From PESWiki

You are here: PES Network (http://pureenergysystems.com) > PESWiki > Directory > Bedini School Girl > Missing Historical Context, Apr. 2006

THE MISSING HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Further Comments by Rick in response to Sterling's comments about Conclusion of the Bedini_SG list Project in the Status Report: April 2006

Conclusion and Report page found here

Sterling, I have some comments to make about your edit and your Preface. But first I will give you the basic history as I see it. If you're going to allow the Bedini_SG list to continue posting their views of history I hope that for all the work I have done you will allow this additional statement which I think you will find most interesting.

I understand your desire to avoid politics and I am fine in what you did in leaving my original letter on the following page found here (http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=Directory:Bedini_SG:Conclusion&oldid=19631). However, as a student historian, editor and publisher I have come to see that science and politics are unfortunately connected. In the present situation I needed to mention how true scientific investigation was ignored and mocked by political tricks. If those in power can control technology absolutely then this truly will affect all scientific studies. If people cannot report scientific phenomena that can benefit mankind because this leads to more energy independence, and less dependence on the system (that is becoming more and more artificial), then we have a serious problem. The last 1500 years of Western civilization history has shown this kind of suppression. The methods have been various. And it has only been through the blood and sweat of the few and poor that we have so much useful technology today. Energy equals money and money equals a measure of power. So long as this is the case, and there are ways to suppress sources of free energy, there will unfortunately be a distortion of real science in public teaching by those who have the control. Need I mention that the biggest companies in the world have presently grossed the highest profits while their prices have increased.

These are some significant events of the last 1.5 years (and going back much further) since this SG Project started that lead to my Concluding remarks above.

1. John started this work some 35 years ago and went public with his findings in 1984 with his small book (which I refer to above and which I am now publishing, some of which is on his website). That book gave the world all that they needed to know to find free energy relatively easy. It is short and very clear. All study of John's technology follows this beginning point and is therefore in that context.

2. Because of this book John was invited to show some of his stuff at the Tesla Symposium later that year in which he showed his Brandt/Tesla Converter Switch (http://www.icehouse.net/john1/tesla.html) as shown on his website. In the days after he worked with Ekie Mueller on that circuit in a number of replications as well as the Kromrey Converter (http://www.icehouse.net/john1/kromrey.html). Mueller published a book through the same publisher that year which is presently out of the reach of the public but I managed to get a copy of. That book is also essential reading; unfortunately I have no idea where Mueller is, and the publisher no longer exists.

3. The ideas in those two books are very essential to this study. Even though thousands of copies have sold over the years almost no one involved in the present discussions on the Bedini_SG list had bothered to read and discuss these books. While people were seeking to understand the context of this inventor John Bedini in every email he posted, most never went very far to read his only book published. I found it by simple interlibrary loan. John gave reason to look into that book as well as Ekie Mueller's book in the fact that for years he posted parts of them on his website. The claims he made about the circuits he gave on those pages ought to have given people a context of his present technology but also ought to have drawn people to understand that historical context.

4. As Jack Welch just wrote the book gives the basics about the kinds of energy we are working with, the kind of switching, the concept of overpotentials, how flywheels fit in, the secret about capacitors and batteries, and several other things. John's old web pages show some of this, and the new web pages give a lot more detail.

5. John did not just come into the public view in Sept. 2004 when this study started. (Remember also his audio work and what people thought of that. The same way we must look at the energy stuff.) When he gave this SSG circuit for Sterling to privately replicate and study it was not to be treated by anyone as the sum of all Bedini technology and/or void of the context of years of showing all the technology. This was one of the easiest circuits to build that showed this very interesting phenomena. It was something that a 10 year girl was able to build and gain all the prizes at her school fair for. Why? Because the motor/energizer did more work than anyone would expect, and that with very few and easy to find parts. Was that little circuit meant to change the world in a few months, was it somehow meant to put out enough power to power one's home? No, even though some had hopes it would.

6. Just like you find in the history of science, even if you put out the answers the general public is prejudiced against something new for many reasons. So you have to take one step at a time. The full answers were given back in 1984 in those two books. And some received the information beneficially. But the prejudice was thick against such ideas. So it was broken down very simply. John spent several years on the Keelynet board showing the a very basic schematic as we call the School Girl (SG) circuit. Soon after he gave the dual battery setup which was a capacitor pulser. This was the context of the Simplified School Girl circuit shown to Sterling.

