh,
Settle down.
Firstly, this 'test' run at the convention, wasn't a test.
It was said in another thread that all the machines at the convention where shut down overnight because of fire concerns.
Until Bits says different I have to assume that this remark is still valid, and therefore it wasn't a test... more of a demonstration.
They only real test published so far is the inverter one at between 60-210watts of output depending on battery level.
This is the ONLY test you could possibly analyze.
Ozy
Ozy,
Here is a reality/fantasy check for you:
http://pesn.com/2010/11/23/9501730_Bedini_Renaissance_Conference_a_turning_point/ (http://pesn.com/2010/11/23/9501730_Bedini_Renaissance_Conference_a_turning_point/)
QuoteThe conference-long demonstration by Jeff Wilson ('Bits') of the MachineOfTime1 prototype was apparently convincing. It is a Bedini 10 coiler running in a self-sustaining mode with additional power running two bulbs. It's the first 10-coil self-runner built by Friedrich. The small size and capacity of batteries he had on the system, and the brightness of the bulbs being illuminated (around 60 Watt equivalent), with no diminishing during the entire two days of continuous running, indicated that he was indeed harnessing free energy from the environment via the Tesla switch. Run normally, those batteries might have lasted six to eight hours.
Without knowing the average power consumption of the motor and the amount of energy in the source batteries and the total length of time the setup ran, the above paragraph is just your typical free energy hyperbole that Sterling Allen is so good at writing. I can clearly see the "was apparently" but what people will remember is the highlighted sentence at the end of the paragraph.
If Jeff wants to chime in he is welcome, but for now as far as I am concerned the demo showed a 10-coiler Bedini motor burning off battery power. At the end of each day there was less energy remaining in the batteries in the system because some battery energy was turned into heat energy while the system ran. There was no "self-sustaining" or "self-running" going on at all.
MileHigh
If an inductor were merely an energy storage device then it would have to disobey inductive laws every time it discharged. Conventional thinking definitely has a deserved edge until it starts contradicting itself. Then and under such circumstances and with respect, I think we must all assume there's some error. And inductive laws state unequivocally that a changing electric field induces a magnetic field and likewise a changing magnetic field induces an electric field. Every time a magnetic field collapses in an inductive coil it represents a changing magnetic field. And this, in turn, induces a corresponding electric field in an entirely new regenerated cycle of energy induced in terms of what is WELL known in electromagnetic power generation. That collapsing cycle induces a second cycle that takes that voltage into a new direction to cycle a second generation of current. For some reason - probably to contain all that potential and it's inevitable affront to what is barely understood as 'energy conservation', there are few if ANY electrical engineers who address this point. Thankfully there are those physicists, albeit a few, who concede this point.
This is NOT vague esoteric science MileHigh. It's actually STANDARD REQUIRMENTS IN TERMS OF MAINSTREAM THINKING. It's just that mainstream thinking has left out an entire cycle that they require everywhere else.
Rosemary:
Feel free to start a thread if you want because I am not going to go there.
MileHigh
I'll pass MileHigh. In fact - I'll withdraw from this argument. You were the one to bring up the subject of 'what every first year student knows'. Inductive Laws are CERTAINLY first year syllabus. You were the one to state that conventional understanding - mainstream understanding must carry the argument. I merely pointed out that mainstream is contradicting itself ALL OVER THE PLACE. And here's yet another example.
What I cannot get my mind around is how a motor is able to get the required increase - in any context at all. But we're actually doing tests on this that I can better understand it. Frankly - I see excess heat. I cannot see any other gains. And a motor is not designed to provide extra heat.
But I'll withdraw. It's your argument. Just do me the courtesy of reading that point I made about conventional understanding on some very basic laws. It's HOPELESSLY flawed if you assume an inductor cannot become a source of energy re-generation. It both can and does regenerate an entirely NEW cycle of energy and can be measured to do just this.
ADDED - and MORE TO THE POINT - it also returns PRECISELY as much energy as was first applied - regardless of the amount of energy that may have been dissipated as HEAT in that inductor or anywhere at all on that circuit.
MileHigh,
Do you read my posts before commenting?
I said the numbers mean nothing, it was a demo, not a test.
If you want to rant about tests well leave this demo to the sidelines where it belongs.
Rosemary,
I really do believe your debate is better served in another thread, if you read above this is the bedini 10 coil thread.
Didn't you have some circuit with a cop>17 , or are you different person???
Ozy
Ozy,
I have no quarrel with you about the the demo and it may be left on the sidelines if Jeff doesn't comment.
However, it's safe to assume that the majority of attendees to the conference and a lot of the people on the free energy forums believe that something special was demonstrated by Jeff with the 10-coiler. In fact nothing special was demoed unless Jeff wants to try to convince us otherwise.
MileHigh
Ozy - I'm not a different person - but nor am I talking about my circuit. I'm simply trying to point out that inductive laws require a second cycle of regenerated energy and an inductor simply does this. But having said that - I am absolutely not qualified to comment on this topic in this thread. I am just trying to follow the argument. I agree that with you all that we need some more definitive numbers from Bit's. But it's unlikely that he'll oblige - thinking as he does that everyone denies that there's any benefit to that 10-Coil number. Personally I'm very much on the fence. I just want to see some better numbers. And watt meters won't cut it unless they're able to register the high frequencies that are being applied. Nor will ammeters. What's needed is some detailed voltage analysis across some carefully positioned shunts. And I simply do not understand why they don't do this. It's relatively simple. Otherwise do that extended test. Either way - we'll have answers.
But don't deny the possibility of a greater than 1 COP based on conventional understanding of power. It's flawed. Hopelessly. An inductor - a coil - must give back as much as has first been applied. And it's real energy. And it obeys the required inductive laws. It's simple. But I really need to got out of this discussion. It just gets me hot and bothered.
Regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary,
We all would like to see better numbers, but thats the problem, we are all asking for different tests. Poor Bits!
Your attack on using a watt meter after the inverter is totally totally flawed, and shows that your understanding of basic electronics is flawed.
An inverter converts your 'magical' energy to normal AC and that my dear is very measurable with a multimeter! :)
I suggest you do your research before mouthing off...
But my biggest piece of advice would be, shouldn't you be working on your own device? BP certified it as COP>17 shouldn't you be rich and not mouthing off about off topic stuff in this thread... :)
Ozy
Ozy,
QuoteHe states that he could of run the machine longer, but didn't.
Why the test was stopped is still unknown.
If any voltage drop was recorded in the batteries after the test is also unknown.
The size and quantity of the batteries used is still unknown.
I know that you are interested in getting to the bottom of this also and that's good. I am just letting you know that your comment about measuring any voltage drop in the battery bank is flawed. It's all about the energy in the batteries. Measuring a minor voltage drop means almost nothing. Measuring the battery output impedance would be much more interesting but almost nobody knows how to do that.
If you have been following the forums for a while, you have read thousands of postings about measuring before/after battery voltages. This is especially prevalent for Bedini run tests. Unfortunately, measuring battery voltages at best just gives you only a very rough idea about what might be going on with the battery. This is the absolute truth. You might want to read up on batteries.
MileHigh
Quote from: aussieaussieaussie on 2010.11.25, 08:42:28
Hi Rosemary,
We all would like to see better numbers, but thats the problem, we are all asking for different tests. Poor Bits!
Your attack on using a watt meter after the inverter is totally totally flawed, and shows that your understanding of basic electronics is flawed.
An inverter converts your 'magical' energy to normal AC and that my dear is very measurable with a multimeter! :)
I suggest you do your research before mouthing off...
But my biggest piece of advice would be, shouldn't you be working on your own device? BP certified it as COP>17 shouldn't you be rich and not mouthing off about off topic stuff in this thread... :)
Ozy
aussieaussieaussie or Ozy - whoever you are - it seems that you're rather anxious to remind us all that you're from down under. In your case I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're under unless it some generalised delusions about everything and anything at all. Yet we know nothing else about you. Except that I've now got the dubious pleasure of learning that you're also crass and impolite and somewhat deluded. Notwithstanding your best efforts to convince me or anyone else, that watt meter that you CROW is the answer - is actually NEVER GOING TO CUT IT. Perhaps you should learn that art of muzzling yourself before you throw all that advice around as freely as manure. And my personal assets or their general well being has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or with this subject. And my rights to express an opinion are inviolate - until such time as I'm banned from this forum. And until then I'll thank you to exercise a little courtesy.
What a cheek.
Haha,
Ok firstly, its a username, as in it's a name I use - nothing more.
There is nothing wrong with my test, if I built a machine like Bits, it would be the first test I would do. Followed of course by many many other further tests!
You see Bits is already convinced about it been self runner, but he seemed a bit shaky on the output figures and that was what I was putting to rest.
Bits proving to you that its a self running is a whole different story, and one that I am not asking for at this time.
"In your case I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're under unless it some generalised delusions about everything and anything at all."
This is priceless - my answer is that I am under the USA. Think about it! hahaha
Look, I appreciate your input with regards to any further evidence Bits shows us, but I am going to side with bits here and say....
Go build an SSG, try revive an old battery - at least you can say you have tried. ;)
Ozy
Rosemary,
You told me my test was wrong, so I explained how your reasons were absurd and false.
No problems making a measurement with cheap standard equipment if it is after the inverter.
This is self evident to MileHigh and anyone who has ever had an inverter and a pulse circuit.
God, I am glad I never waisted anytime replicating your circuit. You obviously have no idea at all.
Attack me my dear and you better have a sound logical reason or I will put you in your place!
Ozy
MH - apologies. It's getting way off topic. I'm out of this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Oh and Mile High you are Correct, Battery voltage really does mean nothing, too many variables once again.
Proof is in the work!
I think the message to Jeff has been well and truly made and its really not worth labouring the point about measurements. He will learn as I have over the last few years that it is very easy to be misled by observation into believing there is a system gain when using Bedini energiser's and cap pulsers etc. This is especially the case when using series connected batteries. I have tracked apparent gains over extended periods running into many hours and only after two or three days of continuous running, have I realised that the batteries are practically dead. Batteries when placed under certain pulsed loading conditions and being 'back-popped' will rise in terminal voltage and look deep into their capacity to maintain terminal voltage for long periods of time.
If you study a series connected battery set running a Bedini energiser, you may observe that one battery will be rising in voltage at a quicker rate than the others are falling or very often just sitting at a static voltage for long periods of time. This gives the impression that the battery set as a whole is gaining energy. It is very convincing but don't be deceived because when run for long enough. the whole battery set will eventually run down - fact! I could have convinced a lot of people with my setups running them for many hours with apparent gain. Adding stages of processing to the system just makes it harder to see exactly whet is going on. I've spent hundreds of hours building all sorts of energiser's and load testing them but have never seen overunity. When Jeff preoccupies himself load testing continuously for months on end as I have, the penny will drop. Until then just let him enjoy the moment.
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy,
I know I am guilty of sometimes over-labouring the point. Right now I am operating on the assumption that the 10-coiler demo at the Renaissance November workshop convention just ran on battery power and there was nothing special going on. This is based on the presumption that Jeff never measured the average power consumption of the 10-coiler so he has no idea how long it was supposed be able to run. Therefore the press and the "buzz" about this demo is false. I am also operating on the assumption that for Jeff's main project, the 10-coiler and battery swapper and grid-tie inverter, he has never done a serious load test like I described to prove that the system is over unity. One more time, there is a false "buzz" about this project.
If Jeff was an amateur experimenter that would be one thing. But in reality he's not. He is directly tied in with Rick Friedrich and by extension John Bedini and the products that they sell through their various web sites. You have a group there that between them might represent 50+ man-years in this business and they should know what their products can do and can't do. It's inexcusable to not understand your product when you are operating at this level and it's inexcusable to not be able to generate specifications, even preliminary specifications, for some of the integrated systems that you want to build and sell.
You are probably talking $15K USD for all of the pieces to make a full-blown 20-coiler with battery swapper and cap pulser and grid-tie inverter and two large banks of batteries and the consulting fees for integrating the system together. Then you look at the web site and you notice nowhere does it state that the 10 or 20-coiler can be the basis for a free energy machine, even though at the Renaissance November workshop convention they showed a computer-graphic video clip of a system like this powering a house. And ironically the original "buzz" about the 10-coiler was that it could indeed power a house and that has since been scaled back to between 60 and 210 watts.
Then there is the simple thermodynamic reality about the 10-coiler. If you start off with a fully charged source battery and a depleted charging battery and use the 10-coiler to charge the charging battery at the end of the day you will end up with a net loss in total battery energy. Right now the preliminary estimate based on the performance of other Bedini motors is that up to 70% of the source battery energy is lost as heat during the charging process and only 30% of the source battery energy makes it into the charging battery. That's why running the long load test with a 100-watt light bulb on Jeff's main setup is so important.
MileHigh
MH,
You raise some valid points about commercial responsibility.
Jeff tells us that his battery banks do run down but his 10 coiler can restore the charge removed in less time than it depleted. I suggest that what he fails to understand is that although it may appear that his depleted batteries are recharging in less time, he probably has no real idea of the state of charge and therefore how much capacity has been gained in a given period of time. Terminal voltage is clearly not a valid indicator. When battery swapping, it can take a very long time to see an overall reduction in the overall battery bank voltage. With the big 200A/hr batteries Jeff is using, the proof of self running is simple, start with a fully charged set of batteries and simply let the system run for a full week continuously. I guarantee that the accumulative end capacity of the whole battery set will be very much lower than when the run started. Jeff could use a decent hydrometer to easily prove this.
Hoppy
Hoppy:
Great comments like usual. I'm not a hard-core battery guy and I keep forgetting about using a hydrometer to check the energy state of the batteries. So Jeff could get definitive data on his system in pretty short order if he wanted.
MileHigh
Excellent discussion guys. I think you're right on.
Jeff mentioned he was going to try using capacitors, did he not?
I think Jeff will get that reality check pretty darn quick if he has the integrity to follow through with the capacitor test.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.11.26, 00:00:44
Excellent discussion guys. I think you're right on.
.99
What testing methodologies to determine "Excellent discussion guys. I think you're right on." I still fail to see any posted test of your data to counter. Your threads are riddled with "I Think" "Maybe" "Perhaps" Etc. Etc. I must repeat myself, I have demonstrated, produce, design, build and post data points. Just answer me on question and 1 question only, "How much draw at 24VDC does YOUR 10 Coiler draw". Mine draws anywhere from 2 - 3.5amps when adjusted to the sweet spot. Don't give me any lip service, this is not a hard question and don't try and follow up with "you should" "maybe". I am providing you a data point. Just stick to this one question only and test your setup. The only question on the TABLE is "How much does YOUR machine draws at 24V when adjusted to the sweet spot. Don't post anymore spew until you can.
@ Rosemary, I was not disregarding your input, but I wanted to stay focused on illustrating to MH that unless you get off the porch, the only thing you can do is bark like a puppy!
Bit's
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2010.11.26, 02:38:01
What testing methodologies to determine "Excellent discussion guys. I think you're right on." I still fail to see any posted test of your data to counter. Your threads are riddled with "I Think" "Maybe" "Perhaps" Etc. Etc. I must repeat myself, I have demonstrated, produce, design, build and post data points. Just answer me on question and 1 question only, "How much draw at 24VDC does YOUR 10 Coiler draw". Mine draws anywhere from 2 - 3.5amps when adjusted to the sweet spot. Don't give me any lip service, this is not a hard question and don't try and follow up with "you should" "maybe". I am providing you a data point. Just stick to this one question only and test your setup. The only question on the TABLE is "How much does YOUR machine draws at 24V when adjusted to the sweet spot. Don't post anymore spew until you can.
@ Rosemary, I was not disregarding your input, but I wanted to stay focused on illustrating to MH that unless you get off the porch, the only thing you can do is bark like a puppy!
Bit's
OK Bit's, my lips are sealed and the stage is all yours! :P
.99
Jeff:
Look, the vast majority of us will never own a 10-coiler. And if I go to the trouble of building a bicycle-wheel Bedini motor and make a clip and post it, then what? You will answer questions about your 10-coiler?
You mentioned the sweet spot. If you read the Bedini measurement thread you will learn how to measure the power input from the source battery bank and the power output to the charging battery bank in real time. Then I suppose you could say that the sweet spot is when you get the highest (power output/power input) ratio. It's probably the most important parameter for your motor. My guess is with the right tweaking you could get it as high as 0.35. We are talking about "advanced" Bedini motor analysis techniques, compliments of yours truly. There is a ton of other good solid information along those lines in the Bedini threads. I describe a triggering method based on pure EMF from a pick-up coil so you can get rid of the inefficiencies associated with using a trigger coil to turn on so many transistors. You don't need the top peak of the waveform from the pick-up coil to push extra and unnecessary current through the transistor base inputs. It's not a big deal for a single-transistor SSG but it is a big deal for an 80-transistor 10-coiler. It might be an interesting project. That would save power, give you are better sweet spot ratio and also reduce unnecessary drag on the rotor. If you want to ask me any questions I will be pleased to try and help you.
Another thing just came to mind. If you reduce unnecessary drag on the rotor, then you don't have to energize the coils as long to keep the rotor turning. By definition, the shorter your coil energizing time, the more efficient your motor will get, and the higher your sweet spot ratio will get. The ratio increase could be significant. You could control the firing time in software with a $20 microcontroller board, all that you need is a TDC trigger from a small pick-up coil. That also gives you a real-time RPM display. That's something to think about when you look at that big ugly 10-watt resistor used to regulate your base current. However, it's all a moot point if your setup fails the "reality check" test.
We are hoping that real data from you will be forthcoming as previously requested. The offer to help you is sincere.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.26, 03:33:52
Jeff:
Look, the vast majority of us will never own a 10-coiler. MileHigh
Then why do you guy's keep bashing me and others if your intent is to never own a 10 coiler. I am not trying to sell you one. All I am doing is showing my work. Challenge is great, but please let's agree that if you are going to compare, comment, disput, etc. That you do obtain one. I will also have other devices here shortly to show, and respectfully, I ask at that time, that you also obtain the same so we can cuss and discuss data points.
Thanks for your time.
Bit's
I'm a bit behind, so bear with my last post on this thread, please.
Nice that the Hydrometer was mentioned, again. (That's kinda what I meant by specific gravity. Add a load test and that is very close to a "True" charge level on a battery. I have also done a little with the "Pulse Charge" stuff, and this test IS required. SG should be enough, but SG and Load is best. Voltage test on most rechargable batteries is a waste, for the most part. Gel cells and Sealed cells are even more of a pain, but that is not a discussion for this thread.)
All these "Complex" electrical tests are completely part of the "Smoke". Stop falling into the "Trap". No over-thinking allowed.
Remember the "KISS" rule, as if it is not followed, the word "Scam" applies. (Even if they are only scamming themselves.) I would not doubt that some that are involved with this actually are convinced they have what they say they have.
Last Time! Start with ANY setup, measure the "True" charge on the batteries. Run with "ANY" amount of load for some unmeasured amount of time, by itself. Measure the "True" charge on the batteries. THIS is the only useful OU test. Any more than this assumes this test passes already and is pure smoke and mirrors. If OU, the charge increases by some amount. Decrease means junk. End Of Test.
Of course, IF this passes, then the power, flows, etc. become VERY important, but they are ALL After the OU fact. I can put this simply, for those who are just reading this, without commenting. We want to know if the engine RUNS, NOT HOW WELL IT RUNS. This eliminates sweet spots and all "Mystery". Who Cares! The tester can tweak any way they like to get it to RUN OU. If they cannot do that SIMPLE thing, then "Baffle them with BS" is the only recourse. I notice that the OU researchers avoid even discussing this little aspect. Does this make it clear?
I'll drop out now and leave this to those who have the willpower. The other references I found, as I got no useful links here, all have the same deceptive (or questionable?) tone, as the basic first test is avoided. Why? The answer should be obvious. Any OU researcher with a few hours of actual bench time with batteries is fully aware of this stuff. Bits, are you saying your group is not?.......(No Answer Required nor Desired! I'm not saying "I Think". I won't type the words I would like to use. I am sorry for even that remark, but your comments speak for themselves. Is there a device that can increase the standard charge, operating by itself? Of the dozen or so Bedini - style devices I have personally replicated, I haven't seen one pass the basic test. They WILL do certain other things, but that is a different story. I WILL NOT get into the charge recovery of sulfated cells with pulse charging, as that provides false data, as you should already know. I also discount pure RE charged cells, for reasons you should understand, assuming you have preformed the basic, initial, proof of concept test. All I mean to say is, no pulsed or inductive "loads" are acceptable for charge quantity testing, for obvious reasons. AFTER the OU Test, anything is acceptable, but NOT BEFORE. A simple true test would be NO batteries, except for starting, but I have not even seen a design for that concept. My apologies for coming on so strong. I promise to stay away, from now on. If you ever show either the simple test or the Cap test that I can replicate then I'll shout to the world how wrong I am, but till then.....)
MileHigh, Thanks for the answers to the questions I put to you. You are correct in that such a discussion should be in another thread, although I think I mentioned that too. As that gets too long, and too crazy, I doubt such a thread will prove fruitful for quite a while and I certainly won't be the one to start it. I do appreciate the response as it gives me insight into your positions on many concepts. Nice, solid, reality based. I would make only one suggestion for thought. Remember Einstien's quote, which I always take to heart: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." You seem to easily have enough of the knowledge part, and with a little imagination, I think you could go very far in this area of study. (I'm not being a kiss-a**. Just my opinion.)
I must now avoid this topic, as certain battles are outside my abilities to handle. It is certainly not worth me spending my time on something I'm not proficient at and I'm never going to convince those that "Worship" at the "Ministry", anyway. Those that are willing to continue this fight are better than I, but that is just not where my skills are. I prefer the Actual bench work to the "Social" work.
Thank-you for allowing me to post, even though my attitude is not acceptable. Certain things just get to me. Sorry, again.
Good luck to all.
Jeff:
Okay, your point is made. I won't be getting a 10-coiler or anything else you develop and I will continue to comment. And it's important to state that the commenting is not "bashing," it's just me attempting to give you a realistic and truthful appraisal of what I see. I don't accept your argument that I have to buy your stuff to discuss it.
Your demo at the conference was not a self-runner. Your main setup with the battery swapper and grid-tie inverter cannot produce any free energy. You have made these claims but you haven't produced any convincing data to back them up. That's an issue for you to ponder.
Logic says your claims can't be true and my 30+ years working in technology says the same thing.
We will see what happens as the story unfolds.
MileHigh
Another approach:
Just take two small fully charged lead acid batteries and two Bedini 10 coilers and run them back to back i.e. the "charging battery" is driving the second 10 coiler and recharging the primary battery.
No battery swapping required.
If the system is OU it will run for a very, very long time or the system will run uphill and overcharge both batteries eventually killing them.
Or it will die it's fated death in short order. I'm betting on the latter.
I am going to respond to Aaron's posting:
QuoteWhat too many people simply refuse to get is that John B has always stated
you will NOT see any extra "electricity" or in the machine.
The extra, when people see excess, will show up in the BATTERY - the
chemistry is required for the process.
And IF people measure the mechanical work of a calculated wheel
wheel on the shaft, leather strap, spring loaded scales to accurately
calculate it as Peter L shows in his original Electric Motor Secrets video,
you can see how much is there - then you add that much work to what
you get from the batteries.
Depending on the setup, if 0.8 cop was accurately calculated, then
there is actually about 0.9~0.95 since there is easily 10~15% work
in the mechanical part.
0.8 is not very good. 0.90 cop can be done with a little better build
and 15% on the wheel can be had for about 1.05 cop. It isn't magic
and it doesn't violate non-equilibrium thermodynamics since it is a
non-equilibrium machine meaning closed system conventional
thermodynamics doesn't even apply.
This is an indisputable fact and every natural system is a non-equilibrium
system and conventional thermodynamics NEVER applied to any natural
system.
These machines are analogies of natural system.
"The extra, when people see excess, will show up in the BATTERY - the
chemistry is required for the process."Aaron seems to be implying that if you pump one joule of energy into the battery that you might be able to get one joule plus some extra energy out of the battery. This is not true at all. There is no rational reason that can be put forward to make a case for this proposition. Depending on where you look Bedini or Bearden will sometimes state that it's the coil that is getting extra "zero point" energy that comes in via the non-existent Bloch wall, or it's the battery itself that is somehow "resonating" or it has something to do with the "momentum of the ions." It's all nonsense. The battery is not magically increasing in energy with a dose of some extra energy added when a coil discharges into it. There is nothing special at all about a discharging inductor. A discharging inductor is not "radiant energy" it's just a discharging inductor.
A closely related issue is that most people can understand how a capacitor works and how it discharges, but they find it very difficult to understand how an inductor works and how it discharges it's energy. The voltage spikes you can get from a discharging inductor are perfectly normal behaviour, and this is NOT "radiant energy coming from the vacuum." The challenge for every free energy experimenter is to try and actually understand how an inductor works. If you can do this all of the wild talk about "disruptive discharges" and voltage spikes and "radiant energy" will fall by the wayside. You will realize that an inductor is just as boring as a capacitor and it obeys the laws of conservation of energy.
You must be made aware that John Bedini is leveraging the fact that the majority of experimenters don't understand how an inductor works and is using this to his advantage by calling it "radiant energy." The main players in the Bedini motor world themselves do not understand how an inductor works. No doubt it's not easy to understand, but once you do then you get a new perspective on how the motor works.
Ask yourselves this: You know that with no charging battery in place you get high voltage spikes and that's why you use a neon to protect the transistor. You also know that with the charging battery in place, the high voltage spikes go away and become relatively low voltage spikes. But, do you know WHY? If you can't answer that then you don't understand how an inductor works. If you don't understand how an inductor works then you don't understand how a Bedini motor works.
Okay, some healthy ranting there, so I will continue responding to Aaron in a second posting.
MileHigh
Here is some more data points;
"Lockridge Type" or Principal Device – Tesla Self Run Motor Generator
Maybe you should discuss the reasons why this WON'T work, in your analysis of course!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigarian Girls build Free Energy Device
2 students invent fueless power generator
Business Nov 20, 2010
By Akoma Chinweoke
Two students of Doregos Private Academy, Lagos, Olajumoke Adebayo and Eniola Adewale has invented a fueless power generator. The invention was showcased at the Pan-African Women Inventors & Innovators Network Symposium, Expo & Awards at the ECOWAS Commission in Abuja.
Eniola Adewale (left) and Olajumoke Adebayo with the fueless power generator they invented
The event titled Innovative Women with Innovative Solutions for Africa was witnessed by the minister of Information and Communication, Prof. Dora Akunyili, and Mrs Josephine Anenih., minister for Women Affairs, It was indeed a commemdation galore for the students as other youths were advised to emulate them.
The students both in SS3 and members of the Junior Engineers, Technicians & Scientists (JETS Club) said the idea was born out of a need to minimize the cost spent of the usage of fuel generators as an average amount of N10, 000 is spent on fuel weekly adding that their invention does not emit any toxic and poses no threat to human health.
According to them, the idea was conceived through the JETS club to which they belonged as coordinators. "We used magnetic flux to generate electricity which the conventional magnet cannot. It consists of a shaf fixed with eight neodymium magnets which rotates when an initial current is passed through the field coils. The electricity is then passed from the copper coil to a step-up transformer which steps up the power voltage from 32 volts to 200 volts to power the output of the generator". They said.
The young stars noted that JETS club afforded them a vantage avenue to think, analyze and work on scientific research before embarking on the project based on their scientific knowledge that a generator can still exist without using fuel. They stated that it is possible to produce cheaper and more dependable source of electricity for both domestic and industrial use.
The invention the students admitted was not an easy scale through as they had to make several presentations and seminars on the project to the audience comprising their teachers and the school authority before they were finally selected to defend the significance of their project.
Both students hinted that they intend pursuing a career in Engineering in the near future, to develop a bigger generator that can power the whole school." This is just a prototype to showcase our endowments and potentials."
The materials used for the invention according to them are a locally fabricated step up transformer, capacitors with total capacity 400,000 uf, neodymium magnets, copper wires transistors battery, oscillators, bulbs and several other materials.
The coordinator Junior Engineers, Technicians & Scientists (JETS Club), of the academy, Mr Lawal Olaide noted that the problem of high cost usage of fuel generators and unemployment in the country coupled with the burning desires of the students to make something unusual was responsible for the feat. according to him, "the main objective of this project is to produce a generator that can produce cheap and sustainable electric power to solve the problem of power supply permanently in the country, adding that it is also of great importance as it does not emit any waste (toxic) products as with conventional generators".
The Principal of the academy, Mr Jide Adebayo said the school is committed to its mission of creating a learning environment which maximizes individuals' potentials to meet the challenges of education and life.
allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Two Girls' Innovative Generators
Mr. Lawal Olaide, the school's JETS coordinator, said the challenges of high cost of fuelling generators, unemployment resulting from poor electricity supply and the ambition of the students accounted for the feat.
"The main objective of this project is to produce a generator that can produce cheap and sustainable electric power to solve the problem of power supply permanently in the country, adding that it is also of great importance as it does not emit any waste (toxic) products as with conventional generators," he said.
Minister of Information and Communication, Professor Dora Akunyili, and Mrs. Josephine Anenih, Minister for Women Affairs, commended the students and asked other young people to emulate them.
Our main concern is that this invention will not get the type of attention that we think a project of this significance should get from governments, research institutions, and commercial organisations.
For those who attended the event, it was another activity, which ended with the photo opportunities. This sort of attitude signposts governments' disinterest in providing electricity for Nigerians though everyone admits that improved electricity will enhance industrial, commercial and social activities and improve the quality of life of Nigerians.
Governments' seriousness in solving the challenges electricity poses will be gleaned from how it treats the efforts of these young girls. The generator lobby will not like this type of invention, will government side with it?
Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, and its numerous agencies, has for years failed to harness the research results of brilliant Nigerians, who believe they can make a difference in a country that is stuck with in the past.
No youth will emulate them if their invention ends up on the shelf or sealed in one file in the shelf of one irrelevant government agency.
It is government's turn to emulate the duo by using the invention. Nigerians need it, even if governments can do without it. A paradox of the Nigerian situation is that things that are important to Nigerians are unimportant to our governments because they surround themselves with enough comfort to live above the people and their circumstances.
Bit's
Okay, continuing on...
QuoteWhat too many people simply refuse to get is that John B has always stated
you will NOT see any extra "electricity" or in the machine.
The extra, when people see excess, will show up in the BATTERY - the
chemistry is required for the process.
And IF people measure the mechanical work of a calculated wheel
wheel on the shaft, leather strap, spring loaded scales to accurately
calculate it as Peter L shows in his original Electric Motor Secrets video,
you can see how much is there - then you add that much work to what
you get from the batteries.
Depending on the setup, if 0.8 cop was accurately calculated, then
there is actually about 0.9~0.95 since there is easily 10~15% work
in the mechanical part.
0.8 is not very good. 0.90 cop can be done with a little better build
and 15% on the wheel can be had for about 1.05 cop. It isn't magic
and it doesn't violate non-equilibrium thermodynamics since it is a
non-equilibrium machine meaning closed system conventional
thermodynamics doesn't even apply.
This is an indisputable fact and every natural system is a non-equilibrium
system and conventional thermodynamics NEVER applied to any natural
system.
These machines are analogies of natural system.
