Bedini Solid State Oscillators discussion. Basically any Bedini circuit that doesn't use a rotor as a trigger. Self-triggering using any variation of the schematics.

Hi Peter, John, Aaron

I started experimenting with John's technology about half a year ago and at some point I started concentrating on the solid state energizer and am trying to get ..there. I've recently built a new working platform to experiment with single to multicoil setups but is expandable to about 10 multicoils as soon as I figure out wich one is the best of all possible combinations (I attached a pic by the way). In the beginning I thought to simply hook single solidstate circuits in parallel. then I started making some tests with different setups, cap-pulsing, single coil output diode, multicoil output diodes, output with recovery coils, etc... Also after having been working on a multicoil setup with cap pulsing for quite a while, I got much better results with a normal SG multicoil setup with output diodes charging the batts rather than one recovery-bridge cap. Might be because of the lower impedance on the output. Still working on it..so many things to test!

The other day I noticed something new, I was driving only one transistor out of the three hooked to the multicoil, the trigger and base diode were also detached from those two. So while I was running basically off a single setup I accidentally connected the output diode to the output diode of one
of the not running transistors. I could hear the freq go down a bit, like if you lower the trigger pot to increase power (and current draw). But guess what, the input current dropped, while i could measure an increase on the voltmeter on the charging output batt. So I hooked up the third output diode of the also not triggered transistor and the results got even better!
So from an electrical point of view I was driving a single setup and had two "recovery" windings with a single diode each added to it wich gave more output power and took less input current. I always thought that more than one recovery coil wouldn't gain anything..?
I also tried to link the three outputs before the diode, wich didn' give the same results.
Any help or hint to get to the best recipe is welcome!

Peter, I really liked your explanations in the radiant energy forum , thanks.

best regards

Mario

Attached Images

IMG_4158-2.jpg (127.1 KB, 265 views)

Mario,

Thank you for reporting your finding that multiple windings with individual diodes produces more output. The reason that it doesn't work when the coils are paralleled BEFORE the diode is that the energy in one coil tends to discharge INTO the other coil and vis versa. The diodes prevent this from happening, and the energy recovered from both coils can then be summed.

Exactly WHY there is more energy to recover in this arrangement is not known by me. This is simply an experimental result you are reporting. It sounds very encouraging, and I hope others try to duplicate the finding.

One possible explanation is this. John Bedini has been saying for a long time that these devices draw energy in from the environment. Your experimental set-up and finding may be significant evidence in support of this idea.

Also, as to what is "the best recipe?", WHO KNOWS! You state you have a 10 strand multi-coil. Try hooking one strand up as the oscillator and the other 9 strands as extra pick-ups with separate diodes. Keep summing them, one at a time, to see where the benefit ends. That way, you can tell us!

Great work.

Peter

Hi Peter,

thanks for the encouragement, It's actually two 4-strand multicoils, and I'm planning on expanding up to 10 multicoils. The first one has 5 strands because of the trigger. I have 3 transisitors on each coil, the fourth wire was initially planned for cap pulsing recovery, but I got more out of it with an output diode. Even on a single setup I noticed that output diode charges faster. I don't know why. Do you? Also what is the advantage of a fwbr vs single diode? The pulses are positive anyway no?

About the diode recoveries, I put ammeters on input and output, and for each setup I tuned the pot for the same input current to see wich one would give the most benefit on the output. With one transistor working I added one recovery and could see a distinct benefit, nr two added a bit less and nr 3 very little. Then I tried two transistors, the first recoveries added less vs the single setup. Comparing all the setups, firing all three transistors with no recovery seemed to be what gave the best output vs input curent. Maybe just adding transistors is still best, but I have to repeat this test with switches instead of soldering and de-soldering so many times.
I know ammeters don't measure the radiant part but the byproduct, so do you think the way I measured this is ok?

best regards

Mario

Well, I never tried that kind of setup since I use my variant of 2 coil Litz wire. The theory is that when magnetic field collapses the flux lines of the collapsing field are cutting the surface of the coil (or in this case coils) with tremendous speed and they induce a lot of voltage without much current or in other words a lot of dielectric energy with small amount of electron flow current mixed. Now, by that token there is no reason not to pickup that kind of energy by every coil within the collapsing magnetic field. The problem I see with this concept is the fact that if you use snubber circuit on the energizing coil in order to drain the inductive collapse energy to either one of the primary source poles the induced voltage on the pickup coils is drastically reduced.

