|
| |
http://pesn.com/2010/01/13/9501604_Steorn_Orbo_COP_greater-than-one_demo/
You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > January
13, 2010 |
|
Steorn gives "COP > 1" demo
On Jan. 12, Steorn gave a public demonstration in Dublin, Ireland
comparing a typical pulse motor to their Orbo motor that they say is generating
more energy than is required to run it (coefficient of performance greater than
one).
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2009
Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy, demonstrates the
Orbo technology, Jan. 12, 2009. |
|
|
Can a device put out more energy than it consumes? Well, that's what we're
on the look out for; realizing, of course, that in such a system, the excess
energy is being harnessed from the environment somehow, whether from the sun,
wind, waves, heat, or something more exotic such as
zero point energy, aether, magnets, or the earth's magnetic field.
Yesterday, Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy, and one of his assistants, Max, gave a public
demonstration and explanation of their e-Orbo technology, which they claim
generates more electrical energy than it consumes. Their
demonstration involved a comparison between their e-Orbo motor and a regular
pulse motor, both of which were run by the same circuit. One of the main
differences between the two is the toroid (doughnut-shaped) coils in the Orbo.
The demonstration was originally slated to take place Jan. 3 (Dec. 15
press release), then it was postponed to Jan. 8, and finally took place Jan.
12. Some of the delays were due to severe winter weather.
They claimed three unusual primary phenomenon in their demonstration:
- No back-EMF in the Orbo
- An inductance gain in the Orbo
- Power output in a clockwise direction whether the current ran one
direction or the other.
They showed the instruments they used to draw these conclusions, including
the typical meters such as an oscilloscope, but also including a thermal imagery
camera that showed the hot spots in real time.
The technical presentation was not geared toward the lay audience but targeted
more of an engineer-level audience. I'll be curious to see how the more
technical scientist types respond.
One such person, Dann McCreary, posted an excellent article
about the demonstration, detailing the particulars and transcribing the question
and answer session at the end of the demonstration. Though a member of the
Steorn 300, he's not yet fully convinced of the technology, and carries a
healthy amount of skepticism mixed with hope that maybe there could be something
to this.
Here are the five video installments from their live presentation on Jan. 12,
2010 in Dublin.
McCarthy described some pending demonstrations they have planned, including a
demonstration that will show that their neodymium-iron-boron magnets are not
degrading, followed by showing that there is more electrical output out than is
put in -- something they will allow visitors to check for themselves using their
own meters. He said they also plan on having a German company run a
third-party calorimetry tests by the end of the month.
During these January demonstrations, there are some live video feeds available
at the Steorn.com home page, but it is not
always clear what is being shown, and the cameras often are
"offline". They should be credited, though, for their efforts to
be transparent. McCarthy said that all of the data they have been
collecting during these public demonstrations will be posted on their website.
In the demonstration video, McCarthy said that their role as a company is to
develop the core technology then hand that technology over through licenses to
other people who have the capability and the market position to be able to
deliver the technology into the real world. He drew an analogy to the
development of the hard drive, and expects that as many developers get involved,
that the time will be accelerated for bringing the size and price down for this
technology.
Follow-up on Replications
Today, Sean wrote saying "we felt that we had to produce the video below to show some of the issues with the supposed replications."
# # #
Comments
- Feel free to view/post comments at the Examiner.com
version of this story.
On January 13, 2010 5:11 PM Mountain, Rick Friedrich wrote:
Sent this to Bedini_monopole3 group just now FYI:
Steorn not only copied my 3 pole monopole kit, trying to disguise it with a few different unessential parts configurations, but they even had the nerve to call it the classic! I finally got around to watching more of their video and I am amazed at who they think they are kidding. I mean the live video was not live and never continued as watchers reported. And their little motor was covered in gigantic
Plexiglas to dazzle everyone. It would be easy to hide all sorts of things in that. So now you see this thermal imager in the video that is not even set to showing body heat right. I see fingers that are just as blue as the plastic! I have one of these, which cost a great deal of money. You can set the colors as you wish and raise the temp on them so that you do not see wires on such a setup. We all know on this list that it does not take very much energy to run a
monopole. I called myself the 'School boy' a few years back because I ran one on 0.001 Amps.
