Official Bedini 10 Coil Kit Infomercial

[albert]

Sigh again....pointless to continue.

1. Several Bedini machines are running in my workshop. Every day. They deliver energy to the secondary batteríes, light lamps and do all this far more longer than is possible with conventional thinking. That IS a fact.I don't give a **** if it's impossible.

2. Overunity, underunity....the stuff works as John says. Period. it runs right here for everyone to see. It is not a a matter of BELIEFS. It is a matter of taking the stuff and building it . Measuring it. As I have said a good battery charger indicating aH or Watts input -a voltmeter - an ammeter -a scope if you have one and A STOPWATCH are enough.

3. Build one. Test it. Run it. OBSERVE it with an open mind and not with a big board nailed to the front of your head. See for yourself. Don't hide behind theories. There might be something your theories don't apply to.
I had these machines examined by expert electronics engineers, several physicists and someone who built the first semiconductors and integrated circuits in Germany for SIEMENS many years ago. They saw the machines and agree that there is no theory completely explaining where the energy comes from. But they don't say it is nonsense or ******** or it is not worth looking into.

4. Footnote: Driving a car in AUSTRALIA is a little different from driving in GERMANY where we get -20 degs Celsius in cold winters. That is when batteries fail. If they are sulphated or other wise damaged. Get that?

I'll leave you to your opinions now and I'll stick to mine. If you have someone in Germany send him or her to verify or disprove me. Any other form of discussion is pointless.A waste of time.I am sorry to have to say that.

 

[Christian Klippel]

2. Overunity, underunity....the stuff works as John says. Period. it runs right here for everyone to see. It is not a a matter of BELIEFS. It is a matter of taking the stuff and building it . Measuring it. As I have said a good battery charger indicating aH or Watts input -a voltmeter - an ammeter -a scope if you have one and A STOPWATCH are enough.

Right there is your problem. You obviously don't know how to measure things properly. I can easily build a circuit that is powered by a simple 9V, 350mAh battery, but will show me 2 amperes at 20 volts for hours on simple multimeters. The problem is that pulsed currents and voltages are not easy to measure when it comes to testing for the actual power. You would need at least a true RMS meter that can handle arbitrary waveforms.

Virtually every simple DMM can only handle sine-wave input's properly, and even then only if the voltage and current are in phase. Any slight difference there will get you wrong results.

Since we have coils in this silly contraption, there is no way that voltage and current are in phase.

But then, testing things the correct way is nothing that crackpots like to do, because it would prove them wrong immediately.

I had these machines examined by expert electronics engineers, several physicists and someone who built the first semiconductors and integrated circuits in Germany for SIEMENS many years ago. They saw the machines and agree that there is no theory completely explaining where the energy comes from. But they don't say it is nonsense or ******** or it is not worth looking into.

Unless you can provide certified (!) witness testimony from them, i call that a flat out lie.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: I'm referring to the measurement of AC or pulsed voltages, which is the case here.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sigh again....pointless to continue.

1. Several Bedini machines are running in my workshop. Every day. They deliver energy to the secondary batteríes, light lamps and do all this far more longer than is possible with conventional thinking. That IS a fact.I don't give a **** if it's impossible.

However, since you have already admitted that you don't know how to measure the actual energy transferred, I'm afraid that I can't put much value in your observations. Have you even actually compared otherwise equal setups? Or are they just more efficient than you think conventional setups would be.

Hans

 

[Brian-M]

1. Several Bedini machines are running in my workshop. Every day. They deliver energy to the secondary batteríes, light lamps and do all this far more longer than is possible with conventional thinking. That IS a fact.I don't give a **** if it's impossible.

I don't doubt that it is possible to get lamps to shine for much longer than would be normally considered possible with a fixed amount of power available in a battery. If your device reduces the amount of power the lamp is using (resulting in the lamp being dimmer than it should be), the battery will last longer than if you just hooked the lamp up directly.

If you can prove that you're getting more power out than you're putting in, you can win a million dollars. All you have to do is set up a few relays and a timer circuit to switch the batteries at regular intervals and the machine should run forever with no external power source.