At first glance that could mean that there is some definite amount of energy available in the system or that it's possible to drain the inductive collapse energy from the whole coils setup almost completely with power coil shorted. Try the following experiment- put some transil diodes anti-parallel to the semiconductor switch you're using (MOSFET or BJT) and set their trigger voltage to some value above the power source voltage but bellow the voltage of the inductive collapse. You will notice that the transils will heat up quite quickly obviously dissipating the energy of the inductive collapse. The voltage on the pickup coils will plummet to some very low value. So, I would conclude that the collapsing magnetic field flux lines that cut the windings of the pickup coils are not the only reason for the induction of the high voltage spikes. If they were, then the fact that the primary coil is shorted would mean nothing to the pickup coils.

I will now speculate wildly and assert that the primary and most important coupling of the primary coil and pickup coils is not inductive but rather a capacitive one thus allowing the dielectric fields of both coils to be coupled to a degree. Now, if the transil diodes short the primary coil and level the charges (thus effectively killing the dielectric field) the capacitive coupling between coils will allow the transfer of dielectric energy from pickup coil to primary coil thus allowing the shortened primary coil to also sink a dielectric field from the every coil in the setup to which it is capacitively coupled.

I came up with this explanation based on some observations of the behavior of the switched coils not unlike the Bedini one. It's probably flawed but at the moment it serves it's purpose.

What's been bugging me more is what happens to the dielectric energy when it's not sinked anywhere. What I mean is- if one doesn't do anything with the inductive collapse energy (no snubber circuit, no transil diodes, no capacitor charging, not a single closed circuit in the whole setup) what happens to it? I mean I've used MOSFET's capable of handling 1000V on voltage spikes of about 800-900V and if the dielectric energy is not sinked anywhere what happens to it? I checked out that not a single semiconductor is leaking some current and that there are no closed circuits anywhere on the setup (both in primary and pickup coils) and voltage spikes appear as powerful as ever but the energy is not accumulated in any way. So, what happens to the energy of the inductive collapse in open circuit systems? Maybe there is some discharge through the air or there is a dielectric field buildup. One is for sure the energy of the inductive collapse is not being sinked, stored or converted to magnetic field. Any ideas on this one?

Circuit originally used on a bike wheel setup but then as self triggering.



Here is the output over 400 volt spikes
This is NOT the pic John posted, it is what my scope measured on my circuit. You can see 12v input on the bottom and the spike is on top.

according to alldatasheet.co.kr, 2sc3281 = power transistor, not thyristor

Hi Terence,

Here is a pic of the discharge circuit for the cap to dead batts:



The big black one at the top of the pic is the 2sc3281.

I see it listed as a Toshiba audio NPN transistor.

I have stated it is an SCR but I guess not. Anyway,
above is the pic of the exact circuit in the schematic in this
thread.

thanks for the picture. It helps a lot. I'm having trouble location good thyristors and knowing that transistors work too will help (since i have a couple in stock :-))

Hi,

I've started some experimenting too. Far from finished in this category, but boy, are things strange.

I started with making a trifilair coil with 450 turns (0.511mm diameter). Made the oscillating part first to see what it would do. Unfortunately my transistor became too hot, but i was able to switch the circuit on for about 10 secs.

On the output i connected a rectifier bridge and hooked up a cap 470uf/385V. It would charge slowly and i did several tests (only 10secs.).

Strange is that the cap used, would, for days, charge itself, when not connected. after a couple of days it stopped.
So i discharged the Capacitor and a day later it would hold 10Volts! measured with a DVM. Weird.

In the meantime i replaced the transistor (forgot type) with a 2n3055. This one stays cool but charges the capacitor very strongly (I do not have yet a circuit ready with the 555 for dumping the charge!) In a couple of seconds the C is around 250V.

wild and weird. Hope to have it all running soon. Have about 4 dead gel-batteries waiting in the Emergency-Room ;-)

Hi all,

Just been tinkering with the oscillator. I got it so that I can disconnect the input battery for up to 20-30 minutes as it self runs. Yes, there are caps and I'm charging it with the 3rd isolated winding and running that to the input, then I can disconnect the input battery.

