Basic Free Energy Device

[Turion]

I can barely stand to come to this forum anymore. Most of the builders I have worked with for so many years have given up and moved on, although I am in contact with MANY of them by email or phone on occasion. All we are left with now are a bunch of folks who jump from thread to thread posting videos they have seen on YouTube that they believe are "for real" and a bunch of others who feel compelled to share how the "THEORY" they have come up with applies to every possible thread on the forum.

That was NEVER the purpose of this forum. NEVER.

I read yesterday that John Bedini doesn't come here because of all the nasty things that people here say to each other. Obviously this person knows John Bedini personally and John has confided in him right? I doubt it. Perhaps John doesn't post anymore because he got sick and tired of trying to tell us exactly how to do something and then having everyone do it their own way, or posting all kinds of crap theories about how it works without ever having built a single thing themselves. YEARS of that can wear you down. Do I know this for sure? No. Because I don't know John personally. But then I am not CLAIMING to know WHAT John thinks. I simply made a suggestion as to a POSSIBLE motive. Unless you DO know John and he does confide in you, I DOUBT you know why he doesn't post here very often either. But John already said his piece. We just need to LISTEN.

So here is what I propose. Let us begin with a basic concept for THAT free energy device. EVERYONE who contributes to the thread must first show that they have built the basic prototype or their comments will be completely ignored and we will ask that they just leave.

If you have an idea, great…build it. If you have a theory, great, implement it. If you have a suggestion, modify your OWN build and THEN report the results. DONT come on here with half assed ideas you expect others to implement because you had a wet dream about how something should be constructed or it came to you in a vision because you ate some mushrooms you grew in your back yard. Don't give us theories on how it should work or why it should work. Build the thing and show us that it DOES work and THEN tell us what you DID, not what you're "GOING to do." We don't want theories, we want action. A theory is not something you should share. It is something you should APPY to your own build, and IF it is successful and produces free energy, THEN you share it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

Building
Experimentation
Trial and Error
Presentation of FACTS NOT THEORIES. Let YOUR theories influence YOUR build not everyone else's
Replication of successful builds.
THAT'S the foundation this forum was built on.

John showed us what he said was a working free energy device and stated that we had everything we needed to make it work.

It consisted of:
A battery
A motor
An energizer or generator
A flywheel
A control circuit to pulse the motor and charge the battery during the off time between pulses.

Oh, and by the way…John showed how to build the device. He did not spend pages and pages going into the theory of why or how it worked. He just explained how to BUILD it. If you build it and it works, then we will figure out the why and the how so we can apply the concepts to other models.


How many of you who claim to be builders have actually taken the time to build this simple device and see the results? And then modify your device. And then modify it again. And discuss your results with others who are also building. That is what I am asking that we get back to on this thread. If you want to talk theory, go find another thread.

I have built such a device. It produces more out than in. I built a small prototype and then spent a few thousand dollars developing a larger prototype which I was sure would be "it." I have come to understand enough that I will have to build yet a third prototype. But I have gone back to working with a small unit to perfect it before I go to the expense of building another 12 coil unit

But I am NOT done experimenting. Length of coil. Distance of winds from magnet. Size of magnet. Distance between magnet and core. Core material. Size of wire. Length of wire. Number of coils vs number of magnets on rotor. One rotor, or rotors at both ends of coil. Universal motor or pulse motor. Motor run in standard configuration or 3BGS configuration. Standard winding on stock motor or rewound motor that uses far less amps to run. Weight of flywheel. Distance of weights from center axis. Pulse length. Position of magnet to coil when pulse is initiated. These are some of the things I am experimenting with. It would go way faster if I had some others working with me, but make no mistake. I WILL keep improving this design.

A simple two coil device should put out TWICE the power that the motor consumes in running and 80-85% of what the motor uses should be recoverable. That is the basic unit. Just two coils and a rotor run by a motor with a flywheel.
Build it. Show it. Let us see your results. THEN lets figure out how to make some history.

Oh, and before I forget to mention it…..the device I have built, while it would seem to be a replication of John B's device, it really is NOT. John never gave specifics as to size of coil, size of wire, length of wire, size of magnet, etc. He just gave the basics. The specs I quoted above are for my replication of ANOTHER builder's device. His name is Matt Jones. All the "specifics" are his, based on a whole heck of a lot of actual BUILDING and EXPERIMENTING.

Dave

[Stephen Brown]

Thank You

Turion,
I've followed your work for a long time on this forum. You have the authority, through your years of effort, building and documenting, to speak your mind on this subject.

