So you want Free Energy?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He's saying you start with the secondary batteries (charging batteries) FULLY discharged.

Then you measure the energy used from primary batteries (run batteries), with a normal meter and calculate how much energy has been expended in total to run the charger for X amount of time. He said about an hour (just an arbitrary time period...could be 2, 3 or whatever hours), then disconnect the secondary batteries (which were fully discharged at the start of the run, connect a resistive load to them, and let it run, until they are fully discharged by the load.

Then calculate how much energy the secondary batteries supplied to the load Vs how much energy was taken from the primary batteries to charge the secondary batteries..then you'll know exactly In energy Vs Out energy of the device.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK so the secondary batteries acquire a certain charge, and then you can just disconnect them from everything else, and measure the power output into a straight resistive load or something?

Yes I think that would be the correct way to test it. Start with them fully discharged, charge them for a while with the energizer, then disconnect them from the energizer and discharge them again with a load. You want to measure the total energy in the secondary batteries after they have gone through the charging process.

What do you mean by "input side"? are you talking about input side to the secondary batteries or the primary batteries?

The input to the energizer. From what I understand, the flow looks like this:

Drive battery(ies) -> Energizer -> Secondary batteries

The drive battery just supplies power to the energizer in the normal way, so you should be able to measure the current and energy being expended in the normal way. You just can't on the output side, because Bedini says we have no instruments to measure the Radiant energy (yet).

But once you measure the total energy in the secondary batteries the effect is supposed to be spectacular. Like you spend say 1 KWh and get back 100 or some staggering number. I don't know the exact specs.

reply to post by spikey


spikey, yes you got it EXACTLY. Couldn't have said it better myself!!

Originally posted by spikey
He's saying you start with the secondary batteries (charging batteries) FULLY discharged.

Then you measure the energy used from primary batteries (run batteries), with a normal meter

But will a normal meter give you an accurate measurement if the output from the primary batteries is not straight DC or sinusoidal AC?

Arbitrageur: If you haven't already I suggest you watch the video "Energy from the Vacuum Part 2", in that video he performs pretty much the exact test that we're discussing here, with that exact unit, the 10-coiler.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
The drive battery just supplies power to the energizer in the normal way, so you should be able to measure the current and energy being expended in the normal way.

And this in fact may be why Bedini has fooled even himself if he thinks this is true. I looked at the circuit diagram and neither the energizer input nor the output would be DC or sinusoidal AC which is the way "normal" meters are designed to work. That question was raised to albert, who built several of these bedini devices, in the link I posted, and he didn't claim otherwise.

Here is one way you might do a fair test:

1. Discharge the primary and secondary batteries completely, say to maybe 8 volts or so if they are 12 volt batteries.
2. Disconnect the primary batteries.
3. Charge the primary batteries with a known amount of amp-hours (so many amps for so many hours). For an effective test the amp-hours used for charging should be below the amp-hour capacity of the primary battery.
4. Hook up a motor to the secondary batteries. The motor can be connected to a dynamometer or generator connected to a load and because the shaft between the motor and generator isolates any electrical noise the bedini apparatus may create, then normal meters will work accurately to measure the volts and amps output into a resistive load (like maybe a light bulb).

Up to this point the primary and secondary batteries have been disconnected. Now you do two trials, one with and one without the bedini energizer.

If the bedini energizer is really doing anything, the trial with that in place should run longer than the comparable trial without the energizer (just connect the primary batteries directly to the secondary batteries).

Then just to make sure the sequence didn't affect the results, you do the same two trials again but reverse the sequence.

Something along these lines was proposed to albert and if he did it he never posted the results. Maybe he did it and just didn't want to share the results that the thing doesn't really work when tested properly?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spikey
He's saying you start with the secondary batteries (charging batteries) FULLY discharged.

Then you measure the energy used from primary batteries (run batteries), with a normal meter

But will a normal meter give you an accurate measurement if the output from the primary batteries is not straight DC or sinusoidal AC?

You're looking at the thing back to front mate.