Anyway, I'm not posting diagrams just yet...tweaking it further. The reason I'm even posting this is to show what kind of input the transistor is getting at the trigger versus what is "supposed" to be required to trigger it.

The transistor I'm using is an RCA 2n3055. 2.7k ohm resistor at the base and a 10ohm resistor on the emitter.

VOLTS 0.35
AMPS 0.000037 (0.037ma)
--------------------------
WATTS 0.00001295 watts

The above volts and amps is what is being drawn from the caps on the output and voltage is what is at the trigger according to the scope set to 0.1v divisions...part is + and part is - so trigger voltage is actually less than 0.35 volts.

It is oscillating with that input from caps while it is disconnected from the input battery.

Well, I'm getting my components ready for assembly finally. I'm purchasing components now, based on the Solid state oscillator in bedini's free energy generation book.

The only thing I'm having difficulty on is that some of the components do not list a voltage, such as the discharging capacitor on the charging side. What should that be?

Also.. I've been wondering for a long time now, why doesn't Bedini use timers etc for his oscillation? It seems strange that he is always using the coils field to create the resonance, is there a reason for this?

If it is necessary to get optimum EM field characteristics then I can understand, however if it is not needed... Well then that would reduce the number of wires to a coil by 1.. Or leave you with one more charging output line.

Hi Ewhaz,

The transistor part number in the book is wrong and should be BD243C, another mistake is pin 4 and 5 of the opto, the connections are inverted.
I have tried running the oscillator from a 555 instead of the trigger wire, it works too, but for every freq you are tuning to you have to readjust the duty cycle to get the best signal for that freq, finally I found that the trigger winding does this automatically and even better , so I went back to the winding.

regards,
Mario

Great work, guys. I read about the Bedini device on OU.com and other sites but never tried to acutally build anything. It's good to meet other experimenters who work at the component level, too.

Wouldn't FET's have less loss than bi-polar transistors? I mean the higher impedance of FET's should increase the efficiency of the circuit overall.

If I understand Bedini's theory, he utilizes the back-emf as a secondary source and adds it back into the primary. ????

Hi Dyetalon,

I've never tried using FET's, I tried to stick to what John recommends, he said bipolars work much better for his machines. After 30+ years of research I guess he knows what he's talking about, especially because we're not dealing with conventional EE energy here.
Many people have tried to do mods that seemed better from an electronical point of view but pretty much failed each time to achieve better results...
You can achieve to feed the input with the output battery wich is rather complicated for different reasons. He's utilizing the potential created by the coil's collapse to trigger the RE event(radiant energy). If you are just beginning to learn this technology I recommend sticking to the basics first as there is a LOT to learn eventough the circuit seems simple.

regards,
Mario

Yea, you're right. Best to start with the original design and take it from there.

I'll assume you answered my question, even though we are using different words to describe the same thing. Back EMF is what is generated when you spin an Armature through a magnetic field.
Normally suppressed with capacitors or shunt diodes, it seems Mr. Bedini is trying to utilize this effect to generate additional current that would be lost otherwise.

Do you know of anyone who has sucessfully recreated this motor? Are there any movies on the web that show this wonderful device actually running?

MOSFETs or even better IGBTs proved to be easier to work with for the fast switching applications. Remember that in the setup like Bedini's MOSFETs are used at the primary side where we still operate with "conventional" electricity. Of course there is a point of self adjusting oscillator function done with bipolar transistors but that can be tweaked to be done with MOSFETs of IGBTs as well.

On the secondary side of the Bedini setup the things are quite different and I found that MOSFETs and IGBTs are prone to random latch-up, self-triggering and sudden death regardless of the fact that their maximum ratings weren't exceeded. The rules of engineering on the secondary side are changed and sometimes the proven circuit setup simply doesn't work. I have a theory on why it happens and in what circumstances but I prefer to keep it to myself until I'm certain of it.