Having problems with message search?
John,
Thanks for responding.
Had I thought this Bedini SG was just a "charger", I would not have been interested in turning it into a PES project.
I don't know the field well enough to know if there is something else out there that will charge and output battery using an input battery. I don't know that there is a demand for such in today's market when it is so easy to just plug a battery charger into the wall as the input source of energy.
While a charger that can convert the energy from one battery into another is relevant to energy, we try and focus on technologies that tap into the inexhaustible, ubiquitous, clean reservoirs of energy all around us. That is what I thought your systems were supposed to do. That is what I thought you meant by "radiant energy" in the tradition of Tesla. That is what I thought the Bedini SG was going to show.
I don't know the field well enough to know if there is something else out there that will charge and output battery using an input battery. I don't know that there is a demand for such in today's market when it is so easy to just plug a battery charger into the wall as the input source of energy.
While a charger that can convert the energy from one battery into another is relevant to energy, we try and focus on technologies that tap into the inexhaustible, ubiquitous, clean reservoirs of energy all around us. That is what I thought your systems were supposed to do. That is what I thought you meant by "radiant energy" in the tradition of Tesla. That is what I thought the Bedini SG was going to show.
My load tests showed an efficiency of around 50%. By "load test" I'm referring to tests in which one "full" battery was used to charge three "low" batteries; and a control "full" battery ran a load, compared to the three charged batteries running the same load. You said that this test procedure was what you routinely did (minus the control), and that you always see more charge than what went in.
Yes, the voltage of the charging batteries increased to the point that the average voltage at the end of charging was higher than the average voltage to begin, but as soon as the batteries were disconnected, the average dropped below the starting point, and when put under load, they performed (the three results added, compared to the control) at 50% of the control.
After all I learned in this process, I can confidently say in hind sight that never did I see evidence that "radiant energy" was being tapped. All test results (and I did a slew of experiments) can be attributed to the energy inherent in the batteries.
I don't think that is very impressive so far as the pursuit of "free energy" is concerned, which is what I am pursuing.
Yes, you did say that one has to go to a larger size to see the effect more pronounced, but I was led to believe that the Bedini SG design itself would still illustrate radiant energy, albeit on a smaller scale.
It did not.
If the smaller scaled doesn't prove radiant energy, why should people be interested in experimenting on a larger scale which is much more expensive and elaborate?
When Peter said "mission accomplished" earlier in the process, based on my first experiment, all we had shown was that (1) the input batteries charge the output batteries, (2) the input amp reading was much lower than the output amperage, yet the output batteries charged at a rate that was close to "unity."
The problem with that second statement is that it is the load test that is more important in determining what has happened on the output end, and a 50% performance under load is not that hot. It's half of "unity." The voltage levels are misleading because as soon as a battery goes under load, it drops significantly in voltage before stabilizing.
I will concur that the rate of charge of the output batteries versus the rate of discharge of the input batteries as measured by volt change versus amps measured does show a disparity that could be of scientific interest. I know that part of the reason for this will be because a regular amp meter is not picking up the spikes that an oscilloscope will show, which will give a much more accurate amp reading.
But still, from a "free energy" point of view, we're not interested in unusual scientific phenomenon if it is not going to lead us to tapping free energy.
You say that this exercise with the Bedini SG brought us closer to understanding how to do this (tap radiant energy using larger more elaborate devices).
Excuse me if I am skeptical, because I was led to believe that the Bedini SG itself would demonstrate the tapping of radiant energy. It didn't. You say it did. How? Because I don't see it. Every bit of energy transfer could be ascribed to the energy inherent in the batteries used.
On a final note, for the sake of those reading on, I need to make reference to another statement made by Peter that to me was/is a major red flag. While visiting John's lab, when I was brainstorming experiments to run on the Bedini SG to prove radiant energy, Peter said, "You can't prove it." And the context at the time was not just the Bedini SG but the phenomenon in general. At the time, I just thought to myself, "I'll show you wrong on that. If it's there, of course you can prove it." That he would say such a thing indicates to me that you don't have it and never have.
I'm not saying I don't think you have anything. There may be value in (1) your other iterations that may be pushing greater battery charger efficiencies than are now available in the market, (2) rejuvenating dead batteries.
I see both of these as worth-while from a standpoint of getting the world off dependence on foreign oil. I personally am not as interested in devoting my resources to such pursuits, but I do encourage you or anyone else developing such technologies.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
Executive Director, PES Network Inc
http://pureenergysystems.com
http://freeenergynews.com
http://peswiki.com
http://pesn.com
Executive Director, PES Network Inc
http://pureenergysystems.com
http://freeenergynews.com
http://peswiki.com
http://pesn.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "john_bedini" <john_bedini@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: [Bedini_SG] Not Hearing From John Or Peter
Sterling,
You have not heard from us because we have been very busy. We have
taken this device to a much bigger size, whether you believe us or
not has no meaning, the test was, does it charge the secondary
batteries or not.We never told you that this was the answer to it
all. We told you that in the small models you do not need to count
the turns, just fill the roll with wire, Peter said this many times.
I do not think that we put egg on your face. All your charts indicate
that the secondary batteries were charging, and that the machine was
running just about at unity, so I see nobody jumping up and down over
somthing running at unity, Oh forgot the mechanical. I did not bother
with the group because you said to let them say what they want, so I
respected your wishes.
I have said many times what is going on in this machine, I said that
the machine must be much bigger in size, the SG is just experimental
to learn the process, you did a good job at that. We also said that
the meters would not give you the correct readings because of the
radiant spike, which they did not. Jack Welch said in a post to your
group that he could charge big batteries 400Ahrs, that's somthing.
Sterling if one person has learned anything through all this
confusion with the Charlie circuit, the Hartman nonsense, and other
confusion that has gone on, on this group I'm happy that Jack Welsh
did it and reported it. I was more then willing to help you, but I
was held back by nonsense and crazy testing. We said that the
energizer, and not the motor produced 29% mechanical power under
ideal conditions.We said the energizer was rotating on a hidden
field, but this does not mean anything to the group does it, well it
does mean somthing. I'm sorry if you feel this way, for I can not
change what has happened to you. I offered to re-build your
energizer, wind the coil, make the circuit and give you some bigger
batteries. I can do no more to try to help you understand what is
going on. Peter got very frustrated trying to make everybody
understand what it was that was going on in the battery. Your machine
did work, you just could not measure it, maybe Jack can help, since
he has charged the biggest batteries so far to date. Sterling you
have had some really good people on this group, but the confusion has
killed them off, especially the off topic posts and nonsensical
measurements. The point is did it charge your secondary battery while
it turned the wheel, yes or no, and if it did charge your batteries
then that is somthing. I put a challenge to you go find something
that does the same thing out there, that charges it's batteries while
it is running.
But, God bless you anyway, may you find the light.
John Bedini
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
=================
Bedini "School Girl" (Simplified)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG
by PES Network Inc
http://pureenergysystems.com
http://freeenergynews.com
http://pesn.com
http://peswiki.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Bedini_SG-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Offline 
Send Email