PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-18, 13:40:22
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Author Topic: Bedini 10-Coil Alternative Discussion  (Read 71821 times)
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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. 
   
Group: Guest
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Then - 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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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

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:
Quote
Your 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:
Quote
n 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:
Quote
I 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:
Quote
The 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
« Last Edit: 2010-10-04, 06:07:06 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
More on the JB and PL discussion that was archived by Sterling Allen:

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/index.html

JB says:
Quote
The 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:
Quote
This 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:
Quote
Radiant 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:
Quote
The 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:
Quote
Ben 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
« Last Edit: 2010-10-04, 06:10:38 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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

   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary,

I will try to respond to a few of your points.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

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.

Quote
Imagine 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
My 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.

Quote
I 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
« Last Edit: 2010-10-04, 06:18:24 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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.

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.
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.

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.
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? 

However, 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

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.
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. 

Assuming 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.

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.
Only true if there is a cessation of current.  There never is.   

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.
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. 

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.
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. 

That 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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
Just more comments on some very recent discussions on the Bedini Yahoo group:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_Monopole3/message/13681

Ian Koglin posted the following:

Quote
G'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

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
« Last Edit: 2010-10-06, 21:12:32 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Following up on my previous posting, Tom C. says this:

Quote
to 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 
   
Group: Guest
Just a comment or two about the "Renaissance November Workshop Convention" with some comments plucked from the EF.

Peter Lindemann:

Quote
And 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:

Quote
Take 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:

Quote
Ok, 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
« Last Edit: 2010-11-09, 18:00:48 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
A very interesting quote from Peter Lindemann:

http://www.energeticforum.com/117446-post305.html

Quote
More 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
   
Group: Guest
Here is the schematic for the complimentary Bedini motor given out at the convention:



I can't want to see how Peter Lindemann is going to work his magic and turn it into a self-runner.
   
Group: Guest
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

Rick Friedrich says this about EFTV #2:

Quote
What 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
   
Group: Guest
Update from Peter Lindemann:

Quote
Two 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

   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
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:
Quote
I 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.

« Last Edit: 2010-11-20, 14:13:08 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
Gentlemen,

You're Words Inspire!!
when you share them here !
It is like Manna from Heaven!

And thats how I really Feel!!

Chet
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
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!


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-18, 13:40:22