Official Bedini 10 Coil Kit Infomercial

[albert]

Hmmm.
The energy you guys expend to "debunk" me far exceeds the energy I put into this thread. Just needs some typing and off they go by themselves-thats free energy fellas.

I wonder why they all fight tooth and nails for preserving the status quo-
this forum seems to be as conservative as the catholic church- and see the mess they have got us into.
Well I left the church when I was fourteen years old and never wanted to get back.
So go on debunking things, buy gasoline at ridiculous prices,watch the world go to hell. Seen the news lately? Ole oil going to mess up the US coast? This is what you should be fighting.Not a bunch of people who are not content to sit there and watch the world go to hell.We are looking for alternatives so that our children might have a future.
This might not come from a machine using old lead acid batteries - but the little clue we need might be hidden there. that is why I do this work, Reason enough for me to continue.
Go on and debunk. Nothing positive ever comes from total negativism. That, too is an energy law I happen to believe in.

 

[albert]

Ok somewhere up in this thread someone has asked what the meter was : Fluke 8506 A Thermal RMS multimeter.
As I have said before this meter works on a different principle - it measures the heat created by a current in a wire. The measuring cell is sealed in a glass tube.
This integrates the pulsed current. This is why I don't understand all the ranting about pulses, DC offset and so on. This meter works a bit like the heat/wire voltmeters in some cars. In these a wire lenthens when current flows thru it. with this meter you get the integer value of the current as well as we could measure it. That is why we could compare it to the current drawn by a lamp. 350 mA are 350 mA.
Remember: We did not measure any over-under or other unity we only established the REAL draw of the machine in relation to what the other galvanometer or digital type meters showed.
With the same meter we also measured input to output ratios. The output was always lower than the input. So far this is perfectly normal.
And yet the secondary battery charged-sometimes a lot faster than the input battery discharged.
As to where the extra energy comes from- one idea is as good as the other. My own guess-and I insist it's a guess- is that we might have a heat pump effect.
The battery under charge seems to cool down slightly. Nothing gets hot in the circuit. Even a battery that is boiling at 15 to 16 volts and producing a lot of hydroxy gas stays stone cold.
I am currently treating an 88 aH and a 60 aH battery that came from the trash. Both batteries were unable to light a 350 mA bulb. No current at all. Stone dead. After about 30 to 60 seconds (!) on the smallest of my Bedini circuits both batteries could run the lamp for more than 10 minutes. No commercial desulfator circuit treats a battery to 3500 volt spikes. Just no comparison at all.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Hmmm.
The energy you guys expend to "debunk" me far exceeds the energy I put into this thread. Just needs some typing and off they go by themselves-thats free energy fellas.

I wonder why they all fight tooth and nails for preserving the status quo-
this forum seems to be as conservative as the catholic church- and see the mess they have got us into.
Well I left the church when I was fourteen years old and never wanted to get back.
So go on debunking things, buy gasoline at ridiculous prices,watch the world go to hell. Seen the news lately? Ole oil going to mess up the US coast? This is what you should be fighting.Not a bunch of people who are not content to sit there and watch the world go to hell.We are looking for alternatives so that our children might have a future.
This might not come from a machine using old lead acid batteries - but the little clue we need might be hidden there. that is why I do this work, Reason enough for me to continue.
Go on and debunk. Nothing positive ever comes from total negativism. That, too is an energy law I happen to believe in.

Sorry to tell you, but you are wrong. Your comment simply confirms what many here have already suspected. Seems you are into that conspiracy trash as well.

You are wrong to think that people want to conserve the status quo. Far from it. Maybe you have never seen or read about it, but there are quite a lot wind-farms built. Solar panel technology is still advancing and used more and more. Efficiency of electronics and machines is improved all the time, just to save energy. People work hard to get nuclear fusion going. And these are only a small selection, to make the point (hopefully) clear to you.

A lot of money goes into all that and more. Do you really think that you are the only one who knows that burning fossil fuels at the current rate won't work for an infinite time? Do you really think we are not aware that the supply of oil is not endless?