"And IF people measure the mechanical work of a calculated wheel
wheel on the shaft, leather strap, spring loaded scales to accurately
calculate it as Peter L shows in his original Electric Motor Secrets video,
you can see how much is there - then you add that much work to what
you get from the batteries."This is a completely false argument. The mechanical output of a Bedini motor that is not actually driving an external mechanical load is zero. I find Aaron's sentence very cryptic, but I know what he is trying to say. He is trying to say that it takes power to make the rotor spin, and you should count that. He is dead wrong. All of the "power" required to keep the rotor spinning is the overhead associated with running the motor. By definition the overhead doesn't count, it is part and parcel of the inefficiencies associated with the motor. The power required to keep the wheel running becomes waste heat power in the bearings and the air friction. There is a very simple way to account for this also: About 30% of the source battery's power gets transferred into the charging battery via the Bedini motor. The other 70% becomes waste heat and is lost. In that 70% of lost battery power, some of it goes into spinning the rotor.
"0.8 is not very good. 0.90 cop can be done with a little better build
and 15% on the wheel can be had for about 1.05 cop. It isn't magic
and it doesn't violate non-equilibrium thermodynamics since it is a
non-equilibrium machine meaning closed system conventional
thermodynamics doesn't even apply."The COP is more like 0.3 as explained above. Out of the 70% of lost power that becomes heat, for the sake of argument, I will agree with Aaron on the percentage for the rotor spinning and say there is a 15% slice in there for that purpose. The power pie always adds up to 1.0, it's impossible to reach 1.05. Aaron is just trying to do some "fancy footwork" with numbers here to hoodwink you into believing over unity is possible with a Bedini motor. The 15% to keep the rotor spinning is power lost as heat and it is fully accounted for.
When Aaron says it is a "non-equilibrium machine" and "closed system conventional thermodynamics doesn't even apply" he is talking nonsense. Don't let those catch phrases just slide by without giving them a critical examination. It is an "equilibrium machine" because every component of the power from the source battery can be accounted for. The simplest split is into 30/70 as explained above. You can keep on splitting the 70% of lost heat power into the bearing friction, air friction, heat lost in the interconnect wires, heat lost in the transistor, heat lost in the coils, etc, etc.
Don't be phased by the "open" vs. "closed" system thermodynamics statement either. That's just another catch phrase that you should not let slide by without giving it a critical examination. People use the term "open system" to hoodwink you into believing that "extra energy" finds its way into the system because it is "open." They say, "It doesn't violate conservation of energy, it's just getting energy from somewhere else." It's pure nonsense. When you look at a Bedini motor what are you really looking at? You are looking at a device that takes source battery energy, and only source battery energy, and turns it into heat and energy that was put into the charging battery. That's all it does. Forget about "open vs. closed," that's just nonsense to confuse you.
"This is an indisputable fact and every natural system is a non-equilibrium
system and conventional thermodynamics NEVER applied to any natural
system."If you have been following me so far and you get it, then you realize that the above line from Aaron is more nonsense. Every natural system is an "equilibrium system" in the sense that the conservation of energy applies. All of Nature is a giant system demonstrating how the conservation of energy works. Even Aaron's famous heat pump example is an example of the conservation of energy when you look at the whole system. Conventional thermodynamics ALWAYS apply to any natural system and everything is in equilibrium.
MileHigh
Jeff:
QuoteHere is some more data points;
"Lockridge Type" or Principal Device – Tesla Self Run Motor Generator
Maybe you should discuss the reasons why this WON'T work, in your analysis of course!
You have got to be kidding! How many experiments on the forums have you seen start with a big burst of enthusiasm only to peter out and die because the experimenter misunderstood his or her measurements or did not understand what they were doing?
You posted a light human interest article about something technical written by a non-technical reporter. They are a dime a dozen.
You seem to be forgetting where the burden of proof lies. How can you possibly forget that? I don't have to prove anything. You are the person that has to prove your free energy proposition WILL work, with your analysis and data, of course!
The reason it is different for you is that you are part of a group that is willing to sell these systems for profit. You have a military background and you know that there are drawings and specifications for the most complicated avionics systems right down to the simplest sheet metal screw.
MileHigh
I am going to comment again on what Aaron posted:
QuoteIn any case, these chargers are absolutely a new breakthrough
technology as they are potential chargers and not current
chargers. This is of course completely different than pulse
chargers or other variations that simply chop current into smaller
punches, etc... they're not even in the same category.
Here Aaron is making the classic mistake that most people make when it comes to the "radiant chargers" that you can purchase from EnergenX and it also applies to any Bedini motor. The sales pitch is that they "charge your battery with potential only, and there is barely any current." They are pitched as "breakthrough" technology.
Life can be topsy-turvy sometimes. When Aaron says "potential chargers" he is thinking about the good old voltage spike that a discharging inductor can produce. That's what's inside an EnergenX "radiant charger." But the truth, the REAL TRUTH, is that "radiant chargers" and Bedini motors output PULSES OF CURRENT. That's how discharging inductors work. So when Aaron says "potential chargers" he really means a current-based charging system. When Aaron says "not current chargers" he is referring to conventional battery chargers that output a voltage that results in current flowing into the battery. So when Aaron says "not current chargers" what he is really trying to say is "not voltage-based chargers." Life can indeed be topsy-turvy sometimes.
The notion that making use of a discharging inductor to charge batteries is unique and revolutionary is simply silly. There are other companies that sell battery chargers based on the same technique.
QuoteYou also have to consider that what the meter shows is not
what the machine is running on. The meter shows what is
being lost while the circuit is actually running on magnetic
current and the "amperage" is an incidental loss from the
line resistances, etc...
I have no clue what Aaron is saying here. The wisest course of action here would be to ignore these statements because they don't really make any sense.
QuoteI'm confident that the electron current model of electricity is
completely false and I recognize this as an irrefutable fact when
looking at the scientific evidence and it is up to you and everyone
else to search the references and not just evidence but proof that
the model is flawed. So what you see on the meter is not what
you think it is. The current measured is an effect and is NOT the
cause.
Many people challenge the notion of electric current and the existence of electrons. Think about the fact that up until just a few short years ago we watched TVs and computer monitors that were based on accelerating a beam of electrons onto a phosphor-coated vacuum tube. I am not going to get into the current/electron debate on this thread.
QuoteIt is thought that only "hot" electron current can charge the battery.
This is not so. Those lead ions can move in charging mode by simply
hitting it with impulses of potential (like the inductive spike of high
potential and little to theoretically no current) and the short width
is evidence of no work there for practical purposes as all the TIME
is locked up inside of that voltage potential spike.
You supply that TIME POTENTIAL to something like a lead acid battery
and you wind up getting the time out of it in the form of work. Potential
in and work out.
"Hot current" and "cold current" is a false concept that only exists in the realm of free energy devotees.
"like the inductive spike of high potential and little to theoretically no current" This is where Aaron doesn't get it, like many others. That "inductive spike of high potential" is actually a CURRENT spike. The mechanism behind a discharging inductor is CURRENT, and not potential. That's why the "high potential spike" is reduced to a spike of less than one volt when you connect it to a big battery. It's because the inductor is pumping CURRENT into the battery, not potential.
The biggest irony here is that Aaron is saying "theoretically no current" when in fact the whole thing is based on current first, and the voltage observed is a result of the current flow.
The "time potential" stuff is likely related to when Aaron talks about a discharging inductor as "compressed time potential." It's a non-starter. The right thing to do would be to get a complete understanding of how an inductor works.
QuoteIn any case, an elephant that gets walking will keep walking when you
spike it's butt with a small impulse from a bullwhip. Not a perfect analogy
but a little bit can get a bit thing moving. Once the merry go round is
spinning, you can just hit it with your pinky to keep it going in that
direction. Anyway, this is a potential charge and why these spikes can
directly charge a battery without running current through them and they
will boil without all the heat that is normally associated with an equivalent
charging rate from a conventional hot current charger. It desulfates and
rebuilds the plates in a way that no other chargers ever have.
The highlighted test above is wrong. Every pulse of current from a discharging inductor going into a battery contains a finite measurable amount of energy. A certain proportion of that energy will be lost as heat, and the rest will get converted into chemical energy in the battery. It's just plain nuts and bolts.
QuoteI have charged the batteries with these machines, disconnected them
from the machine and the batteries continue to charge for an hour. REAL
CHARGE. Those lead ions are so heavy they have serious momentum and
that momentum will continue for a while giving the battery a real charge
when there is no circuit attached to provide any current. I doubt you
can get this same benefit with a hot charger as any hot charger I've ever
used and disconnected from a battery follows with an instant drop
on the voltage and not a continuous charge up.
I don't but any of the post-disconnect charging business. Aaron would have to show some data to back up his claims. I don't buy the "ion momentum" business. You can open up a chemistry book, or in this day and age go online, and you can read the formulas for the chemical reactions that show what happens when a battery charges. You need energy in the form of electric CURRENT to make the chemical reactions take place.
QuoteI admit I have only done this when I capture the spikes in a cap and
discharged the cap in impulses with a mechanical switch. That was the
first time I calculated about 1.5 cop almost 10 years ago. The second
time with these circuits was with an inverted solid state cap discharger
about 5 years ago.
There is no way that Aaron calculated 1.5 COP. The opportunity is long gone, but if I could have seen his setup and his measurements and his data, I would most likely be able to find the error.
QuoteIt should be easy enough for anyone to put a current sensing resistor like
0.25 ohms on the negative rail of the input battery. Put a scope across it
and use a data recording scope to log the dc mean and calculate the
joules drawn over x amount of time. I don't have the tektronix 3054c at
my disposal anymore but it can do 10,000 samples per screen shot. Those
can be dumped to a spreadsheet and sorted and can be analyzed on a
per waveform basis or calculated out over time to see exactly how many
joules of energy were expended from the input.
You don't need fancy DSOs to make very accurate measurements for your Bedini motor setup. All that you need is a multimeter, some resistors, and a big capacitor. Read the Bedini measurement thread on this web site for more information.
QuoteThen turn off the machine and disconnect the secondary battery and
draw a load at the right rate (c20 is probably what most people will
scream about) and also with a current sensing resistor and do the same
data capture until that battery is down to the voltage where it was
before it received a charge. Use a resistive load on this battery instead
of an inductive load.
The highlighted text above shows a huge fail on Aaron's part. Aaron thinks that you can drain a battery down to the same voltage you were at when you started the charging process and then compare energy in to energy out to calculate your COP. His statement is actually totally ridiculous and assuming that he has been using this technique over the years, then all of his COP calculations based on this technique are pure junk. My words are strong but they are true. If anybody doubts me it can be taken up in a separate thread. I am a little bit shocked.
Also, what's strange is that Aaron recently said this about relying on voltage measurements:
QuoteThat is a tired and worn out argument. Those that know what
they're doing do not simply use voltage that shows up on a meter
to see how much energy there is. Work is drawn from the battery.
This has been repeated countless times and insinuating that this
is the method used to determine "overunity" is misleading and is
manipulation. Some people starting out will think voltage readings
means more than it does, I did in the beginning because I didn't
know better but this does NOT apply to those that have been
working on these projects for a while.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.27, 01:55:07
Many people challenge the notion of electric current and the existence of electrons. Think about the fact that up until just a few short years ago we watched TVs and computer monitors that were based on accelerating a beam of electrons onto a phosphor-coated vacuum tube. I am not going to get into the current/electron debate on this thread.
If anybody doubts me it can be taken up in a separate thread. I am a little bit shocked.
MileHigh
MileHigh? Is this thread about the Bedini 10-Coiler? Or is it a rant against free energy terminologies? Or is it simply an attack on Aaron? As I see it you've got every right to call for better measurments. The more so as there's money involved in this claim. But there's absolutely no point in refuting a claim based on what you 'believe' any more than the free energy enthusiasts can claim something on belief. So. While you call for more measurements - that's a good thing. But if you're going to parade your 'opinion' and will brook no argument - then? What the hell? Shouldn't you also just open a blog?
This endless debate about voltage vs current and hot and cold electricity - is entirely irrelevant. Voltage is a fact. It's measurable. And when voltage is measured on a closed circuit it produces current - as day follows night. Hot electricy and cold electricity seem to be some distinction that's required - God knows why. But since there's no official definition anywhere at all - then one can ignore it - I would have thought. Together with the lack of definition applied to what they propose is 'radiant energy' - also used in some kind of way that makes it distinct from its general context.
I keep reading here to get some idea about how the 'opposition' think - relating to this general 'free energy' movement. Frankly I see as much if not more bias and bigotry here than I see in that movement. The difference is this. Your own stance DEMANDS support or say nothing. Actually. Having said that, maybe it's not that different.
Regards,
Rosemary
And may I add. The fact that electrons can be used in any context at all has never been debated. Apply enough energy and you can do just about anything with them - in the same way that you move light in any direction and at just about any intensity. The question has only been what makes up current flow. And that CANNOT be argued to be electrons. Anymore than anyone can still argue that the Earth is flat. But it is - unquestionably - correctly referenced as the movement of charge. Your reference to this point to advance your argument is spurious. And better leave out reference if you don't want it challenged. You're definitely hitting below the belt.
Rosemary,
The issues were brought up by Aaron in the other 10-coiler thread so I am responding here. Current also produces voltage. They certainly go hand in hand. Sometimes voltage produces current.
I make some strong statements and if someone wants to argue the points that's fine.
I am not going to get into the whole electron debate like I said. Your stance on that DEMANDS support or say nothing. I don't care.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.27, 02:48:22
Rosemary,
The issues were brought up by Aaron in the other 10-coiler thread so I am responding here. Current also produces voltage. They certainly go hand in hand. Sometimes voltage produces current.
I make some strong statements and if someone wants to argue the points that's fine.
I am not going to get into the whole electron debate like I said. Your stance on that DEMANDS support or say nothing. I don't care.
MileHigh
Ok. Then here's the counter argument. Aaron et al - believe that there's a level of 'spike' that takes it from conventional understanding to 'new age'. God know why. I see it as voltage - whichever way it's cut - and from however many coils. And that spike - according to them - recharges a battery with that much efficiency - provided that it's repeatedly charged - that it can out perform it's standard watt hour ratings. I have enough respect for Lindemann to know that he does not make idle statements. And he also claims this. Therefore I think that Aaron is simply trying to explain what Lindemann does better.
As for the other confusions in the 'free age thinking' - it's no better nor worse than mainstream. Neither are logical and both are barely supported by evidence. The difference is this. Mainstream's handle of measurement is far more capable than Free Age. Which is a pity. I'm of the opinion that with better measurements then Free Age would also be better able to carry their argument.
And it's exhausting to keep reading the demand by mainstream for 'self driven' or 'closed systems' to give the proof. That would first have to be the free energy enthusiasts' claim. I think - at this stage - they're simply pointing to a coefficient of performance greater than 1.
I only support your argument to the extent that you require better measurements. I absolutely agree with this. But I also understand that it's a tricky one as the measurement of a motor's output is not that easy.
Final comments on Aaron's long posting on the EF 10-coiler thread:
QuoteJohn's biggest secret about these SG circuits is that THERE IS NO SECRET.
It has been out in the open for years before 99% of most people ever
heard of "free energy" including myself. Now there may be some
proprietary info on the circuits that belongs to his company and he can't
share those because they're company property but what is out in the open
gives results as claimed.
I agree, there is NO SECRET about a Bedini motor. It is a very simple pulse circuit where an inductor is charged up and then discharged throug a diode into a battery. It is a very basic circuit that would be covered in a first-year electronics course.
The main problem that I have with John Bedini is that he does not explain to Bedini enthusiasts how a Bedini motor actually works. He shrouds it all mystery and uses the false term "radiant energy" for a simple discharging inductor. Read this thread if you want to find out how a Bedini motor actually works.
QuoteIn my opinion, what the "thinking man" needs to know first is what the
difference is between a man thinking and a thinking man but that's another
topic. But distinctions of frames of references, etc... are necessary for
people to get around what they already think in terms of the very
fundamentals that people use as their premise for observing all of this
from, which if based on conventional electron theory models and
conventional thermodynamics is completely wrong.
This line from Aaron, "
based on conventional electron theory models and conventional thermodynamics is completely wrong," is another one of those topsy-turvy moments that you sometimes see on the forums. Aaron is completely and utterly wrong when he makes that statement. A Bedini motor is a very simple, plain, and ordinary pulse circuit that can be explained inside-out and upside-down using "conventional" electron theory and "conventional" thermodynamics.
I view that comment as part of a thought conditioning process for people that have no or very limited experience with the sciences in general and electronics in particular. Don't let yourself get fooled and led astray by Aaron's comment because it is not true. This is where you need to do some serious thinking.
MileHigh
Well. I HAVE done some serious thinking about this. And I've reached the same conclusions but from a different premise. There's another difference. I keep hoping to find some argument from mainstream that I can buy into. So far I've seen nothing and I've been following these and many other threads for a while now.
Any way MH. I keep promising you I won't comment. And I keep breaking that promise. I just wish you or someone could elaborate on mainstream better than Dyson or Zukov. That way I could find that definitive explanation that would let me understand how and what you guys think. Then also I'd be able to climb out of this hell hole. It's no pleasure not belonging to either side. But that would involve the discussion that I think you've rather outlawed.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteOk. Then here's the counter argument. Aaron et al - believe that there's a level of 'spike' that takes it from conventional understanding to 'new age'. God know why. I see it as voltage - whichever way it's cut - and from however many coils. And that spike - according to them - recharges a battery with that much efficiency - provided that it's repeatedly charged - that it can out perform it's standard watt hour ratings. I have enough respect for Lindemann to know that he does not make idle statements. And he also claims this. Therefore I think that Aaron is simply trying to explain what Lindemann does better.
What you are saying is there is proposition put forward that if you recharge a battery with inductive current pulses that you can increase the energy storing capacity of that battery by a certain percentage. That may be true, I would have to see convincing data on that and I have never seen it. If you increase a battery's energy storing capacity, then you have to put more energy into it to recharge it. So there is no free energy there.
With respect to the "spike," that is where you get into some interesting issues that call into question certain people's motivations. The spike never goes "new age," ever. But the fact is that you can get away with telling that to people and calling it "radiant energy" and they will believe you. If enough people believe you then you can achieve "critical mass" and they will start telling others and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. That's why probably about two-thirds of the people that play with a Bedini motor for the first time believe that if they "tune" it right they can produce free energy.
What also happens is that two-thirds of the messages sent out to the masses imply that there is something "unconventional" and "special" going on. The other third of the messages are low-key and say that there is nothing special about a Bedini motor and it is not an over unity device. They know that some people hear and listen to what they want to hear. That's why at the Renaissance November workshop convention they were playing a computer-graphic video clip on a big screen that showed a 10-coiler type device that was powering a house, even though there is not a single shred of credible evidence that this is possible.
MileHigh
When science is promoted as propaganda - then it's definitely offensive. But consider what those guys have managed. They've got their following and all such are, hopefully, exploring this new science. Do you know just how much they're up against? I do. Unhappily I can tell you exactly how offended and offensive does the average engineer become when his best opinions are refuted or challenged. There's an awful lot of emotion wrapped up in one's thinking. And it's a passion that simply can't even be taken out of the ostensibly 'dry' realm of logic. And if the 'level' that they reach is less critical and more emotional - then at least there is a growing number.
MileHigh - the fact is that you're right to challenge any claims. Especially if they're self-serving and obviously so. But I get it that our free energy enthusiasts are actually motivated by something more than their personal enrichment. God knows Bedini and others would make much more money if they simply sided with mainstream and earned conventional livings. It's that huge affront to mainstream that I find delicious. So brave. And it's a picnic to side with mainstream. There one has the unequivocal support of a HUGE majority. Where's the muscle to dare challenge all that authority? And do you know how much nonsense mainstream promote - aside from the miracles of technological achievements that they manage? And its not as if their theories are right. Just that they're upheld by a the majority. So many and it also then denies anyone the right to question them. Science determined by democratic principles. What nonsense. And what an eternal shame if by ignoring the potential benefits in a new found force - also plays into the hands of our energy suppliers. They're certainly not that anxious to change any paradigms. The bigger picture is so much more than all this nit picking.
Again, regards
Rosemary
Nicely put Rosemary.
Bit's
Can you charge a battery with displacement current?
Rosemary:
There is an argument that goes like this: You can short-circuit all of the the propositions on both sides of the fence and just ask for results.
The results will speak for themselves. That's why it is a central issue. Look at the new "Bedini Ferris Wheel Regauging Motor" shown at the conference. What does it do? What results can it deliver?
Those questions haven't been answered. Instead there is a growing thread on the EF where people ask Bedini questions and agonize over what he really means and then agonize over trying to make replications, without having had any of the fundamental questions answered. Back into topsy-turvy territory.
According to Bedini, depending on which hemisphere of the Earth you are on, you build it differently. There is not a single rational reason for making that statement, and here is were you have to start asking yourself some serious questions about Bedini and the whole deal.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.27, 04:22:08
Rosemary:
There is an argument that goes like this: You can short-circuit all of the the propositions on both sides of the fence and just ask for results.
MileHigh
I agree.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.27, 04:22:08
According to Bedini, depending on which hemisphere of the Earth you are on, you build it differently. There is not a single rational reason for making that statement, and here is were you have to start asking yourself some serious questions about Bedini and the whole deal.
MileHigh
I may add - according to mainstream - depending on whether you're a classicist - a string theorist - or a quantum enthusiast - there's either four dimensions or a multiplicity of dimensions where space itself is either expanding or contracting or neither - supported by a universal gravitational field or by a hidden scaffold of stable fixed strings of dark matter - or by fields of photons, electrons, photon neutrinos, electron neutrinos, or either or neither - but actually by gravitons - which have never been found - or by 'darkons' which are also purely speculated. Where energy can never be created or destroyed - except in momentary interactions inside a bubble chamber and unless they're virtual particles - or something else or none of the above. And where hidden force fields comprise invisible particles that can variously be measured or not - that are either existent or not - will be found - will never be found - cannot be found - depending entirely on which school of thinking you subscribe to and whoever pays the most for research. Bedini's proposal that the two hemisphere's of the earth would require different 'builds' is tame compared to conventional theory. Mainstream thinking is postively a Smørrebrød where you can butter it and slice it and add anything you want from baked ham to tachyons or any of the above. Mainstream doesn't have the answer. It has many. And they all differ one from another. If mainstream were consistent there'd be some justification in giving it one's wholehearted support.
Rosemary:
I know that these things are issues you follow but please refrain from mentioning them anymore in this thread. This thread is about the 10-coiler and admittedly it got into more generic Bedini themes as a response to Aaron's long posting on the EF 10-coiler thread.
The issue of how you build the Ferris Wheel motor depending on which hemisphere you are in ties into the generic Bedini theme. It's shocking to read stuff like that from Bedini, it really is. It's junk science. That's the main point relative to the generic Bedini theme. Anybody that disagrees with me can bring it up on the Ferris Wheel thread.
MileHigh
@Rosemary
QuoteI may add - according to mainstream - depending on whether you're a classicist - a string theorist - or a quantum enthusiast - there's either four dimensions or a multiplicity of dimensions where space itself is either expanding or contracting or neither - supported by a universal gravitational field or by a hidden scaffold of stable fixed strings of dark matter - or by fields of photons, electrons, photon neutrinos, electron neutrinos, or either or neither - but actually by gravitons - which have never been found - or by 'darkons' which are also purely speculated. Where energy can never be created or destroyed - except in momentary interactions inside a bubble chamber and unless they're virtual particles - or something else or none of the above. And where hidden force fields comprise invisible particles that can variously be measured or not - that are either existent or not - will be found - will never be found - cannot be found - depending entirely on which school of thinking you subscribe to and whoever pays the most for research. Bedini's proposal that the two hemisphere's of the earth would require different 'builds' is tame compared to conventional theory. Mainstream thinking is postively a Smørrebrød where you can butter it and slice it and add anything you want from baked ham to tachyons or any of the above. Mainstream doesn't have the answer. It has many. And they all differ one from another. If mainstream were consistent there'd be some justification in giving it one's wholehearted support.
That is a good point, I remember watching a video on Richard Feynman and one simple question came up--- "what is a magnetic field",lol, my god I have never seen a nobel prize winner squirm and back peddle that much in all my life. Now if the nobel prize winning physicists have no solid proven answer for what a magnetic field is fundamentally then where exactly do we stand in regards to a solid foundation to build on? The fact is we have more than a few competing theories on how things work but none of them give us the really important answers like what is a magnetic,electric and gravic field fundamentally? That is my question, how can we say anything is impossible when we have literally no idea "what" the fundamental forces are? and how can anyone be an expert in anything when they do not know "what" it is they are dealing with?
Just today I was reading how some scientists had managed to build a nano-material that would bend microwaves around an object to make it essentially disappear in respect to the source. The lead scientst also said there is no reason why this cannot be applied to light waves as well as the quote--- "science is about always trying to do the impossible". Now if some brilliant scientists who are the world leaders in this field of science tell me that there is no reason why a nano-material could not be manufactured in the future to lets say cover my house and make it invisible and they have for the most part proven this fact then exactly what is impossible? This also raises the question in regards to what 99% of the population might say if someone stated they could make a solid object disappear. I think this is yet another example as to why there are no real experts anymore because the science keeps changing and the technology keeps changing on a daily basis. The exponential growth of knowledge ensures that myself and everyone here is little more than an antiquated dinosaur in respects to what our children will know and see, that is the way it is and the way it has always been throughout history. Our children will look back and call us delusional old farts who really didn't have a clue about much of anything and almost brought this world to the brink of destruction through our ignorance.
Personally I have serious reservations about Bedini's claims and his understanding of what it is that may be happening in his devices but if there is something happening it is only a matter of time before someone figures it out, they always do.
Regards
AC
Can you charge a battery with displacement current?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.27, 11:08:40
Can you charge a battery with displacement current?
There is no standard definition of displacement current. If you mean can we charge a battery from a capacitor - the answer is yes. Can we charge a battery from a some charge storage device without a direct link with the circuit wires - the answer is possibly. We know that a battery can discharge through space. Presumably therefore it could recharge through space. But it would be unlikely - given that charge moves to a neutral rather than a charged condition given any options to move at all. If you're suggesting that the recharge requires the 'input' of electrons - then the answer is no. If you added electrons then the electrolyte in the battery would have nowhere to put them. And I'm not allowed to talk theory. So that's the best I, personally, can offer.
Rosemary
Here is that clip that I made reference to a day ago:
Just note that there is nothing like this in existence. This clip is a fantasy, nothing more than that. The laws of thermodynamics state that what you see in this clip is impossible. Batteries can't drive a load and keep recharging each other, it doesn't make any sense. Even if you use a pulsing inductor to charge the batteries (a.k.a. "Bedini technology"). No data has ever been presented by the Bedini camp or by an independent third party tester that this is possible.
Note that recently Jeff (Bit's-and-Bytes) was asked to show convincing data that his 10-coiler configuration with the battery swapper and cap pulser and grid tie inverter could produce continuous power and he refused.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.27, 11:08:40
Can you charge a battery with displacement current?
The responses to this question pretty much sums up this thread.
What responses? There's been one response and that was from me and I believe it endorsed your point. And I think what was asked for by all of us is that we get the data to support the claim. Exactly WHAT is your point?
Grumpy:
Please explain the thoughts behind your question. Before you do that, is it appropriate for this thread? If not, why not start a thread about your issue and see what happens?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.28, 04:57:50
Grumpy:
Please explain the thoughts behind your question. Before you do that, is it appropriate for this thread? If not, why not start a thread about your issue and see what happens?
MileHigh
Bedini is pulsing coils and pulsing batteries. I see all sorts of talk about the energy in and out and how theory and experiment supports what you say, but I don't see you mention that displacement current that accompanies these pulses. With a very fast rate of change and high voltage, the displacement current could be quite high. This will not measure on your standard meter, as it is outside the conductor. You can find measurement techniques online. Just an observation, but the fact that I didn't get an answer of "yes" or "no" leaves me wondering...
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.28, 16:53:54
Bedini is pulsing coils and pulsing batteries. I see all sorts of talk about the energy in and out and how theory and experiment supports what you say, but I don't see you mention that displacement current that accompanies these pulses. With a very fast rate of change and high voltage, the displacement current could be quite high. This will not measure on your standard meter, as it is outside the conductor. You can find measurement techniques online. Just an observation, but the fact that I didn't get an answer of "yes" or "no" leaves me wondering...
Grumpy,
There's the "chicken or egg" question to consider here. The battery effectively quashes the HV spike, so if there is no HV spike, can there be any significant displacement current via the conductors?
.99
PS. Sorry grumps. I accidentally used modify instead of quote, but I did not edit anything in your post.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.28, 16:53:54
Bedini is pulsing coils and pulsing batteries. I see all sorts of talk about the energy in and out and how theory and experiment supports what you say, but I don't see you mention that displacement current that accompanies these pulses. With a very fast rate of change and high voltage, the displacement current could be quite high. This will not measure on your standard meter, as it is outside the conductor. You can find measurement techniques online. Just an observation, but the fact that I didn't get an answer of "yes" or "no" leaves me wondering...
Still don't get it. If the displacement current is responsible for recharging those batteries - then that would be a miracle and well worth advancing as a study. Irrespective of what can be measured or not - the fact is that it would be very unusual for charge to move towards anything other than a neutral condition if it were moving through the air. Which means that wherever else it went it would not feed into the batteries unless there was closed circuit wiring to enable it. If it is simply moving through the air - and then recharging those batteries then we have something that needs to be bottled. It would be amazing.
What exactly do you mean by displacement current? The concept - as I understood it - was advanced by Maxwell to explain how 'charge' could move through empty space. He superimposed the concept of charge moving through some interaction with molecular and atomic structures in that 'space' in order to allow it. This, I think, was the early concept. The general studies since then replaced the concept of empty space and simply did away with it as not being required - mathematically. Not sure who did this but it was probably one of the mathematicians who advanced electromagnetic equations. Then. In the sense that it's currently used it's associated with dielectrics and that's not part of the set up with Bedini's coils - as I understand it. But I may be wrong. A displacement current - in the context that you're using it - I presume applies as Maxwell used it. Which means that it must move from one place to another through some kind of atomic - molecular - or atmospheric medium. If that's right - then I personally question that a battery would be recharged. Because the atomosphere is diverse and would allow for the displacement of charge to neutralise it. If it moved to the battery to recharge it then it would be moving to a state of imbalance. And charge always moved to find a state of equilibrium. Else it does not move at all. So. If that is part of the general claim of the Bedini 10 coiler - then it's certainly well worth looking into. All I keep saying is that we need some actual numbers. Otherwise I have no idea what the claim is. None of us could have. It's very confusing.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.11.28, 17:00:07
Grumpy,
There's the "chicken or egg" question to consider here. The battery effectively quashes the HV spike, so if there is no HV spike, can there be any significant displacement current via the conductors?
.99
PS. Sorry grumps. I accidentally used modify instead of quote, but I did not edit anything in your post.
Poynty? When does the battery 'squash' or 'quash' the spike? The battery has no objection to high voltage spikes and offers very little resistance to change it or reduce it. In fact it's my experience that it prefers those high spikes and certainly enables them. It's reduction - if anything - is from other components and resistors in the path of that spike.
My point - for what it's worth - is that displacement current would not move to recharge the battery - unless it was forced there through some kind of wire or such like medium - in which case it would not be displacement current.ADDED
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.11.28, 17:30:16
Poynty? When does the battery 'squash' or 'quash' the spike? The battery has no objection to high voltage spikes and offers very little resistance to change it or reduce it. In fact it's my experience that it prefers those high spikes and certainly enables them. It's reduction - if anything - is from other components and resistors in the path of that spike. My point - for what it's worth - is that displacement current would not move to recharge the battery - unless it was forced there through some kind of wire or such like medium - in which case it would not be displacement current.
