Great Presentation

I just finished watching this presentation and I have to say it was one of the best presentations I've seen for a long time.

Peter did a great job of clearly explaining what he was demonstrating and left no doubt in my mind that the modified Bedini SG clearly demonstrated everything that he and John Bedini have been trying to teach us for years.

Anybody that has experience in building a Bedini SG should at least be able to replicate the effects that were shown and validate those effects for them themselves, on their own bench. Whilst most won't be able to easily replicate the battery rotator circuit, however they should be able to see enough by manually rotating the batteries.

John K.

My thoughts on why few replications

This talk was, as usual, both useful and entertaining. Peter is a great asset in our community. I was particularly glad to see the caveats about the Kromrey machine. I built one of these 25 years ago, after John B.'s first book came out, and was not successful. I did make an aluminum case as this was called out in the patent, but did not use a nonferrous shaft, as there was no specific mention of that. Now I know. I will have to consider another experiment, older and wiser. But I also note that there are a number of decent replications to be seen on youtube, well made, which show the relevant effects (proper waveform on scope, decreased drag with load). The builders all moved on to something else, including John B., so perhaps this unit is not so practical as it stands. Interesting yes, but we don't necessarily need to repeat these experiments. I did find a German language web site with a picture of Kromrey's original unit. It's very professionally made, and very much larger and heavier (~50kg?) than these home made attempts. I also note that the windings extend right to the very end of the rotor poles. This is to take advantage of the zone of maximum flux shifting, I would guess. Small portions of the core that extend beyond the windings may not contribute to the effect. Maybe these aspects are important, if we can assume Kromrey knew what he was doing.

Peter's comment about the diminished buzz after the initial SG book release, and fewer advanced replications, indicates the wide range of expectations we carry, as the new energy technology is brought forward. Looking at the typical attendee in the audience, I see many gray heads and retirees, who, like myself, would be looking for something that would be both replicable and useful, within a small budget. The battery pulsing, SG type circuits clearly are interesting but there are still so many mysteries as regards how much actual usable power yield over time can be expected, that a wait and see attitude is likely, given the large costs associated with Peter's latest version. We still don't have a way to measure the radiant energy as it enters the system.

There is only one exception that I have seen so far, which is given in Patrick Kelly's Free Energy Info book, chapter 21. This lone tinkerer has stated that he gets 40 watts continuously from his small setup. At least that is a definite number. There is a large audience that is waiting to see something of this nature, such that when Peter can get up on the stage and say he has a continuous yield of, for example, 100 watts, then there will be some uptake.

Please don't show us voltmeters with numbers changing, or banks of LEDs. We've all seen that, many youtubers have done that. We are ready for actual wattage measurements over time to move these devices to the next stage of wider acceptance. Graham Gunderson is to be commended for his thoroughness in this regard. With so many different approaches now being investigated all over the world, it becomes more difficult to determine where to concentrate. Many of us would like to throw our weight behind one system in depth, but that choice to me is getting harder over time.

Moray King's book Tapping the Zero Point Energy book gave a view of what it is that is happening inside the batteries of these pulsed systems, but lead acid batteries are just messy affairs and I for one really don't like living with them. I did so for 35 years, off grid, and would like not to have them in my life. So I too have a wait and see attitude towards any system that is reliant on chemical storage.

In 1990, reading John B., Moray King, Bearden, etc. I was convinced that the breakthrough energy was mostly ready to be promulgated very quickly. How wrong that was. We are still plugging along, doing physics experiments, against the backdrop of those old rusty hulks that Peter showed us in the first part of the talk. I am sure that there are real practical devices in use today, but the owners still play their cards close to their vests. I am not sure what they are waiting for, other than to repeat history.

Many Thanks and.....

Serendititor,

Thanks for your kind comments on my presentation and for posting the photo of Kromrey's original generator!! It is great to have this photographic evidence and be able to keep piecing the historic record of these developments together.

Thanks also for your thoughts on why you believe there are fewer and fewer replications or even replication attempts. Sadly, I think your assessment is pretty close to correct, that the general audience of interested people are still waiting to be shown a fully operational, large scale model of a self-running machine.

The cost issues are real for these experiments, but every machine we build teaches us something more, and so I don't know what the "final model" would even look like yet. As I said at the Conference, this machine is NOT designed to be a "home power plant" but to be a "test bed" for a series of experiments. These experiments are: 1) can the 3-battery power supply provide for an extended run-time of the motor section? 2) can we develop an automatic battery rotating system to maximize the benefits of the 3-battery power supply? 3) can we develop a multi-coil "low-drag" generator and produce enough power to charge another bank of batteries? We assume the answers to these questions are "yes," but there are still a lot of details that have to be figured out before we really know HOW to do it.

What this process has shown us is that the number of people who have the aptitude for really understanding this technology, coupled with the skill required to build working models, along with the available time and money, is a very small number of people. For our part, we have published the correct scientific information on how this technology works, and have demonstrated every important feature of that in public. Since this particular technology will probably never be "mass produced," it stands to reason that if someone really wanted to take advantage of this situation, they would decide to build something themselves.