Thank you for saying what a lot of us have been thinking!
Your observations a right on the money.

I met Matthew Jones in 2011 at the first Bedini Conference in Couer D' Alene.

A number of incredibly dedicated and knowledgeable builders were all staying in the same hotel and it was pleasure to meet Matt at that time. He would come by in the morning and give rides to the event.

I'm actually surprised he still bother to post here. Thanks Matt. There are some of us that appreciate your skills.

I have to say, I think some of the fault has to land on the drawbacks of this new form of communication. This forum resembles a big experiment in texting.
In one of my other lives, I teach people how to be community mediators. We have a non-profit service that uses forums of 3 neutral mediators to do what we call facilitated negotiation with parties in conflict.
We have had to start teaching to the newest forms of communication, "texting" and "email".
These forms of communication are probably the worst that humans have invented to date.
For some reason people feel free to speak completely unedited. They just fire off a text or email to their next door neighbor, girlfriend or coworker telling them to shut the F.... Up.
No one would speak that way to someone they respect in person.

People also don't give each other the benefit of the doubt either. Instead of looking for the persons positive intention or trying to find out exactly what the other person had in mind through questioning. They assume The worst and then respond.
The truth is that people generally don't know how to disagree constructively.

The threads that I appreciated most on this forum were just builders sharing their experiences with one another.
Many of these threads I followed for weeks without making any posts of my own.
Since I wasn't participating in replicating the build or attempting to modify it, why would anyone need my 2 cents.

The ony time I involved myself was when I was replicating a project or it was a thread that was actively speculating on a theory or concept.

But people seem to feel free to say anything they want on anybodys thread.

Maybe If Aaron were to disincentivise random posting. As it is, you are bumped up in status by the number of times you post. Not that this matters.
There is some peer pressure made when people go off topic. Other than that there is no consequence for editorializing on someone else's thread.
Maybe someone else might have a suggestion.
Otherwise free speech, though it may be cheap, still must be free.
And though I may feel bad about it. I will have stay or withdraw by what my conscience tells me.

Aaron and Turion
Thanks for the forum to speak
Stephen Brown

[TheoriaApophasis]

John showed us what he said was a working free energy device and stated that we had everything we needed to make it work.
Dave

The FACT that you and 1000s of other INTELLIGENT folks have attempt to produce John B. "simple" device and failed is not proof of your failure,......
rather that John is full OF IT.


Sorry to offend anyone, but the premise that the Ether , an ORANGE, can be SQUEEZED for some juice......, without actually squeezing it, is a premise Id call bull cookies.


There are only 3 possibles for getting same

1. tapping static field torque, in which case you apply ONE squeeze and keep draining the juice
2. Tapping field pressures, movement and flow already present everywhere MUCH more efficiently.
3. Praying to god , or Satan, or whoever for a "miracle"

Theres already enough momentum inside a handful of dust, the atoms, to fuel a WHOLE TOWN for a week. The so called atom bomb is not, its an inertia releasing device. No matter is converted into energy at all.

As to this forum being "rude", hell, this forum is INCREDIBLY tame compared to most Ive been on.

[Farmhand]

Stephen, If anyone asks too many of the right/wrong kind of questions they
generally get abused by the gallery in quick time, almost like there is a group
of zealots ready to swoop on anything that resembles a question that requires
a solid answer that makes sense.

Believe me I've tried it.

Try asking one of the experimenters in one of UFO's threads what the best in
to out efficiency they have achieved to date and see if you can get a straight
answer.

Try explaining to people that you have built multiple devices that show all the
same effects shown by many of the claimants of free energy or OU that keep
being revived like the Thane Heins stuff. Acceleration under load BS and the
reduced input with load claptrap. It's all normal and can be easily explained
but people don't accept it so the BS continues.

What can be done when it is just allowed to happen.

We see the results now of unrestrained BS, I'll admit I am fairly new to
electrical experimentation but I have learned, some seem to make no
progress and continue to claim resonant tank activity is OU and all sorts of
silly stuff.

I'm all for investigating promising techniques but there's people flogging dead
horses all over the place, it's off putting yes.

Dave you need to get some video of you're OU performance measured
properly and accurately.

Battery voltages will lead you astray for as long as you put stock in them.
Real power in compared to real power out or to put it another way energy in
compared to energy out, that is all that really matters.

..

[Aaron]

forum posts

Maybe If Aaron were to disincentivise random posting. As it is, you are bumped up in status by the number of times you post. Not that this matters.
There is some peer pressure made when people go off topic. Other than that there is no consequence for editorializing on someone else's thread.
Maybe someone else might have a suggestion.
Otherwise free speech, though it may be cheap, still must be free.
And though I may feel bad about it. I will have stay or withdraw by what my conscience tells me.