It is not a a matter of BELIEFS. It is a matter of taking the stuff and building it . Measuring it. As I have said a good battery charger indicating aH or Watts input -a voltmeter - an ammeter -a scope if you have one and A STOPWATCH are enough.

Nope. These things are not enough to measure the true power of the circuit, which is often extremely difficult to determine. (Devices to measure this do exist, but they're very expensive.) What you're Measuring this way is apparent power, which is different.

Here's some info. It's talking about AC, but the same principle partially applies for pulsed DC (which can be thought of as AC with a DC offset equal to peak voltage).

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

We know that reactive loads such as inductors and capacitors dissipate zero power, yet the fact that they drop voltage and draw current gives the deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate power. This “phantom power” is called reactive power, and it is measured in a unit called Volt-Amps-Reactive (VAR), rather than watts. The mathematical symbol for reactive power is (unfortunately) the capital letter Q. The actual amount of power being used, or dissipated, in a circuit is called true power, and it is measured in watts (symbolized by the capital letter P, as always). The combination of reactive power and true power is called apparent power, and it is the product of a circuit's voltage and current, without reference to phase angle. Apparent power is measured in the unit of Volt-Amps (VA) and is symbolized by the capital letter S.

(Note: An ideal inductor draws no power from an AC source, but in reality inductors have resistance, so they do draw a little power.)

 

[albert]

Right there is your problem. You obviously don't know how to measure things properly. I can easily build a circuit that is powered by a simple 9V, 350mAh battery, but will show me 2 amperes at 20 volts for hours on simple multimeters. The problem is that pulsed currents and voltages are not easy to measure when it comes to testing for the actual power. You would need at least a true RMS meter that can handle arbitrary waveforms.

Virtually every simple DMM can only handle sine-wave input's properly, and even then only if the voltage and current are in phase. Any slight difference there will get you wrong results.

Since we have coils in this silly contraption, there is no way that voltage and current are in phase.

But then, testing things the correct way is nothing that crackpots like to do, because it would prove them wrong immediately.



Unless you can provide certified (!) witness testimony from them, i call that a flat out lie.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: I'm referring to the measurement of AC or pulsed voltages, which is the case here.

You seem determined to think that I'm a moron. We tested the machines with a very expensive metering device in an electronics lab. The meter uses a wire that gets heated by a current that passes thru it. This is sealed in a vacuum tube with a sensor. The sensor voltage is converted into a display of the current. This method integrates a pulsed waveform and gives an accurate reading. Probably the only method with all these pulses. The meter was calibrated precisely (before you ask). Then we worked out a correction factor for the meters I use at home.
I use a multimeter with true RMS and a wattmeter with VA and cos phi display. So much for the crackpot, thank you.Other people know how to measure things, too. I know about phase angles and the rest. We are talking pulsed DC here.This is a fundamental fact you choose to ignore. Thanks for calling me a liar, too. Very fair arguments.
We set up a machine to draw 350 mA from a battery with this meter. We then charged two identical batteries - recovered 12 Volt 50 AH--from the grid with a calibrated charger and put in 15 AH (30 AH for both batts). Then I let the thing run and switched batteries every 8 to 10 hours by hand.
The machine ran for 144 hours. I stopped when both batts were rougly at 12 volts after some resting time.
We then recharged the batts the same way as before and ran both batts in parallel lighting a small lamp that drew 350 mA. Running time: 72 hours. Calculate the amp hours for yourself. All the while we had a small amount of mechanical energy delivered by the rotor.
This whole overunity discussion is pointless because you are only considering a closed system. I'm talking about an open system that can draw energy from the environment. How exactly this happens- well I'd like a precise answer to that myself.That is the million dollar question.
I am not a blind believer - I have a sceptical attitude but an open minded one. I wanted to see for myself -this is why I took all the pains to build and test these machines. I'm not saying the Bedini and similar machines are the solution to all our energy problems.
But they might contain the clue to something new. Or they would not have surfaced in so many guises over almost a hundred years now. I took the time to compare many of these inventions and there are common points in them . There is the occasional scam artist but that does not rule out the possibility that our EM theories are at least incomplete if not seriously flawed. If you look at the daily absurdities of modern quantum physics you can only conclude that there is nothing impossible anymore. The more they look into the basic questions of matter, energy and gravity the more questions pop up.
We cannot afford any longer to only look at confirmed concepts. We have to look under every stone and turn over any pebble to come up with solutions to our energy needs. These will not come by the billions of dollars sunk every year into fusion experiments.
There is a small chance that they might be in the hands of some garage tinkerers like me and so many others called fringe or crackpots and so on-.
Thank God there are intelligent people out there who think a lot like me.Many of them are engineers, physicists and other seasoned professionals. Their profession has not made them narrow minded and uncreative. So many of them are highly qualified and yet they do not consider this research a waste of time.
But this is the wrong place for an open discussion. I thought perhaps I could get some people to respond at least with some slight measure of curiosity or at least in a fair manner. I'm sorry this is not the case.
We will simply see who will have the last laugh-.Only time can prove who is right and who is wrong here.