The primary battery(ies) are the power source for the energizer (battery charging device), and supply normal DC as any other battery would.

The secondary batter(ies) are the one's being charged by the device..and are receiving unconventional or 'radiant' energy from the energizer.

The problems we're talking about is not being able to accurately measure the energy flowing FROM the energizer INTO the secondary battery(ies), due to the energy being generated by the device being a different kind of energy, and not directly (accurately) measurable with normal volt/current meters.

The method of starting with empty or flat secondary batts, is so we can calculate the total amount of energy supplied to them, versus the total amount (normal DC) supplied from the primary batts to run the device in the first place, then you can accurately work out energy supplied, versus energy generated.

reply to post by ..5..


Mosquito Coast

Movie about a man going through salvage yards and making perpetual or over unity
machines to make ice in the canal zone or some such place.
Mr. Lyne thinks it copied him after an interview with Spielberg and his wife at
that time.
So it might happen to us loading up spools of wire.
The old saying about they are watching.
Perhaps true for the search for hardware.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


That'd be the one starring Harrison Ford and there was nothing overunity involved in his 'Ice from Fire' invention. It was simply a large scale application of absorption cycle refrigeration using solar power as the energy source. Decades ago we had a refrigerator based on that cycle which was powered solely by a tiny kerosene burner and even now, the small electricity/gas powered fridges used in caravans are based on the same process.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Too bad cause perpetual or over unity would have been a nice find.
The self acting machine never did come to fruition.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by ArbitrageurMeasuring the input doesn't sound simple at all.

Sure it is. Read the damn watt hour meter the city installed outside the building.

Oh, and make sure the building is a grounded metal prefab with a metal floor and metal screens. I don't want Tesla coils contributing.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Arbitrageur: If you haven't already I suggest you watch the video "Energy from the Vacuum Part 2", in that video he performs pretty much the exact test that we're discussing here, with that exact unit, the 10-coiler.

Thanks for the tip, I just started watching that but it's so SLOW. It's 132 minutes long and the first 9 minutes was just an intro?

Then I got to the part at 16 and a half minutes where the guy claims the thermodynamics textbook says we know that some things violate the laws of thermodynamics on page 459. So I had to stop the recording and go look up page 459, and you know what? He's a liar! The text doesn't say what he says it says. What the textbook actually says is we can't apply linear functions to strong gradients because their behavior is non-linear, he doesn't say it violates the laws of thermodynamics like the guy claims!!!

I don't have 132 minutes to watch the whole thing right now but I'll try to work it into my spare time as I have it. It's not off to a good start though.

Originally posted by spikey
The primary battery(ies) are the power source for the energizer (battery charging device), and supply normal DC as any other battery would.

I would surely agree with you that a battery is normally considered a DC power supply. However if you think that the current coming out of the primary battery is DC then I must accuse you of not understanding the circuit. I already posted the video showing the spikey waveform and the primary and secondary batteries are linked through a transformer which will not isolate but will transmit those spikes through the transformer. Diodes and rectifiers can have some effect but it's NOT straight DC on either the primary nor the secondary side. If this is how it's being measured, then this is a serious measurement error.

Originally posted by Matyas

Originally posted by ArbitrageurMeasuring the input doesn't sound simple at all.

Sure it is. Read the damn watt hour meter the city installed outside the building.

Truly there is no more important measure to most of us than this one measurement....which determines how big our electric bill will be. A big thumbs up to that suggestion:

reply to post by v3_exceed


Agreed. I know you weren't talking to me, however I know that my stance could be interpreted as an attack. And like the debunkers, I can provide evidence from Wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now read carefully:

Machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics but access energy from obscure sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name.

And again:

Machines which comply with both laws of thermodynamics by accessing energy from unconventional sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name.

Actually the second law is not really a law. Extropy flows in reverse time. Like running a film backwards.

Nothing is impossible. Look at this:

"impossible" is used in common parlance to describe those things which absolutely cannot occur within the context of our current formulation of physical laws

Our current formulation is wrong. That is why any success is met with disapproval, because the current formulation of physical laws does not exist to satisfactorily explain the phenomena.