So tell me people, would you even see 0.1Amps, or 0.075A (as is typical on our basic setups on this list) with such an imager set so obviously high in temperature so as to show (when looking at the machine) blue fingers just as blue as the plastic? With such thick
Plexiglas you could hide and deflect 1A of power going through hidden wires. You can do all sorts of tricks with thermal imagers. You can blow cold air on the machine so that the surface is cold and does not show hidden wires! Maybe that is why fingers were blue as the glass when close to the imager? But then again, there is no need to even hide wires when it takes so little to run.
Anyway, I was just ignoring them until I saw the guy call it the classic. I mean what did he do, just call me up last year and get all the details and just think he could call it his own machine?
WHY IS IT CALL THE CLASSIC PEOPLE?
Because John and I sat around for a week a year ago with a friend of ours who
visited and we decided to make a nice looking and very well machined replication of his little motor that was tested by TUV company to demonstrate over unity. Which we have on film over many hours. So I went over to the shelf and pulled the motor down and we discussed how it could be made into a kit. We wanted it to look as good as it performed, and we decided to give it the name the classic because it goes back to earlier Bedini days and is famous for that testing that was done. It is a classic because Bedini is classic. He goes back 40 years in this energy, and his amps are classics. He listens to and edits classic music in ways no one else can enhance them. He makes works of art as an artist inventor. There never is junky work done by John Bedini. So his old works are now considered classics. So we replicated "The Classic" because that is what it really is. This kit forces people to stare at it for at least 30 minutes in all my experience with visitors. Needless to say this copying and using this term after copying the whole concept with no recognition given, at such a time that we are making the larger 10, 20, and 30 coiler energizers was the final straw for me. I can't imagine what I see or hear next.
Rick
- - - -
Relevant Link:
* * * *
On January 14, 2010 3:41 AM Mountain, Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy
responded:
Hi Sterling,
I really have no comment to make on this - if we have violated his technology (which we have not), then I suggest that he purses this matter in the courts. It would be a matter that we would be more than happy to resolve in this manner.
Our approach to Orbo is quite different than previous claimants, the reality (or not) of what we are doing is being determined in full view of the public (physically and via live internet streams) with properly conducted experiments (the only way that the truth can be determined with these types of technological claims).
We stand 100% behind this approach - what other method is valid? I know of no other OU claim that would allow their technology to be put to the sword in such a manner. We have nothing to hide, if we were in the business of doing hoax demos and/or experiments we would not have been stuck in London two years ago with egg on our faces.
If people feel that our technology in anyway violates patents that they hold, they must seek recourse via the usual legal challenges.
Many thanks,
Sean
* * * *
On January 14, 2010 11:25 AM Mountain, Rick Friedrich wrote:
Sterling,
The system as claimed copies several of our processes long and abundantly shown to the public so we fail to see what is unique in what they are showing. But they do not properly demonstrate that they are really doing what they claim. The whole thing looks like it is merely intended to impress people with overly expensive materials (at least in size of framing) and equipment, which we have not bothered to do. They could have easily made a less impressive but more effective smaller generator that would have made people a little more relaxed that something wasn't been hidden behind all the mirrors of shiny thick plastic. Of course we have already done that. The live filming did not take place as promised or the way they claimed it was to take place or did take place. The thermal imagery does not establish what they claimed it does because it was not done properly (so these sort of things reveal a lack of understanding the expensive equipment used, or how to use it to judge this kind of technology, and gives the appearance of trying to overly impress people less in-the-know with a rush job). And they have not demonstrated anything unique besides the fancy setup (and that includes the really nice building). I am not saying it is easy to demonstrate. I am saying it would be very easy to fake the claims made with their very big framed little motor, and there are several reasons it appears to me that it would not work as claimed from what was shown (I do not have time for a full review and only want to stress one thing by this email). The video testing method is not very believable to those of us on the groups who have long done these processes. Now I am not saying it is easy to prove such things with video. I don't think you really can and we never claim we are. We in fact show people HOW to do these things for themselves and they can prove it to themselves with their own parts for free.
