So you want Free Energy?

Originally posted by SymbiotI'd certainly love to give it a go, but I don't have any money that I can use to purchase the required materials.

Well, howdy doody, join the club.

It's a long way from equations to the bench top.

Taht last vid is a "charger"...Right..It charges a park of batterys?

Thats not good...

reply to post by Miccey


You mean my second vid? I would imagine using the device to charge batteries would be the best bet, but using it to directly power devices wouldn't be entirely out of the question IMHO.

reply to post by mbzastava

so yes the energy was not "free" because the machine did not "create" it out of nothing. all it did was make an otherwise unknown source of eneregy (zero point is my favorite) available for use, which for all intents and purposes is an endless supply. we didn't create the concept of electromagnetic forces and flows, but we know that if there is a static source of such an energy, that there should be a way to collect it, amplify it, rectify it, resonate it, convert it, and so on and so forth...

Thank you mbzaztava.

This is exactly how i see it.

Energy is not being created from 'nothing' as many are fond of saying, (mainly because 'nothing' doesn't exist), rather devices are being designed to exploit a variety of conventional, recognized and tangible forces and components in order to gather energy from unrecognized, unconventional, and intangible forces and phenomena.
In other words, exploiting unknown or previously unrecognized forces, using recognized apparatus and methods.

Air looks to contain 'nothing' but as we now know, is full of molecules, bacteria, virus particles, dust particles, fungi spores, pollen and a whole host of other bit's and pieces.
Outer space was thought to contain 'nothing' too, until we discovered it, like air, contains plenty of gas atoms, micro dust particles, and so on.

'Nothing' doesn't actually exist. Even under absolute vacuum, at the lowest temperatures we can achieve or calculate, energy still exists. This has been called the 'Quantum field', or zero point state, and a lot of other names too.
Just because we cannot see or measure something, it doesn't mean it's not there, or accessible.

reply to post by spikey


Indeed there is no such thing as nothing, hence the spelling no thing.

Originally posted by Miccey
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

I wanna see more of this one...Sounds interesting..
And in my view its working...

my thoughts exactly, heres more of this one - alseTalokiN peswiki.com... /index.php/Directory:OC_MPMM_Magnet_Motor

Originally posted by Miccey
Taht last vid is a "charger"...Right..It charges a park of batterys?

Thats not good...

Correct, it works like this

drive battery -> 10-coiler -> secondary batteries charge up

You say it's not good, but if you can take one battery and charge up like 20 or 30 or 50 with it, that would still be useful would it not?

As he says in the video, if you have an electric car you could use it to keep the batteries in the electric car charged.

It would also be enough power to power a house, although this system would require a lot of modifications to set it up to work that way.

Sure, its ok like that..But i just wanna get the electricity to
use in my house..DIRECTLY...Like a generator...or something
like it...

1: A device that PRODUCE electricity
2: Plug that into the house
3: USE it in the run...

And like i said...15-20kW/h on max "speed"...
Not like i would use that much at the same time but who knows..

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by mbzastava

 

'Nothing' doesn't actually exist.

EXACTLY!

If only more could understand that changing one's perspective is probably the largest obstacle in anything theoretical.

One of these days, hopefully sooner than later, logic will prevail and one of these devices will be functionally and irrefuetably presented to the world. even if the math makes no sense (it is afterall a personal interpertation of natural forces, then translated into a hand-written form that only god (i use the term 'god' for grammatic effect only) knows if it's actually up to the task of defining said natural properties...).

All we need is for just one of them to work, so for all of you skeptics out there understand the house of cards you stand on. All it will take is just one to work!

Here's a decent start:

Originally posted by Miccey
Sure, its ok like that..But i just wanna get the electricity to
use in my house..DIRECTLY...Like a generator...or something
like it...

1: A device that PRODUCE electricity
2: Plug that into the house
3: USE it in the run...

Sure, I understand that, but beggars can't be choosers can they?