ADDED
The battery, as seen by the inductor in its flyback phase, is a substantially low impedance, therefore the high voltage spike is squashed down to a few volts above the battery terminal voltage. This occurs every cycle.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.11.28, 17:46:49
The battery, as seen by the inductor in its flyback phase, is a substantially low impedance, therefore the high voltage spike is squashed down to a few volts above the battery terminal voltage. This occurs every cycle.
.99
I assure you that the voltage measured in Counter EMF from collapsing fields on an inductor moves through the battery - unhindered - as can be measured across shunt resistors on either side or both - of the battery terminals. Are you saying that the voltage from the CEMF is actually reduced somehow - in which case I can't agree? Or are you saying that very high voltage spikes that we can't measure are not able to go through the battery. If so you may be right. But if we can't even measure them - then I'm not sure that it's relevant. And is this what Grumpy is pointing to as the source of displacement current? My take is that the only energy that can be induced to return to the battery is sourced and then returns to the inductor via the battery provided there's some path to allow it. If there's no path then any stray high voltages that we can't measure - may be RF or somesuch. And I can't believe it would recharge the battery. But it would be nice if it could and I've love to be proved wrong.
Rosemary:
The voltage you get from a discharging inductor is proportional to the impedance of the load it discharges into. If the impedance is low, the voltage is low, if the impedance is high, the voltage is high. This is what I discussed in my long rebut to what Aaron posted and this is what I have repeatedly stated is a very difficult concept for experimenters to understand. In a Bedini motor there is a one-way path between the discharging inductor and the battery that flows through a diode. For every discharge pulse the inductor discharges it's energy once and that's it.
Grumpy:
All of the currents in a Bedini motor setup are accounted for. You know my take on displacement current. You can speculate all you want but it's the real current that flows through the battery that counts. That current comes from the discharging inductor in a simple current loop. You have a coil, a diode, and a battery in the current loop and that's the entire circuit during the coil discharge phase. There is no displacement current associated with that current loop. It's very basic and simple and can easily be verified on a bench.
MileHigh
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.11.28, 17:58:39
I assure you that the voltage measured in Counter EMF from collapsing fields on an inductor moves through the battery - unhindered - as can be measured across shunt resistors on either side or both - of the battery terminals. Are you saying that the voltage from the CEMF is actually reduced somehow - in which case I can't agree? Or are you saying that very high voltage spikes that we can't measure are not able to go through the battery. If so you may be right. But if we can't even measure them - then I'm not sure that it's relevant. And is this what Grumpy is pointing to as the source of displacement current? My take is that the only energy that can be induced to return to the battery is sourced and then returns to the inductor via the battery provided there's some path to allow it. If there's no path then any stray high voltages that we can't measure - may be RF or somesuch. And I can't believe it would recharge the battery. But it would be nice if it could and I've love to be proved wrong.
The inductive kickback sees the battery as a substantial load, with low impedance. The total impedance it sees is largely determined by the length of wire connecting the inductor to the battery; the shorter this is, the lower the impedance. There will also be a finite amount of inductive reactance within the battery itself, but it is quite small.
Ideally, since we are discussing battery charging voltage, we need only be concerned with the actual battery terminal voltage as measured with a fast scope and probe. Scope measurements taken at the inductor or switch end will produce a false indication of the actual battery terminal voltage, and should be avoided.
Because the battery itself has an inherent inductive reactance, albeit relatively small, there may be a very brief high voltage spike measurable at the battery terminals, but the over-riding bulk of the inductive kickback pulse will be just a few volts (if that) above the nominal battery terminal voltage. The time ratio will probably be on the order of 1:100 or wider.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.11.28, 17:00:07
Grumpy,
There's the "chicken or egg" question to consider here. The battery effectively quashes the HV spike, so if there is no HV spike, can there be any significant displacement current via the conductors?
.99
PS. Sorry grumps. I accidentally used modify instead of quote, but I did not edit anything in your post.
By "squash" do you mean that it is absorbed and dissipated as heat?
1. There are "rumors" throughout OU literature, such as the that for the AVEC device, that alludes to something termed "cold current". I posted some supporting evidence a while back that indicated that inducing conductive current in the collector of the TPU probably induces displacement current into the insulation around the collector and that this is the "cold current" everyone speaks of. Spherics said this will charge batteries and can be seen as a slight rise in the battery voltage while the device is running. (I have witnessed this slight voltage increase, but did not verify charging as I had more important things at the time.)
2. This thread has bashed Bedini and his followers into oblivion, but the bashers never leave the comfort zone. They never venture into the "unknown". There are endless pages of why Bedini's devices can't work, but nothing offered to solve the issue of "our increasing need for energy".
3. I Googled Bedini's 10-coiler and see that there is an earth "ground". It is possible to pull a small current from the earth ground using electrostatic principles. Might this small current become a large current if using electrodynamic (rate of change per time) principles?
G
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.28, 18:37:31
By "squash" do you mean that it is absorbed and dissipated as heat?
Grumps,
An inductor in this discharge phase is a constant current source. It therefore "adjusts" its output voltage to maintain the current that is presently energizing it. If it sees a low impedance, then it will cut back its output voltage accordingly. If it sees a dynamic impedance (as I alluded to in my prior post), then it adjusts dynamically and accordingly, all the while trying to maintain a constant current output.
.99
Grumpy:
Here is another angle on the discharging inductor phase for your consideration. The coil stores a finite amount of energy the moment before it starts to conduct current through the diode and through the battery. The point being that you start with a finite amount of energy. There is no "unknown" to venture into. Everything is known.
From what I see, the "unknown vs. known" is a recurring theme that you like to bring up frequently. That gives you an open avenue to argue anything you want. Like in the posting you just made you are speculating the somehow a small current can become a large current using "electrostatic principles." What ground? What current? What "electrostatic principles?" Sorry, I just don't go for the pie-in-the-sky stuff, especially when it comes to a Bedini motor. Like I posted a while back, a Bedini motor is a very simple pulse circuit, and it can be analyzed inside-out no problem whatsoever. Every current loop and every voltage node can be looked at and understood. That is the reality.
You can call what I say here "bashing" if you want but I don't. The majority of what is stated in this thread is a real and true analysis of how a Bedini motor and the 10-coiler really works and it's filled with tons of useful technical information. It's also the truth. The closest that I come to "bashing" is when I looked at some of the clips put up and statements made by some of the main players in this realm and I gave a frank and honest appraisal of what I saw.
We do indeed have an increasing need for energy, but a Bedini motor is not part of the solution to that important and vital issue. If anything, it's a distraction, a waste of time and energy and money that could be put to better use somewhere else. When I look at that computer graphic video clip with the jumbo 10-coiler powering a house while it charges its battery banks back and forth, I am really offended. It's pure snake oil and any person that is truly interested in finding solutions for our future energy needs should be offended also. In that sense this thread is making a contribution to our energy future, it's pointing out the paths that are dead-ends. If just one person doesn't drop $15,000 on a glorified Bedini 10-coiler battery charger that discharges one set of batteries to put less of a charge in another set of batteries, then I will be doing that person a service.
I am trying to do good here, I really mean it. You should try to look at it from that perspective.
MileHigh
I bring up unknown vs known because modern science does not know "everything".
See attached for the electrostatic principles and the small current the flows FROM THE GROUND CONNECTION.
This begs the question: were all of the "failed" Bedini device replications properly grounded? Maybe Bedini had the right idea but wrong approach...
I'm not siding with or defending Bedini, I just wanted to take a look at some of the "unknowns". You are smart person but you stay in your comfort zone. So, what I am saying is: stop wasting your time beating the dead horse named Bedini into dust and take a look at the "unknowns".
For starters: look at the attached diagram and we see a tiny current pulled from the earth. Whoop-de-doo! Ah-Ha! Might you be able to increase this current to a more interesting level? IF we arbitrarily say "no" we are self-defeated. If we say "perhaps" and start the ol' mental wheels turning, we may find that we can indeed connect to the wheelwork of nature!
(Disclaimer: the electrons extracted from the earth are replenished by the Sun, so do not think for a second that this is "free energy", but just another source.)
Grumpy:
QuoteI bring up unknown vs known because modern science does not know "everything".
Of course science doesn't know everything but it does know some things. I don't feel that not knowing "everything" means you can speculate on "anything." For example, we know there is a finite amount of energy in an energized Bedini coil. We know that the current level when it starts to discharge through the diode will be the same current level that the coil had in it from the source battery excitation before the transistor switched off. We know that the coil will adjust its output voltage to maintain that current level.
QuoteThis begs the question: were all of the "failed" Bedini device replications properly grounded? Maybe Bedini had the right idea but wrong approach...
Here is an example of where you are venturing into the unknown. That example of electrostatic induction has nothing to do with how a Bedini motor works. There is no connection at all. Therefore in this particular case there is no "question to beg." In your example current flows from the ground connection into the sphere (or electrons flow out of the sphere) and it does not relate in any way to a Bedini motor.
For a Bedini motor, you can say that the main battery negative terminal is the "ground" for the setup. If you connect that Bedini motor ground to a true earth ground then nothing will happen. The Bedini motor will then run in exactly the same way except that now you can say that its ground potential is "tied" to the earth ground potential. That means that the positive terminal of the battery can now be measured relative to the local earth ground. If there is no earth ground connection to the battery negative terminal, then you can say that the Bedini motor circuit is "floating" with respect to the earth ground.
QuoteFor starters: look at the attached diagram and we see a tiny current pulled from the earth. Whoop-de-doo! Ah-Ha! Might you be able to increase this current to a more interesting level? IF we arbitrarily say "no" we are self-defeated. If we say "perhaps" and start the ol' mental wheels turning, we may find that we can indeed connect to the wheelwork of nature!
Like I said your diagram has no connection at all to a Bedini motor. If you want to say "yes" to some form of current amplification in your example, then the question for you is how do you do this? What can you offer up as a potential explanation for this possible event? That's for you to get the mental wheels turning, or is this all pure speculation on your part? My mental wheels turn just fine into areas of my own choosing.
Believe me I can get very creative with my thinking but for something as basic as a Bedini motor there is not much to get excited about. The hope is that some readers out there that read these Bedini threads will also end up not too excited about Bedini motors with respect to their free energy potential after they understand how they work. By the same token they hopefully will learn some stuff that they can apply elsewhere in their research. That's the kind of wisdom that one would hope these Bedini threads will impart on some of the enthusiasts.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.28, 21:17:11
Grumpy:
Like I said your diagram has no connection at all to a Bedini motor. If you want to say "yes" to some form of current amplification in your example, then the question for you is how do you do this? What can you offer up as a potential explanation for this possible event? That's for you to get the mental wheels turning, or is this all pure speculation on your part? My mental wheels turn just fine into areas of my own choosing.
MileHigh
Speculation and unanswered questions. Enjoy your comfort zone.
Grumpy:
Like I said, a Bedini motor is nothing but a comfort zone. There are no surprises any more than looking at a proverbial mechanical spring and then coming to the understanding that an inductor and a spring are basically the same thing. That demystifies an inductor and a Bedini motor can be demystified also. So much so that when you come to that understanding and then take a second look at Bedini and his cohorts you wonder what the hell those guys have been drinking and what their motivations are. Look at the example of a magnetic field and people talking about "North poles" and "South poles" and how they might be manipulated differently. With a bit more understanding then you know that there are no real poles, and that's just a naming convention. What follows from that is the realization that it makes no sense to speculate about North and South poles having different properties. That can also be extended to Bedini's and other's nonsensical talk about Bloch walls in the middle of bar magnets. You keep on going in that direction and you slide further and further into a belief system that's disconnected from the reality of what you see with your multimeter and scope on the bench.
Your speculation about a static electricity example applying to a Bedini motor doesn't apply and there is no displacement current to be found. I am not at all trying to suggest that you shouldn't speculate but at least sometimes you could try to back up your speculations with something. That at least provides some sort of a basis for discussion.
MileHigh
I was going to but changed my mind.
That's okay Grumpy, we can agree to disagree. I have some strong feelings about this stuff as you probably do as well. The real bad guy is the guy that steals money from people selling them stuff that doesn't work. In the free energy field there is a lot of that going round.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.29, 00:56:49
That's okay Grumpy, we can agree to disagree. I have some strong feelings about this stuff as you probably do as well. The real bad guy is the guy that steals money from people selling them stuff that doesn't work. In the free energy field there is a lot of that going round.
Milehigh, we all know that you have not obtained one because you said so yourself. With this said, you are implying that you have been ripped off from the real bad guy, is that true? You personaly I mean. Your web site is amazing then because it implies that you truly are doing Over Unity Research, but since I have following this thread and others, it appears that all you want to do is bash John. Hell I even posted another article with more development towards self running machines and you didn't even blink an eye and was right back to the bashing. Perhaps you should rename your web site to the John Bedini bashing forum, then people will not feel they are getting ripped off in there quest for Over Unity Discussion. Who is the real bad guy here?
Jeff:
I am not sure what article you are talking about. If you can provide a link that would be great.
The real challenge for you is that if you disagree with I say, then argue the points out with me. Also, like I said, you can try to spin it as "bashing" when I would call it a reality check where I am looking for the truth.
So bring it on Jeff, find something that you disagree with and make your points.
If you can't do it, then you've got nothing. You are just moaning and saying, "You're bashing."
Step up to the plate and tell me what you disagree with and why.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.29, 01:22:59
Jeff:
I am not sure what article you are talking about. If you can provide a link that would be great.
The real challenge for you is that if you disagree with I say, then argue the points out with me. Also, like I said, you can try to spin it as "bashing" when I would call it a reality check where I am looking for the truth.
So bring it on Jeff, find something that you disagree with and make your points.
If you can't do it, then you've got nothing. You are just moaning and saying, "You're bashing."
Step up to the plate and tell me what you disagree with and why.
MileHigh
The first debate point is that you said you were being ripped of from the real bad guy's. Where is your proof. Did you buy one and and became disinterested, but now you just want your money back? Just bashing some one is not proof enough. You don't even own a Bedini motor (as you call it) but you speak as if your an expert in all of the tests. Your bias is truly standing in the way of your willingness to test for yourself. The article was a few post bak in this thread relating to the two South African girls. How quickly we forget!
Jeff:
Yes I forgot that article and I did comment on it. I told you that it was a puff piece, did you read that?
QuoteThe first debate point is that you said you were being ripped of from the real bad guy's.
I did not say that at all. You have a full mastery of the English language and you know I was making a generic comment about the whole free energy scene.
So again, please step up to the plate and tell me what you disagree with and why.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.28, 19:16:41
Grumpy:
Here is another angle on the discharging inductor phase for your consideration. The coil stores a finite amount of energy the moment before it starts to conduct current through the diode and through the battery. The point being that you start with a finite amount of energy. There is no "unknown" to venture into. Everything is known.
From what I see, the "unknown vs. known" is a recurring theme that you like to bring up frequently. That gives you an open avenue to argue anything you want. Like in the posting you just made you are speculating the somehow a small current can become a large current using "electrostatic principles." What ground? What current? What "electrostatic principles?" Sorry, I just don't go for the pie-in-the-sky stuff, especially when it comes to a Bedini motor. Like I posted a while back, a Bedini motor is a very simple pulse circuit, and it can be analyzed inside-out no problem whatsoever. Every current loop and every voltage node can be looked at and understood. That is the reality.You can call what I say here "bashing" if you want but I don't. The majority of what is stated in this thread is a real and true analysis of how a Bedini motor and the 10-coiler really works and it's filled with tons of useful technical information. It's also the truth. The closest that I come to "bashing" is when I looked at some of the clips put up and statements made by some of the main players in this realm and I gave a frank and honest appraisal of what I saw.
We do indeed have an increasing need for energy, but a Bedini motor is not part of the solution to that important and vital issue. If anything, it's a distraction, a waste of time and energy and money that could be put to better use somewhere else. When I look at that computer graphic video clip with the jumbo 10-coiler powering a house while it charges its battery banks back and forth, I am really offended. It's pure snake oil and any person that is truly interested in finding solutions for our future energy needs should be offended also. In that sense this thread is making a contribution to our energy future, it's pointing out the paths that are dead-ends. If just one person doesn't drop $15,000 on a glorified Bedini 10-coiler battery charger that discharges one set of batteries to put less of a charge in another set of batteries, then I will be doing that person a service.
I am trying to do good here, I really mean it. You should try to look at it from that perspective.
MileHigh
You don't call this a non-biased opinion. You don't own one and never have tested it for yourself. How can you make this claim? All you do is WATCH. What kind of EE are you? That is not reality. This whole post is riddled with Bashing, no spin here or do you want me to believe different?
The overunityresearch.com forum belongs to Peterae and Poynt99.
MileHigh and the rest of us are guest here.
Jeff:
You don't need the histrionics with huge fonts.
QuoteLike I posted a while back, a Bedini motor is a very simple pulse circuit, and it can be analyzed inside-out no problem whatsoever. Every current loop and every voltage node can be looked at and understood.
That's not bashing Jeff, that's the truth. It's not an opinion at all.
The pie-in-the-sky stuff with respect to a Bedini motor is the alleged extra energy that you get in the charging battery, or the inductive spike, or the allegation that one source battery can charge multiple charging batteries to full charge. As you well know, it's a totally mixed message, where these points are continuously stated and and are also continuously dismissed. These points were dismissed just yesterday on the EF thread.
The question for you is still out there, please step up to the plate and tell me what you disagree with and why.
That's what I want to hear from you Jeff, there is no point in quoting me with giant fonts. What technical points do you want specifically to talk about?
MileHigh
Your right, I don't think I need to continue with the huge fonts, but wanted to keep this in the forefront. When you stop bashing, and clear your mind of your hate towards John, then maybe you begin to see that this energy movement is occurring with or without you. I don't even know you personally, but if we meet in person, the first thing that I would see is such hatred towards a group of folks that is trying to better this world. All you do is comment and with that you never can back up your claims. You always expect everyone else to though. 2 way street don't you think. I have illustrated my inventions, so why not go out and repeat my stuff and prove me wrong. When you are able to go and repeat every test in the same setups, and prove to everyone of your followers, that you were right, then you can stand on your soap box. Until then, as a person whom has never meet you in person, take some friendly advice, put up or shut up!
Hi All,
I think the Nigerian thing is a little to early to tell, and shouldn't be used to support your claims Bits. ::)
It was just a puff piece, and nothing further has come from it. Although Nigeria does have a strong anti oil community, it also has an even larger scamming community. ;D
We shall wait and see on that one....
As for this tit for tat between MileHigh and Bits... it's simple.
Bit's you are posting here, so you obviously want to correct MileHighs viewpoint.
You also stated that you have illustrated your devices and shown the tests you used to get to your conclusions.
I have a suspicion this is all he wants to see, so copy and paste yours notes here or your published results and hear the silence....
I for one am very interested in your setup, tests and results.
But I want to make up my own mind instead of just relying on a one sentence claim by you, if I could possible fly to USA and talk and test your setup I would, but I can't so I will continue to ask for you to supply it here.
Hope this helps,
Ozy
Jeff:
I have told you repeatedly, the "You have to do the experiments" line doesn't work on me. I got an A+ in "Pulse Circuits" in 1981 and I don't need to build a trivial little pulse circuit with an inductor discharging into a battery through a diode to understand how it works. Plus the fact that I have watched about 200+ plus Bedini motor clips on YouTube over the past three years.
I am not bashing. I can only guess that you are reading technical points from me that might make you uncomfortable because you can't really rebut them. So you get emotional and accuse me of bashing. Just give it a break because you say it every time. I am trying to move the discussion to where it really counts, the technical merits or lack thereof of the whole Bedini motor and related claims. I do make some strong comments about the topsy-turvy world of free energy sometimes and it's my right to do that. You can challenge those points if you want to also.
So if you want to argue the merits of a Bedini motor or your system or you want to challenge me on some of the technical points that I have made, I am all for it. But forget about accusing me of bashing or trying to allege that I can't say anything because I haven't built a Bedini motor or I haven't replicated your stuff. It's a false argument that you are hiding behind. If one of your peers on EF wanted to ask you a technical point then you would discuss it with them without insisting that they build it themselves beforehand. You are trying to use a double-standard with me and it's doesn't fly.
So, again, if there is anything you want to discuss, I am all for it.
MileHigh
I have been banned from Energetic Forum.... :( ::)
Here is a brief email I sent to the moderator:
Come on that is censorship!
All I did was ask some very valid questions, that many of your members are too afraid of asking because of been banned.
I have promised not to post in defense of CO2 anymore, and they attacked me, so did you ban Ash? did you ban the others that attacked me?
I have stopped replying to those stupid attacks, so banning me only serves the purpose of censoring anyone who asks questions.
Your actions are of a personal nature and not fair. You are just upset that I successfully debunked a few of your claims... So what? Now you know, now you will choose to deliver better evidence for your claims.
You are banning the person who started threads with lots of posts and activity, makes no sense???
Grow up, I am only trying to improve the quality of this forum, so as not to scare away people with a brain.
Hope this helps,
Ozy
So sorry folks looks like the questions will never be answered, Hey I tried! I only wanted to give Rick $10,000 but hey if thats the way they operate, I think I will wait for a less censorship orientated OU device to appear and jump on that. $10,000 is a lot of money and I think I might spend it on solar panels, the gains will be much more significant then bits setup, and there is no mystery involved, they will also gladly answer any questions I have.
PEACE OUT BROTHERS!!!!
I just want to comment on this line from Jeff:
QuoteI don't even know you personally, but if we meet in person, the first thing that I would see is such hatred towards a group of folks that is trying to better this world.
I know that I say tough stuff sometimes. How can anyone in their right mind have something against people that are trying to make the world a better place? It's doesn't make sense!
This is a case where each individual has to use their own values and skills and perceptions to try to "read between the lines" when they come across groups of individuals supporting some kind of cause.
Are they real? Are they sincere? Are they a homogeneous group or are they a mixture? Are some people in the group following along without knowing that they might be being misled? Are some of the leaders sincere but actually misguided? Are some of the leaders actually being manipulative and cynically exploiting general ignorance about technology and also exploiting specific individuals? Are some of the leaders morally right with sound principles behind them?
These are all important questions for you to consider. You have to ask yourself how much you know about the issues, whether they are technical or social. You also have to be honest about your own knowledge and skill set and how much you understand what you are seeing and how well you can qualify what you are seeing.
These are all important issues. In the realm of free energy there is a full spectrum of propositions that are out there. The spectrum goes from outright crooks looking for money to completely altruistic individual experimenters that will send electronics components to each other for free and are always willing to help each other.
In the Bedini realm, it's a mixed bag, I am not going to say much more than that. What I will say is that at the Renaissance November workshop convention, every single piece of technology demonstrated was an under unity device. That is my learned opinion based on my education and real world experience and the way I read between the lines. At the same time, most likely the vast majority of people that attended the convention believed that they saw demonstrations of one or more over unity devices. The headline on pesn.com says, "Bedini Renaissance Conference marks turning point in overunity electromagnetic research." I am telling you that everything demonstrated at the conference was under unity. I wasn't there, I just read about it. I am expressing my judgment and firm opinion based on my education and life experience.
You don't have to agree with me. Ultimately I am giving you my opinion. But I am 100% confident that if I had the chance to check out every piece of technology demonstrated at the convention in a real lab, the test results would show that every thing was an under unity device.
So I don't feel any general hatred for people that are trying to make the world a better place. That simply doesn't make any sense. But for sure there are some good apples and some bad apples out there. Unfortunately Bedini himself is one of the bad apples. He is exploiting the general ignorance about how discharging inductors work and calling that "radiant energy." The Ferris Wheel motor is just a prop until someone comes forward with specifications that state exactly what it does.
I am not a "basher" with an agenda to target someone. I am just telling you how I see it, and I don't see any true tangible merits with respect to "Bedini technology" with the exception of the possible improvement in energy storage capacity and life-cycle extension that inductive charging can do to batteries.
MileHigh
You're not surprised though I expect Ozy?
That's their M.O.
I was never banned myself, but they still deleted my account because I did not use it for a while. But they didn't like me much; I asked the hard questions as well. So did MH and several others that have been banned from EF.
.99
Ozy,
Sorry that you got banned and I know that you really want to believe, but my advice to you is to hold off for one full year. Wait and see if anybody that's independent posts credible evidence that a 10-coiler-based system can produce continuous free energy. You know my stance on that issue.
You were the only person that asked Jeff the realistic questions that anybody would want to ask and Jeff refused to answer. That probably put you in hot water right there.
Also, I really doubt that 100 10-coilers have been sold. I would hazard a guess that the total number sold is less than 10. There would be much more online activity about them if 100 had been sold. When they announced a new line of Renaissance chargers a few months ago they were allegedly immediately "sold out" and my eyes rolled. Also, anything Renaissance sells that has a line cord that plugs into the wall has to have UL approval in the US and UL or CSA approval in Canada. One person in the States told me they bought one model and it didn't have UL approval. I am not saying it's a huge issue but there is probably an Australian equivalent to UL or CSA. The main thing that these organizations check for are design flaws to make sure the devices are safe to operate.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.28, 18:27:29
Rosemary:
The voltage you get from a discharging inductor is proportional to the impedance of the load it discharges into. If the impedance is low, the voltage is low, if the impedance is high, the voltage is high. This is what I discussed in my long rebut to what Aaron posted and this is what I have repeatedly stated is a very difficult concept for experimenters to understand. In a Bedini motor there is a one-way path between the discharging inductor and the battery that flows through a diode. For every discharge pulse the inductor discharges it's energy once and that's it.
Here's a typical example of the generalisaions that both you and Poynty use to justify an argument that is essentially indefensible. When an AC utility supply source discharges energy it is measured as the voltage supplied times the rate of current flow. The rate of current flow is determined by the impedance in the path of that current flow. One never has a discharge from the supply that is different to the amount of current flow back to the supply. The same with batteries and the same with counter EMF or back EMF. In this instance - whether or not you want to argue it as an energy supply source or as stored energy - the fact is that it will determine it's rate of current flow in exactly the same way that the supply determined its rate of current flow. That current flow is NOT determined by the imepedance or otherwise of the battery but by all that is in the path of that current. The surprise is this. Whatever has been first applied - vi - can then be captured and returned by those collapsing magnetic field. Therefore the wattage or vi applied by CEMF or BEMF is equal to the wattage or vi first applied. Now. If you want to determine the rate of recharge of that battery - then theoretically it is the value of it's voltage - whatever that is at any given moment multiplied by the amperage through that supply source. That's how you measure its wattage delivered - in the same way you measure it's wattage returned. Therefore the 'squashing' or otherwise of that voltage is irrelevant. The fact is that the amperage through that battery is instantaneously determined by that current flow and the direction of that current flow. So. If the closed circuit phase of the supply delivers x watts - it will get back x watts from that inductor - subject only to the marginal losses. This may be as higher voltage over a shorter time or not. The fact is that there is that absolute equivalence. Therefore - negative current flow x battery voltage will represent a recharge. And postive current flow x battery voltage will represent a discharge. It really does not matter what happens with that 'spike'. It's only relative to the component being measured in the path of that flow.
Also evident and unarguable is that the energy that is delivered by CEMF/BEMF returns to its source exactly in the same way as the supply first delivered its energy. The source of that energy in CEMF in terms of this example is from the inductors. And this passage or path for the flow of current relies on the dielectric properties of the transistors. If this is allowed then the energy will go back to the source in an absolutely equivalent way and in an equivalent amount as was discharged by the CEMF/BEMF.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.28, 18:27:29All of the currents in a Bedini motor setup are accounted for. You know my take on displacement current. You can speculate all you want but it's the real current that flows through the battery that counts. That current comes from the discharging inductor in a simple current loop. You have a coil, a diode, and a battery in the current loop and that's the entire circuit during the coil discharge phase. There is no displacement current associated with that current loop. It's very basic and simple and can easily be verified on a bench.
I agree. But it hardly proves your point. What's needed is the data relating to this claim.
Rosemary:
Sorry, but I am not up to this discussion. I read what you wrote and I think that you are mixing your theories about your setup with a Bedni motor.
Think about a capacitor discharging through a diode and then into a battery. So you have a current loop that consists of the cap, the diode and the battery. If the cap has an initial voltage of 20 volts and the battery voltage is 12.6 volts, I think you would agree that the capacitor would discharge just once until it's voltage as about 12.6 volts, correct? In other words, it's almost like discharging a capacitor directly through a diode. It discharges once, and that's it, right?
Now just substitute the capacitor for an inductor and the same thing happens. The inductor discharges once and the cycle is completed.
MileHigh
Poynt99,
I am a little shocked, as there was no warning.
I can't help that the moderator engaged in a debate about Climate Change with me, he spat out about five very very easy to correct mistakes in his argument.
He was using quotes from science papers that if you read the whole science paper the scientists are actually saying the opposite.
All I did was point out that these arguments were false and were simple journalistic mistakes.
Aaron seems like an intelligent person, until you get him to back up his claims, what he produces is just urban legend, and the moment you point out that his claims are false, WITH REAL EVIDENCE he will ban you, Very Very childish and close minded - how will he ever learn anything if he only listens to one side...
@MileHigh,
You are right, I do want to believe - but I am not stupid. I will wait until someone credible posts replication.
You are right, I did get banned because I did ask the basic questions for a range of bedini products. I started new threads, and developed quite a bit of open honest discussion about it - this is obviously unwelcome. :(
If many of your members wish to discuss a subject, why would you ban members for discussing that subject?
Just doesn't make sense, unless it's a scam, but they have been doing this for years - why haven't more people sued them etc.??
Quite frankly this is a worse scam then the rest, the rest only trick big companies into giving them funding. These people are scamming you and me, the very people who are researching trying to save this planet.
I hope I am wrong, but what else can a deduce from the last two weeks??
Ozy
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.29, 04:47:57
Rosemary:
Sorry, but I am not up to this discussion. I read what you wrote and I think that you are mixing your theories about your setup with a Bedni motor.
Think about a capacitor discharging through a diode and then into a battery. So you have a current loop that consists of the cap, the diode and the battery. If the cap has an initial voltage of 20 volts and the battery voltage is 12.6 volts, I think you would agree that the capacitor would discharge just once until it's voltage as about 12.6 volts, correct? In other words, it's almost like discharging a capacitor directly through a diode. It discharges once, and that's it, right?
Now just substitute the capacitor for an inductor and the same thing happens. The inductor discharges once and the cycle is completed.
MileHigh
Yes. No question. That's not the issue. Poynty said that the 'spike' that highly contested New Age phenomenon 'gets squashed' implying that it's inefficient. You then said that current flow is determined by impendance. Both statements are right. BUT. The squashing of the voltage over the battery is irrelevant. The current is still returned to the battery to recharge it. And the rate of recharge is determined by the rate of current flow - NOT by the voltage measured across the coil resulting from CEMF. And while current flow is determined by impedance it also applies whether the current was generated by the coil or by the battery supply. And their measurement is equivalent. Therefore when it comes from the coil - it recharges the supply. When it comes from the battery it discharges the supply. That's the only point that counts. What we still don't know - and what I understood was Grumpy's question - is if there is any other source of 'recharge'. Personally I neither know or care. Who needs it? Mainstream science has it's answers in the very rules that you always articulately reference.