Again, you could easily make a small SSG do what they are claiming as unique in running at little amp draw and back feeding a secondary coil out of phase into the primary. This is exactly what the 3 pole monopole kit does. And the very 'unique' terminology used is identical to what John has been using from the early Bill Jenkens radio program back in the early 80s through the 90's and over the last 20 years over the Internet and in the videos and on the forums, etc. The rotor is not unique. The coils are not unique. The switching and feedback are not unique. Even the plastic is not. All of these have been long shown by John for over 25 years in his book and publications. But the specific design really closely follows my 3 pole monopole kit in functionality, and of course copying the name "The Classic." Of course my kit has been known about for almost a year now, and thousands of people have read about it during that time. There are presently many companies wishing to cash in on the success of our several monopole generator kits. People are putting up pictures of the 10 coiler and even videos claiming to be working with us, or even owning the technology. I deal with people all day long who want to make something off of it. It would be one thing to come up with something different and claim it as original, but here we see perfect timing and direct usage of phrases and even calling it the same thing.
One thing we show is that batteries are a key part of these processes, at least to maximize your output. We do not claim the machine is the whole of it, but that the batteries are just as essential in the process (not just any batteries, but specific size and voltage relationships). Now you could also have other suitable loads besides batteries, but the unique phenomena desired only appears in the presence of the right kinds of loads. This is not shown by such people in the way we have long shown on the lists and in all the publications. We are trying to reveal A NEW SCIENCE and show all aspects of the processes. We are not trying to give too much attention to any one type of model, but show how these things can be done in many different ways as shown in our museums. We have freely acknowledged all who have discovered similar processes in their own unique way of triggering the energy. We also acknowledge in our videos and correspondence where we have learned from individuals in the past and present.
So we wonder why some companies act like no one has every heard of such things before now? This goes against the open-source growth in the scientific community by drawing focus into a company rather than working with the scientific community in giving due recognition to all involved. We are not claiming possession of all related ideas and every conceivable similar process. However, credit ought to be given to those who have developed each unique idea over the years.
We have freely shared our processes, spent countless hours helping others learn and replicate it for free. It has cost us millions of dollars of our own money to do that, which is part of the context of this controversy. And now we provide parts kits to make it easier for them to learn. So this is the context of our work and the context of the Three Pole Monopole Kit called "The Classic" a year ago. So it hardly seems right for another company to come along in this way and claim originality in this way and even use the very name of this kit. Of course we see three or four companies a year do similar things with John's inventions and come and go. Never do you see them go into production of course, and that is another story.
The way over unity works with these processes has long been explained in all our publications. It is simple, but not as straightforward as people expect. Again, people are looking for a special MACHINE and forget about the other half of the processes. They still are fixed upon conventional processes of closing the loop and constant current flow and the digital tools to measure such. It is not easy to let go of certain methodologies. This is the only hard part of the process in succeeding in replication. But we have shown not only how to reveal it to oneself, but also how to increase the output.
We do not claim to convince everyone, as not all people will want to believe or know how to remove all the blocks to believe; and some make serious mistakes and thus misunderstand the processes. But everyone can acknowledge that we have taken great pains to help the world at large know these processes. And we expect others who claim to be helping the world to do the same and work with others in the field and not against them.
This is the reason for my offense in all this. There was no effort to work WITH but merely copy. And this is in the context of our being on the phone all day long and visiting with numerous people who ask all the questions and get so much help, and so many of which promise to help out, only for them to go off and try and make a quick buck off of our work and never reward those who gave them the information, etc. I mean so many claiming to want to further the technology and work with us, only to draw money into their own pockets and drop us first chance they get. We have seen this happen in all sorts of sophistication. And this destroys faith and hinders scientific progress.