Now, here is something that _you_ may want to think about. Imagine all the money that is scammed from people with all that free-energy crap would have gone into proper research, which is always heavily underfunded. Imagine all the man-hours wasted on that silly dream of energy-from-nowhere would have been put to use to work on existing clean technologies, which surely could be extended more rapidly . Think about all the energy wasted to push such scams, just to extract money from the gullible for the profit of the scammers, who obviously give a crap about the environment and think only about their own wealth. Think about all the people that have been fooled and their knowledge poisoned by the silly notions of free energy and all that other esoteric crap. Imagine these people would have learned something real instead and would be able to help us to advance the current technology, instead of throwing them back into the dark ages.

Have you ever thought of these things? And you really wonder why people are against that crap? Get a grip in reality, that will help you. Dreaming on about impossible things won't. Coming up with crazy conspiracy bull does not change anything at all. The only ones who are wasting time, resources and energy are you and yours alike.

You really have not thought that through, have you?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

This:

Remember: We did not measure any over-under or other unity...

directly contradicts this:

And yet the secondary battery charged-sometimes a lot faster than the input battery discharged.

as well as this

Even a battery that is boiling...

directly contradicts this:

...stays stone cold.

And you are surprised that no one takes you serious?

Another thing that i noticed is quite common to more "recent" FE scams are statements like this ("recent" meaning a few decades):

... seems to cool down slightly.

A lot of FE "inventions" now claim that stuff cools down. The MEG did, the SEG does, Bedini's crap obviously does, just to name a few. To my recollection these claims started to pop up more often when more people brought the counterargument that such a free energy from nothing would only help to heat up our planet even more and faster.

What kind of magic energy should that be, that cools down things instead of heating them up, escapes me. Everywhere throughout the known universe the transfer of energy is a lossy process that produces heat. Even superconductors need to be cooled down to stay superconductive. Peltier elements heat up one side to make the other one cooler, and that heat energy is always a bit more than the energy "from" cooling. But these fantasy machines somehow manage to transfer energy while cooling down the surroundings in the process.

And people really believe that silly stuff? Wow...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Brian-M]

Go on and debunk. Nothing positive ever comes from total negativism. That, too is an energy law I happen to believe in.

Did you read my previous posts? I pointed out a fatal flaw in the test you described. Are you even going to think about what I said, or are you going to clamp your hands over you ears, squeeze your eyes tight and say: "LA! LA! LA! Not listening! Not Listening!" ???

You're drawing power from one battery, counting all the power drawn, then storing much of it in another battery. Then you switch the batteries around, and put the same power back through the machine again, counting it a second time. Much of that twice-counted energy is then stored back in the first battery, then you switch batteries again, and count that same power a third time, and so on.

You're counting the same power over and over again, like someone attaching a string to a coin so he can put it into a vending machine, pull it out and then put it back in again, so the same coin gets counted repeatedly.

The setup you describe is nothing more than an electrical sleight of hand. The Bedini machine setup is actually using far less power than the lamp. It just looks like it's using the same power because it's drawing the same amount of power from the first battery without actually using it. Instead of using it, it just stores it in another battery, saving it up for later, to be counted all over again.

If you were serious about testing this, you'd have one full battery running the lamp and one full battery running the Bedini machine, which would be charging a completely flat battery, and you wouldn't switch batteries around. The power put into the second battery by the Bedini machine has already been counted. Switch batteries around with the Bedini machine and you count the same energy all over again, like a crooked accountant deducting the same expense more than once.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nothing positive ever comes from total negativism.

I agree that negativism is not helpful. Therefore, please try to remain positive while I explain where you are going wrong.

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.
...
All the while we had a small amount of mechanical energy delivered by the rotor.

You seem to be implying that more energy was extracted than was put into the batteries (50.4Ah out vs 30Ah in). However, in fact most of the energy that was extracted from one battery was simply used to recharge the other one. After a while the first battery become discharged whilst second one was recharged, so you then swapped them and continued for another cycle.

If the motor/generator and battery discharge/charge processes were both 100% efficient, and no mechanical power was extracted from the motor shaft, then this process could continue forever. Of course in practice there are losses and you did extract some power from the motor, therefore the system eventually ran down. This is all quite ordinary and no 'free' energy is involved!

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.

In this case you got 25.2Ah out of the batteries. Assuming that once again they received 30Ah on charge, the charge/discharge (Ampere hour) efficiency was 84%.

Here's another test you could try:- run your motor continuously off both batteries in parallel, extracting the same 'small amount of mechanical energy' as before, but without connecting the charging circuit. If the motor is any good then you should find it draws less less current (~200mA?), and run time should approach (or even exceed) the 144 hours you got originally. I hope this will convince you that there is nothing 'magical' happening in your circuit.