 

[dafydd]

You seem determined to think that I'm a moron. We tested the machines with a very expensive metering device in an electronics lab. The meter uses a wire that gets heated by a current that passes thru it. This is sealed in a vacuum tube with a sensor. The sensor voltage is converted into a display of the current. This method integrates a pulsed waveform and gives an accurate reading. Probably the only method with all these pulses. The meter was calibrated precisely (before you ask). Then we worked out a correction factor for the meters I use at home.
I use a multimeter with true RMS and a wattmeter with VA and cos phi display. So much for the crackpot, thank you.Other people know how to measure things, too. I know about phase angles and the rest. We are talking pulsed DC here.This is a fundamental fact you choose to ignore.
We set up a machine to draw 350 mA from a battery with this meter. We then charged two identical batteries - recovered 12 Volt 50 AH--from the grid with a calibrated charger and put in 15 AH (30 AH for both batts). Then I let the thing run and switched batteries every 8 to 10 hours by hand.
The machine ran for 144 hours. I stopped when both batts were rougly at 12 volts after some resting time.
We then recharged the batts the same way as before and ran both batts in parallel lighting a small lamp that drew 350 mA. Running time: 72 hours. Calculate the amp hours for yourself. All the while we had a small amount of mechanical energy delivered by the rotor.
This whole overunity discussion is pointless because you are only considering a closed system. I'm talking about an open system that can draw energy from the environment. How exactly this happens- well I'd like a precise answer to that myself.

Do you think that these machines actually break the basic laws of physics?

 

[Christian Klippel]

You seem determined to think that I'm a moron.

....

We set up a machine to draw 350 mA from a battery with this meter.

....

We then recharged the batts the same way as before and ran both batts in parallel lighting a small lamp that drew 350 mA.

I'm sure that you can come up with some convoluted garbledygook to explain why you used two different loads instead of using the same load again. You know, just so that you could compare the results directly.

Makes one wonder why you chose different loads to test. And different battery arrangements too. I suspect that the first load was pulsed, and that 350mA was the peak. While a lamp is a purely resistive load, and that you had it on continuously.

We are talking pulsed DC here.This is a fundamental fact you choose to ignore.

Your reading comprehension seems to be on par with your understanding of physics. Just as a reminder:

The problem is that pulsed currents and voltages are not easy to measure ...

Edit: I'm referring to the measurement of AC or pulsed voltages, which is the case here.

And you really wonder why people think you are a crackpot or moron?

Why is it that crackpots don't need any outside help to show them for what they are, but instead always contradict, or make a fools of themselves in a matter of a few postings? You guys should at least try to be consistent.

Again, if what you claim is true, you should have no problem to produce certified testimonies of the engineers and physicists that you claim have verified that. If it is true, they surely would have no problem to put their good names on the line, now would they?

Instead you have chosen to give some crappy "But i really saw it" response with nothing to back it up. At least try to think for a second why what you claim can not be true, with regards to the engineers and physicists watching and confirming that.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit:

I stopped when both batts were rougly at 12 volts after some resting time.

You do know that batteries without a load attached recover to a normal voltage after a short while, even if they are almost drained? You do know that battery capacity is not defined by the terminal voltage at a no load condition, but instead has to be tested under a loaded condition. You story just smacks of deception.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm sure that you can come up with some convoluted garbledygook to explain why you used two different loads instead of using the same load again. You know, just so that you could compare the results directly.

