Your take on the latest book-self running machines?

[MarkE]

As painful as it was,i watched the whole video. Never in my life have i heard such dribble.
It has a shift button ,Which is probably just a bridge across the base resistor. No different that turning the 1k pot down on the standard SG.
It has blinding LED's,that bog the motor down when switched on-oh wow,the normal generator effect.
Increase the input draw by 50%,and get a 100% increase in output lol.
It has an electrical efficieny of 95%,and then another 35% mechanical output-thus it is 30% OU-->apparently

I cant believe they are still trying to peddle this rubbish.

Arron and Peter
If your reading this thread,then please show us all one of these self running OU machines. And then let some one that actually knows there stuff,test your so called self running OU device.

Who wants to put a wager on- they will never take up the challenge-situation normal.

Aaron and Peter pay for their grid supplied power from sales of their books.

[MileHigh]

I am going to complete a debate that I had with Aaron here.

Also, the "overunity" shows up by adding the mechanical work to the 90%+ recovery and not normally from what the output battery gets (90-95% recovery). But in extended tests back in 2004, which I witnessed, the batteries did deliver more than what was supplied by the input without having to add mechanical work to take it over 1.0 COP.

We will see how what Aaron defines as "mechanical work" is wrong.   In observing many Bedini clips I noted that a typical Bedini motor only transfers about 30% of the source battery power to the charging battery.  Aaron is claiming "magic" when only 30% becomes a 90% recharge of the charging battery.

Aaron's comment about the cap pulser circuit (special issue designed by John Bedini):

Each time those caps discharge, it delivers over 70 watt peak impulses. That is where your comprehension is breaking down. The uneducated will claim, "It's the same amount of energy just used in a shorter time." But that is false and you have made those claims before.

Here we have a big Aaron fail.  A guy who as been running a web site about all things energy related and he can't compose a sentence about energy that makes sense.  Aaron, when you talk about impulses, "70 watt peak" is meaningless.  When you talk about impulses you specify the energy in the impulse.  The "70 watt peak" would occur for a very short amount of time.

It is the same amount of energy over a shorter period of time, and the average power would be about the same.  Beyond that, connecting a capacitor bank, which is a voltage source, to a battery, which is a voltage source, causes a rather nasty "fight" resulting in a very high current impulse.  I suspect that the battery does not take too kindly to the "70 watt peak" pulse, and it's very possible that cap shorting is rather inefficient, and the battery is acting mostly like a resistor and not being charged.  Proper testing would have to be done to find out.

You can have the same energy at a low power or the same energy at a high power and they are NOT the same. The results are way different. If you take a hammer and tap a window 10 times soft enough - the window won't break. But take all 10 taps worth of energy and discharge them into 1 tap and you will shatter the window. That is because increasing the power in a strong impulse does something that the same energy spread over a larger period of time cannot give.

See my comment above, I suspect that you are wrong.

The output battery is being charged with 72 amps pulses 2 times per second or 4 times per second depending on the running mode. Your 30% claim only displays that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was referring to a standard Bedini setup, not the cap pulser.

Further ignorance is displayed by your mention of C20 charging rates. We're not charging the battery at a C20 charge rate. I talked about a C20 DISCHARGE rate

Yes that was just a "big typo" mistake on my part.  I meant to say "discharging" and I wrote "charging" instead.  I can't go back and correct it though because I can't see the post when I am logged into YouTube.  It's fairly obvious that I meant "discharging" when I stated "charging" if you read the text.  Several times afterwards you cynically take advantage of my "big typo."

Continued...

[MileHigh]

The C20 load test will show that a good build like this will deliver 90-95% of what was measured leaving the input battery.

If the source battery only transfers 30% of its energy to the target battery, you will not end up with 90%-95% of the initial source battery energy in the target battery.  There is no "magic" and you are playing the "Big Lie" game.  State an outrageous lie enough of times and people will believe it.  No way.  As I state on YouTbe, with new batteries there is "latent energy" that has to be cycled out of them before you can make proper measurements.

So without loading the wheel, you claim waste heat is produced by bearing friction and air agitation is also waste heat. All that heat you're claiming that is a part of this 70% fictitious waste. Yet, you say mechanical work is zero. So you claim there is no mechanical work being done yet the wheel being unloaded is causing all this heat. Do you realize how how much of a forked tongue you have? Even if we aren't loading the wheel with a generator, etc... as it is spinning creating all this heat that you claim, that IS mechanical work no matter how small. Heat is work and while the wheel is spinning "unloaded" it is generating heat, yet you claim, "the mechanical output is ZERO."

Therefore, you are essentially saying that the wheel is spinning for free while simultaneously creating all this bearing and air heat! ROFL!

Aaron Believes that when a Bedini rotor is just spinning driving no actual mechanical load, the bearing friction and the air friction are a "mechanical load" and he can consider that part of the output of the device.  It's part of the 70% lost to waste heat Aaron.  One more time, this is a huge fail on your part.  Here you are running a forum devited to energy for the last 15 years, and you can't even understand the energy dynamics of a vanilla Bedini motor.

you say we claimed for years it is not overunity, yet for the same amount of years, we claim it is overunity by adding mechanical work.... the wheel spins doing zero mechanical work,  yet it is magically creating all this bearing and air heat, etc...

you claim the wheel spins without doing work yet you claim the wheel creates bearing heat and hot air, etc...