I am currently treating an 88 aH and a 60 aH battery that came from the trash. Both batteries were unable to light a 350 mA bulb. No current at all. Stone dead. After about 30 to 60 seconds (!) on the smallest of my Bedini circuits both batteries could run the lamp for more than 10 minutes. No commercial desulfator circuit treats a battery to 3500 volt spikes. Just no comparison at all.

Sounds like it may be good for desulphating batteries. Now, can you replace that bulky motor with a small solid-state circuit that does the same job?

 

[Brian-M]

This integrates the pulsed current. This is why I don't understand all the ranting about pulses, DC offset and so on.

I don't have a problem with measuring the current like that. I did bring up meters back in post #51, but my main objection cam after you describe the setup of your test. Go back and read post #51 (or the super-simplified kids version in post #53). The main problem in your setup has nothing to do with your choice of meters.

The output was always lower than the input. So far this is perfectly normal.
And yet the secondary battery charged-sometimes a lot faster than the input battery discharged.

I am currently treating an 88 aH and a 60 aH battery that came from the trash. Both batteries were unable to light a 350 mA bulb. No current at all. Stone dead. After about 30 to 60 seconds (!) on the smallest of my Bedini circuits both batteries could run the lamp for more than 10 minutes.

Could it be that the machine is actually desulphating the battery as you earlier claimed did, thereby allowing the battery to use energy that was already stored within it, but previously inaccessible? I don't think anyone here said flat out that this machine couldn't do this, just that you didn't need a Bedini machine in order to do this.

No commercial desulfator circuit treats a battery to 3500 volt spikes. Just no comparison at all.

Probably because that amount of voltage is very unsafe. But you can make one easily. All you have to do is put high current through a coil, and then cut it off suddenly. This creates a high voltage spike across the coil as the magnetic field collapses.

Hell, that's exactly what your car does to get the 5000 to 25000 volts needed at the spark plugs. You could run a high voltage cable from the distributor to positive terminal of the bad battery (using a high voltage diode to make sure the battery doesn't discharge or short-out through the coil), and a cable from the negative terminal to the chassis, then run your car for a while.

Even higher voltage than from a Bendini machine, for far less time, effort and cost. (Just don't connect this to the battery that's running the car, you'll fry the car's electronics.)

Of course, dangerously high voltage pulses may not be the best way to desulphate your battery. Have you compared desulphating effectiveness of high-voltage pulses of the Bedini machine to the high frequency pulses of a proper desulphating machine?

So far you're making two claims about this machine:

1) It desulpates bad batteries.
2) It mysteriously multiplies output of healthy batteries.
​

For 1 by response is, so what? It's hardly the first machine that can do this. For 2, you're setup is flawed and you're actually measuring the same power more than once, giving spurious results.

 

[albert]

Ha. I seem to begin to de-sulphate some brains here. Takes more energy sometimes than bringing back dead batteries.
Roger Ramjet- of course the whole thing can run solid state. My smallest Bedini circuit- the one I used on the dead battery- is a modified computer fan. Fits in your hand. I think you are right on with the rest of your post.
I have explained it before- on a Bedini system the current will go way up and the rotor will slow down when the output is open. This is because the back emf is not extracted. On the higher power machines the transistors will fry because the spikes off the coil go beyond the specs. If I short the output everything will slow down too.
I agree and will do the test of running both batteries in parallel.I will measure the time it takes to discharge the two batteries. The third battery- on the output- will be left out of the equation for this one.
then I will do the battery swapping run and see how long it takes to discharge the first two batteries in this mode with the rotor running.
Higher up in the thread: What is all this about counting the same power twice? this is exactly the point- recovering energy that would be wasted in heat buildup or simply in braking the rotor. I'm not only counting it twice- I'm using it twice. Otherwise it would be lost. Who says that once its out of the circuit we can't re-use it? Seems its you who is beating his head against the wall.If it takes a crooked accountant to use energy twice or several times well let's be crooked accountants then!

