Feynman makes a Bedini Motor

[Ren]

Firstly, I will decide what questions I wish to pose,

The answers to your questions are No, No and No.

I spend a significant amount of time and money trying to do my bit to alleviate the problems you outlined. Using mathematically and empirically proven science facts will yield far better results than hanging on the totally unproven words of Mr Bedini and others like him. Most of the people here have good hearts and are hard working. It annoys me to see them being misled so I am trying to stop it in my own little way.

OU is NOT proven. Never has, anywhere. Please quote a source for such a remarkable statement.

The Bedini motor does NOT work as an OU device.

As for your last statement, understanding something doesn't make it suddenly disappear!

@WilbyInebriated
I would be most happy to debate Mr Bedini in this forum for all to see. I am quite sure we would all learn something.

ERS

ERS I am interested in your definition of so called "overunity". If you are saying OU has never been proven, EVER, then I ask where all your documentation is from the beginning of time regarding every device/concept ever built?

Can you honestly say you have studied and explored all avenues to the letter, or are you just saying you havent heard/seen it proven?

In regards to Bedinis device (by the way which device are we reffering to? He has built hundreds)  I ask where your  documentation and build specifics are proving this device doesnt work as claimed.

As far as I am aware, NO ONE bar Jim Watson has built the machine spelled out in his 1984 booklet. Dont even start on the MythBusters so called "replication" that thing was a joke.

I see some sense in what Loner posted when he spoke of "closed minds" and how they will never get it. Free energy is all around us yet people still squabble over getting more out than they put in. If you dont have to physically pay for the input and you get useable output is this not overunity? Or is it just COP over 1? Is their a difference?

Im tired of people sledging peoples ideas and designs without any hard facts themeselves. If you were an expert and had years of research and replications to back up your findings then I would respect your opinion much more. Funnily enough JB has been working in this field for quite a while now, at least he has done his homework.

I have built over 9 of his devices and they all do what they are supposed to. COP over 1 can be seen in even the simplest of his designs when all factors are considered and they are built properly.

Feynman, you really opened up a can of worms here mate. How is your little build going anyway? I thought Id ask cause no one else seems to be on topic.

[willitwork]

Bedini OU Test

It does not seem that the Bedini motor is an over unity device. The 2 battery configuration setup appears to be an inefficient pulse charger. Bedini experimenters have observed benefits of pulse charging but little else.

Here are two simple OU tests.

Test One

Assume we are using 12 volt batteries, assume the batteries are the same type and age, assume the batteries are near the same temperature each time you do the test.

Fully charge both batteries and wire them in parallel.
Clip a 10 - 15 watt bulb across the pair and measure the voltage.
You will need two identical lamps, we will use the second one later.
Note how long the bulb will stay lit before the voltage drops to 10 volts.
Repeat the action 3 or 4 times and average your results.
Do the same with one cell at a time.

Be patient, we are talking about several charge and discharge cycles, it will be worth it.

Document discharge times for each cell with the same bulb.

Depending on the load curve, internal battery heat, cell fatigue and comparative cell quality, the discharge time of one cell should be about half that of two strapped together.

For this example, lets assume that the two strapped together batteries give two hours of light before they drop to 10 volts and each cell on its own gives one hour of light before it drops to 10 volts.


Recharge both batteries.

Connect to Bedini motor
Connect one lightbulb to each battery.
Start your Bedini motor.
You can start the Bedini motor first if you want.


This is a crude but important method.

If the system is operating over unity the total 'on time' before 10 volts should be greater while the Bedini motor is running than otherwise. In other words the two lights should stay on together for more than one hour.

My Prediction:

The Bedini draws current and each lamp draws current resulting in less light time than if you just charged the batteries and put a light on each one.

What will this demonstrate?

a) The Bedini is operating way under unity BUT is demonstrating an effective way to charge or maintain a battery.
b) No more work can be done by placing the Bedini between the batteries than just using the batteries

Test Two

Assume we are using 12 volt batteries, assume the batteries are the same type and age.

Acquire two 1 FARAD capacitors, like the ones used in high power car stereos. These are not cheap. If this experiment fails you will want to install a whopping big stereo in your SUV to justify their purchase.
Before starting the Bedini, clip one cap across each battery. (Be careful as they will spark on contact)
Start the Bedini.
Unclip the batteries but leave the caps in place.

Note: Electrolytic capacitors charge more efficiently than batteries, they won't hold as much but they are efficient.

While the Bedini is running, unclip the batteries from the circuit but leave the caps in. If the unit is running over unity the power source cap will run down and the charging cap will stay up. Then swap the caps as you would the batteries.

If the system is over unity you will be able to keep swapping these perpetually.

Perhaps a switch mechanism could be built to keep swapping the caps easily.

Prediction

The system will run down very fast.
Once swapped there will be enough charge in the newly swapped in cap to run the system for a while but it will only impart a feeble anemic charge into the discharged cap. The source cap will sputter miserably down to about 10 volts and the target cap will reach about 8 or 9 volts, the motor will stop.

What will this demonstrate?

That the Bedini is a glorified and highly inefficient pulse charger.


What conclusions can we draw?

a) We could build a solid state autotransformer pulse charger for about 10 bucks that will outperform the Bedini as a battery charger. (in fact if you take the time to plan you could build a pulse based battery reconditioner that can be used on the same battery that is powering it.)
b) The rotating magnets are a waste of valuable energy ? but have high entertainment value
c) Claims that the Bedini motor is an OU device are fanciful at best and outright lies at worst.

The Bedini is likely to draw between 60 - 500 MA. Depending on tuning. The reader may be tempted to say that this power loss is enough to overcome any over unity gain. Resist that temptation. When the system was running as a battery pulse charger the load of the Bedini was never considered.