In other words, MileHigh - you are using mainstream argument to deny a benefit from what you see as 'stored energy' and I'm using mainstream argument to confirm that this is NOT stored but 'regenerated' energy. And in my defense I have Inductive Laws to back me up. There is no solid argument for 'stored' energy. It's been a source of misdirection that has relied on assumptions. And it's been with us for far too long.
And since this is the nub of your arguments - then that is the point at which this argument should be debated. But I grant you. It is as well to treat any claims to overunity with a certain amount of circumspection. I believe that Grumpy's attitude is good. It keeps the argument open until we have the answers. It would be a shame to close the argument before these points were settled.
Where I sympathise with new age is that they're in mainstream's face. That's got to be a good thing. Else all we have is complacent acceptance of a status quo that is absolutely not tenable. But I tend to agree that they use some rather questionable tactics to support their arguments - which is a shame. It makes New Age as culpable as Mainstream. And it's a crying shame. They're really not needed.
Added.
@Grumpy
QuoteFor starters: look at the attached diagram and we see a tiny current pulled from the earth. Whoop-de-doo! Ah-Ha! Might you be able to increase this current to a more interesting level? IF we arbitrarily say "no" we are self-defeated. If we say "perhaps" and start the ol' mental wheels turning, we may find that we can indeed connect to the wheelwork of nature!
I believe Bedini said that if one lead of an LED is placed on the plastic exterior of the battery case while the device is operating the LED will light up. So I think it should be perfectly obvious to everyone that there are in fact large electric fields and static charging effects occuring in and around the circuit. As well we know as a fact that conventional circuits are a joke in many respects unless we like generating heat, nanotechnology, open circuit paths and utilization of electrostatic forces are the future just as Tesla predicted.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.11.29, 05:28:56
@GrumpyI believe Bedini said that if one lead of an LED is placed on the plastic exterior of the battery case while the device is operating the LED will light up. So I think it should be perfectly obvious to everyone that there are in fact large electric fields and static charging effects occuring in and around the circuit. As well we know as a fact that conventional circuits are a joke in many respects unless we like generating heat, nanotechnology, open circuit paths and utilization of electrostatic forces are the future just as Tesla predicted.
Regards
AC
AC I never knew this. In which case there's definitely proof that displacement current may be happening all over the place. In which case we still need some measurements. If this is actually recharging a battery then, indeed, we're into new science. That's worth looking into and certainly refutes MileHigh's statement that this can be argued in terms of Mainstream science. And, for that matter - it refutes my own take. So. What an interesting thing is this!
Your essentially correct,
but it is a neon bulb.
A mid 90'ish ionization voltage initially,
with a meager current sustain current,
indicates an effect of note.
@aetherevarising
QuoteAC I never knew this. In which case there's definitely proof that displacement current may be happening all over the place. In which case we still need some measurements. If this is actually recharging a battery then, indeed, we're into new science. That's worth looking into and certainly refutes MileHigh's statement that this can be argued in terms of Mainstream science. And, for that matter - it refutes my own take. So. What an interesting thing is this!
Quote"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." - Einstein
I think this quote says a lot, we have to move past what we think we know or have assumed and strive to accomplish what may be possible or even impossible.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.11.29, 06:48:14
@aetherevarising
I think this quote says a lot, we have to move past what we think we know or have assumed and strive to accomplish what may be possible or even impossible.
Regards
AC
More than anything these last comments are comforting. It acknowledges MileHigh's requirements for full accountability - and it also acknowledges that there may be something very well worthwhile looking into. For me that's a perfect outcome. No evident polarisation of attitudes that I can see. Which also endorses MileHigh's requirements for measurements - and Poynty's for that matter. SO. BIT'S. How about it?
;D
Regards,
Rosemary
BTW - Bit's. Here's my personal problem. I can't log into EF.Com's links. I'm not a full member. They know I'm that Gabriel and they won't give me the license to check their data. So it's pointless my ever checking on those links. Which is why I have very little knowledge of this new Bedini thing. Which is also why it's needed to get the measurements here. If they're not sufficient then I presume you've got something that is measurable. And my hope is that you'll then apply some recommended measurements. What I can't ask for - then I know Poynty and Grumpy and MileHigh can. This is their area of expertise afterall.added
Rosemary:
A lighting neon or LED means nothing. It's a dime-a-dozen parlour trick and if you surf YouTube videos you can see it everywhere. It's pure mainstream. You can try looking at Lidmotor's clips. You are now involved in wild speculations about a Bedini motor that will lead you nowhere. Like I said, a Bedini motor is a very basic pulse circuit and is easily understandable, but you have to have some base knowledge to work with. Sorry, I am not going to get into an esoteric debate with you.
Here is a suggestion for a little project: Search online and try and find out why an LED or a neon light will light when you touch it to the battery case. There has to be logical reason for it, and it makes no sense to speculate that "something special is going on outside of mainstream" before you try to inform yourself first what could possibly explain it. Seemingly John Bedini doesn't know why it happens either and I would assume that he would attribute it to "radiant energy."
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.29, 07:37:41
Rosemary:
... but you have to have some base knowledge to work with. Sorry, I am not going to get into an esoteric debate with you.
Here is a suggestion for a little project: Search online and try and find out why an LED or a neon light will light when you touch it to the battery case. There has to be logical reason for it, and it makes no sense to speculate that "something special is going on outside of mainstream" before you try to inform yourself first what could possibly explain it. Seemingly John Bedini doesn't know why it happens either and I would assume that he would attribute it to "radiant energy."
MileHigh
MileHigh - I'm happy to admit to my lack of knowledge - which is way more than I can comfortably live with. But I'm getting more than a little tired of you all assuming that I do not have a reasonable working knowledge - certainly as much as the most of you. Unlike you all I find it entirely INSUFFICIENT. You seem to think your own level of knowledge is MORE THAN ENOUGH.
I am very well aware of the fact that it is possible to light neons - LED's and the rest from what New Age call 'radiant energy' and what other's call displacement current - and yet others give it no name at all. It's loosely referred to by Tesla as proof of aether energies and it's myriad definitions is only proof of the myriad reasons that our present day technologies and technologists et al - think of when they refer to it.
Please refrain from accusing me of 'esoteric philosophies' when I argue my position ENTIRELY from within mainstream theory.
And if Bedini can light a neon tube by placing it on the plastic coat of a battery - THEN THAT IS PROOF OF ENERGY REACHING THAT LIGHT - regardless of it's source. I ASSURE YOU I cannot get a neon or any light to light when I simply place it against the plastic coat of any battery that I own or use. And I have LOADS of batteries to test this with. There MUST BE some kind of energy being transferred. You can call it what you will. Photonic, Electric, Radiant - and more. Take your pick.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Yes energy is reaching the light and there is a simple explanation for it. You will even find the answer posted within the last eight hours in this very thread.
QuoteThe inductive kickback sees the battery as a substantial load, with low impedance. The total impedance it sees is largely determined by the length of wire connecting the inductor to the battery; the shorter this is, the lower the impedance. There will also be a finite amount of inductive reactance within the battery itself, but it is quite small.
Ideally, since we are discussing battery charging voltage, we need only be concerned with the actual battery terminal voltage as measured with a fast scope and probe. Scope measurements taken at the inductor or switch end will produce a false indication of the actual battery terminal voltage, and should be avoided.
Because the battery itself has an inherent inductive reactance, albeit relatively small, there may be a very brief high voltage spike measurable at the battery terminals, but the over-riding bulk of the inductive kickback pulse will be just a few volts (if that) above the nominal battery terminal voltage. The time ratio will probably be on the order of 1:100 or wider.
MileHigh
MileHigh your reference says nothing about a neon or any light lighting as a result of energy that is NOT transferred through a wire. Is the neon connected by any wire that comes from the inductor? If yes - then it's standard technology. If no - then it's non standard. It's that simple. If it's energy that has been transferred through the air then that is significant. It does not - of itself - prove that the batteries are recharging. But it IS significant.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
It's totally insignificant and you can do more research if you want. I'm done.
MileHigh
Grumpy, I'll be happy to charge a battery with displacement current.
As soon as you give me a way to induce it into the wire as electron motion... ;D
(Tes.Kap Concepts.... Seems like it should be simple, eh?)
Just had to throw that in, as such "Keys" are not discussed often enough.
Not expecting a response, as this is just a bit "Off Topic", unless you are "Suggesting" that is part of the Bedini device operation. If so, that would be an insight I would love to hear, but also, if that were true, measurable proof would be easy, etc.
Hello Ozy and Rosemary,
I just discovered this forum. I'm the same user name Mark on the EF forum.
Rosemary I was wondering why I hadn't seen any post from you over at EF for such a long time. I cant believe you were banned, what on earth for?
Ozy same with you. No warning at all eh. I was starting to also ask some questions that I couldn't get any satifactory answeres for. I finally gave up, I wondered if I was getting close to being banned?
Mark
Quote from: Loner on 2010.11.29, 08:24:28
Grumpy, I'll be happy to charge a battery with displacement current.
As soon as you give me a way to induce it into the wire as electron motion... ;D
(Tes.Kap Concepts.... Seems like it should be simple, eh?)
Just had to throw that in, as such "Keys" are not discussed often enough.
Not expecting a response, as this is just a bit "Off Topic", unless you are "Suggesting" that is part of the Bedini device operation. If so, that would be an insight I would love to hear, but also, if that were true, measurable proof would be easy, etc.
The battery is a dipole, so it converts it. So, yes, you can charge a battery with displacement current. However, I decided againsts dicussion of this in this thread since everyone here is so smart. I am suggesting that Bedini had the right idea, even if he has a wrong approach.
I have learned that when people fight so hard for ignorance it is best to let them have it, for your own sanity.
See, it is not so well-known that before a conduction current can flow in a conductor, displacement current flowed outside the conductor. If the EMF is a brief pulse, there is very little time for conduction current to manifest, but the displacement current is much faster.
@aetherevarising
QuoteI am very well aware of the fact that it is possible to light neons - LED's and the rest from what New Age call 'radiant energy' and what other's call displacement current - and yet others give it no name at all. It's loosely referred to by Tesla as proof of aether energies and it's myriad definitions is only proof of the myriad reasons that our present day technologies and technologists et al - think of when they refer to it.
I think this may be a good time to touch on the myth that there are different kinds of electricity which is perpetuated in most every textbook. In physics there are no different kinds of electricity, there are charged states and the relationships they have to other charged states in a relative sense. That is a quantity of charge at a given potential on the plate of a battery is no different that the same quantity of charge at the same potential on a charged sphere of the same surface area and they will produce the same effects. As well an "electrostatic generator" which charges a capacitor produces a result which is no different than an inductive coil which charges that same capacitor. If anyone here believes that what we falsely call static electricity has no power or significance then I would suggest they try charging a capacitor or leyden jar with this silly static electricity and touching the terminals, I am afraid they will be in for quite a shock in every sense of the word,lol.
Of course we should never touch the leads of any capacitor for this very reason because a static buildup can be just as lethal as charging the capacitor any other way.
Regards
AC
Physics does have different forms of current:
Conduction current
Displacement current
Polarization Current
Convection current
These are jsut off the top of my head and there are probably other forms.
Mark:
Welcome to this web site! I saw your postings on the Energetic Forum and I think that you will make a great contribution around here!
MileHigh
Join the club mate.
You, like me and many others have learnt that asking too many pertinent questions on the EF only leads to a ban. Its a tight club of like minded individuals who are quite happy to ignore established electrical principles and worship the FE god.
Hoppy
Quote from: aussieaussieaussie on 2010.11.29, 03:39:00
I have been banned from Energetic Forum.... :( ::)
Here is a brief email I sent to the moderator:
Come on that is censorship!
All I did was ask some very valid questions, that many of your members are too afraid of asking because of been banned.
I have promised not to post in defense of CO2 anymore, and they attacked me, so did you ban Ash? did you ban the others that attacked me?
I have stopped replying to those stupid attacks, so banning me only serves the purpose of censoring anyone who asks questions.
Your actions are of a personal nature and not fair. You are just upset that I successfully debunked a few of your claims... So what? Now you know, now you will choose to deliver better evidence for your claims.
You are banning the person who started threads with lots of posts and activity, makes no sense???
Grow up, I am only trying to improve the quality of this forum, so as not to scare away people with a brain.
Hope this helps,
Ozy
So sorry folks looks like the questions will never be answered, Hey I tried! I only wanted to give Rick $10,000 but hey if thats the way they operate, I think I will wait for a less censorship orientated OU device to appear and jump on that. $10,000 is a lot of money and I think I might spend it on solar panels, the gains will be much more significant then bits setup, and there is no mystery involved, they will also gladly answer any questions I have.
PEACE OUT BROTHERS!!!!
Thanks Milehigh
I may not be as sharp as some of you but I'm not afraid to ask questions either. It's nice that the people on this forum have the ability to answer questions directly without dancing all around the question. I like most of the people over at EF but sometimes its very difficult if not impossible to get a direct answer to a question.
Mark
Grumpy, Thanks for that.
I am not sure about the "Conversion" abilities of a standard lead-acid battery, but that is secondary to this "Stupid" question. I'm not ready to delve into that can of worms, here on this thread.
It's a well accepted theory that an inductor delays (I need not elaborate here, right?) the flow of "Standard" electron flow, however here is a question that I am curious about. Is this delay also manifested in the displacement current, and if so is that the "True" reason for the delay in the "Electron" based current? I don't believe so, as I see a different level of delay on the displacement current in the few experiments I have done in this area. (I lean to the two delays, while like in many ways, being different in the basic operation. See, I can't even ask without throwing in my 'opinion'. Not good science of me.)
I also must give that they could be the same, due to the interaction, and were I to put this into "Way out there" mode, this could be the "Start" of the magnetic field, where the two effects are separated. Even with experience, it becomes obvious that I don't know nearly enough about this area. It seems obvious to me, that if you take all this into account, that either way both the "Start" and the "Stop" become very important, for the reason of this interaction. (Is that what Tesla was saying?) SO, while a discharge of an inductor is not as simple as some would think, the charge has the same "undocumented?" properties and this would be where the Bedini devices were attempting to go? (I can't even break apart dipole currents worth a darn, yet, so please indulge me...)
I'm throwing this out there just because I find certain things VERY difficult to work with, especially when dealing with things I can't even measure properly. This is why I was saying all that "Stuff" about checking for OU on the 10 coil device. Anyone could produce an over abundance of "Other" things, but what to do with them. If the input and output are the "SAME" energy form, the overall measurements become simple to verify. Do you think I'm on the path, or lost in the woods? (I'm trying to keep it "Real".)
This discussion should move to another topic, but:
E and H field in dieletrics are supposed to be in-phase.
The lag of current is the result of the magnetic fields involved with conduction.
See second link:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg7174#msg7174
Loner:
Your topic about displacement current has been discussed in the past either on this thread or somewhere else on the site, I can't remember exactly. Myself and Grumpy have fought it out (not saying that in a bad sense) a few times so let me give you my take.
You can basically forget about displacement current because it only occurs in series with real electron flow current. You can think of a series RLC circuit with a resistor in series with a coil in series with a capacitor. The only place displacement current that exists in this example is in the dielectric between the plates of the capacitor. The displacement current is equal to the regular electron current.
When I say "basically forget" what I mean is that you can completely ignore it when you are doing circuit analysis. It's equal and identical to the regular current flow and it's redundant and moot to discuss it. Certainly there is is no displacement current in a Bedini motor to worry about.
You may have different thoughts about this like I know Grumpy has. You may speculate that in just about any circuit there is a second "invisible" displacement current that causes effects and you are trying to get a handle on that. Why an inductor delays electron flow is understood and it has nothing to do with displacement current. You can always speculate about these things and I am not stopping you. I would just request that you start a thread or threads investigating displacement current if that suits you. This thread is about the 10-coiler and of course checking for over unity on the 10-coiler is right in line with what this thread is all about. If you take the time to read this thread you will see that I cover a lot of technical material and sometimes take a tough stance on various issues. Unfortunately with respect to testing for over unity with the 10-coiler, no owners of 10-coilers have actively participated in this thread on that level.
Finally, permit me to examine one of your key quotes in light of what I just stated above.
QuoteIt's a well accepted theory that an inductor delays (I need not elaborate here, right?) the flow of "Standard" electron flow, however here is a question that I am curious about. Is this delay also manifested in the displacement current, and if so is that the "True" reason for the delay in the "Electron" based current?
Here you are speculating that there are "two currents" associated with an energizing inductor. Do you have any basis for saying this or are you just going out on a limb and assuming this is the case for the sake of argument? You imply that there are two currents, but then you speculate that the two may somehow be tied together and that causes the delay in the electron based current. Again, I am not trying to be a "bad guy" but I am questioning you so that perhaps you will question yourself. The true reason for the delay in the electron based current is observable on the bench, it's not hiding. Sometimes you have to take things at face value. The reason for the delay is that energy is being stored in the building up of the magnetic field associated with the coil, and that takes electrical power over a period of time to accomplish that. Again, this is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no displacement current at all associated with an inductor.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.29, 22:40:48
Loner:
There is no displacement current at all associated with an inductor.
MileHigh
That's not entirely true.
Every coil of insulated wire has an inherent capacitance between windings and between the wire and the environment it exists in. In fact, a coil exhibits the characteristics of a tapered transmission line, which not only accounts for the displacement current involved, but why it acts as a delay element as well. So, given an appropriate input signal to "activate" the capacitive elements associated with a coil of insulated wire, there will indeed be an associated displacement current involved, assuming that displacement current is accepted as the mechanism by which circuital current across gapped conductors exists.
.99
We can move the discussion of "displacement current" to this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=210.msg2280#msg2280
(Most actually mean "polarization current" when they use the term "displacement current" because there is a change in the polarization but nothing is displaced. It is my understanding that Maxwell, rolled both terms into the "displacement current" term. Rontgen performed experiments that proved both exist and are different, just as a pulse and an alternating signal are different.)
Quote from: Mark on 2010.11.29, 15:01:34
Hello Ozy and Rosemary,
I just discovered this forum. I'm the same user name Mark on the EF forum.
Rosemary I was wondering why I hadn't seen any post from you over at EF for such a long time. I cant believe you were banned, what on earth for?
Mark
Hello Mark and welcome. I have the rare distinction of now being banned at both EF.com and OU.com. LOL. I think Poynty's forum here is the only voice left to us poor outspoken thinkers. But I do consider this banning a badge of honour of sorts. We're in good company. A kind of martydom of free thought. The attempt to silence the seditiously unspeakable. Gag the dissenter. LOL. Generally why I was banned because of the flaming of my threads by that triumverate Harvey, Glen and Ashtweth Palise - not to be cofused with the three stooges - except in that they're all three of them somewhat more comical. Harvey hijacked a thread that I asked someone to start and then posted that he understood everything about Ed Leedskalnin. Not surprising as he claims to understand everything about everything. I suggested that to claim this first needs him to duplicate the miracle of coral castle. The post was deleted. I was banned.
But I'm drifting off topic. That's definitely in the line of a rant. DELIGHTED that you're here.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Admin: Sorry Rose. No need to get into all that here, or anywhere actually. I edited your post, and I still think you made your point.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.11.30, 00:43:04
But I'm drifting off topic. That's definitely in the line of a rant. DELIGHTED that you're here.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Admin: Sorry Rose. No need to get into all that here, or anywhere actually. I edited your post, and I still think you made your point.
Poynty? Could you not have given me a chance to rewrite it? Before deleting. Are you and Peterae and the rest just trigger happy with that delete button like all other forum administrators? Are you aware of the fact that there's a certain amount of artistry involved in writing? I'm sick to death of censorship. If I had written all that about a public figure it would have been acceptable. Why not about others? It was NOT off topic. It was simply elaborate - is all. And WHY do I no longer get email notifications of posts on this thread? Am I generally about to be banned here too? And the reason I'm not asking this in the CHAT box is because I NEVER GET AN ANSWER THERE.
Poynt:
You are correct. I try to make it a point to not use absolute terms and when I said, "There is no displacement current at all associated with an inductor," I was using absolute terms and I made a mistake.
To rephrase what you stated in a more concise way, there is indeed an inter-winding capacitance and a stray capacitance associated with the environment for any coil. Very high frequency components in a signal will bring out these capacitive effects like you stated.
I should have stated something like, "In most cases there is no significant displacement current at associated with an inductor. If you want to be more precise, there are capacitive effects associated with any inductor that can become significant at very high frequencies, but in most cases they can be ignored. Naturally there are displacement currents associated with these capacitive effects."
I can still bring it back in the sense that the designer is still concerned with the real electron currents that occur in a high-frequency circuit that are equivalent to the associated displacement currents. The designer never talks about "displacement current", he or she only talks about the real current that will flow because of the capacitive effects. "Displacement current" is normally not part of the designer's lexicon. A classic modern example of where capacitive effects are critical is for a modern PC motherboard. This is not just for the inductors of course, it's for just about every component that is associated with the very high frequency signals that exist on a motherboard.
MileHigh
This posting is somewhat redundant but I hope it will be useful.
Jeff, you are welcome to discuss anything Bedini-related or 10-coiler related or something about your 10-coiler project in this thread.
There are only two points that we have been through before that I am going to ask you to respect if we are going to have a discussion:
1. Don't say that I am "bashing."
2. Don't tell me that I have to build something first before I can discuss it.
If you are alright on these two points and they are acceptable to you then perhaps we can discuss some of the technical points I've made that you take issue with.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.30, 01:19:03
This posting is somewhat redundant but I hope it will be useful.
Jeff, you are welcome to discuss anything Bedini-related or 10-coiler related or something about your 10-coiler project in this thread.
There are only two points that we have been through before that I am going to ask you to respect if we are going to have a discussion:
1. Don't say that I am "bashing." You are Bashing. Go back and read your threads
2. Don't tell me that I have to build something first before I can discuss it.You must, that way you can independently confirm my figures.
If you are alright on these two points and they are acceptable to you then perhaps we can discuss some of the technical points I've made that you take issue with.
MileHigh
You have to be able to substantiate my figures through independent study. If you cannot do that, all you can refute is words. You can bet that if you are able to produce a free energy device, that I will build it and study it and I will NOT take your word for it. In fact, I will not even argue with you about it, but will make my own analysis and report the facts.
I am not alright with your conditions. I am a Engineer / Inventor and will make my own judgements based on my own tests. No conditions, for with that comes stifled analysis!
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2010.11.30, 02:56:56
You have to be able to substantiate my figures through independent study. If you cannot do that, all you can refute is words. You can bet that if you are able to produce a free energy device, that I will build it and study it and I will NOT take your word for it. In fact, I will not even argue with you about it, but will make my own analysis and report the facts.
I am not alright with your conditions. I am a Engineer / Inventor and will make my own judgements based on my own tests. No conditions, for with that comes stifled analysis!
Jeff,
If you haven't already done so, would you mind posting an EF link to your analysis, judgments, tests, results, diagrams etc?
Thanks,
.99
Bit's - I'm absolutely NOT inclined to bash anyone's numbers. I would dealy love to see the schematic for that rig and the numbers that relate to that from your own posts. Can you simply repost them here. I'm working blind and it's very hard for me. I simply can't get into that EF.com forum and see their published links. And don't mind MileHigh. I promise you that he's only confrontational when it's required to get a response. There are others - myself among them who are really, really interested.
And MileHigh has his own take - but it's not as if he always wins his arguments. Personally I'm up for challenging him or anyone if I think they're unreasonable. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.11.30, 03:02:52
Jeff,
If you haven't already done so, would you mind posting an EF link to your analysis, judgments, tests, results, diagrams etc?
Thanks,
.99
Poynty - I can't get into links. Can he not post the entire thing here? Is it allowed?
Here is the info on the swapper;
http://www.potentialtec.com/#swapper
I know your wanting more info on the 10 coiler and more will be forth coming. In fact, a few short weeks, I should hopefully have this thing running without Batts. Tall order, you bet. If I fail, will continue to persue.
Thanks Poynt99 for the question.
Bit's
Jeff:
You know the reality is that there is a better technical analysis of the 10-coiler in this thread than anything done on the Energetic Forum thread, or anywhere else for that matter. It's discussed and analyzed in ways that go far beyond what anyone else has ever done. You have read some or all of the thread and you already know this.
Take the example of measuring the real-time power in and power out to the charging batteries. Then relating that back to the transistor switching timing and the tweaking. Nobody has ever done that as far as I am aware. The 10-coiler is screaming for that kind of analysis. You probably don't even know the power input and power output in watts for the 10-coiler. You have just been using it as a "black box" that interfaces with the battery swapper.
I am under the impression that you are a systems guy and you know microcontrollers and can program them. The 10-coiler is just a device that you are interfacing your hardware/software with. I don't think that you really know that much about it. The big clue to that was your treatise about subtracting 1000 volts from the source batteries and it made a difference if the source battery configuration was 12 or 24 volts. That was completely wrong Jeff, in fact quite ridiculous, and I can only assume that you were winging it or you were just repeating what Rick might have told you. The problem is that Rick himself barely understands electronics and he is just following Bedini's lead. So you don't really know your stuff on the 10-coiler hardware level, you made that very clear.
I am willing to engage you on this. You have one at home and you have the time to really check it out if you want to. Again, my impression is that you just took it for granted that the sales pitch for the device that Rick gave you was true, you had no reason to question him. You developed the battery swapper on the good faith that what they told you about the 10-coiler was true. That being that there was always some excess energy available in the charging battery bank that you could draw on and the flip-flopping system could go on essentially indefinitely such that you could have a continuous source of free energy. So if I am right, your whole project with respect to the 10-coiler-based free energy system was developed in good faith by you because you believed somebody in good faith when they told you what the 10-coiler could do.
Now, if you take a big capacitor and have a resistor and a variable bench power supply, you could measure the average power consumption of the 10-coiler with ease. Supposing it measures 27 watts. You could also measure the average power output of the 10-coiler into the charging battery. Supposing it measures 8 watts.
That's going to make you think about the whole pitch that you heard about the 10-coiler, isn't it?
Now that you know the power levels, it's trivial to take a fully-charged primary battery and drain one mega-joule from it. All that you have to do is run the motor for the right amount of time. You know ahead of time that you pumped (8/27)x 1 mega-joule = 296 kilo-joules of energy into the charging battery.
Now let's assume that you have already qualified your charging battery with charge-discharge cycles and you are able to measure the energy you just put into it with a discharge cycle. Assume that you have perfected this process and are adept at doing it.
I am willing to bet you that you would measure between 200 and 240 kilo-joules of energy in the charging battery after charging it with the 10-coiler. However, to make the whole system viable, you would have to measure something like 1.2 or 1.3 mega-joules of energy in the charging battery.
If I am right, then the system is off by a factor of 5.
If I was in your shoes, I would do this type of testing. I wouldn't take Rick or John's word that the 10-coiler does what they say it does. I would make the measurements and run the test as described above, and I would also run the 100-watt incandescent light bulb "reality check" test.
Anyway I made a serious offer to you to discuss this kind of stuff or any other related issues. Unfortunately you have refused. The offer still stands.
I will also ask if you post that you drop the bashing/build-it-yourself line. Stop hiding behind that, it's a dead horse. You should take my advice and talk the technical stuff and start exploring and investigating the 10-coiler to see what it's really all about.
One last little thing came to mind. Have you ever simply switched on all the transistors manually just to see how the source battery bank copes? I bet that you haven't. Don't be surprised if your standard source battery bank voltage starts to seriously croak under that strain within 1/2 second. The whole point to the exercise is to be aware that there is an upper limit to the transistor switch-on time. You go beyond that limit and you are loosing copious amounts of energy in the battery bank itself. Have you or Rick ever discussed this issue or made the test? I seriously doubt it.
MileHigh
Piss off! this will be the last word you hear from me you idiot!
Ha! ha! Jeff, you have been the quintessential frozen deer in the headlights when people started questioning you about the free energy system. You haven't provided a single shred of credible information that the system is real and actually works. You have flat-out refused to do this.
Certainly your battery swapper is real and I am sure it works. The issue is does the battery swapper as part of an alleged free energy system actually work. Another issue is what you and your associates claim about it through your unofficial and official marketing activities.
Good luck, I will be watching your progress. We will see if by December 2011 anybody has a functioning 10-coiler plus battery swapper and cap pulser and grid-tie inverter that actually works. That of course means you and your associates actually have to sell a fully integrated system, and that by no means is a given. And no, adding solar panels to the setup doesn't count. It has to be the real thing, with two battery banks swapping back and forth and producing a continuous stream of free energy.
MileHigh
Hey milehigh,
the Blochwall is an old discovery, but not accepted mainstream as it is a Reverse Thermodynamic nullifying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I have a thread over at energeticforum http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6844-understanding-free-energy-theory-tesla-schauberger-searl-clark-etc.html
in regards to bedini monopole, it is only a battery charger and not a COP>1 machine.
I have reasons to believe that Bedini and Bearden amongst others are employed to mis-guide our efforts in Free Energy research. They have been dong the same thing for the last 20 years with no advancement in development of Free Energy.
There are other genuine researchers that have achieved COP>1 but are not known at all due to the Bedini/ Bearden cult like manipulation of the Free Energy research community.
COP >1 has already been achieved many times, you just need a different perspective to see it.,
MileHigh
You have refused to allow the discussion to drift into analysis of mainstream theory. Only you are allowed to make due reference. You have refused to allow anyone to criticise you in the context of hands on experimentation as you feel that you're under no obligation to be experientially familiar with the subject of the thread that you started. And no-one may accuse you of 'bashing' - in any context at all. If someone posts that they do not support you then you tell them to disist - in any terms that you choose. If they support you - also in any context at all - then they're welcome. And if they question or doubt your expertise or general abilities - then you duly reprimand the offender and advise them to 'hold off' with some reminders - or not - about the length and depth of your expertise.
However, you reserve the right to criticise Bedini for not disclosing the parts of his build - nor justifying what was assumed to be an excessive price - albeit it that the link Bit's gave includes a schedule of parts that not only accounts for the high cost of the assembly - but would satsify any bureau of standards on the basis of and requirements for full disclosure. And if there is any fraudulent claim associated with this - if that parts list is an account of a frivolous build that has nothing to do with the saving of energy or if it does not result in a saving of energy - then any buyer would be more than justified in suing Bedini in any capacity at all - for a refund with costs and damages for such fraudulent misrepresentation. I'm sure that Bedini is cogniscant of any such potential action and would not therefore make such a claim unless he was satisfied that the machine works.
Then you also indulge in a degree of patronisation that is postively defamatory - by implying weakness in our arguments, abilities to measure, general training, anything you want. Because, while you've forbidden anyone from criticising you - you nonetheless seem to assume it's your inalienable right to criticise - me or anyone you choose to - in any way you prefer. And you then presume to give arbitrary assessments of your own - based on presumptions and figures that are entirely imaginary. Then. To boot. You deliver what you think is a coup de grace - and parade all this rudeness - having positioned yourself that no-one may counter with any criticism against you. I therefore understand why those such as Bit's just tell you to 'piss off' - I think were his words.
But then too you've won.
Dear Bit's - this is a big ask from me. Poynty's forum is not like other forums. You can have your own thread - monitor your own thread - and you can edit out any irrelevant or unwelcome posts. I think too that the thread can be hidden from public view. Not sure how this is done - because he never gave me, personally, that option - notwithstanding the evident need. In any event. I'm sure Poynty can explain it all. He's also interested in these numbers. That way - those of us who are interested in all this - can follow your tests and your results. We all need that beacon of hope Bit's. Every Bit helps, so to speak. LOL.