Klippel - you're a real hard case of sulphation.Your only redeeming feature seems to be that you like cats-or did you use the first picture you came upon?
Of course the battery is NOT boiling - the battery produces gas- it's called "cold boiling" a battery. Charging it to 15 / 16 Volts with high amps usually heats the battery. The high voltage process I use makes the electrolyte sizzle just as in the high amp process that is normally used- but everything stays cold.
nice you mention the peltier element- One side heats up the other cools down. All done without moving parts and "just" electricity. It also works the other way around- you apply a temperature difference and the thing produces electrical energy. OF COURSE this is lossy. My machines can be lossy and low efficiency too - I never stated there are no losses. Since you cannot measure the energy reservoir we are tapping into - we have only guessed what it might be- you cannot say how much energy is lost in the transfer. A solar panel is the crudest thing in the world- 10 to 15 % of efficiency.- And yet it outputs energy-while most of the REAL energy goes by unused. I'm glad it is this way in the Bedini machines- people had their "free energy crap" blowing up on them because it could not contain the huge energy surges.
In case anyone is interested: My crap battery- After 30 minutes on the Bedini circuit- the battery was at 11. 6 volts then- I put it on the "normal" charger where it still is - happily charging at 8.5 amps. Before the treatment there was no way to charge it- the impedance was way too high.
Hi Brian..your post crossed mine- desulphation of the brains- means the arrogance goes down and some dialogue becomes possible.

Great ..your comparison with the car ignition coil is right to the point. The Bedini works similar to the ignition coil but not exactly in the same manner. The sharper the switch the higher the spike from the collapsing magnetic field. (This contradicts your earlier post- I think it was you- where you compared the Bedini to a step up transformer or a switched power supply. ) All these use transformers. Different wire sizes and different wire lengths in primary and secondary windings. The Bedini coil is one to one. A Multifilar coil. Several threads of wire litzed together and wound on the same coil former. It works on the field collapse only and not on a transformer type action. This is the reason why opening the output or shorting it changes the whole operation of the motor.
I think your scheme with the ignition coil might work- I have not tried if it will only desulphate or put a real charge in the secondary battery.
Perhaps you will agree with me that this effect alone merits a closer look. High voltage pulses plus a small amount of current to charge the battery. I don't think there has been a real investigation of what this does to the battery under charge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Ahh, this could be where your error was. No, we don't think that you are a moron, measuring real energy on ANYTHING except DC and a sine wave is extremely difficult and can fool even experienced engineers.

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.

And pulsed DC is very tricky. Just consider this: 100V pulses (perfectly square for the sake of the exercise), with a 10% duty-cycle, which DC voltage do they equal, power-wise?

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.

Which of the measured currents was pulsed?

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.

This is impossible according to known physics. You are claiming overunity. This is an extraordinary calim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

I can understand that you may be offended, but pending extraordinary evidence, by far the most likely explanation is in fact that you - like it or not - are a fool, a liar, or both. Or at least that you are mistaken ... I'm perfectly willing to believe that you are in good faith.

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.

As long as you are claiming overunity and get surprised when people don't believe you, you don't have a skeptical attitude.

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 .

I'm afraid that is a very poor argument. Scams tend to resurface eternally. I'd like to put your argument upside down: If this idea has been around for a century, don't you think it would have been expolited if there was something to it?

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.

Invoking quantum physics on the macro level is a sure woo sign, sorry.

We will simply see who will have the last laugh-.Only time can prove who is right and who is wrong here.

Wrong. If there was anything to this machine, it would be VERY EASY to document. Overunity is one of the easiest things to prove.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If a device extracted power from water's expansion into a solid, what would the source be?
Is it solar? In as much as the sun's energy is required to make it liquid to begin with, it seems like solar, but backwards.

It would be the heat energy moved in order to freeze it. Also, you are talking about a one-way effect, like the energy of a stone dropping from a height. It can only drop once, then something has provide energy to restore its position.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok somewhere up in this thread someone has asked what the meter was : Fluke 8506 A Thermal RMS multimeter.
As I have said before this meter works on a different principle - it measures the heat created by a current in a wire. The measuring cell is sealed in a glass tube.
This integrates the pulsed current. This is why I don't understand all the ranting about pulses, DC offset and so on. This meter works a bit like the heat/wire voltmeters in some cars. In these a wire lenthens when current flows thru it. with this meter you get the integer value of the current as well as we could measure it. That is why we could compare it to the current drawn by a lamp. 350 mA are 350 mA.

That is a true RMS meter. Unfortunatly, it can only measure current. You also need to know the voltage. I'm afraid you simply don't have the sufficient understanding to make a valid measurement.