Probably because the amp-hours would not change if he did it that way. Remember amp-hours is a rate dependent measurement. Change the load you change the discharge time. Change the discharge time you change the amount of amp-hours you measure.

There is the occasional scam artist but that does not rule out the possibility that our EM theories are at least incomplete if not seriously flawed. If you look at the daily absurdities of modern quantum physics you can only conclude that there is nothing impossible anymore. The more they look into the basic questions of matter, energy and gravity the more questions pop up.

Quantum physics isn't absurd.

 

[Myriad]

We set up a machine to draw 350 mA from a battery with this meter. We then charged two identical batteries - recovered 12 Volt 50 AH--from the grid with a calibrated charger and put in 15 AH (30 AH for both batts). Then I let the thing run and switched batteries every 8 to 10 hours by hand.
The machine ran for 144 hours. I stopped when both batts were rougly at 12 volts after some resting time.
We then recharged the batts the same way as before and ran both batts in parallel lighting a small lamp that drew 350 mA. Running time: 72 hours. Calculate the amp hours for yourself. All the while we had a small amount of mechanical energy delivered by the rotor.
This whole overunity discussion is pointless because you are only considering a closed system. I'm talking about an open system that can draw energy from the environment. How exactly this happens- well I'd like a precise answer to that myself.That is the million dollar question.

Okay, what? You appear to be saying that a system in which you draw 350 mA from one battery and use it to charge another battery, switching batteries every so often as needed, can run for much longer on a single initial charge than when you draw 350 mA from the batteries to power a useful device.

If that's a correct description, why should that be in any way remarkable or surprising? If I pour an ounce of scotch into each of two two-ounce glasses, and then pour the scotch back and forth between the two glasses at 1 cc/sec, of course the scotch is going to last much longer than if I drink it at a rate of 1 cc/sec. That doesn't mean the first method is mysteriously gathering scotch from the environment.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh, and just that you don't think i'm all about complaining only. Here is how one would test that contraption in a more usable way.

First, load both batteries, then discharge them with a defined load to the same level. Lets say a 1 ampere resistive load, discharge down to 4 volts.

Then charge the batteries with a defined load current for a defined time.

Now connect that contraption AND the lamp. Let it run and swap the two batteries until they both down to, lets say, 8 volts. Log the time and discharge curves of the batteries.

Now again load and discharge the batteries as before, and again charge them with the same current for the same amount of time as before. The reason for that is to have a well-defined starting state for the batteries charge.

Now connect only the lamp and operate it until again the battery voltage under that load is down to the same 8 volts as before.

If your claims are true, the lamp PLUS that contraption should give you a longer runtime. I bet a sixpack of beer that that will never happen.

You can not, under any circumstances, compare the runtime of _only_ the contraption to the runtime of the lamp alone, they are two completely different systems. Since the contraption is meant to prolong battery life, you have to test that with the lamp connected to the primary battery as well. Only then you can make quantitative statements about the battery life, because in both cases you drive the same load. After all, that contraption is only there to make the batteries last longer, right?

Again, i bet that this will not happen, let alone that you are going to do that test under controlled conditions, involving impartial outside people to watch over the whole process.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Of course powering the lamp-only circuit of the second test from both batteries in parallel.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Probably because the amp-hours would not change if he did it that way. Remember amp-hours is a rate dependent measurement. Change the load you change the discharge time. Change the discharge time you change the amount of amp-hours you measure.

Exactly. After all, that contraption is pulsed. If one was to power the lamp with a 50% PWM duty cycle, lo and behold, the batteries would again last twice as long. Well, ok, a wee tiny bit shorter, due to losses in the switching element and the quiescent current for the PWM controller.

That's what i meant with these people being unable to make proper measurements. All that fancy equipment is only as useful as the people operating it and setting up the test circuits.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[albert]

First, load both batteries, then discharge them with a defined load to the same level. Lets say a 1 ampere resistive load, discharge down to 4 volts.

Then charge the batteries with a defined load current for a defined time.