Do please reconsider. If it takes up your time to do this - then the good news is that at least there aonther forum where this technology can be followed. EF.com has hardly got a growing readership. OUR forum has.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited all over the place. Golly. But at least it's not censored.
f.energy:
Thanks for your comments, I am going to pass on reading up on the Bloch wall material, it's just not a core interest for me.
Rosemary:
That was a pretty strong hard-core attack on me. I just call it like I see it, warts and all. I DO NOT have any malicious intent. You wouldn't want to be put under the same microscope that you just put me under.
The only reason I have to make presumptions is because there is absolutely no data forthcoming about the 10-coiler battery swapper system although the requests were made repeatedly and completely ignored, not even acknowledged. That's the only reason I did it and the numbers I quote are realistic based on watching other Bedini motor clips. Meanwhile there are quotes out there from Jeff alleging that the system produces free energy, without any official data provided to back the claim up. You can always do a convincing demo based on existing battery power and you can be almost certain your audience of predisposed believers will not question that fact. That's the way things work in the strange world of free energy. I have no problem with my moral stance.
The bottom line is I don't have to do anything. It's up to Jeff Wilson, Rick Friedrick and John Bedini to find a willing customer that will purchase a system from them. I posted that any person purchasing a system like this should demand up-front specifications and performance criteria in writing. In this realm, there is no guarantee that that will happen.
If you want to get a feeling for someone else's real-life experience with a 10-coiler, check out Preston Stroud:
http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud (http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.30, 05:53:03
Rosemary:
That was a pretty strong hard-core attack on me. I just call it like I see it, warts and all. I DO NOT have any malicious intent. You wouldn't want to be put under the same microscope that you just put me under.
The only reason I have to make presumptions is because there is absolutely no data forthcoming about the 10-coiler battery swapper system although the requests were made repeatedly and completely ignored, not even acknowledged. That's the only reason I did it and the numbers I quote are realistic based on watching other Bedini motor clips. Meanwhile there are quotes out there from Jeff alleging that the system produces free energy, without any official data provided to back the claim up. You can always do a convincing demo based on existing battery power and you can be almost certain your audience of predisposed believers will not question that fact. That's the way things work in the strange world of free energy. I have no problem with my moral stance.
The bottom line is I don't have to do anything. It's up to Jeff Wilson, Rick Friedrick and John Bedini to find a willing customer that will purchase a system from them. I posted that any person purchasing a system like this should demand up-front specifications and performance criteria in writing. In this realm, there is no guarantee that that will happen.
If you want to get a feeling for someone else's real-life experience with a 10-coiler, check out Preston Stroud:
http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud (http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud)
MileHigh
MileHigh - I need to apologise. I was hoping a personal letter to Bit's would encourage him to continue posting here. I am very aware of the reference to any member in the 3rd person as being rude - and for that I apologise. Profoundly. I did not mean to be that confrontational and - frankly - only had my own objects in mind - being to encourage Bit's to give us some more measurements. I will not do that again. I know - personally, how offensive it is as it's been my own unhappy lot on many an occassion that I was that 'she' where I've made you the 'he'. Again. I am truly sorry and I have absolutely no excuse. And nor, unless it's another oversight - will I ever do it again.
Having said that - MileHigh - I do believe that you position yourself to argue without the inconvenience of allowing counter arguments. And it is my opinion that on this occassion you are defintely not being fair to Bits in your analysis - neither of the performance of the circuit - nor of his abilities which are somewhat diminished by your tone and assessment. I am reasonably sure you would not stomach all that inference. Not sure why Bit's should find it digestible.
And I really DO want to know as much as I can about this circuit. My access to the info is restricted via EF.Com.
Again - apologies for my rudeness. I will do my utmost to avoid any such 3rd person reference again. It's entirely unacceptable.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
MileHigh, I must say that I was slightly off-topic with that post on Displacement Currents, as long as you are convinced that they have nothing to do with the operation of the 10-coiler device. I thought the possibility was there.... (I've read the entire thread, PLUS.)
For me, I cannot make such a definitive statement without more data. As an example, Displacement current is MORE important in an ethernet UTP cable than the actual conduction current. I just thought I should mention this, as it gets even weirder when you hit the terabit cables. (Very few, I know. These are usually fibre.) Gigabit is still very obvious. Being in the field, I realize you know this, and the speed of the 10-coiler is not high enough to get anywhere near this, but if there were a spark gap, etc...
I just like to keep an open mind. Of course, if I played the odds, your opinion wins, hands down. As far as the actual data on the existing 10-coiler device, I think I've said too much already. You have a MUCH better handle on that situation than I do. If this were a different titled thread, then.....
By the way, that video.... I find it hard to believe someone has gone that far, and is still trying with the same basics. Amazes me.
I was supposed to not be commenting anymore, and I just wanted to acknowledge my embarrassment.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.30, 05:53:03
Rosemary:
That was a pretty strong hard-core attack on me. I just call it like I see it, warts and all. I DO NOT have any malicious intent. You wouldn't want to be put under the same microscope that you just put me under.
The only reason I have to make presumptions is because there is absolutely no data forthcoming about the 10-coiler battery swapper system although the requests were made repeatedly and completely ignored, not even acknowledged. That's the only reason I did it and the numbers I quote are realistic based on watching other Bedini motor clips. Meanwhile there are quotes out there from Jeff alleging that the system produces free energy, without any official data provided to back the claim up. You can always do a convincing demo based on existing battery power and you can be almost certain your audience of predisposed believers will not question that fact. That's the way things work in the strange world of free energy. I have no problem with my moral stance.
I am not arguing your moral stance if you refer to your rights to question the efficiencies of this technology. As I see it there is only one way to check efficiences and that's through measurement. But it's hardly scientific to disclaim this without the evidence. And you do so - repeatedly. Your allegations even stretch to implications of fraud - stupidity - lack of expertise - name it. You use it. And you can say what you like in your defense MileHigh. If you were seriously expecting Bit's to give us measurements - then why first antagonise the guy by challenging him? Weren't you rather trying to position him that no matter what he contributed - it'd be seen as a defense rather than a simple and courteous unfolding dialogue about the technology? Something like 'You can't vault 3 meters - because you change the measurements in mid jump and anyway - you don't have the muscle'. If someone put that challenge to me I'd have to first concede the possibility that I'm a liar that I need to disprove it. Then I'd have to prove that muscle. I'd also walk away. I can only jump if I do it in the context of your terms. Actually, to take this analogy further - you also state 'only I am in a position to evaluate that muscle and no-one else is allowed to comment.' You'll win - hands down - every time.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.30, 05:53:03The bottom line is I don't have to do anything. It's up to Jeff Wilson, Rick Friedrick and John Bedini to find a willing customer that will purchase a system from them. I posted that any person purchasing a system like this should demand up-front specifications and performance criteria in writing. In this realm, there is no guarantee that that will happen.
I assure you that if something is being sold under false pretenses then the laws in the USA and just about everywhere in the world - will protect that consumer. I have endless respect for anyone selling anything at all like this. Certainly if direct transaction with the public will then also promote the understanding and use of that technology.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.30, 05:53:03If you want to get a feeling for someone else's real-life experience with a 10-coiler, check out Preston Stroud:
http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud (http://www.youtube.com/user/prestonstroud)
I viewed this video and then did a transcript. If you want me to post this I'll do it gladly. Preston Stroud has limited his evaluation of efficiency to what the one battery puts out - compared to another/others that are then recharged. There is not a SINGLE MEASUREMENT ON OFFER. No single output voltage or input voltage. The only voltage shown is across either 1 or 3 capacitors. It's not clear. Why is it that this satisfies you MileHigh? Why does his rendition of the test resonate with you? And yet Bit's - WHO HAS DONE MEASUREMENTS - does not? Could it be that Preston Stroud is disclaiming efficiencies where Bit's is? Is that scientific on your part? Or are you plugging a biased view on the Bedini 10 coiler irrespective of its measurements?
And Grumpy - I looked hard and long. I see absolutely no evidence of - or reason to assume - that there are any diplacement currents evident in those rigs. Still trying to wrap my mind around this.
Rosemary
Loner:
About displacement current, let me put it this way: There is a good chance that you could work for 30 years in any one of many electrical engineering disciplines and never hear the term "displacement current" uttered by any of your colleagues. You must have noticed there is a lively thread about it on this forum. That's awesome that you read this entire thread!
For the twisted-pair Ethernet cable, I'm going to assume that what you call "displacement current" is what I would call a parameter associated with transmission line theory. In the truest sense there is indeed displacement current associated with Ethernet cables, but if you speak to an engineer he will call an Ethernet cable a transmission line with a characteristic impedance that may(?) use of some kind of data modulation scheme to squeeze more bits per second through the cable.
Rosemary:
If there wasn't such a pervasive culture of silence on the free energy forums when it comes to certain touchy issues I wouldn't have to be just about the only person asking real-world questions about the 10-coiler and it's associated alleged free energy system. The questions were first posed politely and not even acknowledged. Without evidence I will plow forward anyways if I have to.
You can never forget that the burden of proof is on Jeff. There are also certain knowns. You know that the 10-coiler looses energy as heat when you run it so it can't possibly put more power in the charging battery as compared to the power it draws from the source battery. You know that batteries loose energy when you charge them and when you discharge them. That means you know that there will be a net loss of energy after the 10-coiler discharges one bank of batteries to charge another bank of batteries. That's what Preston Stroud said and he is correct. From watching his clips I know that he is just a beginner in electronics but his conclusions are sound and make sense.
Jeff and his associates have two possible arguments on which to base their proposition on, 1) the current spike from the coil is "magic" and contains excess energy, 2) the battery is "magic" and ends up with excess energy after you charge it with current spikes.
In both of these cases, the burden of proof clearly lies with Jeff and his associates and they have presented no data to back up their claims.
As far as Preston's clip goes, you can see he did a nice clean build with good wiring for his power transistors and he reported no energy gains. Like I said above he clearly is a beginner in electronics but at least he gave a frank and honest appraisal of what he saw. His didn't present any measurement data but the clip wasn't about that, it was a summation clip. As far as I am concerned he presented way more data than Jeff ever did. The only "measurement data" Jeff has offered up was the AC power output specification for the inverter he is using. Ozy had to ask about five times to get it. In the context of the real discussion that's useless data.
You accused me of preventing discussion but your two topics, "an inductor recirculates energy back to the battery" and "how do you explain lit neons" really have nothing to do with this thread and would best be in separate threads if you want to start them. I am not her to stifle debate. In fact from the very beginning I extended out an invitation to any 10-coiler experimenters to come here and debate anything they wanted. The only person to step forward was Jeff, and he offered up no substantive information at all and never really got into any serious debates.
MileHigh
I am going to respond to Aaron on the other side of the proverbial Berlin Wall:
QuoteIf anyone wants to read what Mile High has to say, they can go elsewhere
where he is actually a member. Thank you! Read his posts in the original
Ainslie thread - he disqualified himself from being any kind of expert on
anything in this entire field as he doesn't even know how an inductor works.
Actually if you read my postings on the original Ainslie thread or on this thread you can decide for yourself. This is an example of where I do some soul searching about human bahaviour and how people present themselves and Chairman Mao's "Big Lie" and stuff like that. Aaron knows that I know a lot about electronics because for a few months I was part of the lively debate on the Ainslie thread that he was also following. Why would he say that about me and what does that really say about him? Rhetorical questions for the readers to contemplate.
I am pulling up a quote of Aaron about the "radiant" battery chargers:
QuoteIn any case, these chargers are absolutely a new breakthrough technology as they are potential chargers and not current chargers
As I stated before these "radiant" chargers are based on an inductor discharging into a battery. They are current-based chargers and not potential-based chargers. That means that Aaron still does not understand how an inductor works.
QuoteThese kits are sold as experimental machines and they are NOT sold with overunity claims even though some builders have achieved it.
Aaron is intentionally positioning the 10-coiler and grid inverter system that Jeff alleges is a free energy machine in a "grey" area. It "might" work, and you have spend $15,000 USD and find out for yourself. It's ridiculous.
QuotePreston doesn't know why he hasn't found overunity and he's been working on this project for a year, seriously? ONE SINGLE YEAR
From watching Preston's clips I get the impression that he has tried hard in good faith to find excess energy and spent a lot of time and money on the project. I give Preston a lot of credit for his efforts and continuing optimism, even though every experiment he did showed under unity.
QuotePreston needs to use some real connections and forget about all the alligator clip leads for the mechanical contact leads - even with alligator clips he says he is getting cop 1.0 (breaking even) but nevertheless, bad connections are a no-no for OBVIOUS reasons. Discharging a cap and letting the pressurized output hit roadbumps along the way - just might upset the flow just a tad bit, don't you think?
Preston's builds didn't look all that bad and it's ironic that Aaron is making these comments because his Ainslie replication was a huge messy rat's nest worth of alligator clip leads.
Quotep.s. and he is claiming he is breaking even at 1.0 and he has NOT even included the mechanical work. He needs Peter's Electric Motor Secrets so he knows how to properly calculate it and add that to his 1.0 cop break even results. Again, some people can't recognize over 1.0 cop even if it is right in front of them!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The notion that you have to "include the mechanical work" from the Bedini motor is pure propaganda from the Bedini camp and one day somebody besides myself should speak up about this phony issue. All of the "mechanical work" that the rotor does to overcome air resistance and bearing friction instantly becomes heat and this represents lost energy. It's not "mechanical work," it's lost energy that becomes waste heat. The mechanical output from the 10-coiler is zero unless you actually put an external mechanical load on the device and do some form of useful work. It could be done with generator coils or with a pulley system to lift a weight, etc.
MileHigh
MileHigh - you certainly are not the only one who wants to get to the bottom of these claims. And I question the wisdom in soliciting participation when you challenge a member to contribute his data - certainly on the bases that you use - is all. If you seriously want to solicit the information that you ask for - then it takes more than politeness. I needs an evident willingness to listen to counter argument. And a readiness to re-evaluate your opinion as required. Let the experiment show the evidence. Don't predicate those results as you do. Repeatedly.
And regarding that 'silence' that you claim shrouds all OU claims - then let me tell you where the actual gagging takes place. It's the theory that is shrouded - not the results. All are looking at anomalies, for anomalies, badly measured anomalies - or well measured anomalies - and NONE are allowing for this as required by nature and natural laws. It's we - humans - who do not understand. Not Nature. She knows exactly how to distribute energy freely and plentifully.
Just look at your own stance on this.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:02:05
You accused me of preventing discussion but your two topics, "an inductor recirculates energy back to the battery" and "how do you explain lit neons" really have nothing to do with this thread and would best be in separate threads if you want to start them. I am not here to stifle debate. In fact from the very beginning I extended out an invitation to any 10-coiler experimenters to come here and debate anything they wanted. The only person to step forward was Jeff, and he offered up no substantive information at all and never really got into any serious debates.
The fact that an inductor is able to return as much wattage back to the supply as was first delivered is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT. If this is true then the Bedini 10 coiler and just about any inductor in the world will do so. If it is false then it must be shown to be false. You don't even permit the statement - based on the spurious claim that it has NOTHING to do with the thread topic. Then. The fact that neon's or any light is lit from simple proximation to the battery - as pointed out by AC (still not sure if its the source battery or the recharging battery) implies that energy is transferred by what Grumpy refers to as displacement current. That's definitely proof of yet more energy than is measured in the system itself. This too may not be referenced. Why? Because I, like you, have not done a replication? Or because I, unlike you, may simply not refer to it. And this despite its being DIRECTLY associated with the Bedini 10 coiler claim?
And what is this about 'the burden of proof'? If it had been a system operating within known paradigms there would be no reason to call for a burden of proof. My argument is that the system IS operating within KNOWN PARADIGMS. I put it to you that the burden of proof - as you put it - is actually on you and mainstream to prove that it CANNOT work. Both are equally valid stances. Let me remind you. There is absolutely NO reason to deny Inductive Laws. And Inductive Laws require that 'spike' - whether it's considered standard, or New Age, or whatever it is that anyone chooses to call it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWN THEORY OR THESIS THAT JUSTIFIES STORED ENERGY. It is based on assumptions. And what is considerably worse - is that it is EASILY DISPROVED on the simplest of simple circuits. Until recently and entirely due to the exceptional standards of precisely ONE university - it has not even been allowed to be put to the table of academic institiutions. Exactly how does one justify such an extraordinary attitude - that experimental evidence is ignored in favour of assumption?
And to me, what is of considerably more interest even than the proof of these efficiencies and which is also what fascinates those who are involved in proving displacement currentsis this. It shows that that quite apart from the real potential of exceeding that elusive 1 - is the fact that it's hardly a whisper of the actual potenials that Nature is about to show us all.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:36:18
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The notion that you have to "include the mechanical work" from the Bedini motor is pure propaganda from the Bedini camp and one day somebody besides myself should speak up about this phony issue. All of the "mechanical work" that the rotor does to overcome air resistance and bearing friction instantly becomes heat and this represents lost energy. It's not "mechanical work," it's lost energy that becomes waste heat. The mechanical output from the 10-coiler is zero unless you actually put an external mechanical load on the device and do some form of useful work. It could be done with generator coils or with a pulley system to lift a weight, etc.
Not true MileHigh. If the rotor turns AND there's an equivalence between what is coming from the battery and back to the battery - the rotor's turn is for free - and then there's evidence of something greater than 1. What we don't know is whether this is factored into Preston Stoud's tests. He has simply not given us any measurements at all and yet he's shown a rather presumptuous readiness to voice his opinion on those results. Experimental results are NEVER based on opinion. They're based on evidence. I don't need Aaron's assessment. None of us do. Stroud has not shown us anything - one way or another. And I put it to you that you've rather discouraged anyone at all from that side of the Berlin Wall to show us anything at all - regardless. And my own irritation at this is because it's particularly hard for me to find out what any of them are saying at all. It would have been so NICE to simply have those results posted here.
Rosemary:
You can have your belief system and I can have mine and we can agree to disagree. With respect to where the burden of proof lies, mainstream is the elephant and the free energy experimenters are the fly on the elephant. You might argue that the burden of proof is on my side, but for every step you take to promote any free energy proposition you are going to be reminded that the burden of proof is on your side.
In the case of a Bedini motor, in time-slice A the source battery energizes an inductor, and then in time-slice B, the inductor discharges into the charging battery once only, and then the cycle repeats itself. I won't argue this point with you and if you don't believe me then I have to ask you to start a new thread about this topic or build yourself a Bedini motor and put a current-sensing resistor on the charging battery and see it for yourself.
We both agree that the bottom line is results and Jeff has shown zero results at this point in time.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteIf the rotor turns AND there's an equivalence between what is coming from the battery and back to the battery - the rotor's turn is for free - and then there's evidence of something greater than 1.
Don't forget that there are two batteries. I just stated that by definition it's impossible for more power to go into the charging battery as compared to the power that was drawn from the source battery because of the inescapable inefficiencies in the motor itself. The bearing friction and the rotor friction form part of those inescapable inefficiencies.
Again, by definition, any machine just standing there, no matter how powerful it is, has a zero mechanical output unless you actually physically draw mechanical power from it. It's like the motor is a "black box." You have to physically connect something to the black box to get mechanical power from the black box.
As far as the lack of data on the other side of the Berlin Wall goes, my gut feel is that there is no data. My assumption is that Jeff has done all his work on good faith, and has been too busy to actually test the 10-coiler and the battery swapper to see if it produces free energy. If I am right, it's no surprise that Jeff doesn't even want to acknowledge the questions. In the "real world" Jeff would have provided the test results himself without even having to be asked.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:58:52
Rosemary:
You can have your belief system and I can have mine and we can agree to disagree. With respect to where the burden of proof lies, mainstream is the elephant and the free energy experimenters are the fly on the elephant. You might argue that the burden of proof is on my side, but for every step you take to promote any free energy proposition you are going to be reminded that the burden of proof is on your side.
I hope that I'm not operating on any belief system MileHigh. I rather look to the evidence. And that elephant that you refer to - that great big elephant - in full musk - trumpeting on and on - let me tell you what it trumpets. It trumpets the well proven theory related to INDUCTIVE LAWS. There is NO LAW on STORED ENERGY. That is the fly on the wall - the splinter in the foot - the wobble in the construct. It's pure invention - based on a spurious BELIEF SYSTEM that has never been proven - ONLY LOOKED FOR. And in looking for it - all have to wear sun shields - because the evidence will otherwise shine through and blind them.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:58:52In the case of a Bedini motor, in time-slice A the source battery energizes an inductor, and then in time-slice B, the inductor discharges into the charging battery once only, and then the cycle repeats itself.
I agree. But WHAT ABOUT THAT TURN IN THAT ROTOR? Is this over and above. I don't know from Stroud and I certainly won't hear this now from the Bedini group.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:58:52I won't argue this point with you and if you don't believe me then I have to ask you to start a new thread about this topic or build yourself a Bedini motor and put a current-sensing resistor on the charging battery and see it for yourself.
And this? All you're telling me is that if I disagree then I must start a new thread? That's CENSORSHIP MileHigh.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 05:58:52We both agree that the bottom line is results and Jeff has shown zero results at this point in time.
Yes. I agree with you here. But only here. And only because you've entirely discouraged him from showing anything at all.
Rosemary
ADDED and now edited.
Rosemary:
I suggest that you go to the Hyperphysics web site and read up on how energy is stored in an inductor. You should spend a month on the Hyerphysics web site, it could be an excellent learning tool for you. An inductor is basically identical to a mechanical spring, and that is covered in detail about two weeks back in time on this thread.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.01, 06:19:58
Rosemary:
I suggest that you go to the Hyperphysics web site and read up on how energy is stored in an inductor. You should spend a month on the Hyerphysics web site, it could be an excellent learning tool for you. An inductor is basically identical to a mechanical spring, and that is covered in detail about two weeks back in time on this thread.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)
MileHigh
There it is again. The presumption that I know not whereof I speak. I put it to you MileHigh that it's YOU who 'know not whereof you speak'. That you happen to be in good company does not change this fact. There was a time in our history where the overwhelming majority agreed that the earth was flat. That did not improve the quality of that company - nor have any material significance on the facts. And science is about facts.
Rosemary
MileHigh In the final analysis this is your thread. And I feel that you have the right to protect the interests of your thread. If I am not contributing to these interests - it's only right that I withdraw. It would be so much nicer to be a part of a thread that is constructive and courteous and clearly - with the difference in our perspectives - it's unlikely to happen.
I won't comment here again. I promise you that.
Rosemary
It is true Rosemary. If you build and study Bedini wheel energisers for as long as I have, you will surely learn this fact. MH does know what he is talking about in regard to electrical principles.
Hoppy
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.01, 05:56:59
Not true MileHigh. If the rotor turns AND there's an equivalence between what is coming from the battery and back to the battery - the rotor's turn is for free - and then there's evidence of something greater than 1. What we don't know is whether this is factored into Preston Stoud's tests. He has simply not given us any measurements at all and yet he's shown a rather presumptuous readiness to voice his opinion on those results. Experimental results are NEVER based on opinion. They're based on evidence. I don't need Aaron's assessment. None of us do. Stroud has not shown us anything - one way or another. And I put it to you that you've rather discouraged anyone at all from that side of the Berlin Wall to show us anything at all - regardless. And my own irritation at this is because it's particularly hard for me to find out what any of them are saying at all. It would have been so NICE to simply have those results posted here.
I can see both sides of this argument. Even with 2 batteries if you could continually rotate both batteries and they both never ran down you would have the free work of the wheel turning. But the wheel turning is not performing any use work. If you hook a small genny to the rotor then most likely you change the parameters of the machine and no longer have 100% return charging.
The one thing that struck me as funny in your post Milehigh is that your telling Rosemary to build a Bedini to prove your point.
One point that has also been made is that there is energy traveling outside of the wire. Why wont you consider this power Milehigh. If you can light leds or fluorescent off of it sounds relevent to me.
Mark
@Rosemary
QuoteMileHigh In the final analysis this is your thread. And I feel that you have the right to protect the interests of your thread. If I am not contributing to these interests - it's only right that I withdraw. It would be so much nicer to be a part of a thread that is constructive and courteous and clearly - with the difference in our perspectives - it's unlikely to happen.
I won't comment here again. I promise you that.
This is a thread called "Bedini 10-Coil Alternative Discussion" so I think your posts are relevant to the actual topic, that is Alternative: "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities" --- Discussion: "Consideration of a subject by a group". As such this thread is not about any one persons opinion, it is about a group of people debating the possibilities as to how the Bedini device may or may not work. I think that your opinion is relevant to the alternative discussion as any other and hope you will continue to contribute.
I should also note that that just because any one person starts a thread, a topic for debate, should not mean they have the right to define how it is debated. If this was the case then there is no real debate nor consideration of a subject only a statement of one opinion. If anyone wanted a thread in which there is no real debate and only mainstream opinions as to why the Bedini 10 cannot work then they should have called this thread-- "Critical opinions of why the 10-Coil cannot work" and not "Bedini 10-Coil Alternative Discussion".
Regards
AC
Mark:
QuoteI can see both sides of this argument. Even with 2 batteries if you could continually rotate both batteries and they both never ran down you would have the free work of the wheel turning. But the wheel turning is not performing any use work.
If this was the case the then the wheel turning would still be doing essentially the same thing; burning off some of the alleged free energy and turning it into heat. The wheel has to connect to something and do useful work in the outside world. Only then can you say that you are getting mechanical power from the motor.
QuoteOne point that has also been made is that there is energy traveling outside of the wire. Why wont you consider this power Milehigh. If you can light leds or fluorescent off of it sounds relevent to me.
It's a generic issue that applies to hundreds of different experiments. There is no energy traveling outside of the wire. As was shown the battery terminals and by extension the physical battery case can jump up in a spike of high potential and that can fire a neon light. This is not a "discovery" and is outside the scope of this thread. I was not prepared to get into a potentially 50-posting conversation with Rosemary about this topic, it would derail this thread. Somebody can start a new thread about this subject if they want to.
AC:
You promised to not respond to my postings and I'm sorry but I would prefer if you stayed off of this thread altogether. Feel free to start your own 10-coiler thread if you want to. Suggesting that the name of the thread be changed is wrong and opportunistic, it's filled with a myriad of topics about the 10-coiler and the invitation to 10-coiler experimenters to come here and discuss has been posted repeatedly.
MileHigh
Okay, there is some interesting action on the EF forum for the 10-coiler.
The issue is that people are having trouble tuning the device with either a big 10-watt fixed resistor or by ordering an expensive high-wattage potentiometer. The root cause of the problem is that you are asking one large pick-up coil to turn on all of the transistors for the other nine multi-filar coils. That's 9 x 8 = 72 transistors that you are trying to turn on in one shot with a single pick-up coil. What some people might not be aware of is that once you actually switch on the transistor, then the base inputs become conducting diodes. Once a diode goes into conduction, it's almost the equivalent to a short-circuit.
That means that once the pick-up coil switches on the transistors, it's trying to drive a short circuit. This consumes a lot of energy from the rotor in the form of Lenz drag. That's why people are using a single huge 10-watt fixed resistor (which does not allow for
any tweaking) or a massive potentiometer, also known as a rheostat.
As far as I am concerned this is a serious design flaw in the kit.
Here are the comments:
QuoteGeneral Question:
Has anyone used a (higher wattage) potentiometer in the trigger circuit of the 10-coiler for ease in tuning? If so, any suggestions as to wattage, turns, and possible resistance combinations? Of specific interest are general guidlines for 24 volt source and 24 volt charging. In addition to the fixed, higher wattage resistors that came in the kits I have a few of these higher wattage resistors of the same manufacturer in my stock. Still, a pot would be helpful. Thanks for any suggestions.
QuoteI don't have a 10 coil device...I built a 12 coil master/slave machine....I presently use a 60 watt pot in the trigger....I exceed the wattage rating of this pot at least two fold for very brief periods...I lost three of these things doing that, you think I would have learned my lesson after the second one went up in a cloud of smoke.....that tends to happen when you pump over 200 watts into this circuit.
I'm looking for 500watt 1K Ohm rheostats, I am also seeking 500watt 1K Ohm tandem rheostats. If anyone has a tip where I can locate either of these at a price that an unemployed man can pay...please PM me....
QuoteI have not had any success with tuning my Rick's 10 coiler to make it easier I purchased a 100 ohm 50 watt pot here "http://www.tedss.com/specSearch.asp?pn=R10050W38X12FWS&ct=Rheostat&em=y "
I have tried for almost 1 year now but still have not found a sweet spot I was however able to charge some truck batteries that I have been conditioning over time with one of my other machines.
MileHigh
no
short circuit = zero ohms + Direct Current
Since you are speaking off switching the thing you are describing has a frequency.
Also the 10 Watt fixed resistor or expensive high wattage potentiometer is a fable.
You can very easy wrap your own wire wound resistor and if you add a slider you have your high wattage potentiometer for about 0.25$
Ive made many high power resistors inductive non inductive fixed adjustable and it's bull thinking you can only use that expensive part blah.
Okay, now for some ideas for overcoming this problem so that you can tweak the 10-coiler in a way that resembles a conventional single-coil single-filar Bedini motor.
Earlier on in this thread I discuss a "Cadillac" solution for doing this that is a bit involved. If I remember it involves using a comparator and CMOS buffers to drive the base inputs of the transistors. It reduces the Lenz drag on the rotor to zero. It's deluxe and will work quite well, but I thought of another way to do this that is somewhat simpler and possibly easier.
Here is a proposal to reduce the Lenz drag on the rotor to almost zero and make tuning the 10-coiler comparable to a standard Bedini motor by using extra transistors to provide more amplification and use the source battery to switch on the transistors on and not the pick-up coil (which sucks energy from the rotor).
For starters let's look at each individual drive transistor. You add a 2N3904 transistor where the collector connects to the source battery +12V, and the emitter connects to the base input of the drive transistor. The base input of the 2N3904 is now the input to the switch. This almost looks like a Darlington pair configuration.
In addition, you know how much base current the main drive transistor requires. Therefore you can limit the current output of the 2N3904 by putting a resistor between the battery +12V and the collector. Once you have done this you now know how much base input current the 2N3904 requires. Let's assume that you decide that +4V from the pick-up coil is the switch-on voltage. Therefore you can put a base input resistor on the 2N3904 also.
The net result is that you have a two-stage transistor amplifier that only requires a tiny fraction of what the single transistor requires. It also never acts like a quasi-short circuit because the 2N3904 has a base input resistor. It also switches on and off much faster because you have much more gain.
Okay, so now you have 72 inputs that require much less current than before, so you won't need a humongous 10-watt resistor or huger rheostat to do the tuning.
None the less, 72 inputs is still a lot of inputs, so let's add some more amplification to really make a "clean" design.
MileHigh
Okay, so now how do we connect the pick-up coil output to the 72 base input resistors of the 2N3904 transistors?
Probably the easiest way to do this would be to use an NPN transistor in an "emitter follower" configuration. I am still concerned about the "fan out" to drive so many inputs. So perhaps something like one emitter-follower circuit per pair of coils (16 inputs). With nine drive coils you would need five emitter-follower circuits.
Here is the Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_collector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_collector)
Here is the graphic:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/NPN_emitter_follower.svg/200px-NPN_emitter_follower.svg.png)
The Vout of each of the emitter-follower circuits could connects to the 16 base input resistors of the 2N3904 transistors. The emitter-followers themselves could be done with 2N3904 transistors.
Finally we come to the all-important tuning and how to do this. We have quite a bit of amplification in this circuit now and the power is being supplied by the source battery and not the rotor, which is exactly what we want.
