Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp9 Zero Current Charge

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:15 pm.

  • 10 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Shortcut URL for this page:

You are here: PES Network > Main Page > There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data > Experiment 9



'Results from "Zero Current" Charge Experiment from Sterling D. Allan's Replication of John Bedini's "Directory:Bedini SG"'

Preface Note (Disclaimer) : I did not consult with John or Peter in this experiment, nor did I discuss with them my speculations of the "zero current" extrapolation of the curve I charted. This experiment (as previous experiments) was of my own design. It does not reflect their claims. See Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp9 Zero Current Charge below, in which he remarks that this circuit he let us publish is not designed for anything but a rotating wheel paradigm for charging the batteries on the back end, and that other modificiations need to be made for it to work well in a resonant mode, which he has not yet divulged to us.

Summary : A load test of the batteries that were charged on the Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp6:Charts set-up shows that the "zero current" charge on this set-up does not appear to make any difference in the batteries discharge rate, at least not with this particular load. The rate of discharge was the same as a non-treated batteries. I was expecting the "zero current" charge at high frequency to cause the batteries to discharge more slowly -- e.g. to become more robust -- even though their voltage was not increasing during charge but this did not happen in the load that was applied. It is possible that Tesla's radiant energy (if that is what is being tapped here) is not suitable for the particular load that was applied, hence no effect was seen. Perhaps a different load type, e.g. luminescence, would manifest the new energy, if it is being tapped in this process. Bedini's comment (after the above speculation) says that 'this circuit is not designed for this mode of operation.'

Experimental Set-up

The Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic was as defined in this project, with the exception that the resistance of the resistor was modified to 20.8k ohms, where it is in solid state resonance mode.


Image:Computerized battery analyzer powerwerx.gif

Load Tester: West Mountain Radio Directory:Bedini SG:Instrumentation from

Batteries: 6V Panasonic-BSG 4.2Ah/20h sealed lead acid batteries part number LC-R064R2P from

Data Sheet | photo | catalogue

Battery History

Batteries 2, 5, and 7 were connected in parallel in this test, and held a steady voltage of 6.21v even after being disconnected from the circuit and from each other for more than 24 hours. The history of each battery prior to this experiment is documented on the There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2] page.


Three batteries were charged on the Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp6:Charts setting postulated from Experiment 6.

The resistance of the resistor in the circuit was measured (at the end of the experiment) at 20.8k ohms, which puts the curve well into the region in which there is input current (less than 0.00_ amps [not detected on meter that only shows two digits to the right of the decimal place]), but zero output current according to the extrapolation of the graph in.

Theoretically, radiant energy charging likes two things: (1) no current [which is "wasted energy"] and (2) high frequency. This experiment was set up to deliver both.

The circuit was in "solid state" (no moving parts) resonance mode. Had it no, no current would have been drawn from the input battery. In the experiment, the input battery dropped in voltage at a rate consistent with a very low amp draw. The three batteries being charged did not rise in voltage to any significant extent. The .01v rise could have been a result of their having come off a load test not too long before this experiment and had not fully stabilized but were still rising.


Experiment 9.1

Image:SDA Bedini SG Exp9 Charging graph 401.gif

I had one battery (#8) on the input end, and three batteries (#2,5,7) on the charging end.

The resistance of the resistor in the circuit was measured (at the end of the experiment) at 20.8k ohms, which puts the curve well into the region in which there is input current (less than 0.00_ amps [not detected on meter that only shows two digits to the right of the decimal place]), but zero output current according to the extrapolation of the graph in Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp6:Charts.

Batteries 2,5,7 all were coming off load tests (Exp. 8), so were increasing in charge as part of the recovery curve.

Battery 7 was put in place first on Oct. 29 10:20 am at 6.17 v. At 3:31 pm battery 5 was added in parallel. It was at 6.20 volts, bringing 7 up to 6.20 (flickering 6.19/6.20) as well by 4:39. By 9:00 pm they both read solid 6.20v. At 9:02 pm, Battery 2, which had read 6.20v was added in parallel. All three read 6.20 v until Oct. 30, 2:17pm, when they began to flicker into 6.21/6.20v. By 9:57 pm, they all read 6.21v steady and remained at that voltage until the termination of the charging on Nov.2, 6:37 pm. It is conceivable that the rise in voltage may have been due to the combined recovering of the batteries from the load testing they were subjected to prior to this experiment, and not because of any charging current in this experiment.

