Captret - Capacitor and Electret

[Vortex1]

Thanks for noticing MH

Back in the day, automobiles would have a deviation type amp meter that read -/+

If current was flowing out of the battery, the meter read minus.

If current was flowing into the battery, the meter read plus.

The same thing can be done with a DMM set to amps or milli-amps scale.

Just put the negative lead of the DMM on the plus of the battery, the positive lead of the DMM is now the new battery plus terminal.

If current is flowing out of the battery, the meter reads minus (value).

If current is flowing into the battery, the meter read plus (value).

The meter can be buffered with a large capacitor if pulses are present, but it will still show the average and the direction of flow.

Another method is the use of a current shunt resistor with the meter set to volts or millivolts, depending on the value of of the resistor. Then current flow and amount out of or into the battery can be easily seen.

These are real time measurements that do not rely on battery electro chemistry quirks.

Why no one initially did this with the "captret" is beyond me, as it is the first measurement (along with battery voltage) that any serious researcher would make, and would instantly put to rest any claims of the "captret" charging the battery.  This is nothing special, just common sense, level 101 stuff.

Regarding the JB stuff, snake oil comes in many flavors and there is a "sucker born every minute". He must seriously have to do his best to not break up laughing and keep a straight face in his videos,as surely he can't be that deluded. I guess the laughing he does is on the way to the bank.

[Farmhand]

Vortex1, I think the reason those tests were never done is because they know intuitively or maybe subconsciously that the
capacitor cannot possibly actually charge the battery by exerting a potential difference across the battery greater than the
batteries original potential difference and so they know the capacitor cannot produce a current flow back to the battery.
Knowing this they must rationalize the charging as just "anomalous" or something and use run times and rising voltages only as
evidence of the claims. If people would just observe the voltage of a battery closely while it is loaded normally for some time with
a range of loads then they would see how batteries actually behave and have that knowledge to call on. I've shown batteries
with rising voltages while providing over 2 amps to a load just to illustrate the rising battery voltage while under a constant load
thing, if we add a reducing load as well then the result is inevitable.

..

Nice catch MileHigh, That is written lies with the intention to deceive for profit right there. Anyone with even a basic understanding
of electricity can see that Bedini's stuff has no relation to Tesla's "Radiant Energy Receiver/Utilization Method" patents. Nothing
whatsoever not even close to being similar.
Tis sad they can get away with it, seems like it must be condoned to me, surely it's not legal.

MileHigh, if a patent like Bedini's is lodged and as it is claimed, he says it is based on Tesla's radiant energy arrangements then
shouldn't Bedini's patent cite Tesla's Patent as "Prior Art" ?

I've never even seen the SG patent, the patent should explain how the device harnesses the "radiant energy", I'll look for the
patent out of curiosity.

From the YouTube clip:

Quote
In the full length DVD, lasting almost 3 hours, John Bedini, the inventor and Patent holder, describes his thinking since 1955 as he painstakingly developed his energizer, popularly known as the SG Machine.  An apparatus that produces battery power by charging one or more secondary batteries from a single primary battery and that captures and utilizes what Tesla termed "radiant" energy. Shown for the first time are his underlying concepts, which lead to the demonstration of several new circuits, and their component values, never before shown in public.

.

P.S. I've taken the Bedini conversation over to the Bedini Notes Thread in the Mechanic section.

..

[Paul-R]

The SG is an electric motor-you ow MH an apology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBvUoRPsQ-4

The only time the word "motor" is used in this video is at a time of 3.53

JB wishes to force the wheel to run at his specified speed, and uses fan blades to slow it down.  Since, under these research conditions, the device is converting some of the electrical energy into kinetic energy, the increased speed of the air, then it is behaving as a sort of motor.

The SG is a mechanical oscillator designed to generate spikes which are fed to a battery. If you don't believe me, ask him at
http://www.energyscienceforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=48
.
.

[Farmhand]

Paul if you had followed the conversation over to the Bedini SG notes thread you would know that in the patent John calls the device
a Monopole Motor, funny maybe he couldn't get it patented as an energizer seeing as how it is a motor and fits the description of a
motor to the letter. US 6545444. Look it up and read it.

..

[TinselKoala]

I'll post the video of the Rotorless Better-than-Bedini MHOP definitely Not-A-Motor (since it has no moving parts) spike generator in the other thread, then.