So to do the tuning all that you need to do is connect the output of the pick-up coil to one side of a conventional 500-ohm potentiometer. The other side of the potentiometer connects to ground. The wiper from the potentiometer would connect to the five inputs of the emitter-follower circuits.
Now as you turn this single potentiometer, you can tweak the timing of the 10-coiler with ease. There will be almost to Lenz drag load on the rotor from the pick-up coil.
Note that some of the resistance values are just approximations, they may need tweaking. I suspect that you could use an even higher resistance tuning potentiometer.
Note also, that you don't even need to have the rotor turning to test and debug this circuit. You can even do the whole thing with just a multimeter, you don't really need a scope!
MileHigh
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.23, 00:49:55
no
short circuit = zero ohms + Direct Current
Since you are speaking off switching the thing you are describing has a frequency.
Also the 10 Watt fixed resistor or expensive high wattage potentiometer is a fable.
You can very easy wrap your own wire wound resistor and if you add a slider you have your high wattage potentiometer for about 0.25$
Ive made many high power resistors inductive non inductive fixed adjustable and it's bull thinking you can only use that expensive part blah.
Once you are above the roughly 0.6 volts switch-on threshold for the main drive transistors, the 72 transistor input diodes in parallel will nearly look like a zero-ohm differential resistor. So above 0.6 volts it looks like a short circuit. In the current setup being used with the kit, once the pick-up coil manages to switch on the transistors through the big common 10-watt base input resistor, then everything above that potential is effectively shorted out. This clamps the output voltage of the pick-up coil after the 10-watt resistor at about 0.6 volts and puts a big mechanical load on the rotor and burns energy needlessly in the big resistor and in the transistors. Also, there is no guarantee that all 72 transistors will be perfectly matched, so there is a very good chance that some of the transistors never switch on completely which is not a good situation.
I agree with you that you can make your own high wattage potentiometer. If you have some experience doing that I suppose that it's relatively easy to do. I was just quoting the owners of the 10-coiler on the Energetic Forum.
MileHigh
This posting is directed at Plazma on the EF:
QuoteThanks for the info and the prompt reply. I agree with Mark about the voltage issue . . . for example, the spec sheet on my Solar 1's suggest 12.75 Volts is fully charged. However, they also suggest a monthly or bi-monthly 'equalization charge' where the charging voltage is taken to 14.5 VDC for about 3 hours so as to fully turn over any stratification of fluids in the individual cells. So, for me, 25.5 volts at a nominal 24 volt arrangement is "fully charged" - and, I am still wondering about the 'equalization' issue. I'd rather get the 10-coiler to do its thing and 'cold-boil' the target batteries.
There are a lot of issues ref the 10-coiler (like what is the correct winding direction on the coils, terminal blocks that, in my opinion were never intended to be bent 90 degrees, base resistor settings for a 24 volt setup, and so forth). Maybe, together, we can get some of these resolved.
Since I have 3, separate 24 volt banks for 'charging' and a 4th bank for excitation, I can charge from the 10-coiler as well as from Xantrex units via solar. The Tesla kick charger takes solar and charges just the excitation bank.
I can discharge the test banks back into my local grid using grid-tie inverters sized beneath the C20 rate of the Solar 1's. Yes, it might take a long, long time to fully condition such a large battery set. However, Bedini says 'the magic is in the battery' so I hope, in the fullness of time, to experience some of that magic
Now that I FINALLY have all of the support infrastructure in place, I can devote full time to just the 10-coiler and its issues.
I would suggest that you read the 10-coiler and oher threads around here to give you a broader perspective, even if you disagree with some of what you read.
Also, I strongly suggest that you do some sort of "reality check" test where you do a charge cycle, then drain off 25% of the energy in the charging batteries, and
then swap the charging batteries back into the source battery position and/or do some round-robin swapping
and energy discharging. I asked Jeff (Bit's-and-Bytes) several times to do some kind of reality-check test with his 10-coiler setup and I don't think that he ever acknowledged the question. The proof is in the pudding and my advice is to do the proof-of-concept/reality-check test before you invest massive amounts of time and money into the system.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
The frustration of all of this must give you a headache lol.
The darlington transistor arrangement gives the highest gain but the actual 'switching' speed of the pair is reduced. The gain of the pair is calculated by multiplying the 'hfe' of each transistor so the input current can be calculated. The two transistor arrangement also has two base emitter junctions so the switching 'on' voltage is doubled. If the emitter is grounded its around 1.4 volts but temperature dependant.
You probably know all of this as its basic, but can you enlighten the minds of 'the bedini-ists'. Some will understand but god hasn't spoken, so you deserve the credit you should be getting. I gave up on one group a long time ago. They had their eyes wide open and their minds wide shut.
Respect and credit to you.
steve.
Hi Steve,
I think that this thread is read by some Bedini enthusiasts covertly and they are almost afraid to admit it. Almost like the way Beatles records were listened to in Communist Russia! lol With respect to the Yahoo Bedini group it's almost comical. They consider me to be the devil incarnate and they encourage people to cast their eyes away and not even look! If I am such forbidden fruit, it probably means that this thread attracts even more covert viewers. I am the "alternative" to the "alternative Bedini" promoters. In other words, the "alternative to the alternative." They think that what they are promoting is "outside of conventional understanding" without realizing that everything that they are doing is 100% conventional. It's a topsy-turvy world!
It would appear that the 10-coiler kit has some problems because it is simply a "blind upscale" of a standard Bedini motor with no real thought put in to the fact that you go from an architecture based on a single pick-up coil firing a single transistor to a single larger pick-up coil trying to fire 72 transistors.
For that quasi Darlington pair transistor arrangement I put a current limiting resistor between the +12 volts and the collector of the input transistor to limit the base input current to the main firing transistor to it's logical maximum. There is no reason to pump extra current into the base inut for nothing.
Putting the resistor on the base input of the 2N3904 transistor serves a similar purpose. It also makes the pair of transistors look like a voltage-driven switch as opposed to a current-driven switch. Adding this base resistor does give me some concerns about the overall switching speed, but that would have to be verified on the bench. My gut feel is that making this input resistor a bit lower than "normal" would speed up the switching again.
For the switching threshold (without the potentiometer in the circuit) it is indeed higher but hat really shouldn't be an issue. When you think about it, now that you have amplification, who really needs one of the humongous coils of the 10-coiler to act as a pick-up coil. If you wanted to you could make a smaller pick-up coil with more turns of a smaller gauge of wire that gives you more EMF to work with and offers you higher voltage slew rates.
I am suggesting an emitter-follower setup between the potentiometer output and the quasi Darlington pair switchers. That is really basic and primitive and I feel it should be adequate. However, that could certainly be tweaked and improved upon if desired.
If you keep with the standard configuration and use one of the big coils as the pick-up coil, I am pretty certain everything will be fine. With the extra amplification you should be able to get very fast on and off switching. The important thing is that all of the power required to do the transistor switching would come from the source battery and not the rotor itself.
So Bedinistas, it's time to "think outside of the box." Using a big fat 10-watt resistor between the pick-up coil and the 72 parallel inputs of the firing transistor is incredibly poor design that was not properly thought out. You can use the ideas from the last round of postings to breadboard a proper transistor switching arrangement for your 10-coiler setup. Have fun and good luck! You can perfect the switching setup and just add on the extra transistors to the current setup if you wanted. The 10-coiler should then run much more smoothly and you should have much more precise control over the tuning.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
It stands to reason that god is one with himself, he's followed by his deciples. Any other is the devil or his minions.
Thing is if you designed for them any circuit even one with barium magnets wound so Sweetly and obtained OU, you would still have failed lol.
Then god would declare a spy of you, you would be shamed for it....
A day later it would make headline news, god would speak and you'd see a familiar circuit design (naturally after a few years when the cash flow stops).
One day the deciples will awaken, and see the fire in their god.
Its my interpretation from trying to help with the losses in the base current. Do they ever listen?
Do they not understand about 63% is the maximum return?
My hats off to you!
One day they will see your halo and shout blessed be.....lol
Keep up the work, their comments are full of jesticulation, the entertainment continues....
Steve.
MH
Hopefully there are some from the crowd of "followers"
who will appreciate your efforts to stimulate innovative
thinking and sound suggestions for enhancement.
But Szaxx makes a salient point: the peer pressure within
the "clique" is intense. Any who "deviate" from the doctrine
of the "Great One" are soon relegated to the realm of the
"unworthies."
The "Masters" of the Cult have studied their customer base
well and are very adept at providing their bits of "magic"
at the proper time to assure the steady flow of cash.
It is a pity to see how Aaron and John and Peter and their
lot take advantage of those who are under-educated and
therefore most susceptible to their dogma.
The "awakening" is always very gradual.
Dumped:
I hope that some people that are interested in both Bedini motors and electronics read the threads on this site and get something out of the material and ideas presented here. Ideally they would do some serious testing and make serious measurements and accumulate data on their setups. Just measuring current consumption and RPMs is almost meaningless data. There is no "radiant energy" and there is no "magic" going on in the charging battery that generates extra energy. If you are a Bedini enthusiast I suppose that you have to figure that out for yourself. The threads on here can help you get there.
If you truly understand how inductors work and agree with the ideas presented here, then when you go back and watch or read Bedini you see him in a whole new light.
MileHigh
i did some bedini back in 2006 and i am not intrested in his work anymore.
It seems to me he is trying to cash in on bs.
Like That Lindemann is doing too.
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.23, 21:13:06
i did some bedini back in 2006 and i am not intrested in his work anymore.
It seems to me he is trying to cash in on bs.
Like That Lindemann is doing too.
:)
There are people buying electric motors and dismantling them as part of Peter Lindemann's "Lockridge device" replication. Peter is supposed to be guiding them step by step through the process.
I predict that nobody will get any free energy, I am just wondering how much some of them will spend on the project in terms of time and money. How will Peter respond when nobody gets any results even though he claims it is real and he can show people how to do it?
Something to watch for in 2011!
MileHigh
I also sense that 2011 will be an interesting year as the realisation slowly sinks in that neither the big wheel or 10-coiler in fact produce free energy. Good money has been spent out on purchasing / building these devices and people will naturally expect to see some clear energy gains. When success in replication has not been forthcoming in the past, JB's response has been to blame this on the builder for not following instructions properly, or to more accurate, not solving his riddles correctly. The big question has already been asked in respect of the Ferris Wheel - what is its purpose? I wonder how long it will take JB to answer this straightforward question.
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.23, 21:55:48
There are people buying electric motors and dismantling them as part of Peter Lindemann's "Lockridge device" replication. Peter is supposed to be guiding them step by step through the process.
I predict that nobody will get any free energy, I am just wondering how much some of them will spend on the project in terms of time and money. How will Peter respond when nobody gets any results even though he claims it is real and he can show people how to do it?
Something to watch for in 2011!
MileHigh
well luckily they are not around here :)
MileHigh
I'm putting a little package together for William [IST]
You posted some very impressive discharge info on batteries a while back,I can't find it?[pretty sure it was you]
Could you please share it again?
Also LED's
they seem like a bad choice for OU research ?
Thanks
Chet
PS
Come to think of it MH the package is mostly things you have shared here,could you make me a little package I can share at Williams thread?
Please
Just a tiny little package!
Quote from: ramset on 2010.12.24, 13:34:04
MileHigh
I'm putting a little package together for William [IST]
You posted some very impressive discharge info on batteries a while back,I can't find it?[pretty sure it was you]
Could you please share it again?
Also LED's
they seem like a bad choice for OU research ?
Thanks
Chet
PS
Come to think of it MH the package is mostly things you have shared here,could you make me a little package I can share at Williams thread?
Please
Just a tiny little package!
Hi Chet,
Unfortunately I never put my thoughts on batteries in a single comprehensive post. They are somewhere in the Bedini threads. I discussed the problems measuring power through LEDs in the new 3-coiler thread. That's a small thread and it should be easy to find. If you really want to find the battery stuff just do a string search on "discharge" or something like that and search on the two main Bedini threads page by page.
William/IST is a lost cause. In his clips he sounds sane when he speaks but in his postings he sounds like an insane mad scientist. I watched a few of his clips closely about a year ago and I can tell you that he has no clue whatsoever when it comes to electronics. You can point him to some of the Bedini threads on this site if you want or copy/paste my stuff, it's up to you. I seriously doubt that he will understand much of it through. William is just a "performance artist" playing out a fake character called "IST" or now the character is called "Osiris." If you are trying to give him some pointers to educate him I think that you are wasting your time.
MileHigh
Thanks MH,
Actually the battery info was very impressive and surprizing
I thought it was you that posted it ?
How many hours different ampere bats would run certain loads without recharge.[amazingly long times]
I'll look when I have more time.
Thanks for all you do here MH !
A very happy holiday to you and yours.
Chet
A question about the 10-coiler popped up:
QuoteAn Open Question -
I spent most of last night reading and studying the 14-ft Bedini Wheel Thread. First, BIG Congrats to John Koorn for his successful build and Kudos to all the great posts there.
Here's the issue that comes to mind ref the 10-coiler build: Great attention was paid on the 'Big Wheel' Center Coil Core length and position - that is, in the Northern Hemisphere the coil core was extended below the bottom edge of the coil carrier/bobbin about an inch or so, maybe 2 inches. In the Southern Hemisphere, like in John Koorn's build done in Australia, the coil core was extended UPWARDS towards the wheel (and magnets) by a similar distance. This has to do with the magnetic current(s) streaming and shape and the associated timing, if I understand correctly, as such is affected on the 'Big Wheel' by one's location by hemisphere.
What prompts my question is that the 10-coiler kits have the coil cores extended outwards, away from the wheel, and that the extended core surface serves as a clamping site for helping hold the coil bobbin in the carrier. That is all well and good if one lives in the Northern Hemisphere. However, does this outward extension of the coil cores on the 10-coiler have any affects that must be otherwise compensated for if the kit builder happens to live in the Southern Hemisphere?
Of course, there are major differences between the 2 machines. However, magnetics are involved in both machines - so, is there a latent (hidden) Hemispherical issue with the 10-coiler that could affect its tuning and/or performance?
Just curious
Plazma
The notion that the Bedini Ferris Wheel motor has to be configured differently depending on whether it is being built in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere strikes me as being completely and utterly ridiculous. I don't know if anybody ever questioned or challenged Bedini about this point but they should have.
There is no "Hemispherical issue," hidden or otherwise, with the 10-coiler.
If anybody seriously believes that the Bedini Ferris Wheel motor has to be configured differently depending on which hemisphere it is being run in you are welcome to comment here or on the Ferris Wheel thread. It would also be nice to know what the Ferris Wheel motor actually does.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.03, 01:27:46
It would also be nice to know what the Ferris Wheel motor actually does.
MileHigh
I think we covered this before. The Ferris Wheel motor is a sideshow attraction in a carnival much like the mustache lady or the hermaphrodite. It can generate revenue at the gate. Is that not a form of free energy?
Yes, its clearly eye candy to promote sales. JB invariably clouds forum discussions by bringing in a bit of mysticism like the power of crystals and how they can help to produce free energy, or how he dopes semiconductors to give them spacial properties. This tactic helps to divert the discussion away from purely technical matters which he has always tried to avoid, for fear of being strongly challenged by EE's. The extension of the ferris wheel coil core rods either out the back or front of the coil and the angled lump of metal under the coil are IMO classic Bedini diversions which give him plenty of scope to say - well it don't work properly because you've failed to follow construction details correctly. By the time punters have got completely disillusioned and lost interest in a project, enough time has elapsed to develop and market the project in kit form.
Hoppy
Hi folks!
Some of you might remember me from a few years back on OU before "Ashtwit" and Stefan banned me for holding Ashtweth's feet to the fire regarding energy i/o tests on the infamous Charles Campbell devices and the "Neon Extraction Circuit" that was purported to make Ashtweth's famous "RV" into a "self-runner". I then went to Energetic Ministries and lasted all of 4 hours before being banned for questioning some of Lindeman's statements.
Those folks, (Panacea and Energetic Ministries and Lindemann/Bedini/Bearden) I'm afraid, are the most insidious scammers in the arena. To this day, the Panacea University still has claims published openly regarding the RV and Chas Campbell being legit OU devices! This despite their being thoroughly debunked and virtually forgotten years ago.
I'm an EE with 40+ years designing high power switching power supplies, analog circuitry and industrial controls/power conversion circuitry for audio through 100MHz 5000W RF plasma generators used in huge lasers. I have a couple of granted patents and a goodly number of designs that are still being produced exactly as designed as many as 20 years later. My patents were sponsored by DARPA research grants and DOD projects involving electro-optics and guidance/intelligence-gathering systems.
Interestingly, I dropped out of school in tenth grade and have never been back, so I cannot really be accused of being any kind of "ivory tower expert" or "dupe of the established academic regime". Everything I have learned has come from hands on "design and build" experience and from working with some quite famous entrepreneurs and around some rather brilliant researchers in US government-sponsored labs. Nope...I'm not a big fan of the military-indutrial complex or the MIB crowd, either, at this point.
I suppose I could be called an "App Note Engineer", having gained much of my understanding of electronic circuits as a result of applying devices based on data sheets and application notes and hints and tips from more experienced experts in various fields of applied physics and real-world product design..
My interest in the "free energy culture" is, by my own open admission, purely a curiosity and I have almost no "hope" or "faith" or "belief" that any sort of useful "free energy producing" machine will evolve from the online FE culture or these forums. I am being honest here.
Truly, I became involved as a "poster" on the forums strictly as a debunker. I have no intention of building anything that I'm convinced cannot possibly "work". Like MileHigh, I am able to evaluate most circuitry and mechanisms "by inspection" or by appropriate modelling to determine their modes of operation and efficacy. Had I "built" every idea or approach I have ever thought of or pondered to see if it worked, I'd have never produced much at all.
The ability to evaluate and reject weak ideas quickly is a huge part of science and engineering. But the very concept is the worst taboo in the field of internet forum OU research. That's why even the simplest most obviously flawed concepts always take years and endless failed replications and thousands of hours of argument and discussion before slipping into oblivion.
I simply could not stay as "a lurker" in the face of the vast and unending fallacies and insane claims and ridiculous measurement techniques (or lack thereof) that are rampant among the culture. So far, this forum is the only one I've encountered that has any basis in reasonable scientific analysis, thanks to members like Poynt and Milehigh and a few others.
After reading just about every "high-participation" topic on the forum, I have decided that I should probably not do a lot of posting here, however. That's because Poynt and Milehigh have pretty much got it covered in terms of keeping things on task and quashing, correcting or at least pointing out misinformation and outright fraud here.
I can absolutely identify with MileHigh's sense of urgency and frustration as the Bedini/Lindemann/Arron crowd appear to be moving from selling books and CD's and tickets to their shows (bad enough) into that far worse realm of actually selling non-functional hardware to unsuspecting rubes. They seem rather organized in their efforts to foist this crap off for personal gain while avoiding outright clear claims of any specific performance, yet using unwitting brainwashed and highly-invested shills like poor Jeff to front the claims of OU and "self-running". machines that are heavily implied to address real-world energy needs. It is no less than full-out organized crime, in my opinion.
In my work, as in all true engineering work, the goal is always to provide a given function using the simplest and least expensive yet robust and reliable combination of elements. The obvious objective of most "free energy" claimants appears to be the exact opposite: To employ maximally "Rube Goldberg" designs in a clear attempt to obscure and delay the discovery of the fact that their machines don't actually work. For instance, here is a quote from MileHigh in a recent post in this thread:
.
"Jeff and his associates have two possible arguments on which to base their proposition on, 1) the current spike from the coil is "magic" and contains excess energy, 2) the battery is "magic" and ends up with excess energy after you charge it with current spikes." This statement beautifully cuts to the chase.
The use of huge batteries (way larger in energy storage than the expected "free energy" output power) is a typical and ubiquitous method of obfuscation and delay. It allows them to "demonstrate to" and delude themselves and the public regarding how their machines produce seemingly excess output power, but always only for finite-time demonstrations, of course.
Reduced to a ridiculous simplicity to make the obvious point, this is like charging a capacitor very slowly using a mere trickle of measured power and then suddenly putting a screwdriver across the terminals to exhibit a huge "bang/flash" of enormous sudden output energy. Makes a great show. They always ignore the time-factor in the energy equation for as long as they are allowed to.
If there was any substance to the claims that pulse-charging a battery with "radiant energy" produced by sudden discharges produced more energy in the battery than was required to generate the pulses then why, oh why, do they need all the contraptions, ferris wheels, battery swappers, complex multiple coils and control electronics?
Why not a simple black box with two leads coming out that you just attach to any partally-charged battery and it takes in some energy and then returns it to the same battery in a pulsed fashion? If the theory they espouse actually worked, there is no obstacle to building battery chargers that were powered by the very battery they were charging! Take the root theory at the simplest form and directly implement it. No Rube Goldberg stuff.
But you can bet they would come up with a million magic reasons why this straightforward approach just wouldn't work. Because the basis theory and concept is just no good, they must shroud and bury it amongst a million bells and whistles that they claim require endless finicky tuning and a myriad of complex custom-made extraneous "stuff" that obviously contributes nothing but obfuscation. Expensive stuff that only they supply.
These people are dangerous and must be held accountable not only for the money they are taking on false pretexts but for the time they waste of innocent experimenters who follow their BS as if it were a religion.
It is my opinion that the whole "free energy" movement is a frustrated manifestation of the same excellent and honorable and useful desire to learn by doing that I and many of my peers (I'm now 60) used to be involved back in "the day" when we eagerly awaited the next issue of Popular Electronics so we could build and tinker with some circuitry. These days, there is almost none of that going on where the project is described clearly, the end-function is given, the parts are listed, etc.
As the parts have gotten smaller and more sophisticated and the prices of end-products in the market have diminished so far, the home-brewed building of practical functional electronic things has gone the way of TV repair. It just isn't practical anymore. Are you going to build a laptop computer or a cell-phone or a DVD player from a PC board and a bag of parts? Are you going to spend time trying to repair or modify your 15" LCD monitor or TV? Hell no! Not when you can buy a fully assembled and tested new item for 5% of the cost and zero work. This basically leaves only power audio and speakers as a practical area for home experimenters...oh, and one other: FREE ENERGY MACHINES!
Trouble is, there are never clear objectives, straightforward plans, well-defined test procedures, etc. Never, I mean, when it comes to any kind of project intended or claimed to produce useful amounts of "free energy" that might actually be useful in powering our appliances, homes and vehicles much less a single 100W light bulb.
So, my involvement here, sad to say, will be limited to helping keep people from being misled or spending large sums of money based on purposely-constructed (by outright fraud artists) false hopes. Since that is generally not considered to be enough of a "contributory" or "positive" motivation, I probably will not be heard from very much. Poynt99 and MileHigh are doing a pretty good job on this forum in that regard, while still retaining an optimistic outlook for the possibility of someday helping to evolve an actual OU or free energy device. I can't honestly say I share that optimism.
Humbugger
Welcome to the forum and AMEN to your above post.
Humbugger:
I second Ion's sentiments, welcome aboard! Thank you for your compliments also.
We are getting close to the first anniversary of the official release of the 10-coiler kit and it looks like there is not much going on. There are some people on the Energetic Forum that are finishing off the building of their 10-coiler kits. Will they actually make any serious attempts to do something tangible with their devices is the big question.
Our friend Jeff, a.k.a. 'Bit's-n-Bytes,' has been very quiet since the November workshop. He knows there are a few 'big questions' that I have asked him about his 10-coiler and battery swapper system that have never been answered. In fact he never even really acknowledged them.
Welcome to the cutting edge! :)
MileHigh
Welcome Humbugger.
I believe you'd be able to contribute in many areas of discussion here. I hope you are interested in doing so. ;)
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.12, 21:42:18
Humbugger: Welcome to the OUR "Debate Club"
I second Ion's sentiments, welcome aboard! Thank you for your compliments also.
We are getting close to the first anniversary of the official release of the 10-coiler kit and it looks like there is not much going on. There are some people on the Energetic Forum that are finishing off the building of their 10-coiler kits. Will they actually make any serious attempts to do something tangible with their devices is the big question.
Our friend Jeff, a.k.a. 'Bit's-n-Bytes,' has been very quiet since the November workshop Unlike the rest of you folks, I have been pretty tied up in getting the batt swapper into production since the conference. I have also redesigned a charger along with the programing of it. I am also designing a device for the next conference. Of course I do all of this stuff so you guy's here can have something to debate about. I also have a full time day job. You folks may gain some credability if you could get out of your arm chairs and build something. Humbugger, you don't even know me, but you want to climb on Milehigh's armchair and bash, on your first post no doubt. He knows there are a few 'big questions' that I have asked him about his 10-coiler and battery swapper system that have never been answered. In fact he never even really acknowledged them Yep Milehigh, you still haven't built one I see, so until you do you'll have no credability to comment. All of you followers of Milehigh, don't you think he should practice what he preaches or are you just going to follow the spew and call it reality?.
Welcome to the cutting edge! :)
MileHigh
Dear Jeff,
You claimed to have a working OU device months ago, but are unwilling to even give out the details of how you came to the conclusion that your device is OU.
You bash anybody here and on Energeticforum who asks you how you tested your device and what the results were.
You are either an idiot, or a scammer. As the world falls apart around you, what are you doing to help? Scamming people out of money and sending researchers on a wild goose chase.
You should be ashamed! Post your test results or be prepared to be called a FAKE!
Ozy
Why don't we have a OU device on the market now? PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
Everyone should have ran far and fast when Bedini said the discharge of a cap charged with his version of RE was "better" than the same discharge from conventional methods.
Jeff:
You are repeating the same themes. You are saying, "Build something to 'earn' the right to discuss this 'technology'"
Why should I or anybody have to do this to discuss Bedini stuff? It simply doesn't make any sense. All that you have to do is read my thread and it will be abundantly clear that I know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure that you have read most or all of the thread. Therefore it's pure cognitive dissonance on your part. If you choose to cling to that point it doesn't matter, I will still post about Bedini stuff whenever I want to.
You also talk about gaining credibility. You are the one that needs to gain credibility. You have been asked to produce data that backs up the claim that the 10-coiler with the battery swapper and grid tie inverter can produce a continuous source of free energy. The question has been posed to you many times with several different suggested ways of doing the testing and generating the data. To the best of my recollection you have never acknowledged the requests and you have not produced a single shred of data to back up your claims.
Why should anybody spend a small fortune on one of these systems with no performance data? I recall that Aaron chimed in and said that these systems are "experimental" and so there are no performance guarantees. That's laughable.
You also make a reference to "reality." Jeff, the reality is that every single thing demonstrated at the November workshop was an under unity device. Rick rode into the conference center on a battery-powered converted lawn mower. People clapped and cheered! Even with the recapturing of the "radiant spike" the total energy in his two sets of batteries goes DOWN as he rides the lawn mower. It's as simple as that.
I don't think that you will be selling that many $1200 battery swappers. Of course you are free to charge whatever you want for them, but the price vs. quantity curve might suggest that selling more at at a lower price will generate higher gross profits.
Still waiting for some performance data from you Jeff. And the real problem is that if you ever actually try to make some measurements as previously discussed, you are going to find that the 10-coiler with the battery swapper and grid tie inverter is an under unity device.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 03:27:55
Jeff:
You are repeating the same themes. You are saying, "Build something to 'earn' the right to discuss this 'technology'"
Why should I or anybody have to do this to discuss Bedini stuff? It simply doesn't make any sense. All that you have to do is read my thread and it will be abundantly clear that I know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure that you have read most or all of the thread. Therefore it's pure cognitive dissonance on your part. If you choose to cling to that point it doesn't matter, I will still post about Bedini stuff whenever I want to.
You also talk about gaining credibility. You are the one that needs to gain credibility. You have been asked to produce data that backs up the claim that the 10-coiler with the battery swapper and grid tie inverter can produce a continuous source of free energy. The question has been posed to you many times with several different suggested ways of doing the testing and generating the data. To the best of my recollection you have never acknowledged the requests and you have not produced a single shred of data to back up your claims.
Why should anybody spend a small fortune on one of these systems with no performance data? I recall that Aaron chimed in and said that these systems are "experimental" and so there are no performance guarantees. That's laughable.
You also make a reference to "reality." Jeff, the reality is that every single thing demonstrated at the November workshop was an under unity device. Rick rode into the conference center on a battery-powered converted lawn mower. People clapped and cheered! Even with the recapturing of the "radiant spike" the total energy in his two sets of batteries goes DOWN as he rides the lawn mower. It's as simple as that.
I don't think that you will be selling that many $1200 battery swappers. Of course you are free to charge whatever you want for them, but the price vs. quantity curve might suggest that selling more at at a lower price will generate higher gross profits.
Still waiting for some performance data from you Jeff. And the real problem is that if you ever actually try to make some measurements as previously discussed, you are going to find that the 10-coiler with the battery swapper and grid tie inverter is an under unity device.
MileHigh
Well here is the credibility Milehigh, I have a lot of devices that I have created. I have even demonstrated a very useful device callled the battery swapper. This is a very useful device in that it can be retrofitted to many different devices and still drive a load. I owe you nothing Milehigh. I have designed this, built it and proved that it does the function for what I invented it for. Now let's get down to the real heart of the matter, How many devices have you built, designed, or even demonstrated...NONE, zero, NOTHING. This leaves me to believe that you can only speak about Nothing. Ozy, the same!! Build it guy's, anything, prove your worth. Stop BS'ing the rest of the folks.
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2011.01.13, 03:40:42
Well here is the credibility Milehigh, I have a lot of devices that I have created. I have even demonstrated a very useful device callled the battery swapper. This is a very useful device in that it can be retrofitted to many different devices and still drive a load. I owe you nothing Milehigh. I have designed this, built it and proved that it does the function for what I invented it for. Now let's get down to the real heart of the matter, How many devices have you built, designed, or even demonstrated...NONE, zero, NOTHING. This leaves me to believe that you can only speak about Nothing. Ozy, the same!! Build it guy's, anything, prove your worth. Stop BS'ing the rest of the folks.
Jeff:
Let's get real for a second here. Your battery swapper is a microcontroller with some sort of analog input mux that polls the battery voltages and some digital I/O that controls some relays to switch in and switch out the batteries. You wrote some software that polls the analog inputs and makes some basic decisions for the battery swapping. There are some optional user-defined registers that can control the swapping interval and stuff like that.
The whole world runs on microcontrollers and your application is one of millions of microcontroller applications out there. I could do your project myself along with another few million other engineers out there in the workplace.
In my day I designed graphics controllers for the VMEbus and the PC bus. Some of them are probably still working today in nuclear power plants. Big deal!
The real issue is your battery swapper system with the 10-coiler and all the other hardware. Is it an over unity device like you claim it is? If you claim it is then where is your data?
Your battery swapper is incidental, you don't even need it. You could do the proof of concept and generate the data by having a human being act as your battery swapper and running the algorithm in his or her head. We don't really care about your battery swapper, the claim you are making is the real issue.
You are the one that is BS'ing. Can you show some data to back up your claim? That's the real central issue.
MileHigh
Jeff,
I have built many devices, the difference been I haven't claimed any of them are OU.
If you wished to purchase one of my devices, I would be happy to give you a spec sheet and performance data.
Once you were sure the device meets your criteria, then I would sell it to you.
THIS IS WHAT NORMAL PEOPLE DO!
You claimed to have an OU device, therefore, it is YOU who needs to back up your claims.
You have spent hours on these forums, spewing BS, when you could of spent that time doing a simple test and posting results.