7. The SG circuit was also in the form of the setup found in John's book as shown on his old pages. But the size given was very small for ease of building. Nevertheless, it was in the context of the technology and all replicators should have looked at the various things that affect its performance. Further, the SG schematic showed a generator coil that powered an LED. This was in view of the original model with its energizer coils that would either recharge the only battery or charge up another battery. This tells us that this technology has some mechanical force in the wheel that can be used to power energizer coils (made the right way contrary to modern generators). Yet very few people cared to look at that over the last 2 years. Besides Roamer, myself, and maybe a few others, there was no discussion about it even though there was lots of talk about wheels spinning really fast and how we could change the speed of the wheel with the variable resistor. And I'll say again as I have shared in so much detail already, that you can have all the power you want if you build a big enough setup and run the energizer coils as directed on such a rotor powered by SSG circuitry.

8. A few weeks or months later after giving the SG circuit in 2000 on keelynet John also gave the "dual battery" schematic. These were given with specific explanation as to what they were and what you should do with them. What was the difference? The front end circuit was the same but the coil was a three wire coil instead of a bifilar one. And the third wire went to the bridge, capacitor and then switched into the secondary battery bank. The instructions were that these batteries could be rotated around. But this was not the same as swapping around the SSG circuit's battery banks.

9. John had given a lot of information from the start about what the capacitor does. You need to read that to understand this technology. The capacitor is what transforms or tranduces the negative energy into positive energy. And this makes it beneficial to be able to use a battery charged with the cap pulser setup back on the front end of the circuit of these systems. But in using the SSG circuit it was never intended that batteries were to be just swapped around without using the right converting process as that simple "dual battery" setup showed. The SSG circuit could result in a battery being charged and running regular loads as we have seen many times.

10. I wrote the above conclusion because we have moved on with this study and have shown this enough to establish this point about the two energies. At least as far as the instructions in regards to replicating this technology (see more below). Whether people believe John or not about this, he did explain the difference in the energies and pointed people over to Tom Bearden's detailed explanation about this. John's book points to Tom's early 80's book, and to specific pages in that book. He said that you cannot understand him unless you read those things. Again, context is everything. Tom also wrote a chapter in both John and Mueller's books.

11. Now what is the difference between a battery charged in the SSG circuitry and one charged with the dual battery pulser setup? We ought to have understood this very basic question if any of us cared to read what John was saying all these years. What is the difference? Up to the output diode and the bridge on both circuits everything is about the same. The SSG just then has the battery connected, but the pulser has a capacitor and switcher. Is the benefit of a cap pulser just to give the battery a rest time and pulse with big pulses? Or is there another purpose. Read what he said. The pulsed timing does indeed give benefits if you learn the right pulse and width of a given battery hooked up. But what resulting differences will either have in a charged state? First, how does it charge? How is it possible? and what kind of charge does it get? What are all the phenomena displayed during and after the charging process compared to another battery charged in any other charger or even the pulser setup? There was random talk here and there but very little serious reporting of all the phenomena. In numerous posts and pages I shared many details. One example is that the battery could receive a very fast charge while remaining at room temperature. Another important detail was that while the same charged battery could power regular loads for longer periods than expected, it would fail to give out the same total power when you placed it on the front end. And this was the reason for many people's failure. But is it now a failure (if you now compare it, you must ignore nothing in this study, everything is important)? I told you guys to finish this study by doing a proper and thorough comparison. And this shows you the two energies as well. We are not just looking into seeing something more than electron flow charging batteries. That is all people thought the investigation was about. But it is also about seeing what negative energy directly does to a GOOD (as most people wrongly used junk batteries) battery. Because then we could go on to the next stage and learn what the capacitor does with negative energy. And this we have started to do, and we move on...

12. Charge up a battery with the SSG circuit and run it under controlled loads and repeat the process many times. Note everything carefully. Never mind the distracting things that don't relate to this study as everyone got off on. Just build it as instructed and follow ALL the directions. That means the purpose. This never happened and that is why this Bedini_SG list failed. People got off on secondary matters and people were always looking for circuit improvements. Several people got mad and doubted everything simply because they did not bother to understand the immediate context of the instructions and the larger context of the technology itself (and thus the large purpose of this small study). If people had bothered to understand the context then they would have avoided the distractions and completed the task given. The task was not to show OU in total charge or to put out some huge amount of power. Nor was it to go off onto every related discussion. It was to show the two energies. This then would have lead anyone to the next step as we have moved onto elsewhere. Then you would learn soon enough how to charge 4 on the back end.