Several groups claim to be working on solid-state systems that do what you are asking, but I still don't see anything on the market yet, something that we could purchase and test out tomorrow.

In the meantime this 10-coiler unit seems like the best bet. It's open-source and it's available now, they're not holding anything back.

All you really need to do is set it up so you have two banks of batteries, one powering the house and one being charged up by the energizer, then every so often you just switch them. Anybody with a lot of electronics experience should be able to design such a switching system no problem....

reply to post by cupocoffee

Miccey
It charges a park of batterys?

cupocoffee:
Correct

You might wonder how he knew that without seeing it. The reason is that an awful lot of devices claimed to generate free energy hook up to an array of batteries, and generally fail to produce power when hooked up to, say...a light bulb.

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Matyas
If one does work, where is it?

If you really want an education about the Bedini device, I suggest reading the explanations by albert, someone who has built several Bedini devices and shared his measurement data:

Official Bedini 10 Coil Kit Infomercial

The fact that we discuss this stuff here is a progress over a flat out rejection. Others who read this may also learn something.

Several people knowledgeable about electrical engineering explain to albert why the tests and measurements he made on his Bedini devices that seem to show that it works, actually don't show that it works. I think albert learned something and I think you can too, even I learned something and I know a lot about electrical engineering already. I read all three pages and they're pretty long.

But basically the problems are in 2 major areas:
1. Measuring DC is easy. Measuring sinusoidal AC is a little harder but since many meters are sold to do just that, it's also easy with available meters. Unfortunately, the output of the Bedini device is neither one of these, and therefore most people, even some engineers, who think they know how to measure non-sinusoidal pulsed voltages and currents, don't actually know how and aren't even using the right kind of equipment to do it.
2. Apparently albert was measuring the same energy twice, by swapping batteries. I think he actually fooled himself doing this and when a different method of doing the test was suggested without swapping batteries so he wouldn't count the same energy twice, he agreed to do that.

In the video you posted it looks like they are using off-the-shelf digital multimeters which again are designed to work with DC or sinusoidal AC, so perhaps even Bedini and his corhorts don't really understand that these devices are simply not designed to give accurate measurements of his device. Developing accurate instrumentation and measuring the voltage and current for this application is not a trivial task, but there are simple ways around that for experimenters.

One simple way would be to attach a known load to a standard battery setup, then to a battery setup "energized" by Bedini's contraption. For some reason, albert doesn't attach the same load in the comparison and notes the results are different, and he doesn't even know the actual amount of the load attached to the Bedini device.

So every claim, every result, noted by an experimenter who actually built several of these, is dissected. Do you want to keep claiming this thing works, or do you want to read about albert's test results and what he learned about why they might not be telling him it works after all?

Originally posted by LordBucket
You might wonder how he knew that without seeing it. The reason is that an awful lot of devices claimed to generate free energy hook up to an array of batteries, and generally fail to produce power when hooked up to, say...a light bulb.

LordBucket

My understanding is that this technology has been successfully replicated by quite a few people.

Bedini and Friedrich have their Yahoo groups where they have been getting people to replicate these.

And if you do some digging around on sites like peswiki.com and overunity.com and energeticforums.com there are quite a few people claiming success on those sites as well.

You are right that I am still taking somewhat of a leap of faith here, but I guess that's what separates me from the rest of the pack isn't it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur

Bedini's claim is that the "Radiant" energy is actually a different form of energy altogether, you can't measure it with scopes or meters. It's a "cool" energy, a sort of etheric gas or plasma that doesn't have volts and amps.

But it shows up in the secondary batteries as extra amp-hours after you charge them with the charger.

So the correct way to test it would be, start with the secondary battery bank fully discharged.

Charge the bank with the charger for a set amount of time, say an hour. Measure the volts and amps coming out of the drive battery for that time so you know the total energy spent.

Then fully discharge the secondary bank AGAIN and measure the total energy that the charger put into it.

