View Single Post
Old 09-25-2014, 04:26 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,034

Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I know what he has built and what he has actually working, which is more than I can say about anybody else who is posting on the forum. Matt is a builder. When he says something doesn't work, it is likely because he has built it and tested it and put in the time and effort to try and make it work. When he says something DOES work, it is because he has a working model.

You say John is wrong. Apparently you didn't read my thread, or just don't care. So now we have your "Theory" of the ways to build an energy device. Exactly what I asked NOT happen. Congratulations, you have proven beyond a doubt that you have nothing to contribute except theory, so from now on I can simply ignore you. I don't know why you bothered to even comment here. You have started like five threads of your own and you comment on every single thread on the forum. Can't you just let this one alone so that people who want to build don't have to listen to your endless babble? The components John listed for a working machine are exactly the components I have in a machine that works, so I would have to disagree with you on your statement about John. You are entitled to your opinion and your "theories", but I would rather deal with facts.

I know how to measure power out vs power in. It isn't difficult. You are absolutely correct about batteries. I have seen all kinds of wonky readings out of batteries over the last ten years of experimenting. I am not going to argue with anyone about whether or not working device can be built. That is a complete waste of my time. If you don't have a prototype sitting on your bench, how do you know it doesn't work? If you DO have a prototype, lets discuss how to improve it and MAKE it work. If that can't be done, then you can tell everyone what an idiot I am. That should make you happy. Acceleration under load happens, but only with resistive loads. I can make that happen all day long, but I want to run more than resistive loads.

I am about BUILDING SOMETHING, not arguing whether or not it is possible. If you want to build, lets get busy. If you want to theorize and whine and argue that it can't work, please go away. You have NO business on this thread.

The proof is in the math folks. No one should believe anything they see in some video. What they SHOULD believe is a device sitting in front of them on their own bench that they can put their own meters on and test. But most of you won't take the time or spend the money. AND IT DOES take money. You have to be willing to wind lots of different coils before you get one that will do what you want, and copper aint cheap.

Most will do as TA and Farmhand have done. Come on a thread where I proposed we build something and do everything they can to derail it with negative statements. I can tell you right now that I will respond to no more statements by either one of them. They have shown in their first post that all they want to do is talk and prevent actual building from going on. Why is that, I wonder?

If you can show me a battery attached to a motor and flywheel running a
rotor with magnets on it and two coils that you have wound, we have some common ground to begin a discussion. If not, please don't bother to post here. Can I be any more clear than that? You don't need to be the self appointed Guardian of the Galaxy making sure I don't lead someone down the wrong path. I am not selling kits or books or charging for workshops. I am trying to form a group of like minded individuals who are willing to build a device and improve it. Why can't you naysayers just leave us alone and let us do that? Why do you feel you HAVE to stick your nose in and comment? PLease just go away and babble on someone else's thread. Please. Pretty Please. There, I asked nicely.

@Turion, I met Matt at that same conference too but there are others here who are builders as well. I've personally put multiple gigabytes of schematics, videos, photographs, explanations, etc... of my own experiments right here in this forum since I started it back around 2007 or so. John and Peter has also personally put quite a bit right here in this forum as well as many others.

@All, here are a couple facts about John Bedini's work. At the 2013 conference, he showed everyone the "Generator" mode to run the SG in. It draws more from the front end but it also outputs more than in normal "spike" mode or normal spike mode charging caps, etc... Only a few people seemed to have tried to replicate it to see what it does and almost all of this is being discussed over at Activity Stream - Energy Science Forum

Even without Generator mode, it is over 1.0 COP, but I'm not going into that right now. I will mention that at the recent 2014 conference Peter Lindemann showed a SSG with the comparator cap dump circuit on the back end and ran it in normal mode where spikes charge the cap and cap to battery then switched it to generator mode. With normal spike to cap mode, we already know we can get over 90% back from the back end battery.