Aaron and Turion
Thanks for the forum to speak
Stephen Brown

Stephen,

When someone starts a thread, it is pretty much up to them to post the purpose of the thread when they start one. What I mean is that if someone only wants people to post in their thread if they're actually building something of relevance and they're posting pictures, etc... and not just being a pen jockey then it is their call.

If that is the case, the moderators here will gladly remove any unwanted posts and will usually point out the those people that it was already stated who was welcome to post in such and such thread.

What Turion is saying I agree with somewhat but it is happening everywhere - in all the public energy forums, Farcebook, you name it.

Now every John Doe who comes across some Tesla meme has to post and repost it and they think they're part of some energy revolution. The good thing is that it shows that so many more of the status quo is being made aware of these technologies, but unfortunately it has decreased the signal to noise ratio.

[Turion]

Stephen Brown,
That is the same conference where I met Matt. I had a hotel room with an extra bed so I had invited Duncan to stay with me since he flew in from England. Matt was kind enough to drive an hour and a half round trip to pick me up at the airport and bring me back to the hotel. We had never met before that. And when it was time to leave he gave both Duncan and myself a ride back to the airport. I have since visited Matt at his home and have seen some of the things he has worked on. 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.

TA,
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.

Farmhand,
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.

Dave

[TheoriaApophasis]

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
Dave

1. I never write about free energy, so there is nothing to attack. (in the book)

I mention POSSIBLES on this forum, but unlike other Yahoos, I never ever state "hey, heres free energy"

NEVER.



2. Tesla said Theory was of utmost importance, otherwise he said something to the effect that Edison could have avoided making 1000s of failures on lightbulbs rather than working out the THEORY in his head first.

You should take Teslas advice in this area.

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.

Dave

What facts? I see (nor anyone else) none of the WILD CLAIMS made about Johns device manifesting.

This is a lot of talk about Unicorns,.......... so, produce one for the rest of us.

Working? Working YES,..........producing free energy? lets see it. Possible? Surely so. Less talk, more videos more PROOF.

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.
Dave

Not so at all, I will be the LAST person to derail anyone that produces HONEST GENUINE empirical proof. Genuine experiments have all my support, .....so direct that anger somewhere else.

Im on the side of the experimenters.
Im running so many experiments myself Im running myself into the dirt resetting them and testing them, its a pain in the arse as you very well know.

I am not selling kits or books or charging for workshops.

Im not selling anything EITHER, since you cleverly left that part out




Ive yet to see ANYONE here or otherwise trying to DERAIL you from experimenting and producing.


1. turn off computer
2. go produce "X"
3. Verify the results
4. Show everyone else OR......
5. Get a patent on it and get rich THEN show everyone else.


Nobody here is suggesting you stop anything, nor derailing you from ANYTHING you want to create or do.

[boguslaw]

Turion

You said FACTS NOT THEORIES, sorry I have to disagree. I started this voyage 15 yearg ago just with desperately trying to replicate available circuits for HHO production, believing it will let me run my car on water
It all failed, I had a lot of garbage electronic stuff I used as a part donors Some was funny like Lawton circuit, some were total crap. Bedini SSG worked nicely made from old child bicycle wheel....though I was unable to desulphate my dead batteries...maybe my fault.
So, back to the point - you have to have THEORY, but OWN THEORY based on years of experimentation and researching patents, lectures , articles, riddles, scientific data, forums,talking to skilled persons and so on. Once you condense all that you find own theory you can base on. The more complicate it would be the more you have to have resources, skills, experience, MONEY to build a working devices. I believe God is not cruel, He created world everybody can understand, even a "dumb Joe" like me...
Please do not search for complicated theory....complicated theories and math is often used to limit the amount of persons who can work on it for easier control them.


“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

― Albert Einstein

I tend to repeat it myself when everybody is starting to blame me and treat like a nut...

[Turion]

BroMikey,
You are talking about the monopole, SG, SSG, etc., which is what John came up with AFTER he was threatened and quit talking about the device he shared in the Free Energy Generation book. I have built lots of monopoles, and had figured out a few of the things John left out of his instructions. Some by accident, some by working with others who were experimenting. Some were gifts given to me by folks much smarter than I am. But the monopole or SSG is NOT what I am talking about here. There are STILL things about that build John has not shared. Maybe in the advanced book he will. But I am not holding my breath.

