Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[tinman]

 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....

.it only took ten pages for the discussion to transition from a piss poor replication into a full blown debunking...  congratulations!

Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found 

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  --Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad

[Magluvin]

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





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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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


Brad

Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick?  Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results. Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here. 

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry.    



Gota git to work.

Mags

[Magluvin]

author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....
Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found 

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  --Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad

Ive read you have read a pdf. Is that it? Can you post it here? I could not seem to find it here after you said you read it through..

Mags

[Magluvin]

I'll send you a care package if you want....all books, all videos, old and new.... you know how to reach me.

Cool. Thanks.   I do want what he has so as to be on that same page with him if that is going to be his reference.

Mags

[Void]

Unless of course,the voltage across the caps and motor was at a higher potential than the two supply batteries voltages combined.

Hi Brad. If the cap bank is in series with the battery (or batteries) it will not charge
the batteries no matter what its voltage is.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.

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.

The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine
where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini.
When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew
Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.


All the best...