Take for example this call I got the other day from a guy saying he was the owner of the following website:
www.magneticairmotors.com who was asked by Tony 6 months ago to remove images that were copyright for various reasons. But look at his video that shows our technology and make crazy false statements we never made. This person/company claims to have some connection with us. False statements were made to us yesterday to try and trick both Renaissance Charge and Energenx into believing we are already have been working with them. We never have and never will. Numerous exaggerations were given to pump up the image of this company that may only be one individual who is just trying to look impressive. So I use this example to show how people try to take advantage of an unsuspecting public and even all the companies involved in the research. This is an obvious example of what I am talking about. These kinds of things happen daily. This is what we have to deal with rather than focusing all energies into progressing the science itself. Everyone wants a piece of the pie in the sky; few want to do real work, real research. Why not just copy someone else and make it look a little more impressive and piggyback off of the years of research.
In the end the world will come to know the work of pioneers like Tesla and Bedini. It is just too bad that more people do not try and work with them fairly in their own lifetime. I do not deny overunity, I am just trying to encourage open-source R&D and scientific integrity. I am not afraid to expose the errors of even my friends if need be. And as a person interested in history I must always set the record straight where it becomes me.
Rick
* * * *
On January 15, 2010 7:09 PM Mountain, Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy
responded:
Hi Sterling,
This is really my last mail on this subject, but having just read the latest
long and rambling post from Rick Friedrich - I guess that I must point out the
factual inaccuracies.
First in a long list of errors is his reference to the term 'classic'. As anyone
who has watched our latest video will understand we compare a classic pulse
motor (a normal conservative electric motor) to Orbo. We make no reference to
Orbo being a classic.
2 - The gentleman in question refers to the fact that Orbo contain unnecessary
parts in order to 'hide' its similarities to whatever three monopole OU motor
that he believes he has developed. As seen in the experiments there are no
unnecessary parts - all parts are shown and Orbo has no relationship whatsoever
to any 'three monopole' motor.
3 - Clearly the gentleman in question does not understand the complexity of
thermal imaging when conducted under strong camera lighting. The thermal camera
equipment, operator and advise on use was subcontracted to Irelands leading
thermal imagery company - Steorn had no involvement in the operation, settings
or use (the settings had to be optimized to rainbow mode I have been advised due
to the heat from the camera lighting).
4 - There was only one delay in the live experiment due to bad weather, you
referenced there being two (this is simply not the case) - the bad weather in
Ireland and the closing of public transport is a fact that anyone can verify if
they read any Irish news site (such as www.rte.ie).
5 - We make no attempt to work with these people because clearly they have
little knowledge with respect to magnetism or electromagnetism. Indeed we have
done as much as possible to not engage in the 'free energy' community because by
and large its populated by people with a total lack of knowledge and indeed
hoaxers and con-men. For example the assertion by JLN that Orbo is based on
Asymmetric Regauging itself shows a lack of depth of knowledge of core
electromagnet principles that is quite shocking (the theory of asymmetric
regauging has been shot to pieces at every level - it simply uses the wrong
maths) - is has nothing to do with Orbo at all.
6 - The gentleman's assertion that we pretend to never have heard of him is
simply untrue - until your recent mail his existence and the existence of his
books, websites, user-groups and so on are completely unknown to me or any of
the people in Steorn. We do real experimental based research, we do not spend
our time looking at sites and information from this type of person.
7 - I can see that this gentleman puts his work into the public domain free of
charge. The charge in this particular case reflects the value of what is on
offer - and that is zero.
8 - Your own reports contain several inaccuracies that I find quite difficult to
understand - I read in one of your reports that the battery in the Orbo demo
devices would last for nine days. This statement has no basis in fact at all,
and I really think that you should check your sources in more detail if you
every decide to post about us again.