YOU ARE A FOOL! and in my opinion a fraud. Anyone who actually had built an OU device, this is the first thing they would do.
Get your head out of Bedini/Rick's arses and go get a second opinion - you might find you are wrong - if so ADMIT IT!
Ozy
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 04:01:39
Jeff:
Let's get real for a second here. Your battery swapper is a microcontroller with some sort of analog input mux that polls the battery voltages and some digital I/O that controls some relays to switch in and switch out the batteries. You wrote some software that polls the analog inputs and makes some basic decisions for the battery swapping. There are some optional user-defined registers that can control the swapping interval and stuff like that.
The whole world runs on microcontrollers and your application is one of millions of microcontroller applications out there. I could do your project myself along with another few million other engineers out there in the workplace.
In my day I designed graphics controllers for the VMEbus and the PC bus. Some of them are probably still working today in nuclear power plants. Big deal!
The real issue is your battery swapper system with the 10-coiler and all the other hardware. Is it an over unity device like you claim it is? If you claim it is then where is your data?
Your battery swapper is incidental, you don't even need it. You could do the proof of concept and generate the data by having a human being act as your battery swapper and running the algorithm in his or her head. We don't really care about your battery swapper, the claim you are making is the real issue.
You are the one that is BS'ing. Can you show some data to back up your claim? That's the real central issue.
MileHigh
Would you be so kind and show me where I claimed the "Battery Swapper" was a OU device?
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2011.01.13, 04:10:45
Would you be so kind and show me where I claimed the "Battery Swapper" was a OU device?
Jeff:
You claimed the battery swapper and 10-coiler with the cap pulser and grid tie inverter system was an over unity device. There are quotes from you at the November convention stating this. Going back probably six months I asked you to verify your claim.
Are you doing a bait and switch here?
MileHigh
This is not a quote, but I got it from the Sterling Allen report on the conference:
http://pesn.com/2010/11/23/9501730_Bedini_Renaissance_Conference_a_turning_point/ (http://pesn.com/2010/11/23/9501730_Bedini_Renaissance_Conference_a_turning_point/)
QuoteThe conference-long demonstration by Jeff Wilson ('Bits') of the MachineOfTime1 prototype was apparently convincing. It is a Bedini 10 coiler running in a self-sustaining mode with additional power running two bulbs. It's the first 10-coil self-runner built by Friedrich. The small size and capacity of batteries he had on the system, and the brightness of the bulbs being illuminated (around 60 Watt equivalent), with no diminishing during the entire two days of continuous running, indicated that he was indeed harnessing free energy from the environment via the Tesla switch. Run normally, those batteries might have lasted six to eight hours.
Sterling Allen, for all of his limitations, is actually very good at faithfully reporting what he is told when he is doing reporting.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 04:19:51
Jeff:
You claimed the battery swapper and 10-coiler with the cap pulser and grid tie inverter system was an over unity device. There are quotes from you at the November convention stating this. Going back probably six months I asked you to verify your claim.
Are you doing a bait and switch here?
MileHigh
Bait and switch my ass. I ask you a simple question, where did I claim the "Battery Swapper" was an OU device? You are trying to stretch this into something it is not. But that's what you do best--- "Bait and Switch Debate with no build". You have no intentions on doing anything with this technology. You are not going to build it, use it, But you damn sure are going to DEBATE it, so Milehigh, have fun. Show me the Quotes!
BTW, I was never interviewed by Sterling., ask him.
Here you go Jeff:
http://r-charge.com/Nov2010.html (http://r-charge.com/Nov2010.html)
QuoteJeff Wilson ('Bits'), MachineOfTime1
Subject: Demonstrating the Battery Swapper and Tesla Switch, Homepower Application of Bedini Technology.
Jeff:
This one is much better, it's from your
own posting quoting Rick Friedrich:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-7.html#post116701 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-7.html#post116701)
QuoteNext sensation was Jeff Wilson's presentation of my 10 coiler running in a
self-sustaining mode with additional power running two bulbs. More about this
later. I announced today that we will begin selling the battery swapper as a new
Renaissance product in two months. I'll put this up as preorder on the site
tomorrow for $1200. Jeff said he was almost beat up over all the interest in
this. We have been working with Jeff on several products lately.
Finally, I found the 'smoking gun' Jeff:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-12.html#post117738 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-12.html#post117738)
This is a direct quote from you:
QuoteAbsoulty this is big! I think folks are starting to get it, albeit slowly. Redrechie, thank you. Now for my viewpoint, we have for many years tried to illustrate there are better methods to produce energy and clean up our environment. Some of these methods still go not being noticed because they are not "Packaged" for the normal consumer. I was asked by some attendee's at the conference the very question of, "When can I buy and distribute this to the world". I had to answer with "This conference is to Teach this technology and if we give in to the status quo, then we are just repeating the very mess that we are in today". Let me explain, if we allow 1 or 2 corporations to secure the right s to these inventions and technology's, then we have just allowed ourselves to be held hostage AGAIN. But, if we teach the world to be able to create and use the free energy, at will and adapted for our own use, we finally can break free. Redrechie, you are right, just imagine your car with a 10 coiler in it as you pass the fueling stations AND the power pedestals for charging. We have shown all this is possible with just a few items at the conference. John's wheel producing over 1.5 million joules of energy, Rick driving a electric lawn mower plus his electric car, The 10 coiler running on its own power and Peter sharing (teaching) the secrets of the Lockridge device and Patrick's latest vid. All I can say is WOW and look out 2011.
Jeff
You got your quote. So what about your data to back up your claim?
MileHigh
Jeff,
You claimed your whole system was OU, don't pull this "the battery swapper is not OU BS"
I approached you on energetic forum because I have $20k to spend on a proven OU system.
It was your inability to answer the most basic questions about your setup which prompted me to not purchase the 10 coiler.
Either you have OU and your an idiot, or you don't have OU and your a FRAUD.
So which is it?
Ozy
P.S. Your actions are not helping OU research, they are making it harder for those of us who do believe it is possible.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.12, 17:48:11
Hi folks!
...
If there was any substance to the claims that pulse-charging a battery with "radiant energy" produced by sudden discharges produced more energy in the battery than was required to generate the pulses then why, oh why, do they need all the contraptions, ferris wheels, battery swappers, complex multiple coils and control electronics?
Why not a simple black box with two leads coming out that you just attach to any partially-charged battery and it takes in some energy and then returns it to the same battery in a pulsed fashion? If the theory they espouse actually worked, there is no obstacle to building battery chargers that were powered by the very battery they were charging! Take the root theory at the simplest form and directly implement it. No Rube Goldberg stuff.
...
Excellent point and questions.
In fact, this sort of "build" is easily and inexpensively accomplished.
Inductive Discharge (flyback) pulses are easily produced
and maximized. Their restorative effects upon the lead
acid battery are often quite amazing (desulfation.)
The "pushers" at the Forum in Question do tend to "milk it"
for all it's worth as they do their gigs with their sideshows.
Welcome!
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 04:52:32
Finally, I found the 'smoking gun' Jeff:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-12.html#post117738 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6516-renaissance-november-workshop-convention-12.html#post117738)
This is a direct quote from you:
You got your quote. So what about your data to back up your claim?
MileHigh
No smoking gun here. No where in here do I say the "Battery Swapper" is OU. I will stand on what I say, that "No one Device will produce OU, but it will take multiple Devices to that". Now Milehigh, you can quote me on this statement. You see, I have just clearly illustrated that you are the one, making your own assumptions and twisting what is really said. You should be a news reporter. You didn't even attend the conference, and I seriously doubt you'll attend the next, but if you want to speak as if you were there, why don't you stop misleading the folks and state that upfront. I demo'ed the 10 coiler running on its own for the whole conference but I still fail to see the quote you are referencing. You are only comfortable when you can spew out falsehoods on your own assumptions. You have built nothing, yet you speak as if your an expert. Two sides of the street here. Aussie, over at EF it was $10,000.00, now $20,000.00. Once again a lie, even exaggerated. You have no money to spend, else you would of spent it already. Enjoy your DEBATE club. It is clear that NO devices, OU or OTHERWISE will be invented here by you. Oh ya, almost forgot about the lawn mower statement, were you there to take the measurements of what energy was being recovered to make YOUR claim the lawn mower would eventually run down. More assumptions and spew. I was there, I wired it, I took measurements. Why don't you show up at the next, you might learn something.
Looks like we can add never ending sidestepping to bait & switch. ::)
Jeff you spend all day attacking us potential buyers on these forums, why?
Because we asked how you came to your conclusion?
Because we asked how you tested it and what the measurements were?
You are either an idiot or the worse sales rep for bedini co ever!
So whats your answer? "We are not worthy"
Get off your high horse, I only have one word to describe people who know how to make an OU device and are keeping it a secret... A&%HOLE!!!
You should be hanged when we hang bush, cheney & co.
With regard to your comment:
"Aussie, over at EF it was $10,000.00, now $20,000.00. Once again a lie, even exaggerated. You have no money to spend, else you would of spent it already."
Did it ever occur to you that I might have an interested neighbor now?
Did it ever occur to you that I, unlike you, require at least a shred of evidence before spending $5000 on a 'maybe free energy device' thats why I haven't spent it yet.
There are many words to describe you Jeff,
Fraud, Idiot, Victim, Egotist, Lier, Con Artist - We will let history decide.
Or,
Maybe you would like to spend your 'precious' time telling the world about your device and what tests you have conducted that lead you to believe that it is operating OU???
Ozy
Jeff:
You are clearly learning the art of deflection and diversion from John Bedini and Rick Friedrich. You demoed the 10-coiler running on batteries, not running "on it's own."
QuoteYou have built nothing, yet you speak as if your an expert.
I am more of an expert than you with respect to Bedini motors, that's for sure. Your statements about subtracting the voltage spike peak voltage from the supply battery voltage was your big downfall Jeff, clearly demonstrating that you are clueless with respect to how the 10-coiler actually works. You certainly know how to design an intelligent battery swapper, but you are out of your element when it comes to electronics and Bedini motors.
QuoteOh ya, almost forgot about the lawn mower statement, were you there to take the measurements of what energy was being recovered to make YOUR claim the lawn mower would eventually run down. More assumptions and spew. I was there, I wired it, I took measurements.
Yes, I know that the lawn mower will loose total battery energy while it runs even though you were there and you wired it and you took measurements. Something about the laws of thermodynamics comes into play there. Did you actually measure the power drain on the source battery bank and the charging power going into the charging battery bank? I seriously doubt it. Didn't I read that that project was finished off at the last minute? Has Rick been puttering around on a converted lawn mower that never needs recharging or is it just sitting in his garage waiting for a recharge so it can be brought out for the next conference? The whole deal with the lawn mower was nothing more than a cheap stunt.
In looking at your YouTube clips and reading your technical statements I have amassed enough information about you to do a decent job of qualifying you Jeff. You are fine programming microcontrollers and stuff like that but you are not truly competent it comes to real electronics but sometimes you can wing it. For you the 10-coiler is just something that you hook your battery swapper up to, you don't really understand the dynamics of how it works. In some of your YouTube clips you move your pointer around almost aimlessly and make feeble attempts to describe the circuitry. In my opinion, based on your inability to articulate what you were showing in your clips, most of "your circuits" were just a copy/paste from somewhere else, like a nice fat juicy listing of microcontroller app notes. You don't really and truly understand electronics, that's clear as a bell to me.
Meanwhile, you have read this thread and you know for sure that I know 10 times more about electronics than you do, but you will never admit that. You are definitely fully plugged into the "Bedini Zone" Jeff with all the personal comprises that implies. You have sold out.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 13:52:44
Jeff:
You are clearly learning the art of deflection and diversion from John Bedini and Rick Friedrich. You demoed the 10-coiler running on batteries, not running "on it's own."
I am more of an expert than you with respect to Bedini motors, that's for sure. Your statements about subtracting the voltage spike peak voltage from the supply battery voltage was your big downfall Jeff, clearly demonstrating that you are clueless with respect to how the 10-coiler actually works. You certainly know how to design an intelligent battery swapper, but you are out of your element when it comes to electronics and Bedini motors.
Yes, I know that the lawn mower will loose total battery energy while it runs even though you were there and you wired it and you took measurements. Something about the laws of thermodynamics comes into play there. Did you actually measure the power drain on the source battery bank and the charging power going into the charging battery bank? I seriously doubt it. Didn't I read that that project was finished off at the last minute? Has Rick been puttering around on a converted lawn mower that never needs recharging or is it just sitting in his garage waiting for a recharge so it can be brought out for the next conference? The whole deal with the lawn mower was nothing more than a cheap stunt.
In looking at your YouTube clips and reading your technical statements I have amassed enough information about you to do a decent job of qualifying you Jeff. You are fine programming microcontrollers and stuff like that but you are not truly competent it comes to real electronics but sometimes you can wing it. For you the 10-coiler is just something that you hook your battery swapper up to, you don't really understand the dynamics of how it works. In some of your YouTube clips you move your pointer around almost aimlessly and make feeble attempts to describe the circuitry. In my opinion, based on your inability to articulate what you were showing in your clips, most of "your circuits" were just a copy/paste from somewhere else, like a nice fat juicy listing of microcontroller app notes. You don't really and truly understand electronics, that's clear as a bell to me.
Meanwhile, you have read this thread and you know for sure that I know 10 times more about electronics than you do, but you will never admit that. You are definitely fully plugged into the "Bedini Zone" Jeff with all the personal comprises that implies. You have sold out.
MileHigh
Have a most enjoyable time on your arm chair.
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2011.01.13, 14:03:01
Have a most enjoyable time on your arm chair.
Awesome comeback Jeff!
I've built and extensively tested several Bedini devices over the last few years and can confidently say there is no OU to be had. Jeff is unlikely to have any real idea about the performance of his setup because he is probably frightened to run his very expensive setup until it drops, in the fear that his worst fears will be realised. Jeff has been hauled in by JB hook line and sinker, along with many others. Also the more complicated a system is, the harder it is to see the wood from the trees and this is a particular problem for Jeff's setup!
I have an artistic looking Bedini wheel energiser running in my workshop, which I look at from time to time to remind me of the huge amount of hours I have spent building and testing Bedini machines. I had a lot of fun in the process but am now relieved that after all this time I have proved to myself that it is not possible to get OU from batteries charged with systems built with Bedini energisers or other motor /generators . I suggest Jeff carefully studies the 'Puekert Effect' which explains why so many experimenters have been fooled into thinking that their batteries are delivering more energy to a load than was input into their systems.
Hoppy
In the context of the claims that the rotary mechanical output of the Bedini machines should be counted as part of the OU equation, I agree that this is foolish given an empty shaft without load. Being a nit-picker for proper terminology, I have heard several mentions of a "pony brake" to measure loaded mechanical shaft power.
The actual proper name for this is a DeProny Brake. It's not at all uncommon to see it mis-called; I have, in fact, never seen it given correctly in the various forums...I thought I'd set the record straight.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake
It is clear what Jeff has found himself in the middle of. He now has a significant expectation that he will be able to sell a lot of his battery switchers (which I'm sure work well for what they do) based on his "belief", however unfounded, that the remainder of this complicated system will provide a genuine useful free energy source. He is, as someone has already mentioned, deeply afraid of actually testing it now that he has invested so much time, money and effort and probably has developed a good amount of future expectation of profits, fame, whatever as well. Those things are hard to relinquish, and it is very much human nature to find some reasons to dismiss those who keep telling you to do some basic testing before getting too far invested if you are already way too far invested.
It is sad to watch someone doing this...their illogic and arrogance grows the deeper into hot water they swim. "Belief" becomes the battle-cry, "Insult" the weapon and, in the ensuing battle of ad hominem attacks, all logic and reason is forgotten by the faithful belivers. And all because they want to prolong their cozy and exciting delusions. As has been repeatedly suggested, a week or more of very simple "self-running" will cut the BS and end the debate. But this is the last thing the belivers want! It would ruin the delusion! It would show the sad truth that they have, once again, wasted huge resources, both tangible and emotional, on a false belief. Entirely typical, I'm afraid.
It should be clear to all observers that these tired bitter name-calling insultive arguments put forth by the OU-claiming believers who will not do the basic real-world tests are desperate face-saving efforts looking for any reason to avoid being honest with themselves. They are seeking money, fame and glory, not the answers to scientific dilemmas or the world's energy problems. If they were dedicated to the latter pursuits, it would be easy to admit when they were wrong and pursue a new approach. They would be eager to do all reasonable tests suggested. This has hardly been the case here.
Humbugger and Hoppy::
Humbugger thank you again for the great comments and thanks for the clarification on the DeProny Brake. Thanks also Hoppy for your comments about your real-world experimenting on Bedini motors. It backs up my "armchair" perspective. After watching a few hundred Bedini motor clips I knew that there was no point in me building one for myself.
I just checked on Google and this thread comes up within the first three pages of results if you are searching on "Bedini 10-coil." I think that it's fair to assume that anyone seriously considering buying a 10-coiler and battery swapper and other components to "power their house" will find this thread. They would be wise to read it!
Rick Friedrich claimed that he lost $50,000 putting on the November Renaissance workshop. They had about 300 people at $250 per head so that's $75,000. They had to rent a hall in a hotel in a relatively obscure town off the beaten track and I don't see their expenses being in the region of $125,000 to put on this event. This whole game is so crazy sometimes!
Rick and his associates are apparently eager now to "loose even more money" after the "financial disappointments" of the November workshop and are positively rushing to do it again! They are adding one extra day and upping the price from $250 per head to a cool $480 per head and they upped the capacity to 1000 people! They are looking for a "big score" to loose even more money!
QuoteRENAISSANCE CDA FREE ENERGY CONVENTION JULY 2011
A Convention giving people a chance to spend time with John Bedini and others of like-mind in actual Assembly and Discussion of Cutting Edge Alternative Energy Technology.
Focus is on:
* Practical and Efficient Alternative Energy Solutions,
* Quality Workshop building of such systems,
* Theory,
* How to run your vehicles on Bedini Technology and keep your Batteries.
Location: Coeur D'Alene Resort http://www.cdaresort.com See Tour of Resort
Date: Weekend of July 29, 30, 31.
Registration: 7:30-8:30AM July 29. Limit of 1000 persons. Payments must be made at least 3 months in advance of event. Register now as it may fill up by February.
Cost: $480 person. Send to:
Renaissance Charge, LLC
10183 N Aero Dr. Ste 3
Hayden, ID 83835
The July convention will be a clone of the November convention with a few extra tidbits thrown in. Can't forget "Revenge of the Lawn Mower" either...
MileHigh
I will do some speech to text transcribing on one of Rick Friedrich's latest YouTube clips about the "Renaissance Charge 2011 Free Energy Convention:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEAPkLsTfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEAPkLsTfg)
"This special announcement is brought to you by Renaissance Charge.
Have you ever wondered if you can make your car run in 100% electric power - for free? It is now possible.
How about a simple device that is a super-efficient motor and a free energy generator, at the same time? What if this could also be used to restore useless batteries and save you lots of money?
Because our customers asked for it we have organized a Renaissance Charge conference workshop on July 29th to July 31st at the beautiful Coeur d'Alene resort in Idaho.
Not only will you see these fascinating energizers but you will be able to build some alongside genius inventor John Bedini.
Participate in this truly historic event featuring our cutting-edge alternative energy Tesla technology....."
This is the free energy cottage industry in action.
We see the allegation that you can have an electric car running on free energy, presumably from "Bedini technology." That statement is an absolute lie.
Then there is the statement that a Bedini motor is a "free energy generator" which is another absolute lie.
This conference is an attempt to cash in on the fact that the November conference worked out for the Bedini group, and they are attempting to cash in and make an even bigger score. They think that they have some momentum, and they are trying to ride that wave.
It is highly doubtful that there will be anything new to "learn" at this conference in comparison to the November conference. I predict that people that attend both conferences will be very disappointed because the new conference will be a repeat of the November conference.
The most ironic thing about the whole deal is that people that attend this conference will not actually be taught how a Bedini motor works. They will not be taught that the battery energizes the main coil by applying voltage across the terminals of the coil, and the coil charges up like a standard RL circuit with an exponentially increasing current waveform. They will not be taught that when the coil discharges through the diode that the coil acts like a current source, which explains why you get high voltage spikes if the charging battery is not there as a load. They will not be taught that the energy stored in the coil came from the supply battery, and then when the coil discharges into the charging battery is transfers the supply battery's energy into the charging battery less the losses.
So, I predict the attendees that leave the July conference will have no more understanding about the core energy concepts that explain how a Bedini motor works as compared to before they attend the conference. And that, my friends, is the free energy cottage industry in action.
It's a deplorable farce, a cynical attempt to cash-in on the "Bedini phenomenon" by making false claims about the "technology."
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.22, 19:25:02
...
It is highly doubtful that there will be anything new to "learn" at this conference in comparison to the November conference. I predict that people that attend both conferences will be very disappointed because the new conference will be a repeat of the November conference.
The most ironic thing about the whole deal is that people that attend this conference will not actually be taught how a Bedini motor works. They will not be taught that the battery energizes the main coil by applying voltage across the terminals of the coil, and the coil charges up like a standard RL circuit with an exponentially increasing current waveform. They will not be taught that when the coil discharges through the diode that the coil acts like a current source, which explains why you get high voltage spikes if the charging battery is not there as a load. They will not be taught that the energy stored in the coil came from the supply battery, and then when the coil discharges into the charging battery is transfers the supply battery's energy into the charging battery less the losses.
So, I predict the attendees that leave the July conference will have no more understanding about the core energy concepts that explain how a Bedini motor works as compared to before they attend the conference. And that, my friends, is the free energy cottage industry in action.
It's a deplorable farce, a cynical attempt to cash-in on the "Bedini phenomenon" by making false claims about the "technology."
MileHigh
What the inexperienced "Noob/Noobie/Nooby" may learn at
such a "conference" will not "sink in" until quite some time
afterwards. It's not quite as instantly felt as "buyers
remorse."
When infected with the "zeal" and the "hope" all normal
skepticism is overwhelmed. It's somewhat akin to what
is felt with "love" or "lust" or "infatuation."
It will take a string of disappointments for those now
infected to finally come to appreciate the wisdom you've
laid out here...
A deceived mind is very resistant to common sense as it
defends the deception.
Whoever it was that said "No Pain - No Gain" truly did
understand.
I propose a UBOT-- Unified Bedini Output Test
Decide on a specific industry standard battery. Same brand. New. Conventially charged. Note its specific gravity. Connect a one amp light to it. Draw it down for so many Amp-Hours. Note its specific gravity. Recharge it conventially until starting specific gravity is reached.
Attach it to a Bedini 10 coiler of any design. Charge as many batteries (same brand as original) as permitted until the previously annotated low specific gravity is reached on the host battery, with each destination battery (one or more) reaches the high specific gravity identical to the host battery.
Test B. Attach a fully charged Bedinized identical specific gravity battery to the same 10 coiler as host battery and note how many (one at least hopefully) destination batteries reach the standard high specific gravity figure by the time the Bedinized battery reaches its low specific gravity figure.
Test C. Draw this battery down with a one amp light and note how many amp hours until it again reaches its low specific gravity figure.
Also come up with a Standardized Load Test.
Confoger:
Tests based on specific gravity of the electrolyte also have merit. It's not something that I personally am familiar with. It's highly doubtful that a fully-charged battery can even fully charge a single fully discharged battery on the far side of the 10-coiler because the current assumption is that roughly 70% of the source battery energy is lost in powering the 10-coiler and only 30% of the energy makes it into the charging battery. This simple fact can be masked by the use of misdirection. If you only look at the voltages of the target charging batteries then one source battery can bring up the voltages of several charging batteries so it appears that they are fully charged. Certainly looking at the specific gravity of the charging batteries would show that they are far from fully charged.
To date, we have no data at all about the 10-coiler's performance in a scenario where you take one source battery and attempt to charge multiple depleted charging batteries. They only thing that exists is hearsay that alleges this can be done.
MileHigh
I will research Industry Standard Battery Manufacturers tests. There must be a "Battery Council' out there.
I just want something agreed upon so this site can finish with the Nattering Nabob thang.
By the way I won't be going to the next Conference. If there is a cross the boards conference somewhere I would be interested, and no, I don't want to go on the little boat out on the lake. I want to meet the scientists of the New Breed.
O.K. here are some preliminary findings. There are LOTS of sites with info. One called the "Battery University." I have years of experience with batteries in the Automotive industry. I have a battery just like the guy that designed the Space Shuttle. I even have the same battery as the president of the united states. My battery is bigger then most college professors! My battery is bigger than Hugh Hefner's!!
But I digress. Batteries are handy as a scientific tool because if the temperature is the same and the weight of lead is the same and the volume of sulfuric acid is the same one can arrive at a Constant. Just like they agreeded upon Horsepower (how much bullcrap from these rants could one horse pull one lightyear.)
I worked a long time at a Chrome plating plant. It is the same in any electrolysis process that an Anode and a Cathode, positive and negative item is placed in a soup of sulfuric acid or somesuch, in the case of nickle plating you aquire Nickle Sulphate. In batteries you have Lead Sulphate. Fully charged (1.265 reading specific gravity) you will get a reading due to the condition of the sulphuric acid. Scratch my head here I believe a specific gravity reading of 0.00 is water- the Constant. A fully discharged battery will now contain Hydrogen Peroxide.
Automotive starters cause the plating (ion transfer) to jump across in big globs- not smooth. Then the Alternator kicks in and more big globs the other way. This is why I believe the discharge test should happen at 1 Amp because it is smooth and batteries are rated at Amp Hours- One Amp produced for 200 say hours. The "Battery University" site points out that batteries need 12-16 hours to achieve full charge and speak about charging at vaariable rates. So: full 1.265 3/4 charge: 1.230 1/2: 1.200. See the sign it says NEWBIE so I welcome correction from any of you eggheads. Love 'Ya Buddy!
In five days it will be one year since the uploading of the "OFFICIAL BEDINI 10 COIL KIT INFOMERCIAL" clip shown above.
The question of the hour is has anyone out there done a project with the 10-coiler that they would like to share with us now that it's one year since the kit became available?
Some people on the EF are still doing some preliminary experimenting with their 10-coilers and I will patiently wait to see if they have any interesting results. Our friend Jeff, a.k.a. "Bit's-and-Bytes" uses a 10-coiler with his battery swapping system but unfortunately there is no data forthcoming from him about his system.
Anybody out there that has a 10-coiler and wants to discuss it here is welcome.
MileHigh
Well, another visit back to my old friend the good old 10-coiler. It's been more than a year since this device have been made available. My gut feeling is that Rick Friedrich has sold six or less units over the past year. There is a small active group on the Energetic Forum still discussing this device. I think most of the early participants in that thread have all moved on.
I'll lay down the challenge again: Any of the EF participants are welcome to come here and discuss your 10-coiler or regular Bedini motor.
So a few comments for what it's worth, responding to Plazma's posting:
QuoteGreetings and thanks for the interesting questions. I can only respond by stating what I am doing.
1. Sweet Spot(s) - R Friedrich has stated specifically that there are at least 2 sweet spots ref the 10-coiler - one easy to find and one that is more hidden but can give exceptional performance. One assumes that the higher the speed and lower the amp draw the more efficient the charging but that depends on the charging battery. Testing time will tell. 1 amp per coil, to me, is a rough cut because the system is dominated by the charging battery dynamics and, to a degree, by the flywheel effects of a) the rotor, and b) the whirling magnetic vortex. Good (meaning great) bearings have a big effect ref a) and materials of construction (and rotor gap, even the phase of the moon) has an effect on b). And then there is the decision about what do I want? A motor, a generator, or both?! These all interact. I'm working to characterize the switching and trigger dynamics on my 10-coiler as a start to develop meaningful insight (for me) to answer my own questions. This involves building a fair amount of test equipment.
I don't believe Rick Friedrich when he says that there are two sweet spots. What you really want to do is make your own measurements of average power in and average power out to characterize the device. I know that's a radical concept, actually measuring the input and output power, but I hold out hope that one day somebody will step up to the plate and actually do that most basic of all measurements.
QuoteOne assumes that the higher the speed and lower the amp draw the more efficient the charging but that depends on the charging battery.
Your assumptions here would have to be checked with real measurements. The charging battery will not have any effect on the the charging itself.
Quotethe system is dominated by the charging battery dynamics and, to a degree, by the flywheel effects of a) the rotor, and b) the whirling magnetic vortex.
I don't really know what you mean by "charging battery dynamics." What do you mean by "flywheel effects of the rotor?" There is no "whirling magnetic vortex." That looks like a classic example of self-invention. Seriously, where exactly is the whirling magnetic vortex and why does it whirl?
Quoteeven the phase of the moon
Not a chance in hell. That comment is ridiculous.
QuoteI'm working to characterize the switching and trigger dynamics on my 10-coiler as a start to develop meaningful insight (for me) to answer my own questions. This involves building a fair amount of test equipment.
Looking forward to seeing the test equipment. You really should read this thread and the Bedini measurements thread to give you some ideas for test equipment.
MileHigh
More commenting on Plazma's posting:
Quote2. Inverters - They have capacitors on their front end inputs - its my understanding that capacitors transform the negative radiant into hot, positive energy. Cap pulsing a charging battery keeps that battery in the so-called 'positive energy' domain - however, the sharp pulsations can induce desirable effects internal to the battery - so, I have a large cap pulser under construction to interface between my 10-coilers output and the charging batteries to help test out and quantify such interface performance, and do so on a large scale, irrespective whether the front end amp draw is 2 amps or 10 amps, or whatever.
The "negative radiant into hot, positive energy" stuff is absolute nonsense. You are welcome to come here to understand why.
Converting the current pulses from your 10-coiler into voltage pulses is rather ironic. It would be another interesting discussion if you signed up here and we could explore this further.
Quote2. Battery Impedance - just what is it (0.002 ohm ref the Tesla Switch Thread), is it a static value, or does it change with the degree of charge and the METHOD of charge that the load battery is subjected to? How about lets all devise a standard test that everyone can agree to and get busy building and testing? What are the measurement standards? How many pure resistive ohms does the battery beast have? How many milliHenries does it demonstrate and at what frequency, and how many Farads does it exhibit and, again, at what frequency? Is it a negistor - show me the numbers and what the conditions are that are conducive to negistor behaviour - and be sure to measure and publish the plate thickness, plate surface area, and plate porosity for every cell in the battery while your at it . . . a very tough and expensive job. No pat answers to this one - just hints.
Batteries don't possess the properties of inductance and capacitance when you look at them under their normal operating conditions. This is a grave error that I have read many times on the forums. Your questions about frequency for any alleged capacitive and inductive battery effects is misplaced at best. It's a long story if you want to get very precise but I am pretty sure I know where you are coming from with respect to that question and it's all wrong.
Plazma, you have some wrong preconceptions and a lot to learn if you want to understand your 10-coiler. I could offer you and the others some help but it would have to be done on this forum.
MileHigh
Bits & Bytes appears to have gone to ground on this one.
Hoppy
I agree Hoppy. Jeff is certainly one of the "high profile" 10-coiler owners but he has had very little to say for several months. You can't forget the half-dozen or so pretty basic questions that he has been asked multiple times that he has chosen to ignore. I also doubt that he has sold a single battery swapper at the price of $1200 USD.
I can envision the upcoming July Renaissance conference getting a lot of tepid and even poor reviews. This would especially be the case for the people that attended the conference last November. For a three-day conference they are charging almost double the price. It's basically going to be a repeat of the November conference that will have to be stretched out over three days. If there are more attendees then they will get less individual attention. Naturally they will burn off a whole day getting a bunch of grown men to assemble little Bedini motor kits.