Now connect that contraption AND the lamp. Let it run and swap the two batteries until they both down to, lets say, 8 volts. Log the time and discharge curves of the batteries.


Well discharging a 12 Volt battery to 4 volts would mean you can trash it.
Why are you complicating things so much?

You forget we used the meter (you overlooked that) to ensure that in both cases we had a draw of 350 mA. Pulsed or not. The "fancy meter" you seem not to understand that- integrates the pulses. So 350 mA it was in both cases. I can tell you exactly what this meter was if you want.
The measurements of the machine were conducted by an engineer with more than 30 years of experience and his own electronics company. Dipl.-Ing Werner Schwille of Schwille electronics near Munich. No problem to put the name here. If you will send me an e mail I can also give you the names of the other people who have seen the machines. No secrets here.

wTF- as you are fond of saying would we connect the lamp and "that contraption"?
We could not use "that contraption" for both tests simply because you would then need a third battery. We could have run the machine with both batts in parallel and charged the third one. But this would have introduced errors in the measuring process. The third battery would charge and would have to be switched for an empty one to avoid overcharging it.
I'll think of a way to repeat that test with pulsed loads both times.

I'll only continue to talk here if you agree to treat me in a fair way. I refuse to talk to people who treat me as an idiot in the first place. Sorry but this is education folks. Someone can have a differing opinion and not be a fool or a crackpot or anything else.
If we can agree on this I will try to get to the bottom of the matter - if not I'll simply sign out of this forum.

 

[quarky]

Free energy is scary. Suppose someone actually comes up with a device that 'works': It would be working because it was tapping an exotic source, say the energy of the Earth revolving.

Then we'd all be able to drive huge motor homes and rejoice in the end of our energy problems...until the rotation slowed enough to cause some real problems.

I wonder if we will run into trouble as we exploit wind more and more?
It could alter the normal patterns of air flow. Certainly there is a downside to tapping hydro power, and it may be analogous.
Imagine if the prevailing winds took a new course, stranding huge windfarms in a zone that has become much less breezy.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Well discharging a 12 Volt battery to 4 volts would mean you can trash it.
Why are you complicating things so much?

Sorry, but the battery won't be trashed. It simply would be discharged, thats all. You know, there are these chargers that initially discharge the batteries, do you?

You forget we used the meter (you overlooked that) to ensure that in both cases we had a draw of 350 mA. Pulsed or not.

And you seem to forget that a pulse at 350mA is not the same as a continuous load at 350mA.

Dipl.-Ing Werner Schwille of Schwille electronics near Munich. No problem to put the name here. If you will send me an e mail I can also give you the names of the other people who have seen the machines. No secrets here.

Thanks for the name. A quick Google search just confirmed my suspicion. That guy is a crackpot himself. Tesla energy, my good. "Energieplatz „ZUM EINFANG„". Yea, alright.

Tell you what: That guy disqualifies himself that way.

wTF- as you are fond of saying would we connect the lamp and "that contraption"?
We could not use "that contraption" for both tests simply because you would then need a third battery. We could have run the machine with both batts in parallel and charged the third one. But this would have introduced errors in the measuring process. The third battery would charge and would have to be switched for an empty one to avoid overcharging it.

Nonsense. You are the one trying to overcomplicate things, just to avoid a proper test. See, it's quite simple: You claim that this contraption wil extend battery life by charging it due to some fancy method. So the test is really simple. Use two batteries charged to the same level, which where previously discharged to the same level. Hook up the contraption and a lamp to one battery, and the second battery to the output of that thing. After a while swap the batteries, as you do normally, but always have the lamp connected to the battery at the input.

In the second run you only connect the lamp to the batteries. Thats all. How much simpler can it get? According to what you claim, the first test should result in a longer timespan until the batteries are down to a specified level, compared to the second lamp-only run.

I'll think of a way to repeat that test with pulsed loads both times.

Google for NE555. Build a circuit that produces a rectangle waveform at the same duty-cycle that the contraption uses. Connect a low RDS-On mosfet transistor as a switching element. Let it run.
That kind of circuit is the simplest one you can get.