If this man believes that our patents include public domain information he
can object to the USPTO and attempt to stop having our patents granted, if he
feels that we violate existing patents I would encourage him to start legal
proceedings, it would at least bring an end to this crazy saga.
Many thanks,
Sean
* * * *
On Jan. 15, 2010, Sterling wrote:
Sean and Rick,
It saddens me to see two players in the field of free energy going after each
other. I wish people could work together, who are supposed to be on the
same team, rather than fighting amongst themselves.
We want nothing more than to see people succeed with these new exotic
technologies. I would encourage you to put down the confronting posture
and seek one of amicable cooperation instead, so that your efforts can be spent
on advancing, not defending.
Rick, I'm sure you'll find points in Sean's statements that you think need to be
rebutted. I would urge you to resist the urge, and to just forge ahead
instead.
* * * *
On January 16, 2010 4:35 PM Mountain, Rick Friedrich wrote:
Sterling,
Yes I looked it over again. Disregard comments about wrong use of The classic.
That was foolish on my part as they were calling a conventional motor "The
Classic". However the rest of my former comments appear to be correct as
you will see below. I do not see the thermal imager to be convincing as shown,
and upon a second look at the videos I note that the plexiglass used was not
clear. It would have been easy to use clear plastic as the giant table and base
plate was made of. These are the kinds of things skeptics look at and stumble
upon. Again, it may be working according to their basic claim, but this was not
proven.
The system AS CLAIMED appears to be doing the same things as we have been doing
for many years as shown on the Internet and in publications and even on your
peswiki pages. Notice the following links, among others not mentioned below,
posted prior 1996:
http://icehouse.net/john1/foreward.html
Here we see a dc motor driving energizer coils and the whole thing hooked up to
relays at the right time, and a battery that remains charged. In this case the
motor is separated from the recovery for observation purposes. However other
pages, and we have shown elsewhere in addition, how the motor and generator can
be in the same location, and can even be using the same wires:
http://icehouse.net/john1/motor.html
You can see here that the rotor configuration as well as the coil configuration
can vary significantly and you can still do the same processes. These are
secondary in significance, and can only create minor differences in efficiency.
Using a toroidal instead of other coil configurations is relatively
insignificant. We have old motors with dust on them that use such in various
configurations. This is just one type of many of our models. Any other of the
numerous coil types or arrangements will give you the same results, so focusing
on that misses the point.
Now you can see in the above linked circuit diagram that the circuit can be made
using one wire as both the generator winding and the motor winding, while using
Hall switching, (or as elsewhere shown reed, opto, or mechanical switching), or
another wire can be used to trigger the circuit as in the SG circuit. The one
shown above merely adds the pnp transistor and driver transistor for greater
functionality, but the SG circuit is essentially the same. The SSG
motor/generator can be run with mechanical, Hall, Reed, or Opto switching to
give essentially the same results. The particular switching and coil and motor
configuration is only minor. Each require proper positioning and timing to get
good or the best results. But primary focus should be upon the circuit and load
rather than the particular motor configuration. This is seen in our DC Brushless
motor Fan kits where we actually just replace the circuit with the SSG circuits
and are able to do the same
thing without changing the motor at all. We remove the Back EMF out of the
system, and also charge one or more batteries. It is not the motor that is
significant, but the circuit and charge you can get out of the batteries that
have been charged, or the other types of loads you can run with the output from
the circuit itself.
Again, notice the last circuit above we actually have two circuits connected to
the same motor windings of either a Magnetic window motor, or toroidial coil, or
several other coil configurations as you have experimented with as shown here:
http://icehouse.net/john1/idea.html
Here we see a bifilar coil with this same circuit, which could be run off of
relays, hall, reed, or opto switching. Here we see many different coil and motor
arrangements. They all do the same thing provided you use the same circuitry.