Hell, the scientific institutions don't know how current is produced with a wire.

www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk...

OK, so it isn't Wiki. All Wiki will tell you is how cranky Ivor is. Crackpot. Weirdo. *whistle and spin first index finger at temple*

Thus ends reasoning of the second part.

As soon as a battery is introduced into one of these 'miracle devices' you'll be fighting an uphill battle that is, if the purpose of the battery is to collect the produced energy for later use (IE charge/discharge cycling). An ideal battery would be capable of returning all the energy that went into charging it but, as so often happens in the real world, ideal batteries don't exist and the reality is that the overall efficiency of typical batteries is actually terrible.

The rule of thumb for typical affordable rechargeable batteries (lead-acid, NiCd, NiMH, NiFe etc) is that it takes around 50% extra input energy to fully charge them compared to what that charge can deliver. More expensive versions of these only provide longer lifetime and deep cycle tolerance but charge-discharge efficiency is pretty much the same. EG a 1Ah battery requires charging at 100mA for 15 hours (recommended 0.1C rate for maximum lifetime cycles) but when fully charged can deliver 100mA for only 10 hours. So if anyone can demonstrate a device based on batteries that genuinely indicates overunity they've cleared the OU bar by a considerable amount and elimination of the battery (directly using the output in real time) is obviously the way to go.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Thanks for providing yet more reasons not to try.....

It is really disappointing, out of all the people in this thread, only one person, spikey, has shown the kind of attitude I'm looking for. Only one person seems to have any actual enthusiasm for testing.

Well, can't you just put a flashlight in front of a solar cell and hook the cell to the flashlight?

I do believe the only the only way to get free energy is from the Sun.
Since the radioactivity is from the Sun theory might still be held by some
people we have various radioactivity to electricity methods.
There is also artificial radiation shining UV on some compounds as
with Dr. Moray as some exist now as generators.
The is also MHD methods using air sparked into plus and minus charges
for an energy supply.
The is using ocean wave, ground vibrations, wind and magnetic field coupled
with a large amount of wire and atomic gas properties in compression or
liquid states and other ingenious techniques that maybe existing today
and even powering a small submarine.
So those I would say are the Sun Earth power methods as there might
be one more. The sound wave in the ether theory to pick up energy in
the ether by focusing on a collection plate charging up capacitors and
batteries for power and perhaps workable in anyone basement.
Since the Sun is the closest and biggest ether sound wave generator
I'd say the Sun is our Cosmic Generator and the rest of the universe
is too far away for any useful power.

Originally posted by Hogwing
Well, can't you just put a flashlight in front of a solar cell and hook the cell to the flashlight?

heh...would be nice wouldn't it!

ONly problem is that Solar cells are only about 30% efficient at best (at the moment), which means they only convert 30% of the light they receive into electricity. In other words, 70% of the battery powering the light from the torch would be wasted.

You'd need a cell 100% efficient to get to where we'd all love to be.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

Thanks for providing yet more reasons not to try.....

It is really disappointing, out of all the people in this thread, only one person, spikey, has shown the kind of attitude I'm looking for. Only one person seems to have any actual enthusiasm for testing.

If you liked my other posts cupocoffee, you're gonna LOVE this one...

This is the latest video from Steorn, the Irish technology company working on it's discovery of an overunity system, it freely admits it came across by accident while designing something totally unrelated a few years ago.

This latest incarnation of the 'Orbo' device is a solid state setup.

Video;


Hopefully the video embedded, if not, go to the YT link.

There are qualified people, including a guy who worked for the ESA, testifying to 300+% efficiencies. (overunity)

reply to post by spikey


Yes I've actually seen that one before.

They did a terrible job with the sound editing for that video though, even with my volume cranked way up I can barely understand anything they're saying

I'm still waiting for Steorn to do something with a WOW factor. Like have a free energy unit powering a car or a house, something like that.