13. I myself did go off into secondaries and was driven by a quest to find Free Energy for practical use for a while. And I also did not bother to do the necessary research to learn the context for some time into this study, even though I have brought it to the attention of everyone much more than anyone. I knew John wrote a book as was obvious from his web pages and I never bothered to look it up in the library until much later (this year). So I was confused when I started this study in October 2004. I did not understand the proper context and was all the more confused when the Bedini_SG list went off into all directions. It took some time for me to get all this straightened out to even read John in his historical context. And even though I used mostly junk batteries with very counterproductive high resistance I still was able to get impressive results. So I feel that I contributed to some of the confusion of going off into secondary points. But I have tried to point people in the right direction as best I could since I realized that.

14. I showed many pictures and short clip videos to spark some interest in this study. I didn't expect to be able to prove anything with a picture or short video. And because there was very little response I kept most of my replications to myself in not showing more and more video. Over time I presented things but they were ignored on the public list. And then people would come on and act like nothing had ever been said. Categorical statements were made to the contrary time and time again. So what was I supposed to do about that? I was still working out in my own mind what all the purposes were for this project while I was able to actually see more batteries being charged than were 'powering' the front end. I saw this many times with many replications (hundreds of experiments in over 40 setups--not all of which turned out well). I put a lot of effort into this Bedini_SG list project and I never expected anything back from anyone but common respect.

15. So when people would make unfair statements against this technology or the inventor I did respond to it from time to time. Some even went so far as to make false statements and foolish statements. Because I was a moderator of the Bedini Monopole list I got a lot of questions off the lists from people who were confused by the many statements from people who were very active in posting. This caused me to respond to them on the SG list. I responded to absurd things like one moderator saying the spools on John's six coiler definitely were not the ones he told us they were! They had to be less than 3 inches to fit around 6 of them around a 6 inch diameter rotor! Numerous examples of these kinds of statements were made that only confused people. As a major contributor to that list and this study, and a moderator of another Bedini list, and as people were on both and etc., I felt it necessary to at least make clarifications. But when such people mocked me and started suggesting that I was mislead about such obvious things and even that I was lying about such matters then these "politics" manifested. This activity of questioning everything, even the most silliest of things and constantly suggesting that John Bedini is lying about the size of his spools and the like was too much. Then it spread over to my lists where people would just ramble off whatever distracting thing they could conceive of. Always drawing people away from the technology as given onto some other subject or way. And always attacking those like myself who contradicted their accusations of falsehood.

16. I was continually pressured to make the Bedini Monopole list JUST a replication list by many people. I did not do that for ALMOST A YEAR despite the way people make me out. I gave people over 6 months warning that the list would go in that direction eventually. I had previously felt the need to keep it all more open for discussion, but when those who oppose this study dug their heals into it there was no way to continue that. The list had to be put on moderation to avoid spamming and abusive language. But pressure from different people (two of which were moderators) to make it a replication list only, and after several of the active participants were content on going off on different subjects, I created two more lists, Bedini Monopole 2 and Magnetricity for people to go off into more speculative conversation. Far enough right? Not according to my critics. Dictatorship they yell. One of these persons who caused trouble on my list was even later allowed back when they said they would behave more decently. It took a lot of work to help people get through all the confusion out there from the many people going off into so many directions. And really what more can we do than at least follow the instructions in the context given. No one who has not moderated can know what it is like to get numerous emails about what this and that person said. So I told people to ignore it all and read the primary materials. Again and again I said that. As I realized more and more that even those who I thought were more expert in studying this stuff were mistaken. All this was a transition for me, so I decided to wait a while to make the list finally a builder's only list. Yet I continually mentioned that it would come. Meanwhile the speculation on the Bedini_SG list continued and did not go anywhere as John said in his final post the other month when he concluded that I was right about the list. These accusative statements against John continued over the summer and fall of 2005. I read every email and noticed numerous direct or subtle jabs here and there. These were not about science and replication but stated in a way to cast doubt upon the inventor, and that in a very sophisticated manner. Unfair out-of-context statements were thrown together as if every circuit was the same and every context was the same. This was beyond unscientific and unfair, it became slanderous and deceptive. This was not everyone, but it increased over time.

17. I started to receive more and more personal attacks and called them for what they were. Yet I never stopped sharing the answers as I found them. I continued to report some progress and answered the false claims as I could. Instead of even getting any appreciation for the effort or even basic respect, I got attacked by those who wrote the most. Not everyone, I have numerous emails from those who appreciated the efforts. But I received more than attacks in email, and I am not going into those details here.

18. These things pushed me to make some changes if we were ever going to properly focus in on the purpose of this study. So I did what I thought was best. I asked people time and time again what was the best thing to do. Make a serious builder's list only. So again I gave people abundant warning that this was going to happen and told them ahead so that they could save all files and emails for their own personal use. When that happened I got attacked. And this lead to removing people who were playing the same old games. I'm not going to get into the politics in these points, but merely my reason for the way I have moderated and taken the monopole list.