As a note about the battery, Farmhand keeps whining about the measurements because he is a fraud and weasel. He acts like he is just trying to ask questions, but he is full of crap. In OU, he slanders Jim Murray, Paul Babcock, and myself comes here and posts in the 20.0 COP thread with his weasle words about how I have a right to be angry but he is just trying to ask questions? He is a weasel trouble maker who admits here he is new to the electrical experimentation yet he is qualified to dispute what he can't even understand? It's hypocritical. And he doesn't have the slightest ability to comprehend very basic English. The SERPS device isn't producing 50 watts of light from 1 watt draw - 1 watt is the NET draw. If 50 watts leaves the power supply to light 50 watts of bulbs and the circuit returns 49 watts - that power is what lights the bulb NOT the 1 watt net and he is too ignorant - arrogant more like it - to realize that his analysis of what is going on with any of these kind of circuits is so far gone from reality that he can't figure out which way is up. Just a warning to everyone - Farmhand is a disingenuous fraud and a weasel who will twist your words to mean whatever he needs them to mean in any moment out of convenience.

Anyone that knows what they're doing understands that you can't measure the output directly with a meter - the only honest way to see what you get is to drain the back battery to see what it actually did to the battery. That is because what happens in the battery is NOT directly proportional to what can be measured leaving the circuit. That is because BOTH the capacitors (electret effect) and the battery getting charged are both open to the environment (open dissipative system). Obviously if the output was directly proportional to what can be measured leaving the output, we would no longer have an open system.

By electret effect in the caps, when you charge them with high voltage spikes, it conditions them in a way that their self charging ability goes into super mode so it takes less from the circuit to actually get the caps up to the same level. We know that you can short a cap and it goes up a bit but that is similar but not the same. I found that out years ago charging a 1uf or so 1000 volt cap to a couple hundred volts from my Sony Capstan SG motor and I did it so much that I could short it out and instead of it just climbing itself up to a few volts, it would actually bounce back to over 100 volts over and over and over. It was a novelty to me at the time as I did not yet realize what a good application for it was but that is happening at a certain level in the cap dump circuits for the SG where the caps get charged by the inductive spikes.

Anyway, when Peter put it in generator mode, the input draw increased by 50%, however.... the output of the caps increased by 100%. Those caps in the comparator circuit are discharging at the SAME voltage each time and they obviously get charged to the SAME capacity each time meaning each discharge there are the same joules of potential energy being discharged to the battery - but by increasing the front side draw by only half, we're able to have the caps output double?

If in normal mode we can get 90%+ from the back end on a computerized battery analyzer like the CBA IV that I have then what does it mean when you double the output of the caps by only increasing the front draw by 50%? And that doesn't even include adding the mechanical work done at the wheel.

I still haven't heard from one person that realized what they just saw there with that exact demo. That model was sitting around for the whole conference for anyone to go look at it and write down any specifics on the circuit, how it was modified, how the generator coil was wired, etc...

Furthermore, Peter showed a generator coil (not to be confused with "Generator Mode") lighting a bank of LED's yet it did not slow the speed of the rotor at all. The RPM's dropped 0.00 RPM while powering the generator coil. What are the implications of a drag free generator coil?

We were also able to have it run all 7 power windings of course with 7 transistor, but at only 1.3 amps draw on the front end. That is 186ma per transistor average but most people are normally able to get it to run at 1.7-1.8 or more for 7 transistors. This is in normal mode and not common ground generator mode. Just by tuning it right to drop the input from 1.7 amps to 1.3 amps is already about a 25% saving or reduction on the front end with an increase in both mechanical power and electrical output.

For anyone seriously interested in the Bedini SG cicuits, which there is plenty about this deceptively simple circuit that most people have not realized yet - Activity Stream - Energy Science Forum is where most of that is posted. At least spend time in there to do some reading and then post here.

John already showed the Generator mode in whatever video set Tony Craddock released.

With the latest build that Peter and I have worked on, I can't say too much until we release the book because it will show many new things but also some things that have been sitting in plain site since the 80's that John released but to date, I'll leave it at that for now.

For now, if anyone wants to work with any of the Bedini circuits, which actually do what is claimed when people build them to spec, the Generator mode schematics I believe are in the other forum. I can help where I can. And attraction mode is how we want to run these energizers - not in repulsion mode because the coil bucking against a magnet has losses that cannot be recovered and that loss is non-existent in attraction mode.

Anyway Turion, just a few things that I wanted to mention about John's circuits.

What specifically do you have in mind as far as building something? Is it based on an SG type circuit or something different?
Aaron Murakami