1. STAGE ONE PROCESS.
The one battery configuration can do what Steorn claims with these circuits
Bedini has been showing and inventing for 35 years. I have run several systems
in THIS WAY very efficiently where the battery kept itself charged. HOWEVER, it
will require very difficult tuning to get these, AS SHOWN, to produce extra
energy out that can be used for a practical purpose. Thus you see Sean in his
latest video explain how costly it would be to so tune a motor to get this. It
requires very fine measurement, and also a battery, and not a capacitor (and in
this video you can see one overcome it's bemf and run off a cap for over 20
minutes: http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/bedinicolemotor.mpg
). We have been making hundreds of these motors for 35 years and have mastered
these processes.
See an example of running the basic circuit on your own webpages here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Self-runner:Window
That page is not intended to convince anyone, but what I am saying is that it is
not extremely hard to get a motor run itself without discharging the battery,
but in the end give you little or nothing left over to work with. This is
fascinating to half of the people out there, but the other half want more than
that. It takes the dual battery bank system (Second Stage Process) to make it
easy to get what the second half are looking for. A one battery system, or a
capacitor-only system will require a lot of difficulty to make practical. In
fact, I do not believe it can be done in production. Each unit would have to go
through at least some individual tuning, and could not be produced off an
assembly line without the specialized tuning. Perhaps that could be incorporated
into the production line but that would be costly. However, the dual battery
bank system will allow for higher efficiency and be far more practical because
the output is so much greater.
So this first type of system is useful to show what happens with the removal of
the back emf out of the system with or without recovery. But it will not be as
practical without the secondary processes we have long developed. This Bearden
wrote about in 1000 pages in his book 10 years ago. Whether or not Steorn
actually has what they are claiming cannot be proven from their videos as
mentioned. But all they appear to be showing is how you can remove the bemf out
of the system and what results. They do not show what degree of gains this will
result in. When asked you see the answer is uncertain but he does guess. Again,
depending upon specialized manufacturing and tuning. This we have long said even
in Bedini's 1984 Free Energy book. This was the first real revelation of how to
make this process happen. Over the years John showed the public how it could be
done with so many other configurations. People have been amazed how you can make
a motor speed up once you remove the bemf out of the system. In most cases it
does not allow you to keep the motor running perpetually, but with fine tuning
(a few days worth) the 10 year old school girl here in Coeur' d Alene ID had an
SG motor run 5 days while the battery remained charged and the motor ran at 4000
RPM powering an led. She therefore won all the Science Fair awards that year
(2000). Again, this demonstrated these things in toy form. It had a little
practical value to it as it did power an LED while spinning. But there was
little else you could get off of it without adding additional features as we
have shown.
2. STAGE TWO PROCESS:
The SSG used the same circuit (which is in John's lab notes as far back as 1970)
and motor and added an extra battery. That was to show another patented process.
It was only the beginning, and not meant to be a final revelation. In fact (with
no change to the motor or circuit) simply multiplying the receiving battery bank
size and voltage was shown to easily increase the output. This, few people
bothered to test in 2004, but I did and found out what John Bedini was talking
about. This simple comparative test revealed something very practical. In fact,
in making my 2007 SSG demonstration video I used only two 4AH 12V batteries, one
on the front powering the system, and one on the back. The result was that I got
around one to one in drain and charging in both the batteries. The reason was
due to using a nice rotor and relatively simple fine tuning and good condition
batteries. As soon as the video was finished I ran a comparison test replacing
only the
charging battery with 4 larger batteries amounting to 48V total. The
result I got from charging this way was about 13 times more out than in (that is
load testing the 4 charged batteries over time). Therefore I have long said the
results vary depending upon the load used. The batteries have to be new in the
sense of right from the factory new (not sitting on the shelf for 6 months), or
fully rejuvenated as we do with our commercial chargers according to the
instructions given. Beyond this there is some matching the batteries to the
system and tuning to get desired maximization. If lights are used for a load,
then similar tuning is required.