[7QUOTE]I am currently treating an 88 aH and a 60 aH battery that came from the trash. Both batteries were unable to light a 350 mA bulb. No current at all. Stone dead. After about 30 to 60 seconds (!) on the smallest of my Bedini circuits both batteries could run the lamp for more than 10 minutes. No commercial desulfator circuit treats a battery to 3500 volt spikes. Just no comparison at all. [/quote]

And neither does yours. The voltage you mention is the unloaded voltage. The terminal voltage of even a very dead battery will be much lower.

Don't you understand that all these little imprecisions keep telling us that you don't really know what you are doing?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Great ..your comparison with the car ignition coil is right to the point. The Bedini works similar to the ignition coil but not exactly in the same manner. The sharper the switch the higher the spike from the collapsing magnetic field. (This contradicts your earlier post- I think it was you- where you compared the Bedini to a step up transformer or a switched power supply. ) All these use transformers. Different wire sizes and different wire lengths in primary and secondary windings. The Bedini coil is one to one. A Multifilar coil. Several threads of wire litzed together and wound on the same coil former. It works on the field collapse only and not on a transformer type action. This is the reason why opening the output or shorting it changes the whole operation of the motor.

Fly-back induction is the word. It is old hat. Using a transformer just gives you a higher voltage, and a better adaptation to the load. However, in principle you can get any voltage with a single coil, too.

The litze thing is secondary, it just gives you, or may give you a better frequency response, but that mainly rests with the type of core you use.

I think your scheme with the ignition coil might work- I have not tried if it will only desulphate or put a real charge in the secondary battery.

No, the direct coil will have a better impedance match. The ignition coil is optimized to produce sparks.

Perhaps you will agree with me that this effect alone merits a closer look. High voltage pulses plus a small amount of current to charge the battery. I don't think there has been a real investigation of what this does to the battery under charge.

Wrong. Voltage does NOT charge a battery, only current, but of course you need sufficient voltage to drive the current.

Of course it has been investigated. Battery physics has been under extensive research for decades. Driven by the need for mobile devices and electrical cars, thousands of scientists are working full-time on this.

This is another thing about you: Your own knowledge of this is quite limited, and you are projecting that lack of knowledge on the rest of the world. However, you are mistaken: There is a mountain of knowledge out there.

Hans

 

[technoextreme]

Hmmm.
The energy you guys expend to "debunk" me far exceeds the energy I put into this thread. Just needs some typing and off they go by themselves-thats free energy fellas.

Yeah... You are right about that. Here is the only link to prove how you entire device fails and defies the laws of physics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solids/hyst.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hmmm.
The energy you guys expend to "debunk" me far exceeds the energy I put into this thread. Just needs some typing and off they go by themselves-thats free energy fellas.

I wonder why they all fight tooth and nails for preserving the status quo-
this forum seems to be as conservative as the catholic church- and see the mess they have got us into.
Well I left the church when I was fourteen years old and never wanted to get back.
So go on debunking things, buy gasoline at ridiculous prices,watch the world go to hell. Seen the news lately? Ole oil going to mess up the US coast? This is what you should be fighting.Not a bunch of people who are not content to sit there and watch the world go to hell.We are looking for alternatives so that our children might have a future.
This might not come from a machine using old lead acid batteries - but the little clue we need might be hidden there. that is why I do this work, Reason enough for me to continue.
Go on and debunk. Nothing positive ever comes from total negativism. That, too is an energy law I happen to believe in.

That was an idiotic post. It was also offending, considering the fact that we have tried to answer questions YOU asked. Tough luck that you dodn't like the answers .

Hans

 

[Brian-M]

What is all this about counting the same power twice? this is exactly the point- recovering energy that would be wasted in heat buildup or simply in braking the rotor. I'm not only counting it twice- I'm using it twice. Otherwise it would be lost. Who says that once its out of the circuit we can't re-use it? Seems its you who is beating his head against the wall.If it takes a crooked accountant to use energy twice or several times well let's be crooked accountants then!

You've missed the point. You're not re-using the same energy twice, you've only set things up to look like you are. To try and make things even more simple than I already have, think this analogy over...

Think of energy as coal, and a battery as a big box of coal. Now think of a device that uses energy as a furnace fed from a conveyor belt. With the circuit for the lamp, this is equivalent to shoveling coal onto a conveyor belt leading to the furnace.