Even if their slight rise in voltage were due to this experiment, the proportion of their rise versus the amount that the input battery diminished is below what might be predicted by the typical ~30% current out compared to current in as measured (by amp meter), with three batteries in parallel on the receiving end. In other words, they seem to evince a "no current" charge state as predicted by the extrapolation of the input/output current versus ohms resistance Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp6:Charts.

Load Test
Image:SDA Bedini SG Exp9 0p5a load test comparison.gif

The lower voltages shown for Battery 5 are a function of the analyzer software inadequacies, and do not reflect the actual voltage as measured manually by a multimeter. Actual voltages and drop rates were essentially the same for all three batteries. This graph does show that the rate of decline (when graph is steady) are the same for all three batteries. This was confirmed by the multimeter data taken manually. The jumps in voltage are software artifacts and do not reflect actual voltages, which followed a gradual decline, after an initial rapid decline that stabilized within a few minutes.

Also, the voltages shown for batteries 2 and 7 here (software derived) are lower than measured by the multimeter by about a constant of 0.18 volts.

Not shown on this graph is the recovery of the three batteries. They all started at 6.21, and then dropped to around 6.13 volts within 30 seconds, where the drop slowed until a linear drop was reached at about 10 minutes at 6.09 volts, dropping at a rate of approximately 0.01 volts per five or six minutes. The load was shut off when the measured voltage reached 6.000 volts. Within five seconds, the voltage jumped up to 6.05v, and within a minute it was up to 6.08. Within an hour or two it was up to 6.11 or 6.12 volts where it stabilized, holding steady there for at least six hours.

Related Load Test Comparison
Image:SDA Bedini SG Exp8and9 0p5a load test comparison Batt2 5.gif

This shows that the previous rate of discharge as illustrated in the 0.5-amp load test on Battery 5 from Experiment 8 (following charging/discharging from various experiments 1 through 7) is essentially the same. I took a ruler to the print-out of the above graph, and drew a line through the constant slope, extrapolating it to the beginning and ending of the chart. The distance between the two lines on the left is 4.80 cm. The distance between the two lines on the right is 4.77 cm. A difference of 0.03 cm, which is essentially negligible. The slopes are essentially the same.

Remember from above that the rate of discharge under 0.5-amp load for the batteries run in Experiment 9.1 are essentially the same for all three batteries. Battery 2, 5, and 7 discharge at the same rate. Their slopes are parallel.

Below you will see a graph that shows the discharge curve for Batteries 3, 6 and 5 in experiment 8, prior to the "charging" of Experiment 9, and you will see that those curves are likewise essentially parallel, though there are slight differences in their slopes.

A close-up of those curves over about 88 minutes shows a rate of change in voltage (slope) measured as follows:

{| border=1

| Battery 3 || -0.110v


| Battery 6 || -0.115v


| Battery 5 || -0.119v


Exp. 9.3: Loading while Charging

Seeing the above, I hypothesized that possibly radiant energy dissipates from the battery similar to how Hydrogen leaks from most containers. I thought I would try actually loading the batteries while they were connected to the circuit in the "zero current" charge state. Battery 3 in the following graph is the result. (Note that John and Peter say that ideally you should not discharge the same battery you are charging. This is not only true of the Bedini circuit charging but charging in general.)

Image:Comparing B3 B6 B5 0p5a 75min Exp8 9p3 a.gif

The rate of discharge of Battery 3 from Experiment 9.3 is visibly steeper than batteries 3, 6, and 5 from Experiment 8. It discharges faster -- looses its energy more rapidly. Converted to the above scale of discharge (87.5 minutes), the reading for Battery 3 from Experiment 9.3 would be:

{| border=1

| Battery 3 (Exp. 9.3) || -0.129v


which is nearly 15% steeper than the same battery 3 in Experiment 8.