So here is an interesting question. If you had a fully operational self-running machine that produced enough energy to power your home, would you:

1) sell the prototype to some nameless company for $50M?
2) install it in your home and tell all your neighbors?
3) install it in your home and quietly go on with your life?
4) demonstrate it at a public venue to an audience who has a track record of "sitting on their hands"?

The real problem with this scenario is that there is no evidence that any of these possible actions would be SAFE for the welfare of the inventor or his family..... and people who "sit on their hands" do not deserve to have their opinions considered on that point.

Our position is this, we (John, Matt, Dave, myself and others) have proved that this technology is real. After this, if someone doesn't HAVE one, its is because they didn't DO anything. That is as much as we can do right now.

Best regards,
Peter

Your comments are well reasoned, and I can understand your frustration at the reluctance of the mass of home makers to get their acts together in this well documented domain. However, I think this latest evolution will pique more interest, to be sure. Having moved to Washington, with a large shop space, I hope to make next year's conference and meet in person. Hopefully with some show and tell material in tow.

I don't know which of your 4 choices I would make, as this has not been my lot in life. (I agree with Graham Gunderson's points in his talk, so #1 is out.) I would likely "follow my bliss", however that looks. That will open the doors and clear the way. I suspect you do so as well, from the way you present your material.

For those interested, here is the site where the photo came from:
Kromreys "Molekularstromrichter"

A Google translation of one part is quite familiar to all:

"From your description one gets the impression that the efficiency of your machine far higher (above 100%). This means that it emits more energy than it absorbs. It gets so that the characteristics of a perpetual motion machine. Such, however, can are not patented. Your attempt to explain the operation of your machine theory is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the principle of energy conservation. "

Best luck to all.

Perhaps one more number to the list

#5
last but not least,

open source

To the proper Audience.
the people that sit on their hands are not the ones who need a technology
that could irrigate or power or save lives .

and with every tick of the clock a life does perish that would otherwise be helped.

Just one mans opinion
respectfully

Chet K

Open Source, Indeed!

Hey Chet,

Thanks for your comments. YES, open source is what we have done with this technology! We have published multiple manuals on the science, the circuits, the theory, and the many configurations that are possible. And we have filmed and demonstrated working models of each and every important feature of the process and method. Over and above that, many of the details of these inventions have also been discussed at length on these forums. Anyone is free to study them, experiment with them, and modify them as they so choose. That is what Open Source is. Matt and Dave have taken ideas published by John and me and made spectacular adaptations and improvements to the technology. Best I have ever seen! And they too, have open sourced these ideas in the forums for everyone else to benefit from. That is how Open Source works!

There seems to be an implied criticism in your comments suggesting that we are somehow responsible for not personally "saving lives, irrigating fields, and powering rural farms." The idea that there are "people dying out there" because we didn't make this technology available to them is pure, unadulterated BS. "Tick-tock" Chet. If you think more needs to be done, why aren't YOU doing it? Respectfully speaking, of course.

We look at it this way. We have open sourced the equivalent of "multiple ways of catching fish." We have shown how to make a fishing rod, how to string the line, how to attach the hook, how to use the right bait, how to make a net, how to throw the net, how to pull in the fish, etc. etc. etc. We have even thrown a few fish at your feet, just so you can get the smell of it.

So, here we are. We are out in the boat and the fishing is great. The fish are biting. They are everywhere we throw the net. We yell back to the shore "come on people, learn these few little things and you can have as many fish as you want." But all we see in return are a bunch of people standing on the shore, telling us to throw them another fish! At what point, in your scenario, is it the responsibility of the hungry people to "go fishing" and feed themselves?

Peter

Peter
some people have all time in the world ...some people have neither the resources nor the time or the ability .
If you are truly speaking of a system or method to help such people, The truly needy People ?

Then I am having a very hard time understanding your " just build it and see " thought process ?

Respectfully

Chet K

Really?

Chet,

Are you saying you have spent the last 7 years visiting this forum, a forum focusing on advanced science topics for home experimenters, and you are "having a very hard time understanding" my thought process of "just build it and see"? Honestly, Chet, do you believe that science is a purely intellectual pursuit that never has to run a "reality check" to see if Nature actually behaves that way? Do you believe that Universal Scientific Truth finds its ultimate expression in YOUR mind, and that anything you don't see doesn't exist? What a waste! All you are really saying is that you never bothered to read any of the books or watch any of the filmed demonstrations of this technology in operation.

And by the way, in case you didn't know, the "truly needy people" are never the "first adopters" of a new technology. Heck, we can't even get people who think they are smart to try it! There are still people on this planet who have never seen or heard of a telephone, and believe it or not, most people still drive around in cars with engines whose basic design was patented in 1876.

So, please quit with the "bleeding heart" shaming techniques as if this technology is supposed to "save the poor" tomorrow and we are the ones holding it back. You really might want to try out those methods on a "Do-it-Yourself" Psychology Forum, but don't do it here!