You also can do another simple test. Connect a suitable diode in series to a regular 230V lamp. What will happen is that the lamp only gets one half-wave of the AC. That is, it uses only about half the power now on average. But, funnily enough, the brightness does not go down that much.

I'll only continue to talk here if you agree to treat me in a fair way. I refuse to talk to people who treat me as an idiot in the first place.

Then don't behave like one, like, by stating to have done valid tests whereas it is clear that you did not. Do not refer to some crackpot guy as reference. Stay in the realm of real science and engineering.

Sorry but this is education folks.

No, so far it's only deception. Making people believe that stuff is not education, it is anti-education.

Someone can have a differing opinion and not be a fool or a crackpot or anything else.
If we can agree on this I will try to get to the bottom of the matter - if not I'll simply sign out of this forum.

Having a different opinion is not the problem. Trying to sell us such claptrap as real is. Talking about scientists and engineers, and then coming up with that Werner Schwille guy is just pure comedy. Really, have you tried a Google search on that guys name before you posted it here? And if so, are you still wondering why i do not take that guy serious?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Almo]

You story just smacks of deception.

Even if it is self-deception.

Quantum physics isn't absurd.

Well... I'm not so sure I'd say that.

But Quantum theory certainly works.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Even if it is self-deception.

Yes, self-deception is one part of it. But i also see that as a blatant attempt to deceive others.

First he talks about that only simple equipment is needed to verify it. Once the flaws in that are pointed out, all of a sudden it's also sophisticated test equipment that is needed.

Then he tells us about physicists and engineers having verified it. Pointing out that this is simply unbelievable, he comes up with a name of a guy who himself is deep into the woo.

He tells us about how that thing magically charges batteries and prolongs their runtime. Pointed to a simple test he now want's to wiggle out, claiming that such a test would require a third battery on the machine. Notice that i never said that the batteries for testing should be fully charged. Only that they have to be charged to the same level for all tests, and that prior to that they all need to be discharged to the same level to give repeatable settings.

I mean, frankly, if some reputable scientists and engineers would have verified that the contraption works as advertised, that thing would be well known outside of the crackpot circles and widely used by now. After all that Bedini scam isn't new. Manufacturers of mobile equipment would surely like to have such a thing that makes their goods run much longer. But reality is that this stuff is hyped in crackpot circles only, where one crackpot verifies the work of another crackpot.

Coming forward and telling other people that this stuff works, and using convoluted explanations as to how it is tested, is simply an attempt to deceive the audience. One might call it lying as well.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[albert]

Werner Schwille is nowhere deep into the woo. I have not found a single entry in Google that links him to Bedini.He is a scientist first but has an open mind for things that are outside the box. He runs a successful electronics business and has worked for Rohde&Schwarz of Munich. He also does EMV tests for the CE Prüfzeichen. So I guess he should be the one who knows his way around measuring equipment.
"Tesla my God.." The lights in your home run due to Teslas inventions.
Ok to finish this-Mr Klippel I guess you are in Germany anyway.
My proposal: Set up an independent unbiased group of capable people to verify or falsify Bedini's claims. He has the machine out- it can be used as a reference how he wants it to be built. Mine can be wrongly built - or work according to his design- but this "kit" must go together and deliver the goods. Or not. If it is built according to his specs HE can't wiggle out anymore. None of the debunkers ever did that. I will be there to see to the correct setup and as far as my experience goes to the tuning of the machine.

Do no foolish and blatantly idiotic "debunking" as in the MythBusters show. They left the magnets off on the wheel and then claimed the thing did not work. This is a disrespect to the man. Do your research without bias -not taking sides before any facts are on the table. In short: The Scientific method.
You name the measuring methods - the equipment to use. Run it for a longer period of time.See if anything changes in the batteries.

Things to verify_:

1. Is it overunity or not?
2. Will it restore batteries ?
3. Is the mechanical energy for free?
4. What are the longtime effects on a battery bank?
5. How will a high voltage charge affect the chemistry inside the battery?



I bet that Now YOU will wiggle out....

If you will take me up on this lets get together and finish the Bedini affair one way or the other.I'm ready to talk to you off the forum.