3. STAGE THREE PROCESS:
There is another way to get much more out of this system that removes the BEMF
out of the motor/circuit AND SECONDARILY gates it to a beneficial load shown in
Stage Two above. This was shown very crudely here on your pages also:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Self-Runner
This added further amplification to the Stage Two Process and was very similar
to what Watson did at the Tesla Symposium in 1984. Same idea. This idea came
from John's 1984 book as well as from Watson working with Bedini in the months
previous to that Symposium. My circuit shown in above link was simply changing a
few particulars in making the motor an SSG with further recovery in a secondary
battery bank. It amplified the secondary beneficial effect shown in the last
point above mentioned in giving a much faster rate of charging in the secondary
bank, while also speeding up the motor (even faster than if the additional
energizer coil were entirely removed) and reducing the primary battery draw down
to less than zero, to the point of slightly charging the battery. In Bedini/Watson's
larger system displayed and run before 500 engineers in 1984 you had one set of
24V of car batteries powering the system and remaining charged while a huge load
could be drawn off the energizer at the same time. That system used a DC motor
which was later replaced to various other more efficient motor types as I have
shown as well (as also shown in the above links on John's old pages).
We fail to see any significant new revelations in Orbo. The toroid coil benefits
have long been shown in Bearden's literature and in our lab over the years.
However, these are not really practically significant and would be like giving
your car 0.5% increase in gas mileage. You could get another 0.5 or slightly
more if you use exoitic core material in the toroid, but this all misses the
point. That part of the process is not very significant. Focusing on that is
like trying to make a good motor to run a tiny bit better. It is not a
fundamentally important point to focus on. It does not reach Stage two or Stage
three process benefits. It would be like trying to recover the energy from a
resistor in the SSG circuit with a transformer or bulb. Yes a little bit of
gain. We have talked endlessly about these kinds of slight improvements upon the
Bedini process for years. Little improvements can be made, but the fundamentals
are what are most important to
learn.
I may have put my foot in my mouth about the use of the term The Classic, but my
concern about the new hype is exactly the same. There has not been any new
significant revelation as we have shown identical things in numerous
modifications. The skeptics are merely focusing on whether there is any
practical value to these type of systems and whether Steorn has actually
demonstrated this in what they claim. Apparently last time a demonstration was
planned it entirely failed, at least according to the admission of the latest
video on the steorn.com website. But my question is, how does this 'new' motor
fundamentally differ from what we have long shown? I am not satisfied with
mathematical formulas that say Bedini is only about as one nameless person
wrote. Bedini has many different processes. My question is, how are the circuits
and fundamental process any different than Stage One above shown in our
publications? The motor itself is similar to one in our
Museum made years ago which numerous persons have seen running. The
switching can be changed 5 or six different ways to give the same results. The
motor itself can be changed to give the same results. This is not new and is
well-known. The only thing new is the flashy presentation. But then again, it is
only about stage one in our development of these kinds of non-conventional
energy systems. We are already on Stage Four of this research and have to blow
the dust off the old motors that ran like this. I hope they can show the world
something new with such a nice display. It really is impressive.
One final benefit to the Bedini process in the Second, Third, and Forth Stage is
that it also is GOOD for the batteries over time (and I will add that the first
stage process can destroy batteries over time, and new companies need to
consider this and test FOR YEARS as we have done before they rush to produce
something). This benefit to the batteries, thousand of real customers have
experienced over the last three years with Renaissance Chargers. This is really
practical and in a way is like additional free energy when you can keep
batteries longer, have less charge time for higher capacity, and restore useless
batteries. This process needs batteries, just like solar and wind generation
systems do in most cases. So it is a very important benefit to be able to
restore and continue to maintain batteries being used in this process. All who
have bothered to test it, including the skeptics who do not believe in
non-conventional forms of free energy, admit that using this process in series
with solar or wind or other charging systems greatly enhances their batteries
most of the time. And now that we are just about ready to launch a whole new
line of solar chargers using this technology, in its more efficient forms, it is
no wonder there is so much buzz in the air.
Rick
* * * *
See also
|
|
|
Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan Jan. 4, 2010
Last updated February 09, 2010
|
| |
|
Feed