Should be simple enough, the only thing is that it requires having a LOT of batteries to play with.

About the line " FREE ENERGY "...Its not meant as FREE like created out of nothing.
I mean like sure you pay for the device but thats all you pay...

The vid about carbon->oil, nice...Id like to set up that kind here in sweden..

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Charge the bank with the charger for a set amount of time, say an hour. Measure the volts and amps coming out of the drive battery for that time so you know the total energy spent....

Should be simple enough.....

No, it's not simple enough, it's not simple at all to measure the volts and amps if they are not either DC or sinusoidal AC, and apparently they are neither.

How exactly do you measure the volts and amps of something which is not DC and not sinusoidal AC?

Edit to add: Here is a youtube video of the waveforms, as you can see it's not DC or sinusoidal AC:

Oscilloscope readings of the bedini circuit and cfl

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by ArcAngel

 

I don't understand. I posted an idea which you then attacked without any backing evidence, then I defended my position and now you act as if you're some sort of hurt victim.

This is the method of the debunkers on ATS. First they cite the law of conservation of energy, then they use Wikipedia as a source. Although I agree that Wikipedia is entertaining, the very nature of that kind of online campfire story can't be used as a reference. Anyone as arrogant as I perceive the debunkers to be should realize this.

Had Edison followed the same route as the debunkers, it would be "common knowledge" that artificial light cannot be made reliably, after all it failed hundreds of times before it worked.

Lastly, there was a thread that claimed the same, "law of conservation of energy" where the poster believed that seawater contained inherent energy. This energy simply needed to be released, or converted which would then provide clean burning freely available fuel. Again the poster was attacked by the armchair physicists claiming that only electrical energy can separate the hydrogen from the water into a usable form. When any other methods were presented, they were ignored or dismissed without reason.

My point here is that we all need to continue to fight against the tide of debunkers and their limited scope of science. For some reason they seem to feel a sense of accomplishment when they attack a person for bringing up a concept that they feel wont work. Science by its very nature needs to have what appears to be impossible tested and retested until we do finally succeed. ATS is supposed to be about denying ignorance, yet at every turn we see that same ignorance. Where are the open minds?

I think we really need these kinds of energy devices, in the short term they will seriously hurt the economy that has been forever geared around the production of energy. In the long term we will adapt and new industries new opportunities that make the whole world someplace that we can be proud to leave for our children.

..Ex

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No, it's not simple enough, it's not simple at all to measure the volts and amps if they are not either DC or sinusoidal AC, and apparently they are neither.

How exactly do you measure the volts and amps of something which is not DC and not sinusoidal AC?

Again the claim is that the secondary batteries are what absorb the Radiant energy and transform it into useable power. So once the batteries have been charged up with the energizer you just measure the total energy in the secondary batteries. Have them power a load of X Watts and time how long the batteries last, or whatever.

On the input side, the drive battery just supplies power to the energizer as normal so you just measure the volts and amps on the input side as normal.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Again the claim is that the secondary batteries are what absorb the Radiant energy and transform it into useable power. So once the batteries have been charged up with the energizer you just measure the total energy in the secondary batteries. Have them power a load of X Watts and time how long the batteries last, or whatever.

On the input side, the drive battery just supplies power to the energizer as normal so you just measure the volts and amps on the input side as normal.

OK so the secondary batteries acquire a certain charge, and then you can just disconnect them from everything else, and measure the power output into a straight resistive load or something? No problem there.

What do you mean by "input side"? are you talking about input side to the secondary batteries or the primary batteries?
How do you measure the amount of power going into the secondary batteries when they are being charged? If you are talking about the primary batteries input, then you also have to calculate how much of the power you measured coming from the secondary batteries came from the primary batteries themselves in addition to input to the primary batteries.

Measuring the output when the secondary batteries are disconnected from everything else sounds very simple. Measuring the input doesn't sound simple at all.