Yes you have been claiming it is over unity when you "add the mechanical output."  The problem with you is that you think bearing friction and air friction are the "mechanical output" for a vanilla Bedini motor when in actual fact they are part of the 70% waste heat.  It's actually shocking that you would state that and clearly indicates that you still are semi-clueless.  It's just like your crazy claim that a bouncing ball is COP>1.  You don't understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.

With the wheel, the waveform is different than a solid state oscillator. With the wheel, it creates the "h" waveform. With the solid state oscillator, the frequency is quite a bit higher and we get a different waveform. You don't need the wheel and can increase the base resistance until the circuit self-oscillates. But I'd use a cap discharge circuit to capture the spikes then cap discharge to battery.

Overall, I think the SG might be more efficient than the solid state oscillator but they both work.

ROFL,  the spinning rotor with the useless bearing and air friction sucking source power and pouring it down the drain as waste heat and very little control over the timing vs. a 555 pulsing a coil with complete control over the timing and Aaron pitches the Bedini motor as possibly being more efficient.  Interestingly enough, as we speak he is selling a new book on Bedini motors.

[MileHigh]

Final posting to wrap things up...

About Bedini motors and energy from me:  "Each time the coil discharges into the charging battery there is a finite amount of energy in that spike.  Then the battery has a charging efficiency, and a discharging efficiency that is proportional to the load current.  We can keep it simple and state that the two efficiencies combined will be say 80% as an example.   So if the source battery supplies 200,000 Joules, what you can get out of the charging battery is 200,000 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 48,000 Joules.  That's why over the years you guys have used the line, "You can't take a charging battery that was just charged and put it in the source battery position."  You would claim that a "'radiantly' charged battery cannot be put in the source battery position."  You guys would state that to discourage people from making that test.  And I have read reports by people that do make the test and they are disappointed that the motor dies out quite quickly.  The answer is in my example above:  Source energy from source battery = 200,000 Joules.  Extractable energy from charging battery = 48,000 Joules.  When you run the Bedini motor with all the inefficiencies you lose 152,000 Joules."

In their latest clip which is all about "getting over unity when factoring in the mechanical output" (to promote the new book) the setup now has a pick-up coil driving a FWBR driving a bank of LEDs.  So indeed, they do have a mechanical load in this setup and are showing a useful output.  There is a cap pulser circuit for charging the charging battery.

There is a mechanical load on the motor (finally).

But what are the problems with this clip?

They show the voltage and current readings for the source battery.  That's okay.
They don't show any measurements for the pickup coil + FWBR driving the LED load.  Big problem.
They don't show any measurements for the cap pulser output.  Big problem.

Aaron probably has 15 years experience.  Peter probably has 30 years experience.  So between them they have 45 years worth of experience and they are pitching a new book about "how to get over unity from a Bedini motor" and they don't make any proper measurements of the output?  What a joke!  They don't even bother to make an estimate of the cap pulser charging power based on the cap start and end voltage and the pulsing frequency.

The truth: If they did a an emulation of the charging battery with a low-pass filter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output of the cap pulser.  If they got rid of the LED load and just used a variable load resistor and a true-RMS multimeter they could make an accurate measurement of the average power output for the pick-up coil.  They could change the value of the load resistor to experiment with different mechanical loads.   They could play with that setup to their heart's content and try any possible combination they could dream of and the power output will never exceed the power input.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Just one little bonus comment.

This is from a posting by Aaron promoting his new book:

Engineers are normally taught to ground these spikes out so they don't damage other electronics on an electrical line. In fact, that is what a "surge protector" is designed to do. Through experimentation, John discovered that these electrical transients have a number of unusual characteristics. One of these benefits includes the ability to charge batteries extremely efficiently, and even revive some batteries that are considered dead.
Although many engineers claim these spikes can't charge a battery because they are just high voltage with virtually no current, there are thousands upon thousands of global experiments being conducted with these circuits that prove otherwise. And if these spikes are used to charge a capacitor and then that capacitor is discharged into a battery, even more amazing results can be had. And this is one of the methods for using electricity that Nikola Tesla developed back in 1893. John's circuits are literally a miniaturized version of some of Tesla's greatest discoveries.

Aaron, don't try to put nonsensical words like that into the mouths of engineers.  John Bedini did not discover any "unusual characteristics" either.  "Miniaturized version of Tesla's greatest discoveries?"  ROFL

In fact the spikes start off with whatever current was flowing through the coil when the transistor gets switched off.  The current then decreases and approaches zero.  The amount of time it takes the current to decrease to effectively what is zero depends on the load.  The spikes are actually based on current, and for a typical Bedini motor the current may start off at somewhere between 0.5 amps and 2 amps.  And yet you state, "virtually no current."  And I am pretty sure your buddy Peter is in agreement with you.

So after 15 years, Aaron still has no understanding about how a coil discharges.  It's almost unbelievable but it is true.