The above results shows that for this particular load profile (the way in which this analyzing device generates its load), the "zero current" charge renders no useful energy -- no change in the rate of discharge. No significant increase in the voltage of the battery during charge was measured, even while the input battery dropped in charge from around 6.50 volts (extrapolating as if it hadn't just come off the charger) to 6.34 volts, a net loss of 0.16 volts at a rate of less than 0.00_ amps during the 4.5 days that the circuit ran.

If there was any gain in the batteries, it was purely electrical (versus Tesla radiant) due to a trickle of input current (not measurable by my equipment) during the charging process. The charging batteries did show an increase of 0.01v (plus or minus .009 [can't see the third digit on my meter]) during the 4.5 days of charging.

Loading a battery (with this load tester) WHILE it is being charged on the Bedini circuit is not beneficial.


It may be that some loads are more suitable to receive radiant energy than others. We did see from other Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp8 Load Test that the load analyzer definitely sees SOMETHING DIFFERENT in batteries that have been charged via the Bedini circuit. While a control battery (factory new, #7) gave an expected curve of discharge, steep at first, tapering gradually to linear, and staying linear from then on, the Bedini-charged batteries often gave wild read-outs by the meter: up and down, erratic, even while multimeter readings showed a gradual decline similar to the control.

Just like not all engines can burn the same fuel, perhaps not all loads can "burn" radiant energy the same, but display a wide gamut of response to the different energy. Some of them may only see the regular electricity, which shows to be essentially the same for Bedini-charged batteries versus non-Bedini-charged batteries. The Bedini circuit definitely generates regular electricity. The question we are probing is if the Bedini circuit also taps into radiant energy (that surrounds us.) These data (Exp. 9) do not evince any such extra energy, though they don't disprove the possibility either.

All we can conclude from this series of load tests is that this particular load does not manifest the existence of any "extra" (radiant) energy infused into the system during "zero current" charging, but only picks up traditional electrical energy.

Other loads to try might be a light bulb, or various DC appliances.

Measurement Intrusions?

I just had a thought. Could it be that putting a multimeter on a radiant energy charged battery is like opening an oven while a cake or bread is baking? A more graphic analogy would be popping a balloon to see if there is any helium inside. Could it be that the stored radiant energy is drained rapidly by the circuitry of the multimeter? Same with amp meter? Perhaps the first a battery sees any external thing should be its load. Perhaps some loads will take the radiant energy and use it well, over a long stretch of time while other loads will not use it at all but will dissipate it rapidly.

John Bedini's Comment

Nov. 5, 2004

I have been watching all this [project in general] for some time now.

Here is what I see. Since you do not have all the facts in the correct order, and your spreadsheets are not indicating any charge in the zero condition, this would be correct. The circuit you were given is not the Radiant oscillator for performing this work. The circuit you were given only works to run the motor! When this circuit is allowed to become an astable oscillator, it doesn’t function correctly enough to charge the back batteries very well. Other modifications must be made to the circuit to make it work without the magnet trigger from the wheel. I have not given you these modifications, yet.


I have never seen the exact schematic of what you are doing, but I can tell from the scope shots of Jim’s system that the impedances must be wrong because the waveforms are all wrong. My circuits never produce those waveforms when they are working correctly.


Go back to the original design and start your work again with the motor. Get the motor running on 12 volts with your coil spool full of wire. Don’t count the number of turns of wire. We told you here, we NEVER count the turns! Just fill the spool! Get the back battery charging. Does it charge faster than the current rating would allow on the C-20 rate? This is where you were near the beginning.


When you get back to the project, let me know.

John Bedini

See also

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan

Directory:Bedini SG

Directory:Bedini SG:Materials | Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic | Directory:Bedini SG:Assembly Instructions | Directory:Bedini SG:Data

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications

Bedini SG egroup

- Directory

- Main Page

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[5]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[6]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[7]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[8]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[9]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[10]