And of course nobody will actually be be taught how a Bedini motor really works. The big Ferris Wheel thing will be there turning slowly but there will be no specifications or performance numbers for it and nobody will know what it is really supposed to do.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.16, 05:28:06
I agree Hoppy. Jeff is certainly one of the "high profile" 10-coiler owners but he has had very little to say for several months. You can't forget the half-dozen or so pretty basic questions that he has been asked multiple times that he has chosen to ignore. I also doubt that he has sold a single battery swapper at the price of $1200 USD.
I can envision the upcoming July Renaissance conference getting a lot of tepid and even poor reviews. This would especially be the case for the people that attended the conference last November. For a three-day conference they are charging almost double the price. It's basically going to be a repeat of the November conference that will have to be stretched out over three days. If there are more attendees then they will get less individual attention. Naturally they will burn off a whole day getting a bunch of grown men to assemble little Bedini motor kits.
And of course nobody will actually be be taught how a Bedini motor really works. The big Ferris Wheel thing will be there turning slowly but there will be no specifications or performance numbers for it and nobody will know what it is really supposed to do.
MileHigh
Still quite comfortable in your arm chair I see MileHile. I haven't had much to say because I have been very busy building devices. You might want to take a look at the new Rejuvenator. No it's not OU, but it does a very nice job on restoring heavily sulfated batteries. You may want to purchase one. Oh but you wouldn't know how to do that, build that is. You hide behind a stage name, sit in your arm chair and spew all kinds of garbage. You are truly a piece of work. Grow up man. Man up, tell us who you are really are. We already know that you cannot build any device that you want to so joyfully bash. Is it because you are a failure and therefore want to see everyone else fail? In your own words, you cannot forget the half dozen questions I asked you about YOU building these devices. It's clear you are a cowered and can only hide behind a forum to spew out your garbage. You may gain some respect if you practice what you preach. Build, test, and report. That is what you are asking everyone else to do. Once again and in your own words (that you told Lawrence) the proof is on your shoulders and only your shoulders. So get out of your ARM Chair, tell us who you really are and build something. If you cannot do these basic things, then just shut the fuck up!
Jeff,
It's just more of the same hot air from you. I am not making any claims and I am certainly not spewing any garbage. You are the one making the claims and spewing the garbage. You hide behind your "I'm a builder and you're not!" argument which is a joke. What I do have to say comes from honest conviction and I stand by it.
You are the one building stuff and making the claims and I am the one asking you questions about your claims. That's the way the world works but you can't seem to cope with that fact. If I was the one building stuff and making claims and you were the one asking the questions I would certainly try to answer them. So there is your big FAIL Jeff. What I would be prepared to do if I was in your shoes you cower and hide away from.
And because it's a big FAIL you try to hide that fact by repeatedly saying that I am not building stuff as if that makes any difference. It DOESN'T make any difference and the unanswered questions remain. I'll be watching in July to see if any more unsubstantiated claims are made about your stuff and the rest of the stuff presented at the conference.
The person that has lost respect is you. It's not about me shutting the f@#k up, it's all about you speaking the f@#k up and growing up!
MileHigh
If any of Bedini's devices or replications produces radiant energy, radiant electricity, or anything remotely related to that, then you will be able to detect the charge-inducing products. The simplest detectors are shown in Tesla's Radiant Energy Patents: U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.16, 16:20:15
Jeff,
It's just more of the same hot air from you. I am not making any claims and I am certainly not spewing any garbage. You are the one making the claims and spewing the garbage. You hide behind your "I'm a builder and you're not!" argument which is a joke. What I do have to say comes from honest conviction and I stand by it.
You are the one building stuff and making the claims and I am the one asking you questions about your claims. That's the way the world works but you can't seem to cope with that fact. If I was the one building stuff and making claims and you were the one asking the questions I would certainly try to answer them. So there is your big FAIL Jeff. What I would be prepared to do if I was in your shoes you cower and hide away from.
And because it's a big FAIL you try to hide that fact by repeatedly saying that I am not building stuff as if that makes any difference. It DOESN'T make any difference and the unanswered questions remain. I'll be watching in July to see if any more unsubstantiated claims are made about your stuff and the rest of the stuff presented at the conference.
The person that has lost respect is you. It's not about me shutting the f@#k up, it's all about you speaking the f@#k up and growing up!
MileHigh
Once again you have failed to answer the question. Here, I will restate it, WHO ARE YOU? Real name please, credentials, etc. I have shown you mine, my work and my inventions. So Man Up, stop deflecting.
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2011.02.16, 16:40:07
Once again you have failed to answer the question. Here, I will restate it, WHO ARE YOU? Real name please, credentials, etc. I have shown you mine, my work and my inventions. So Man Up, stop deflecting.
I've already posted a few times on the site that I am not revealing my name. That's my right and my choice. That's not deflecting. I have seen a few postings over the years by whackadoos on the forums stating that they are armed to the teeth and prepared to fight to the death if the MIB does a raid to capture their experimental apparatus. I am not putting myself in potential danger by exposing myself to any possible nutcases out there.
When Bedini alleges that he has been roughed up by the MIB or when he said this about the Ferris Wheel thing, "I was offered mucho money to sell this machine and shut up, I will not take it. as I think it is very important for others to do it," I think that he is lying. Bedini has never demonstrated over unity and nobody in government cares about him. The real danger out there is from the armed and rabid free energy whackadoos.
So no deflection, the only real outstanding issues relate to all of the basic questions about your setup that were never answered by you. I will quote you, "Redrechie, you are right, just imagine your car with a 10 coiler in it as you pass the fueling stations AND the power pedestals for charging.
We have shown all this is possible with just a few items at the conference."
You have not shown this is possible Jeff. You have never presented a single shred of data to support this claim. The 10-coiler is an under unity device and will never be able to power a house or power a car. It's a lie that you in conjunction with Rick Friedrich alleged was true at the November conference with the little computer animation showing a 10-coiler in the basement of a house swapping back and forth between two battery banks. The clip is still there on Rick's YouTube channel.
MileHigh
If any of Bedini's devices or replications produces radiant energy, radiant electricity, or anything remotely related to that, then you will be able to detect the charge-inducing products.
The simplest detectors are shown in Tesla's Radiant Energy Patents: U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.16, 16:58:55
I've already posted a few times on the site that I am not revealing my name. That's my right and my choice. That's not deflecting. I have seen a few postings over the years by whackadoos on the forums stating that they are armed to the teeth and prepared to fight to the death if the MIB does a raid to capture their experimental apparatus. I am not putting myself in potential danger by exposing myself to any possible nutcases out there.
When Bedini alleges that he has been roughed up by the MIB or when he said this about the Ferris Wheel thing, "I was offered mucho money to sell this machine and shut up, I will not take it. as I think it is very important for others to do it," I think that he is lying. Bedini has never demonstrated over unity and nobody in government cares about him. The real danger out there is from the armed and rabid free energy whackadoos.
So no deflection, the only real outstanding issues relate to all of the basic questions about your setup that were never answered by you. I will quote you, "Redrechie, you are right, just imagine your car with a 10 coiler in it as you pass the fueling stations AND the power pedestals for charging. We have shown all this is possible with just a few items at the conference."
You have not shown this is possible Jeff. You have never presented a single shred of data to support this claim. The 10-coiler is an under unity device and will never be able to power a house or power a car. It's a lie that you in conjunction with Rick Friedrich alleged was true at the November conference with the little computer animation showing a 10-coiler in the basement of a house swapping back and forth between two battery banks. The clip is still there on Rick's YouTube channel.
MileHigh
Well there you have it then! A cowered at best. Well within your right to NOT PRODUCE any credintials to back up your claim of a expert, But until you can, you are still a fake in my book so don't ask anyone else to produce.
End of discussion.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.02.16, 17:06:39
If any of Bedini's devices or replications produces radiant energy, radiant electricity, or anything remotely related to that, then you will be able to detect the charge-inducing products.
The simplest detectors are shown in Tesla's Radiant Energy Patents: U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy.
I am not going to get into a big argument with you Grumpy but there is no such thing as radiant energy or radiant electricity the way the terms are bandied about on the free energy forums. A discharging coil sure as hell isn't radiant energy or radiant electricity even though Bedini and his ilk state that all the time. It's all part of the game of conditioning and creating expectations within people that want to believe in free energy. When you create those expectations in people, they are more likely to spend their hard-earned money on Bedini motors.
MileHigh
Quote from: Bits-n-Bytes on 2011.02.16, 17:18:53
Well there you have it then! A cowered at best. Well within your right to NOT PRODUCE any credintials to back up your claim of a expert, But until you can, you are still a fake in my book so don't ask anyone else to produce.
End of discussion.
Total bullshit on your part Jeff. My postings are my credentials and all that you have to do is read what I posted in the Bedini threads here and my credentials will speak for themselves. Nor am I claiming to be an expert but I have a decent background in electronics and a good foundation with respect to energy issues.
You are just pathetically trying a straw man argument on me and it's not going to work.
It doesn't take that many postings to establish your credibility and by the same token it doesn't take that many postings to ruin your credibility.
You ruined your credibility with the nonsensical posting about the voltage spikes and you are the coward because you won't try to answer the basic questions that were put to you about your setup. You are either afraid to answer them or you are afraid to admit that you don't have the electronics knowledge to answer them.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.16, 17:21:28
I am not going to get into a big argument with you Grumpy but there is no such thing as radiant energy or radiant electricity the way the terms are bandied about on the free energy forums. A discharging coil sure as hell isn't radiant energy or radiant electricity even though Bedini and his ilk state that all the time. It's all part of the game of conditioning and creating expectations within people that want to believe in free energy. When you create those expectations in people, they are more likely to spend their hard-earned money on Bedini motors.
MileHigh
So, um, what is a nuclear battery then? They produce radiation, particles and/or photons, and this induces and electric output in the metal elements of the battery. They are popular for satellites.
Isn't this a legitimate "radiant energy" device?
If any d Bedini's devices or methods produce RE, then you should be able to detect it. I am meerly suggesting an alternate means to test the devices. Tesla clearly shows in the patents that RE is detectable, and also illustrates several sources for comparison.
You can test your detector with a spark gap, as Tesla suggest, and then probe a Bedini device with your RE detector. A null result suggest that no RE is present or that it is below detection threshold. With a little work you can develop one that is very sensitive.
You could build a detector that lights an LED with the charge induced by the RE. The LED will blink as the charge is collected and discharged through the LED.
You do know what no detected RE means. You could fashion the detector into a small pen and probe devices at shows. It would give interested people with good intentions a way to sort out what is real and what is fake. This way they don't get duped.
Hell, I need a few of these myself. My detector attaches to a VTVM and not exactly cheap or small.
EDIT:
A small neon or similar hv lighted device may be better than an LED, or use the collected output to trigger a device.
Following are a few ideas for detection. I have not tried them or had time to look at their sensitivity.
http://www.negativeiongenerators.com/iondetector.html
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/natsci/faculty/zitzewitz/curie/p360/Camera/FlashBulb.htm
a neon tube indicator:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qIXmNQUWw9UJ:www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp%3Fnumber%3DZEROSTATB+positive+ion+indicator+neon&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Biasing a neon tube is pretty easy.
EDIT:
http://www.mysticmarvels.com/iondetector.html
Grumpy:
When Tesla made those various detectors, what he called a "radiant energy" detector was an electromagnetic wave detector of some form. Of course every Bedini motor produces electromagnetic waves when it runs, as does just about any other electrical device that you can imagine. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that the term "radiant energy" in the late 19th century really meant electromagnetic energy.
But the problem lies when a Bedini enthusiast talks about the "radiant energy" being used to charge a battery. That's complete nonsense. The current spike from the discharging inductor goes into the battery, and that's not "radiant energy." When the current spike is generated, perhaps 0.00000001% of the energy in that current spike gets transformed into electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the Bedini motor in all directions. That's your "radiant energy." It's insignificant and you ignore it in the case of a Bedini motor. You don't ignore it if you are concerned about interfering with local radio, television, and cell phone communications.
I will fine tune my earlier point: In the vast majority of the cases, there is no such thing as "radiant energy" or "radiant electricity" the way the terms are bandied about on the free energy forums. If people want to be more precise and qualify their statements about "radiant energy" then that's great. However, when John Bedini himself talks about "radiant energy" he is talking nonsense. It's an invented or bastardized term that does not mean anything in the real world. It's all part of a process to condition people's thinking like I said before. It's the art of misusing language to mislead and deceive people.
MileHigh
As you may have noticed, Jeff (Bits-n-Bytes), does not
handle challenging questions or criticism well.
It is truly unfortunate that Jeff and several of his cohorts
seem to lack the emotional maturity which would lead
to meaningful discourse.
I support your efforts MileHigh to get to the truth in all
of these matters.
Hopefully, in time, Jeff and his "gang" will "grow up" and
learn to speak with integrity.
While the discussions at Aaron's RE Forum do serve a
useful and potentially valuable purpose with respect to
the aspiring experimenters, it is very strange that the
few who tend to interject too much truth are cut-off or
banned from continued input. Or, is it too much criticism
of the "shady merchandisers" which results in the being
cut-off?
Jeff is desperately grasping for some hold onto higher
ground with his continued demands to "identify yourself!"
Childish scoundrel-ism!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding the nature of what has come to be known as
Radiant Energy:
Radio Frequency Pulses
Extremely sharp pulses with a spectrum extending into
the MHz range and beyond.
RFI or EMI
Very sharp high voltage pulses are capable of readily
accomplishing certain electrochemical effects/changes
which are otherwise difficult or impossible.
Grumpy:
I am looking at your links. I have no idea why you would consider an air ion detector as a "radiant energy" detector. It just detects ions in the air. Why would you equate ions with "radiant energy?" That's an illustration of the point I just made about the term being misused and as a result planting false ideas in people's minds. When you wave your arms about in the air, that creates ions in the air. Is that "radiant energy?"
Your neon tube indicator:
QuoteIon-Indicator: This test device has been included to indicate that there is a release of ions when the Milty Pro Zerostat3 is in use. Insert the Ion-indicator in the nose of the Zerostat and then slowly squeeze the release trigger. The Ion-indicator (neon tube) gently glows (recommend testing in a dimly lit room).
It looks to me like the stream of let's say negative ions in the air is hitting one of the leads of the neon tube. Some of the negative ions are giving up their excess electrons on one of the leads of the neon tube. Let's suppose the other lead of the neon tube is connected to the body of the ion generator that's in your hand. A small electric current can be set up to flow like this and the neon tube will glow. The glowing is telling you that as the small amount of current flows through the tube that there is a voltage drop across the tube and this represents power being burned off in the tube. Some of that power being burned off becomes heat and some of it becomes light. This has nothing to do with "radiant energy," it is all based on conventional current flow.
MileHigh
Dumped:
Thanks for your comments. I didn't want to get nasty but I have to stand my ground with Jeff if he talks tough about me. Like you said, the real intention is to establish a meaningful discourse. I don't know why nobody on the other forums will ask the pretty straightforward questions that I have asked. All I know is that they need to be asked and they should be asked.
Going back to "radiant energy," interestingly enough, there is also the term "ionizing radiation." That's when a device produces electromagnetic radiation that is so intense that it can strip electrons off of matter just like that. It's associated with some nuclear processes that generate very intense gamma radiation. I read about it when I decided to refresh myself and I looked up something like "alpha, beta, and gamma radiation" and had a good read. I suppose that you can say that it's slightly related to ordinary run-of-the-mill ions in the air. However, the ions in the air are mostly produced by mechanical friction between the air molecules themselves moving past each other and the air molecules moving past solid objects. Don't quote me on this stuff and look it up to get the real story if you want.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.16, 21:04:20
Grumpy:
When Tesla made those various detectors, what he called a "radiant energy" detector was an electromagnetic wave detector of some form. Of course every Bedini motor produces electromagnetic waves when it runs, as does just about any other electrical device that you can imagine. The thing that you have to keep in mind is that the term "radiant energy" in the late 19th century really meant electromagnetic energy.
But the problem lies when a Bedini enthusiast talks about the "radiant energy" being used to charge a battery. That's complete nonsense. The current spike from the discharging inductor goes into the battery, and that's not "radiant energy." When the current spike is generated, perhaps 0.00000001% of the energy in that current spike gets transformed into electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the Bedini motor in all directions. That's your "radiant energy." It's insignificant and you ignore it in the case of a Bedini motor. You don't ignore it if you are concerned about interfering with local radio, television, and cell phone communications.
I will fine tune my earlier point: In the vast majority of the cases, there is no such thing as "radiant energy" or "radiant electricity" the way the terms are bandied about on the free energy forums. If people want to be more precise and qualify their statements about "radiant energy" then that's great. However, when John Bedini himself talks about "radiant energy" he is talking nonsense. It's an invented or bastardized term that does not mean anything in the real world. It's all part of a process to condition people's thinking like I said before. It's the art of misusing language to mislead and deceive people.
MileHigh
Radiant energy is nothing more than a radial projection of particles or photons, i.e. radiation.
Tesla's detectors, are not EM wave detectors and this assumption has kept many people in the dark on this subject for far too long. His detectors are charged particle detectors, as he states in his patents. Charged particles create some intersting effects in various materials.
If any device, by any inventor, produces true "radiant energy", then is will be indicated by a detector. Read Tesla's explanation in his patents.
Has anyone ever used any sort of ion detecor near a Bedini device purported to produce RE? If your particle detection attempts are null, then how can the device be producing RE?
I'm talking about a definitive test that anyone can perform to sort out fact and fiction in these devices.
Hi,
MH have a read of the thread 'discharge effects' on 'teslas inductive discharge' tag and get the coil made that I constructed. The bedini enthusiasts would love it.
Still unsure of the 'radiation' that it produced but it the term 'radiant energy' got a whole new meaning from me.
Then they can feel this radiant energy for themselves.....
It's definately cool to be near.
maybe then they will stop the hype thats so entertaining and listen to the truth.
Good to see you still trying to educate them..
Steve.
Quote from: szaxx on 2011.02.18, 22:56:08
Hi,
MH have a read of the thread 'discharge effects' on 'teslas inductive discharge' tag and get the coil made that I constructed. The bedini enthusiasts would love it.
...
Steve.
You'll find the above referenced discussion HERE. (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=35.msg970#msg970)
I'm going to respond to some issues raised on the other "channel."
QuoteOriginally Posted by Littleremnant View Post
Hey Bits,
Thanks for the reply. I am running an 8 coiler with 175 ft of wire
and individual triggers. I have been running this thing for probably
3 years at every current setting you could dream up and still
have a sort of fluffy charge. I have never been able to get anyone
to talk about the tuning until this page. John always said in all his
posts to run all multi-coils at 1 amp per coil, so I have always
tried to get around there.
I have 3 sets of fairly new golf cart batteries (four in series) X 3
and one old set(not yet) conditioned, apparently along with 10
deep cycle marines, that has been cycling for about 2 years +. They
do hold some charge, but not the sort of thing that John talks about
(doubling) in capacity. I have been running them on 8 amps for the
last couple of weeks, but I think that may be a bit much. I am going
to turn it down, and see what happens.
By the way, I can sort of tell the difference in capacity by the new
batteries that I have added to these banks. The new ones run forever
before going down in capacity.
I just thought you guys might have some suggestions. I am getting
tired of cycling.
Jeff's reply:
QuoteOk, here is my first clue, you are running seperate triggers for the coils. This would place the passing magnets not at the right spots. I would work to bring this in to a more conventional setup 10-Coiler type of setup with a single trigger. You should never be at a value greater than 3 amp input draw when the supply is 24-36V. This would indicate that your base resistance is not right and your trannies are turning on way to hard. What size of wire is your coils wound with? 18 - 23AWG works the best. 175ft is fine. What core material are you using? Can you post pic's?
Thanks
Bit's
For Littleremnant:
There is no simple answer to the questions that you raised. Perhaps some of your batteries are old or they are simply no good anymore. Charging them with inductive current spikes from your Bedini motor may not help, the process is not a miracle fix-all for all batteries. I suggest that you read this thread and the Bedini measurement thread it their entirety. You will find out that you want to measure how much energy you put into your batteries during a charging cycle and how that can be compared with a measurement of how much energy you can get out of them. In addiction, when you quote amps of charging, you are not talking the charging waveform into account. You really want to look at the waveforms associated with your Bedini motor to know what is really going on.
For Jeff:
I can't disagree with you about going with the single trigger, but it all depends on how Littleremnant is implementing his individual triggers. Hopefully he will explain that soon. There are big downsides with going with a single trigger. The coil has to try to turn on a whopping 72 transistors at the same time. As a result you need a big ugly humongous 10-watt base resistor. I view the whole triggering method for the 10-coiler as just being a kludge where apparently nobody thought about the complications that would arise when you went from a trigger coil turning on a single transistor to essentially the same trigger coil now trying to turn on 72 transistors. Certainly there are way better ways to do the triggering and transistor switching for the 10-coiler and I describe them in detail in this thread.
QuoteYou should never be at a value greater than 3 amp input draw when the supply is 24-36V. This would indicate that your base resistance is not right and your trannies are turning on way to hard.
You are talking about the motor drawing 3 amps of current. Again, it's worth it to mention that that's just the average current consumption. What you really want to do is look at the current waveform. Right now we have no idea how long the coils are on and for how many time constants they are on. This is critical because if they are on for too many time constants then all of the driver coils are just burning energy resistively past a few time constants. It's a shame that this level of discussion never takes place on the Energetic Forum 10-coiler thread.
Your comment about the "trannies (are) turning on way to hard" is where you are showing your serious limitations when it comes to electronics Jeff. You don't know what you are saying here so let me explain things for you. You want the transistors to switch on "hard" to borrow your terminology. The right way to say it is that you want the transistors to be switched on fully, you don't want them operating in partial conduction mode, that's a big no-no. You almost seem to be implying that they should be operating in partial conduction mode to limit the current draw from the battery, which would be wrong.
The real issue controlling the current draw is how long the transistors are switched on for each cycle, and the pulse repetition rate which is governed by how fast the rotor is turning. The transistors are ONLY supposed to operate in switching mode. To ensure that the transistors operate in switching mode you have to be sure that the base current is at least a certain minimum value.
In a nutshell it's all about the timing of the switching cycle, and saying "your trannies are turning on way to hard" doesn't even make sense. Because the timing setup for the 10-coiler is so crude you might have to play with the base resistance and the positioning of the pick-up coil to find a sweet spot where the transistors operate in switching mode and the length of the pulse is not too long. That's a hard thing to do with the limitations inherent in the basic design. Again, in this thread and possibly also in the Bedini measurement thread there is a fair amount of discussion about options to upgrade the timing mechanicsm for the motor to overcome these limitations.
MileHigh
From Littleremnant:
QuoteHey Bits,
Thanks so much for taking this much time with me. I haven't had good luck
getting questions answered, so I haven't posted much.
I did try to go with a single trigger, but when I went down to 100 ohm bases,
my tranny's started getting hot. Maybe 100 was to low. I tried something this
weekend that may have answered my own question on this. I went away for
the weekend and didn't want to run my batts down, so I pulled all but 3 coils,
and left them running for the last two days. When I cycled back the other way
tonight the batteries seem a lot stronger. Maybe I have been pushing them
too hard. I turned my machine way down tonight, and it still seems to be
charging pretty good.
By the way, my coils are 26 trigger and 23 X 4. The machine is set up perfect
for all the coils to trigger at the exact moment. I am also using the welding rod
for cores. I really think I have just been pushing them too hard, and also maybe
pulling too hard too. I am cutting down all the way around and I think that may
solve THAT problem.
I have more questions, but have found if I ask them one at a time, they don't get
buried in the past.
Thx Bits
It sounds like your transistors may have gotten hot because you pumped too much base current into them. It's hard to say though, this would have to be confirmed with measurements. Too much base current will simply burn off power inside your transistors and perform no useful function.
If you are reading this, do you actually do useful work with your Bedini motor? It almost sounds like you just swap the batteries back and forth but I of couse can't be sure.
Fell free to join this forum if you want to try some of your questions here.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.21, 02:36:32
I'm going to respond to some issues raised on the other "channel."
Jeff's reply:
MileHigh
Once again, At least this guy has built one and is experimenting. MORE than you have done. Look MileHigh, you are truly MileHigh and full of Shit. You speak from your arm chair. This guy, amongst others have built this machine. I concede, this gents machine is not exactly as the 10 coiler, but none the less "Has built the machine". So in retrospect, you can't find the gut's to identify yourself, and cannot produce any kind of certifications to show your rhetoric is worth the public ear. Just in case your interested, here is another gents experimentation; [Bedini_Monopole4] Monty's 10-pole results #1. I only post this because he has BUILT and is in testing the machine. So read up my friend. Go back to school has you have instructed others, but until you can show the public who and what you are, SHUT THE FUCK UP! Your continued Bullshit only displays your ignorance.
Simple question to MileHigh; "When are you going to build and contribute?"
Hey Jeff:
You are just a broken record with respect to your egging me on with respect to building stuff. And you can kiss my ass with respect to your ongoing silly attempts to get me to identify myself. Do you do that to all the other people on the Energetic Forum? The answer is you don't. And I know that certainly you have enough brains in your head to understand that revealing your identity is a person's personal choice and you have no right to compel me or anybody else to do that. You know that, so what is wrong with your brain when you post that stuff Jeff? Really, what the fvck is wrong with you?
What a truly pathetic display those postings were on your part Jeff. Beyond your making an ass of yourself once again, once again you proved how little you know about electronics by saying stuff that doesn't make sense.
So much for your supposed "leadership" position with respect to the Bedini 10-coiler. I hope this little exchange makes it back to the Energetic Forum regulars on the 10-coiler thread and they read it. They will see what an immature little schmuck you can be. They will see that you barely know anything about electronics. They will see you panic and puff out your chest and make an ass of yourself. I really hope they read it.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.21, 04:59:05
Hey Jeff:
...
What a truly pathetic display those postings were on your part Jeff. Beyond your making an ass of yourself once again, once again you proved how little you know about electronics by saying stuff that doesn't make sense.
So much for your supposed "leadership" position with respect to the Bedini 10-coiler. I hope this little exchange makes it back to the Energetic Forum regulars on the 10-coiler thread and they read it. They will see what an immature little schmuck you can be. They will see that you barely know anything about electronics. They will see you panic and puff out your chest and make an ass of yourself. I really hope they read it.
MileHigh
Yes, once again you've gotten to the heart of the
"Ten Coiler Cult."
Questions directed to the "guru" or his "cohorts" are
never answered with the purpose of imparting true
knowledge; but with mystery and hints which will only
serve to make the devoted cult slaves more and more
dependent upon all that emanates from Cult Central.
The devoted cult slaves (undereducated dreamers)
are slow to catch on but in due time will. After having
spent far too much of their hard earned money or having
done some serious independent study into transistors as
switches.
The "Light of Freedom" will eventually be lighted.
Unfortunately, Jeff has little choice in how he must respond
to those who would challenge his "leadership." He's dug
himself too deeply into the pit of "cult control" and has himself
become addicted to the "benefits" of being thought of as a
guru. There is no way that he can let the cat out of the bag
without risking the loss of all that he's worked so hard to
become along with the adulation of the cult slaves.
It will be interesting to see how much longer the charade goes
on until significant numbers of the cult slaves begin to awaken.
And a new wave of "bannings" to silence them.
I too share your hope that some at EF will come to your
Alternative Discussion and ask the good questions here.
But, it's not an easy decision for them.
Four days and no answer to Littleremnant's question so I'll answer it:
QuoteHey guys,
Another question that I am going to keep asking until I get this figured out. John said in the EFTV #6 (at the front), talking about swapping batteries from back to front that:
"YOU CAN'T JUST SWAP THE BATTERIES WITHOUT A TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THEM."
Does anyone know what he meant by that? I understand not mixing the different energies, but things like that throw me. What did he mean?????
Thanks
There is no such thing and positive and negative energies in batteries where some people claim that charging a battery with a Bedini motor gives it "negative energy." That is all completely ridiculous nonsense.
I think that you are sometimes told this by the people that have versted interests in all things Bedini is because they want to deflect the issue relating to the charging efficiency.
It's safe to assume that when you use a Bedini motor and use a source battery to charge a target battery, that about 70% of the energy in the source battery is lost to heat and about 30% ends up in the charging battery.
Therefore if you swap batteries and take your former target charging battery and uses it as a source battery you will start to notice that the "new" source battery runs down quite quickly.
So, since the Bedini powers that be know this, they have made up a phony story about "negative energy" in the freshly charged target battery to avoid the situation where more and more experimenters start to realize that the target batteries only get about a 30% charge from a fully-charged source battery.
Now the Bedini motor doesn't look so glamourous anymore when you begin to realize that it's charging efficiency actually sucks.
So that's why you are told to not swap batteries back to front. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "negative charge" or "negative energy" because those are ridiculous and nonsensical and false concepts about batteries.
MileHigh
On another network Bit's-n-Bytes said:
Quote10 Coiler for sale
Won't find a better put together wheel. Take a look at the Pic's. If interested please give me PM.
Thanks
Jeff
Well, I thought the 10-coiler was going to be used to recharge two battery banks by swapping back and forth between the two banks. An inverter was supposed to be able to connect to either bank to produce mains power. This was supposed to be a self-sustaining process. The "excess energy" generated by the 10-coiler was supposed to be able to power your house for free. That was the pitch at last year's Renaissance convention.
Speaking of Renaissance conventions, did anybody else notice that this year's convention that ended a few weeks ago seems to have gotten almost no press? The added an extra day to the event and jacked the price up to almost $500. I am wondering what the head count was like. Anybody know? With so little mention of what happened I am wondering if it was a bust and very few people showed up.
MileHigh
Sounds like its not performing as he hoped as part of his free energy solution :-[
Some suggestion from BnB that JB is selling his big wheel for $30,000! Don't all rush :)
Hoppy
Rick Friedrich puts fingers to keyboard:
QuoteJohn decided today that he would sell the big wheel for $30k if someone wants
it.
Also, I have to decide what I will do with the 21' wheel that was not built. The
motor and controller are ready, and all the parts are waiting for final
assembly. Some more holes need drilling here and there but I don't have time to
do it myself. It is either going to sit or go to scrap. I have 40 6"x4"x1"
ceramic magnets for it as well. It is designed to be able to have two people on
either side to spin around in it. 10' diameter rotor 1' off the ground. I would
sell all the metal (aluminum rotor on two inch shaft, with steel frame), trailer
(that we used to put John's wheel on), magnets, coils (two 3' long zero force
motor coils with 24 strands each) and circuit/controller with 48 circuits. ALL
for $6k as is. This is my raw cost of materials, and does not include all my
time. Max power is rated for 15hp. I could assist in the final assembly for
extra cost. It is designed to have all the mass and stress only 5-6' from the
center shaft and the remainder is very light construction to merely hold the
magnets. This would be the biggest monopole to date. The zero force coil
arrangement allows for continuous motor action (in microsecond pulsations)
without the jerking of the regular monopole design that would result for very
slow movement while people are riding it. The controller allows for speed
control.
Let me know if anyone is interested in either of these.
Rick
With his "over unity" lawnmower and his "over unity" boat and an unbuilt "free energy" Ferris wheel for two, and yet the world is still not beating a path to his door.
Also Rick has no clue how a discharging inductor works. It's a Bizarro universe sometimes!