With the Bedini machine, this is equivalent to shoveling coal from onto a conveyor belt that splits into two paths, one leading to the furnace, the other leading to a second box of coal.

You're thinking that because you're shoveling the same amount of coal onto the conveyor belt for the second furnace as you are for the first furnace must be using the same amount of power, and that a lump of coal that end up being put on the conveyor belt two or more times is being re-used.

But you're wrong. The second furnace (the Bedini machine) is simply using less power than the first one (the lamp), which is why it runs for longer. Only some of the power you put into it is being used, the rest of the power is just being dumped into the second box (battery) without being used at all.

It's like taking $40 out of your bank account every day, then putting $20 back in. Then you go around and showing everyone your ATM slips for the daily $40 withdrawals, and telling them that you spend that $40 per day, but have figured out a special way of making your savings last twice as long. It's a lie, you're simply putting back in half of what you take out without using it at all.

I agree and will do the test of running both batteries in parallel.I will measure the time it takes to discharge the two batteries. The third battery- on the output- will be left out of the equation for this one.
then I will do the battery swapping run and see how long it takes to discharge the first two batteries in this mode with the rotor running.

Alternatively, you could put a load on the rotor and directly measure the horsepower you're getting out of the machine (1hp = 745.7 watts), and switch the batteries around to your hearts content. If you can get a Bendini machine producing 25W of mechanical energy to last far longer than a 25W lamp, drawing from the same amount of stored energy (identical batteries), we'd all be very, very impressed. Do that, and you'll have investors beating a path to your door.

Great ..your comparison with the car ignition coil is right to the point. The Bedini works similar to the ignition coil but not exactly in the same manner. The sharper the switch the higher the spike from the collapsing magnetic field. (This contradicts your earlier post- I think it was you- where you compared the Bedini to a step up transformer or a switched power supply. ) All these use transformers. Different wire sizes and different wire lengths in primary and secondary windings. The Bedini coil is one to one. A Multifilar coil. Several threads of wire litzed together and wound on the same coil former. It works on the field collapse only and not on a transformer type action. This is the reason why opening the output or shorting it changes the whole operation of the motor.

I think you're operating under the misunderstanding that all switch-mode power supplies use transformers. Some switch-mode power supplies can be built using only a single coil. A DC source is switched on to supply current to a coil, creating a magnetic field, the DC is then switched off causing the magnetic field to suddenly collapse, causing a brief spike of higher-voltage DC which is sent to the output regulator, and then the process is repeated. That's the basic principle behind all switch mode power supplies.

I not saying that the Bedini machine is like a switch mode power supply, I'm saying that it IS a switch mode power supply. Just a strangely designed one with no output regulation.

Your distinction between a Bedini coil and a transformer is a bizarre one. A multiple-winding coil is a transformer. Using the same wire length and thickness, you have an isolation transformer. Hell even a single-winding coil can be used as a transformer (known as an autotransformer).

Your assertion that it "works on the field collapse only and not on a transformer type action" clearly indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Current passing through a conductor produces a magnetic field. A change in current through a coil creates a change in magnetic field. A change in magnetic field generates electrical potential opposing the change of current.

It's a very basic electrical principle. Transformers use this principle, and so does the Bendini machine. It's the same "type action" in both cases.

I think your scheme with the ignition coil might work- I have not tried if it will only desulphate or put a real charge in the secondary battery.

It probably won't be much good for charging. With voltage that high, it's not going to have much current.

 

[Brian-M]

Albert, here's a thought.

You're claiming that the second battery is being charged by energy that would normally be wasted by the motor.

However, brushless DC motors sometimes have efficiencies of over 90%. Even higher when the machine is operating under no-load (like the Bedini machine is). Agnimotors, for example, produce DC motors with up to 93% efficiency.

And that includes energy lost from wire resistance and friction.

Even if the Bedini machine really was recapturing energy that is normally wasted, it could offer very little improvement over current high-efficiency brushless DC motors.

 

[quarky]

It's thermal.

If the water is going from liquid to solid, the surrounding temperature is colder than the water is. What you're doing is extracting energy from a difference in temperature, which is a very commonplace source of energy.

When you think about it, a power plant is extracting energy from the expansion of water from liquid into gas, which is sort of the same. Either way, liquid/ice or liquid/steam, the energy is being extracted from a difference in temperature.