Good luck,
Peter

open source

Chet, it is open source, how in the world can you have a problem with it?

Endorsement

Peter,
I looked around for somewhere I could post my thoughts and my opinion of what you shared at the conference regarding the latest machine you built, and NOT just because I know you could use a few quotes on the web page. This was the only place I could find, so although I won't be posting elsewhere on the forum, I felt it necessary to say MORE than a few words about what you demonstrated.

Having worked with the 3 battery setup for the last eight years, I MAY have been looking for the one thing that others who wanted to see inputs and outputs casually overlooked during your very informative presentation, but I saw what I needed to see.

What you demonstrated was that using only two coils as motor coils run between the positives and capturing the spike of the coils collapsing, you were able to put enough of a charge into the charge battery so that when the batteries are rotated, the overall voltage in the motor circuit remains constant. And this was with crappy, high resistance batteries that weren't even deep cycle and designed to be discharged and recharged. In other words, the voltages on the batteries stays up, and the motor runs basically for "free."

You also showed that with the addition of a single diode, 100's more volts WITHIN THAT SAME CIRCUIT are produced, leaving it to creative minds to figure out the best way to utilize that potential. When you started the machine up with the diode in place and the 90 volt safety neos lit, my heart really started pumping because it had to keep up with the wheels turning in my head.

And that's just the MOTOR circuit. It is a stand alone, complete circuit that runs the motor/generator and maintains the charge in the batteries that are being used to run it. Do people not get the incredible significance of that?

The power generation part of the machine is a whole separate circuit and completely independent. You yourself said it was for from as efficient as it could have been.

There wasn't a lot of information presented about the output of the generator, but did there really NEED to be? Whether the generator was one coil or fifty coils, putting out 50 volts each or 1000, whatever it produced is FREE energy if the motor runs for free. That leaves it to the best engineering minds among us to design and build the most efficient machines possible to apply these principles and produce usable power.

This simple presentation of the WORKING principles of a free energy device SHOULD be the pivot point we have all been waiting for that tips the scales of the free energy movement in the direction we, as a world community, need it to go. As you said, this is NOT the "final package" the perfect free energy device will probably come in, but all the necessary pieces are there. And what you showed us may not put out the power to be a home generating system, but a larger more precision machine certainly COULD be. Especially once we put the potential of all that extra energy you demonstrated to significant use. Anyone who doesn't see this has missed the boat.

Those of us who DO understand had better get out those rods and reels and get to fishin'. And for those who want to stand around and wait for someone else to do the work to develop this because you don't have the time or the money to invest. I can understand that. People have limited resources, but this is worth the sacrifice. And even if Peter does throw you another fish, who is going to clean it and cook it and feed it to you? You gotta remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. But maybe it IS time to crowd source the building of a machine that could demonstrate all these principles and show folks EXACTLY what is possible. That way no one individual has to come up with the thousands of dollars necessary to build a large working prototype, and anyone who contributes gets links to the YouTube videos of its construction. That way folks who have a few bucks but no time can contribute to something with the potential to change ALL our lives for the better. Just an idea guys.

I don't just BELIEVE we have all the information we need right in front of us, I KNOW we do. What we do with it is up to us. Don't put the responsibility for what happens in the future on one individual. We ALL need to share in not only the responsibility, but in the rewards and benefits. Is now the time to unite behind something this significant? Or will we just let this fade into obscurity like so many things have in the past? Will this be a movement or a passing fad? The fulfillment of our hopes, or another footnote in history?

Anyway, I have said my piece. Take care all.

Dave

How about the "LORD'S PUMP"? Doesn't that count for this site? Or
does that only prove how selfish they are here because THEY didn't
build it.

Just asking. Just to see how you look at it all. There seems to be an
air of socialist gimme in your thinking and to a point "ALL THINGS COMMON"
Do you think Peter and John should do more? Or is it all of us that should
be providing energy to the poor?

Just wondering how you feel this should be unfolding. Not to beat a
dead fish here but "WHERE IS YOUR WORM"?

Thanks for your interest and heart felt exchange.



PS buy your books and send you to school and still.............

Off subject, sorry! As far as I know the easiest, cheapest, and most reliable power source we can utilize is a biogas digester. If you have grass, or any other living matter, you can produce methane to cook your meals, provide electricity from a generator, and or use heat from an engine to heat your home. Parts needed to make a small one can be found in most junk piles. A bucket and some plumbing supplies is all that is needed. manure can start the process or use Rid X, commonly used for septic tanks. As a bonus, the liquid drained from the bucket after the process I like liquid fertilizer. If you need further information you can go to youtube and see many videos of several different configurations. Show the world how to do this to help those less fortunate .Good Luck. stealth

Does this presentation show exactly where 2 place this extra diode that Turion mentioned, and explain why? if it does that alone would make it worth purchasing.

Schematic Shown

William,

Yes, the full operational schematic is shown and the diode's placement and purpose is discussed and demonstrated in the presentation. The information package also includes a PDF file with all of the images shown on the screen during the lecture. Hope that helps.

Peter