 

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

Bedini can't compare to Joe Newman or Dennis Lee - the reigning kings of the free-energy la-la lands.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Werner Schwille is nowhere deep into the woo. I have not found a single entry in Google that links him to Bedini.

Hahaha. Now you are kidding around, aren't you?

There is an invitation to his company from the "DVR Raumenergie", which is an "organization" that is as woo at it can get. Notice the caption under the image. As can be clearly seen, he is a promoter of that Bedini nonsense already. His connection the Ramuenergie people speaks volumes.

Want another one? Take a look here. An "Energieplatz" which he contributed to. How more woo do you like?

He is a scientist first but has an open mind for things that are outside the box.

From what can be seen on the net, his mind is so open that his brain already has fallen out.

He runs a successful electronics business and has worked for Rohde&Schwarz of Munich. He also does EMV tests for the CE Prüfzeichen. So I guess he should be the one who knows his way around measuring equipment.

Appeal to authority does not work well. A lot of scientists have been fooled by woo. He isn't the first one, nor will he be the last one.

"Tesla my God.." The lights in your home run due to Teslas inventions.

Don't get me started on Tesla. While that guy may or may not have created some unique inventions, he also was very, very deep in the woo-land. Also, quite a lot of "his" inventions were not from him originally at all. He copied a lot of other peoples ideas and simply patented them first. Not really a smart move, don't you think?

Ok to finish this-Mr Klippel I guess you are in Germany anyway.
My proposal: Set up an independent unbiased group of capable people to verify or falsify Bedini's claims.

Sorry, but that is not how it works. According to standard physics, that thing can not work as advertised. So it is an extraordinary claim that you and the Bedini followers make. As such, the burden is on you to provide extraordinary evidence.

He has the machine out- it can be used as a reference how he wants it to be built. Mine can be wrongly built - or work according to his design- but this "kit" must go together and deliver the goods. Or not. If it is built according to his specs HE can't wiggle out anymore. None of the debunkers ever did that. I will be there to see to the correct setup and as far as my experience goes to the tuning of the machine.

You really should improve your Google-foo. Take some time and search for that Bedini crap. It has been debunked so often, it's already sad that i spend my time here arguing. Oh, and do not only read these crackpot links.

Try something like this or that. Try some searches on Bedini to see what that guy is into.

Tell me, how comes that his stuff is praised in crackpot circles only, but never gets recognition outside of them? If that thing does what is claimed, scientists all over the world would be on it already. Doesn't that raise your suspicions?

You name the measuring methods - the equipment to use. Run it for a longer period of time.See if anything changes in the batteries.

Feel free to hire me for that task. After all, it's your claim, not mine. I stay with classic physics and the knowledge we already have about people like Bedini. That is, it does not work. It's only purpose is to extract money from the gullible. I call that scamming people. I want no part in that scam scheme. But again, you can always hire me plus a set of needed instrumentation and co-workers to examine that thing. But don't expect me to put any money into that scam.

I bet that Now YOU will wiggle out....

If you will take me up on this lets get together and finish the Bedini affair one way or the other.I'm ready to talk to you off the forum.

No need to do the talk off-forum. Lets keep it public for anyone to see. Again, i have no problem testing that thing together with a bunch of suitably trained people and proper test equipment. Just not for free. Again, it is not me who makes the extraordinary claim, you are. So it's up to you to put the money where your mouth is, not me.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[jasonpatterson]

Personally, I don't think you're a moron or a crackpot, I just think that you're seeing two events that appear to be the same that really aren't and building a system of beliefs on that.

If this works as you claim, you should be able to make billions from it. Get cracking. As mentioned earlier, if you can prove that this works as you've claimed (the over unity portion, anyway) then you can win a million dollars from JREF as startup money, though I suspect that you'd find no lack of investors after you won the prize. If what is stopping you is a global anti-environmental business consortium, then perhaps you are a crackpot.

Nobody here claims that our current scientific understanding of the universe is complete or that something we believe to be true now will not be shown to be false in some way in the future.

ETA: I live in an area of the US with winters that regularly get rather colder that -20C. We have no problems with our car batteries dying unexpectedly or prematurely. I park my car outside, and my last battery replacement was after 8 years.