Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Magluvin]

Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?

Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'. In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit.  Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first.  None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.


Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags

[tinman]

author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513113#msg513113 date=1510702689]
.

"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work.  It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? Ridiculous.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?
Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearance
What is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it.

Nope
Grum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!!  Everything else is off the shelf!!!  The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!!  How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication?   

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.
Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

Well, if you all know better, then carry on.  The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here...

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct 


Brad

[tinman]

In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit.  Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first.  None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.


Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags

Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'.

You may have a surprise coming your way 

As to the rest of your post--it is very simple,as i stated in my last post.

The exact circuit will be used,and my circuit i posted was nothing more than a question--which you must have missed.

As for the energizer--you provide exact's,and i will build to those exact's.

What is the energizer?
It has a rotor with magnets that pass a bunch of coils on a stator
6 magnets,and 6 coils.
The coil core's are made from soft iron bolts-->this is the V2 we are talking about here.
The coils are hooked in series,and are half wave rectified,so as current only flows once the magnets are leaving the core.
In Bedini's V2,he used a 12v fan motor from a car-a PM motor which PL says is no good--so who do we believe.

As i said,what advantage would Bedini's energizer have over my very well built generator,that has laminated core's,which would have far less eddy current loss than a solid iron core.
It has machine wound coil's,unlike the energizer with it's hand wound coil's.

I can half wave rectify my generator exactly as John did.

It's all well and good to make the big shout about it being all wrong,but you must be able to back it up with why it's wrong,and followed by what is right.


Brad

[tinman]

Some facts that some of you may not want to hear.

Here is a couple of statements from John Bedini that he made in his 1984 book-Bedini's Free Energy Generator.
Quote: The waves we want to generate,are like those from old DC generators.

Quote: I have run some test's in my lab,and discovered that certain types of energizers,generator's,and alternators do what we need.

Quote:Below is a picture of John next to one of his !working! prototypes in the early 1980's

What do you know,the energizer looks nothing like the one in his 1984 schematic  ,and has no flywheel,and yet still is a working machine,in that it self charges the battery.

How is the low drag energizer made?

Well,here it is,straight from there books.

The theory is this.
We only draw current from the coil's after the magnet has passed the coils,and not before.

Reason for this-->It is the Bedini's camp belief that if you only draw current from the coil after the magnet has passed the coil,you get less drag from the energizer than you would if you collected the current from the coil before the magnet reaches the center of the coil.

In other words,if the top half of the wave form is the magnet approaching the coil,and the bottom half of the wave form is the magnet leaving the coil,we should only pull from the bottom half of the wave form,as pulling from the top half of the wave form will create more drag 

Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.

If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.

Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.


Brad

[Grumage]

Hi All.

John Bedini talked a lot about " tuning " .....

In the 1984 sketch I see an LC tank circuit, there's even an arrow through the capacitor symbol.

I can't elaborate on this further without a build, I must try and get into the workshop.

Cheers Graham.