[Ren]

willitwork you ignorance amuses me.

To start with Bedini never said the SG was an overunity device, NEVER! This has been stated time and time again, but people keep jumping on the band wagon to discredit it not being OU, they clearly do not understand its function or purpose.

Funny thing is your first testing method is not unlike the methods proposed in the Monopole forums. Basically the experimenter charges and discharges the battery multiple times and records the data. Many people, myself included, have completed this test and found similar results. The battery charged by the SG not only charges faster over repeated cycles, but holds its charge better and thus powers its load longer. All this has been documented many times in other forums, with strict conditions and criteria including control groups charged conventionally. Some people have done over 50 cycles straight. Your lack of knowledge regarding battery lonlevity is also apparant from your suggestion that voltage be reduced to 10 volts each cycle.

The Bedini ENERGISER (it aint no motor in its simplest form, JB says so countless times) has always been under unity, its Co efficient of Performance is only apparaent when one factors in what is captured in the battery and the small amount of free mechanical. Every circuit has losses. The amount of work the charge battery can do is where the learning starts

I laugh at your post that first sets an innapropriate test senario then sums it all up with not only a Prediction but conclusions! Your tests to start with are totally unrelated to the principles of the Energiser and incorrectly place it into the box your mind has already prepared for it. The box of faliure before an understanding of even the basic principles are grasped. May as well build a car without wheels then say it doesnt roll so cars dont work....

"That the Bedini is a glorified and highly inefficient pulse charger." lol more ignorance to laugh at. Infact it is perhaps one of the most efficient not to mention simplest pulse chargers available which not only charges from the same or LOWER source voltage but does so in a way which not only maintains battery life, but increases it over time!

"The rotating magnets are a waste of valuable energy ? but have high entertainment value" lol again! Describe to me how these rotating magnets are wasting valuable energy, Im keen for some more laughs. You obviously dont understand their purpose yet again!

I am highly interested to see your $10 dollar pulse charger that is powered by the battery that it is charging, of course if one wants scientific evidence then that battery must undergo repeated load tests just like the SG batteries to see if over time the battery is being killed and if the charging action is decent.

"Electrolytic capacitors charge more efficiently than batteries, they won't hold as much but they are efficient." <- Blanket statement once again shows your lack of knowledge.

"When the system was running as a battery pulse charger the load of the Bedini was never considered." I dont understand what your are getting at here, I really dont. The Charge battery IS the load, the energiser cant run effectively without it!

When all the misinformed indivduals finally understand what the basic SG is perhaps I can stop repeating myself about it. THE SG ISNT OVERUNITY. IT NEVER WAS CLASSIFIED AS THIS BY ANYONE WHO HAD A CLUE. JB's free energy generator from the 1984 publication was a whole different kettle of fish and was claimed to keep the run batteries topped up while delivering useable output. People are forever confusing the two.

Your suggestions and comments inform me that you have NEVER built the devices mentioned, let alone studied them at length. Another mythbuster in the making....

[alan]

Willitwork's testplan is a very good startingpoint to systematically test the device, maybe too conventional for some . Using caps like that is a good idea, batteries have too many variables. Many have claimed excess energy in caps which were being pulsed, so don't say ' caps will NOT work' without any info. See nul-points' Tesla thread.

What bedini did claim, was a high efficient device that creates back emf and capturing it in a cap or batteries.
_The_ 'radiant event' in the battery, where 'energy from the vacuum' is converted, is the overunity effect which is being discussed here, someting like that.
The motor is used for timing the signals and spikes, not for torque, his commercial devices are all solid state, but, quoting Bearden:
"These first Bedini systems just now entering very limited production are not overunity, but do incorporate some of the principles of the motor/generator, which have been adapted, in a lesser form, to accommodate building a solid-state device." So even the fe-guru links overunity with Bedini.

Ren, how many SSG have you build?
Correct me if I'm wrong and don't call us ignorant and closed minded... if we were, we wouldn't be on this forum. 

edit
For those interested, here is the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wSkJAAAAEBAJ

[willitwork]

Ren,

My pulse motor in various configurations with various coil types has been running for weeks. I have tuned it and seen its many sweet spots. I use a hall effect device which feeds an op amp used as a voltage comparator. The threshold can be adjusted. The op amp (a legacy LM301) fires a 555 which drives a 2N3055. If the principle could be demonstrated to work I would have converted to a MOSFET output with much higher rise time drivers.

My test procedure was as folllows:

Build the basic unit watch the back EMF, reuse as much as possible. Vary the pulse width, hall effect sensor position and threshold and voltage driving the coils to identify the sweetspots. Watch all waveforms on the trusty Tektronix. At one time I used a cap across the coil to turn it into a tuned tank. That produced curious results. I measured the output that the system would use to pulse batteries. It did not take long to determine that any claim to aetheric entergy was pure bunk.

I was able to get the unit to spin at 1500 RPM with 5 volts on the drive circuit and a 4ms pulse drawing about 50ma. Much higher speed with increased drive voltage and higher pulse widths. The precise position of the hall effect device is also critical. The spinning magnets stir up the air and of course incur loss. If I take the magnets out of the circuit and convert the 555 to an astable variable duty cycle oscillator I can get similar output from the coil as when the magnets are spinning. The only difference is that I won't be waisting energy by churning air with a bunch of spinning magnets. That output can be fed to an ususpecting rechargeble via a half wave rectifier. Saves on spining metal.

Now Bedini may have never stated that the device was OU but some people on this thread do.

Here are my questions to you:

How have you built your Bedini? What results have you achieved?


PS: If you paint the magnets and use a strobe you will be entertained by them.