Yes, but a power plant has a fuel source. It makes steam by burning coal, etc.
My frost-heave exploiter ($99.99) requires no fuel.

So its a combo of geothermal and solar? This confuses me. Thanks for your patience.

(Excellent responses to albert, btw. You have skill with analogy, which I find indispensable for learning things that are over my head.)

 

[Brian-M]

Yes, but a power plant has a fuel source. It makes steam by burning coal, etc.
My frost-heave exploiter ($99.99) requires no fuel.

So its a combo of geothermal and solar? This confuses me. Thanks for your patience.

(Excellent responses to albert, btw. You have skill with analogy, which I find indispensable for learning things that are over my head.)

You could heat the ice by burning coal if you wanted. Remember, heat is a form of energy, and when the ice heats up (and melts) it's absorbing energy. Since you like my analogies, think of applying energy (heat) to melt ice as being like applying energy (mechanical force) to compress a spring. You get the energy back when the spring (or water) is allowed to release it. In the case of water, some of that energy is being returned as mechanical energy rather than plain heat. (More info.)

You asked: "So its a combo of geothermal and solar?" Not exactly. It could be geothermal. It could be solar. It could be fossil fuel. It could be nuclear. It all depends on where the thermal energy to melt the ice is coming from.

If you like the idea of generating power from changing temperatures, you'll love NASA's Underwater Rover.

SOLO-TREC extracts thermal energy from the ocean each time it travels from the cold depths to the warmer surface. Tubes of oil on its shell are surrounded by a compartment filled with two different waxes. They flip from solid to liquid when the sea temperature exceeds 10 °C, and expand by 13 per cent (see diagram).

The expanding wax squeezes oil from the tubes into the float's interior, where it is stored at high pressure. The oil can then be released to drive a generator and charge batteries. They power the pumps that take on and expel water so the buoy can dive and surface, and also the float's GPS receiver, sensors and the transmitter that beams data to satellites when at the surface.

 

[quarky]

You could heat the ice by burning coal if you wanted. Remember, heat is a form of energy, and when the ice heats up (and melts) it's absorbing energy. Since you like my analogies, think of applying energy (heat) to melt ice as being like applying energy (mechanical force) to compress a spring. You get the energy back when the spring (or water) is allowed to release it. In the case of water, some of that energy is being returned as mechanical energy rather than plain heat. (More info.)

You asked: "So its a combo of geothermal and solar?" Not exactly. It could be geothermal. It could be solar. It could be fossil fuel. It could be nuclear. It all depends on where the thermal energy to melt the ice is coming from.

If you like the idea of generating power from changing temperatures, you'll love NASA's Underwater Rover.



[qimg]http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2757/27576001.jpg[/qimg]

I mentioned the frost heave exploiter (now $89.99; today only) because to an unscrupulous eye, it might be seen as an over-unity device.

I am indeed a fan of the stuff you generously linked me to. Variations have been around since Ike. The Minto wheel comes to mind; a large version of the "dipping duck" toy. Not sure why Minto had to make it large to drive his point home, but larger is more impressive. Little devices can't really show off the power they generate, if only because our various intermediary controls and regulators eat up all the potential gain, and we're left with something that can't preform meaningful work.

I found this out the hard way, putting a load on my first dime-store radiometer. Though it was a much cheaper blunder than Minto's massive wheel, even though he produced power with his.

If every suburban home had a massive Minto wheel, they wouldn't need a solar panel to power their pocket calculator.

Tapping into the potential of these temperature differences that are supplied by the Earth's particular means of storing and isolating them, in the long run, is again, a combo of geo-thermal and solar energy, no?

 

[quarky]

Years ago, I had an idea that reminds me of the Nasa's underwater rover, except, in my naivety, I was trying to exploit the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the deep sea, and it took some time to see the folly of this, via specific gravity vs density.
Heat difference is where its at, in this angle. Simple heat pumps. Again, part solar, part geo-thermal? Forgive my basic retardation.

Tapping into the Earth's heat, and ultimately radiating a lot of it into space, is quite different than tapping the Sun's energy, which is there for the taking, with no implied drain on the (maybe) delicate condition of the planet's internal stash of heat, much less any effect on the Sun's power spewage?

Is "spewage" a word?
My spell check doesn't like it.