reply to post by cupocoffee
Okay, Aim64C, how much research have you done into Bedini and Bearden and their theories on "Radiant Energy"?
Let's rephrase this to how much research I have done on the subject of energy and physics? A lot. In a lot of different segments, both structured
education and unstructured (mostly unstructured through the internet). I tend to not restrict myself, and have taken the time to learn about a number
of 'fringe' theories, particularly regarding electromagnetism.
The question shouldn't be how much research I have done regarding a given theory. It should be how much do I know about the concepts involved in the
claims made by the theory.
There are good reasons why they use batteries instead of capacitors. The idea is that they are harvesting a new and different form of energy
than what you are used to - "Radiant Energy".
A battery and capacitor are, for all intents and purposes, identical electronic components. A battery stores voltage potential in the form of
chemical bonds while a capacitor stores voltage potential in the form of electrostatics. The batteries are not actually utilized in the over-unity
mechanism - simply used to store power - an application where capacitors are identical - and more practical for power regulating and switching
It manifests and works differently than normal current and you can't measure it like you would normal current. Nor can you use it to power
This makes absolutely no sense, unless the theory is making the case that there is a "different form of current" that is capable of influencing the
chemical reactions within a battery - while not being detectable in any other sense....
Which, honestly, I'd have to see that one to believe it.
But when you pipe the "Radiant" energy off to a battery, or a big bank of batteries, the Radiant energy triggers a reaction in the batteries
and causes them to charge themselves up. Much better and faster than normal current does.
I presume it matters what type of battery is used. Lead-acid batteries are considerably different, being a wet-cell battery, than your dry-cell NiMH
or Lithium-Polymer batteries. I suppose, since we are dealing with some kind of special current, we cannot use an inductor to temporarily store this
You will not see any kind of "over-unity" effect or energy gain in the system until you induce the secondary batteries to charge. The excess
energy manifests in the secondary batteries.
And what are we seeing in terms of a charge? Let's say I put your average 2.4 Amp-Hour battery rated at 1.2 Volts into the supply-power of this
thing, and connect four of the same (empty, no terminal voltage, bled through a resistor for a minimum of 12 hours prior) to the "charge" side of
this device. How many watt-hours will each of those batteries contain by time the device ceases operation from the single 2.88 Watt-hour battery?
I'm not asking you to try and pressure you - but more as a way of demonstrating the type of thinking us electronics-savvy people do when we encounter
these things. Any time someone claims it uses "special current" - I get suspicious (or special anything that avoids practical concerns). Maybe
they really have stumbled upon something - but more than likely, it's just a way of saying: "I can only turn invisible when no one is looking."
Are you saying that Bedini and Friedrich are doing this? Where is your evidence?
It really kind of depends upon what they do. Honestly - if I buy a kit for something, I expect to get the kit and to take the risk that the device
does what the makers designed it to do (which may not be what I -believe- it will do). Like I said - if I buy snake oil, at least I'm getting snake
oil out of the deal.
I'm not familiar with these chaps' business model. However, I've seen plenty of other start-up 'companies' that claim to have zero-point energy
and the like. They campaign around, asking for investments and disappear, in many cases. Others drag people out for years, suffer numerous
'accidents' and 'coercion' that prolong the "research" and "development" (even though they claim to already have a working device... it's
just not ready yet.... go figure). Millions of dollars and a decade or so later, the investors are at a total loss while the 'business owners'
retire to a summer residence in a resort community.
Legally, it's hard to bring someone up on charges for mishandling your investment in their company. Many of these people look far enough ahead to
skirt around actions that could substantiate a case against them - so investors are, really, powerless to do anything about it.
It's no different than the 419 scams that came through your e-mail back at the turn of the century - they've got 70 million dollars to their
Nigerian nobility and will give you a cut for sending them $200 to help them bribe government officials, or something. If you bite and send money -
then another issue comes up, and another... -years- later, you're still sending money, and they are still encountering problems (there are cases of
this happening - over years - people see a chance to improve their financial outlook with a comparatively low investment on their end and take it
while disregarding the obvious).
So, eventually, people who use this method of scamming (for investors) will eventually destroy the scam, as it becomes more difficult to convince
people you really are working on something, and the number of investors not seeing a return grows.
Which may be why certain individuals in this field of ... marketing ... avoid the investor strategy.