I am talking about his basic free energy device. And no, John did not share everything about THAT build in the book either. But that's ok. We have the information we need.

boguslaw,
You are right. And that is what I said. Develop your OWN theory and implement it in your OWN build and then share your results. Just don't come here and spout theory until we all drown in it. We have had more than enough of that.

Folks,
I am not going to show video of a working device. Videos can be faked. But I will help those who are interested and willing to take a journey of exploration. And when you have a working device on YOUR bench, what do you need a video of mine for?

There are dozens of folks who have built the basic 3BGS setup who have seen that they can get run times far beyond what their batteries should be capable of. That alone is a demonstration of a working "free energy" device. In almost 9 years of working with that setup, I have seen free energy on many occasions. If you have never seen a working free energy device, I am sad for you. I have seen several. But just because you can get more out than you put in does NOT mean you have solved the problem. There are losses in ANY system that have to be overcome. Getting a COP of 1.5 is not nearly enough.

Here's a little experiment for you. Take three good batteries and charge them up. Hook them up in parallel to a motor that is turning the flywheel and rotor next to two coils like I talked about, and run it until the motor stops. Time your run.

Now, recharge your batteries and hook up three batteries in the 3BGS configuration and run that same motor turning the flywheel and rotor next to the coils. Stop when the voltage on Battery 3 gets to about 15 volts and rotate your batteries. Stop your timer too. See how long the setup runs when you do this.

Now imagine you are PULSING that motor instead of running it continually. And that you are rotating the batteries. And that you are collecting the output from the coils in a cap bank. Imagine you have the right gauge of wire, the right number of strands, the right distance between the magnet and the rotor. Imagine you have a core that is not attracted to the magnets, yet produces more magnetic flux than iron. Imagine running your generator as a pulse motor until you have attained the rpm needed to overcome magnetic lock and still having it generate and fill up your caps. Might all those things plus a dozen others add up to a highly efficient device that actually produces some power? If you can't imagine that, this is not the place for you.

If you want to build, I am here to help. If you want to theorize, demand proof or insist it can't be done, I will waste no time on you. I won't bother to respond. I am too busy actually building things.

Dave

[TheoriaApophasis]

Folks,
I am not going to show video of a working device. Videos can be faked

Dave

How convenient.

Illusionists make videos of things everyone KNOWS are fake, .....everyone still wants to see them.


You have PRESUMED videos of something REAL, but wont post same?

Illogical.

Building
Experimentation
Trial and Error
Presentation of FACTS NOT THEORIES. Let YOUR theories influence YOUR build not everyone else's
Replication of successful builds.
Dave

Thats backwards ...it goes........



hypothesis
theory
working mental theory
retroductive analysis of feasibility
working model
experiment with model
reproduce results
have others verify results
Get patent and show other working device / invention.

[Dave45]

Like I told ya David... They won't even ask for schematic or parts list.

Turn right into a "Talk" Thing.

Cheers
Matt

I'll ask
Can we get a schematic so we are all on the same page

[Turion]

You were right Matt. It was worth a try though. Call it a social experiment gone bad. LOL The funny thing is, it wasn't me that had anything to lose. I still have a whole list of folks I can share with off the forum by email and phone.

Dave

[Turion]

Information

Let me lay some things out for you all here. If you are not familiar with the 3BGS thread and the 8 years of work we have done on it, this may be a little confusing, but you only have yourself to blame. The thread is there. You could have read it. If any statement I make here is untrue, please feel free to call me on it. I am here to present FACTS, not theory.

1. If you connect a motor to a battery with the red from the motor to the positive and the black from the motor to the negative, the motor will spin clockwise. (As an example) Reverse this connection and the motor will spin counter clockwise. Can we begin with that basic premise and assume that if you had connected the motor as I first suggested it would spin clockwise and if you reverse the wires the direction of rotation will also reverse?

2. Leave the positive of your motor connected to the positive of battery one and disconnect the negative of the motor from the negative of battery one and add a second battery in series, connecting the negative lead from the motor to the negative terminal of the second battery which is now wired in series. Do you still have that clockwise rotation? You should.

3. Put three batteries in series (always leaving the positive of the motor connected to the positive of battery one) so you are left with an " "open negative". Connect up the negative of the motor to the open negative, and it will still spin clockwise. Agreed?

4. Disconnect the third battery from both the 2nd battery and the motor and spin it around so that its negative is now connected to the negative of battery two, and its positive is connected to the motor. Flip the switch and the motor spins clockwise. Has the direction of current flow changed? If it HAD changed when you did this 4th step, would not the motor have also reversed its rotation to counterclockwise? This is the 3BGS setup for those who do not know.