19. Of course I believe in this technology because I have seen it work. Not that it merely charges another battery and the wheel spins, but at the end of the day I can have more work done or batteries charged than what I 'put into it'. I have run small and big fans for free, had free light, and been able to power regular inverters for whatever I want. So when people say it doesn't work and is all a lie over and over I'm going to call them on it as I have. And if I wasn't able to have a semi-open list where anyone could join as long as they stuck to the rules (if they were going to violate the simple rules, then I was lead to remove them and sometimes explain what happened), then I would have to take it another step further. This happened and since that time I have been almost daily attacked on the SG list. The attacks are often little jabs like statements about something I had said at one point or another. Sometimes statements are made like no one had ever said this before, or others that no one ever claimed this or that when they knew full well the contrary. Eventually there was so much confusion that the time had come to make my list a builder's list only. Thus my stated policy on the front page. Make a SSG setup and do the basic test, follow the simple rules of not being rude, being lawful, etc., and commit to a few hours of testing per month. But that was called a dictatorship, and I was compared with Hitler for taking such actions by the guy who copied John's technology and tried to patent it and then advertise his version on the SG list.

20. So I removed everyone from the BM list and started it over again, the only way I could. People had to state their real names and fulfill the conditions. This avoids all the problems. Nothing wrong with that. But I was hanged by those on the SG list for doing this. The SG list only increased its personal attacks against me to this very day. It was only recently that I even got a hold of John's book and asked him if I could make it available now that the publisher was no more. So I mentioned it to my group and put a link up on my webpage. Not long after Jack finds it and mentions it. Suddenly I am attacked again, about this book. I'm accused of not being willing to sell a product I advertise. Then of changing the words or adding to them. Then of the book being probably useless. Just before this one of the moderators jabs me after the most foul abuse continually, with the invitation for me to join them again on the list. The other moderator says he is crazy, and he responds that he was probably drunk when he suggested it. They had put me on full moderation so that I would never be able to post an email. The last time I posted the moderator as I mentioned changed my words and even my paragraphs and deleted an essential part of it as I showed on my list. So was I supposed to attempt another posting when my words could be changed again? There was no way.

21. There is no policy stated on that list about what is an acceptable post and what will be changed by moderators or not allowed. But several people are not allowed to post. Even my response was not allowed. I knew they would not allow it, even when Gene attempted to post a link to it. So while I was still on the list I posted it in a file and I also created a poll asking members about the purpose of this list and if it had been accomplished. For doing that, the poll and file were removed and I was also removed without warning.

22. This is very ironic in view of all the charges against me for my moderating on my lists. The main charge against me was the fact that there should be no moderating at all and people should be able to say what they want. But I was not allowed to do that before I restarted my list. All this while other people were allowed to make numerous accusations.

23. So when they started going on about John's book being of no use when they never even saw it and that I was deceiving people in changing it and mocking me with coming back onto the list, and attacking me daily, and in view of John's last final email to that list as a failure, and in view that the answers are within everyone's view for a long time, actually years now, I felt the need to make one summary of not only how it has all been concluded in its purpose, but how some of the political process has affected all of that.

24. I am not opposed to people freely speaking, there are places for that. But people should not be opposed to limited forums with conditions. Fair enough? We just don't have time to fool around people. And I have had enough. Also, if people are going to title something, they should keep to that title. If Bedini, then Bedini.