5. Put the negative of your volt meter lead on the negative of battery One and the positive volt meter lead to the positive side of the motor (which is also connected to the positive of battery one) Record the voltage. Now leave the negative lead of the meter where it is, but move the positive lead on the meter to the other side of the motor and record the voltage. Is it a couple volts higher? I won't bore you with theory. All that matters is what your meter says.

6. If you let the motor run in this configuration, battery one will go down very, very slowly over time. Battery two will go down a little faster, while battery 3 will charge up.

Let us call the placement of battery 1 "position 1", the placement of battery two, "position two", and the placement of battery 3, "position three". The battery in the 3rd position is the one that is reversed.

Now, suppose you pulse this motor with a 33.3 on 66.6 off duty cycle.

7. You shaft connect a second motor, so that the two shafts are locked together. Yes, this requires motors that have shafts that go all the way through them and out the other side. This motor is wired exactly the same way as the first motor, except that it has battery two in the 3rd (reversed) position. It is wired to the same 3 batteries but its circuit is independent of the circuit connecting up motor one. It is also pulsed at a 33.3 on 66.6 off duty cycle, but is not "on" at the same time as motor one.

8. Now you shaft connect a third motor, so that the three shafts are locked together. This motor is wired exactly the same way as the first motor, except that it has battery one in the 3rd (reversed) position. It is wired to the same 3 batteries but its circuit is independent of the circuit connecting up motor one and the one connecting up motor two. It is also pulsed at a 33.3 on 66.6 off duty cycle, but is not "on" at the same time as motor one or motor two.

So you have voltage from a high potential moving through a load to a lower potential, doing work on the way without "using" much of the potential except in losses to friction/heat and switching losses. Because you have three motors, no single battery gets discharged, because for a third of the time every battery is in the "charge" position. (position 3)

Oh, and I almost forgot. 100% of the time two of the motors are acting as generators. Now add a flywheel to smooth out the pulses.

If you don't want to screw around with three off the shelf motors, build yourself a few rotors and some coils, and do it all with one unit. I have a 12 coil setup which allows 3 coils to run as motor coils while 9 coils generate, but it ALSO has a 12 volt DC motor that can run it when it gets up to speed. And that motor is run off the potential difference between a high voltage source and a low one. We are moving power around without using it up to get it to do work, with only losses to friction/heat and switching. I am NOT going to show you video of that setup running because YOU are not going to build that setup anyway. It is way too expensive and all machine work. You MIGHT, however, build what I have described here with some inexpensive motors, or maybe build yourself a rotor and wind your own coils. You can get results with only a few coils. I had a little two coil unit, but I have cannibalized it to use the rotors to build my coil testing device.

Have you seen anything on the SERPS concept??????????

[Aaron]

@Turion

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.

TA,
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.

Farmhand,
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.

Dave

@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]

John Bedini

You stated Dave that you didn't think John Bedini failed us in the instructions of the BUILD HE TOLD US TO make, right?

Well that is right. The Build that John has us all building is the one where he states you have everything you need. Right? Right!!!!

John said this to the audience, "BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ON THESE FORUMS PISSED THE INVENTOR OFF!!!!

@All,

As far as the SG/SSG - our SG handbooks are the only authorized books on the subject that give the EXACT specs that John uses to build his own. We even show how to match the transistors, etc...

For the "Ferris Wheel" shown as the conference, it had a COP minimum of 3.0. Not only did it keep the back batteries charged up, the front batteries never dropped. Everyone was allowed to look at the machine up close and John even had a drill and a hole saw and asked if anyone wanted to drill holes in the coil stands to see if anything was hidden in there. Nobody took him up on that offer - there is nothing in there however. The only thing he didn't show was his cap discharge circuit.

In any case, a machine that big can't just be build by anyone - the coils alone cost thousands of dollars in wire - those coils were bigger than the batteries and someone can kill themselves with coils like that if they get the discharge into their hand because they don't know what they're doing. This machine had the lower circuit and the upper circuit around the axle, which is related to the moon boot circuit and almost nobody is going to easily find those magnets he used.

John was kind enough to personally post stuff here for quite a few years and everyone that has been around knows what happens. We get a bunch of clowns who think they know everything yet they know nothing. They claim something doesn't work because they've been brainwashed in school - they build nothing to actually find out and if and when they do, they don't even build it as instructed. That has been the case for years and is no surprise why you don't see John post here anymore. The other forum is the only place he will post anymore.