25. As for Sterling's above Preface, John has several times responded to Sterling's data. Everyone can make their own conclusions. I'm not going to repeat all that John said. But Sterling's present estimate does not include the work being done by the wheel. There is a significant amount of energy in the rotation of a wheel of that size that can be counted and used as useful work. Like putting a fan on it. In fact putting a little drag on the wheel often helps in the charging/draw ratios also (remember the original SG amp draw went down with the coil being added). Remember the original SG had a genny coil. Sterlings conclusions were also totally or mostly based on continual rotation of batteries without transducing the energy. That may have been caused by a misunderstanding by Peter L in that they would rotate batteries run by systems with capacitors transducing the energy. But John never said to do that with the SSG, and had previously said over the years not to do that, and that the capacitor setup was a rotating setup. Sterling's setup was admitted to be not very well made with rocks in the bearings. If Sterling had put good bearings on the wheel and added more flywheel to the rotor he would have improved his results. But remember, OU was not the primary purpose of all this. Look at the picture on the Bedini_SG list. It shows the same size wheel with big HEAVY fan blades. This slows down the wheel while adding flywheel weight. Now look at all the pictures John has shown of his setups. Note the flywheel weight. Note his statements about flywheels in his book and on his website. Tell me a fan that size pushing all that air is not work to be considered in your efficiencies calculations? I stood there as did Sterling when that fan pushed the air. You can see another picture of Bearden with that fan running off of the same wheel with tiny little batteries. If we ignore this kind of work being done, and the potential in this technology to do such work, and only look to the very basic of setups--half done in one respect from what is shown on the front page--then how can we be competent judges of whether our own setups really show anything significant or even OU? IF a BIG fan pushing a whole lot of air requires a lot of energy to do, then we need to factor that into our efficiency calculations. You may not bother to do any other work with the wheel but timing the circuit, but that is still work done and which could also be used to power useful loads. So if Sterling had understood the purpose of understanding the two different energies and not gone off into trying to do solid state or focusing on other things and eventually given up because of the battery rotation misunderstanding and that this circuit was not going to be the ultimate he was expecting, then he could have very easily gone on to the next stage and even seen what he wanted. Again, I have powered a great big fan with the SSG circuits alone while charging batteries about one to one. I shared that the fan took a 1hp motor to run it normally. Some people look for the wind to provide FE, well here we have free wind!

26. The point was not to see excess energy as much as to look at the energy itself as mentioned above. Just try and put the output diode back to the front end and see what happens. It will die out. But how can it charge a battery but not be able to go to the primary positive? And how come I can put it in a cap and then back into the front end and reduce the amp draw or even remove the front end battery? This is basic stuff that we all should have known long ago. Long ago John mentioned all this in many ways. It's in Bearden's books and on the web pages in bold print. Two different energies. IF everything goes out of the positive of the battery into the negative terminal after it runs through the circuit, what is it that goes out the back diode? Call it what you will, BUT STUDY IT IN THIS SETUP. Compare it, contrast it, but don't ignore it as modern circuitry does. USE IT negatively or convert it to use on the front end or elsewhere. Now this all may not be properly stated with the theory, but you get my point. I showed the difference between using a high efficiency brushless fan motor from a computer with using the SSG circuit instead. The fan gave no additional charging in regular use. With the conversion I had 1 to 1 charging and more air flow. WHY? If it is all the same parts why are you all buying circuits that claim to be state of the art but give you no return? You think people would at least make their computers draw less power than they need as they run 24/7. Now give me any size brushless motor and I'll do the same thing. Who cares? What use is moving air? Now what if I only got half back from what I put in? Would that be nothing? No evidence of anything outside charging things? Certainly it is evidence that people building fans don't have very good efficiencies at all. WHY is that? Saying all this I do not want to ignore what takes place IN the battery. That is a whole other discussion. I am just talking about work done not the hows and whys so much. But here I wanted to point out that you can see OU in some of the worst replications made if you calculate all the work done. Now tidy up everything and put some quality into it, get some new batteries that have NOT sit on the shelf at all and thus are LOW IMPEDANCE batteries, throw 4 batteries on the back end and make them as big as possible, and see what you come up with when you add some flywheel to it.

As for 101 top technologies, show me one that can power a simple fan as I have discussed? As for development, Sterlings statements were based upon the SSG circuit wrongly understood for its purpose, and he admitted that he did not construct it very well. The only problem with development is the prejudice against FE technology. I well remember as a young man is school my science teacher always going on a rampage against the systems as they were and the neglect of alternative energy. He would point out how easy it would be to put up solar panels, wind generators, and even talked about the old carbs that would take you so much further back in the day. He would mention that controversial solutions to not only the energy crisis but health problems would appear in leading journals and then be gone from discussion and bought out. He called it suppression. It still happens but finally things are changing. The problem is not the building of the technology or adapting it to our needs, but the mind blocks against it as being possible. And also the fact that it would give a freedom that is conceived to not be in the best interests.

Now if a fan can be simply converted to replace only the simple circuit and run for free, then what is this about development? And this is something everyone can do easy enough (actually the bigger the fan the easier). Just show me if anyone of these 101 technologies can run a simple fan as efficiently. Don't tell me about wind and sun as we don't have any reliable here. It needs to be constant, continual, dependable. And not only is this so, but the batteries improve over time! And they can coil boil. So we are talking about being practical, efficient (OU), restoring and preserving thus conserving resources. I think I have said enough.

Rick

See also

- Return to School Girl Radiant Energy Circuit and Motor
- Other Directory Listings
- Return to PESWiki main page