Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18 Load Test

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:14 am.

  • 13 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 18


Exp. 18 Battery Load Comparison

'Experiment 18 from Sterling D. Allan's Replication of John Bedini's Directory:Bedini SG'

Dec. 20 - 23, 2004.

Summary : Three batteries charged on the Bedini circuit were put on a load test (bulb) and compared to a control battery load test (same bulb). The control battery began at the same capacity as the input battery that ran the motor-energizer to charge the three batteries. The difference in performance leaves enough energy left over to maintain rotation of the wheel. The numbers are close enough to accounting for all energy transferred and consumed and do not support the conclusion of an infusion of external energy (e.g. radiant/aetheric energy).

Control Battery Performance : 19.25 Watt-hours

Charged Batteries Performance : 16.41 Watt-hours

Amount of Energy Measured from Input Battery While Running Motor-Energizer : 0.62 Watts

Left Over, to Run Motor-Energizer Wheel : 0.08 Watts

Very Important Follow-up : On Dec. 29, YoTango demonstrated that he can spin his wheel (analogous to mine) using an external motor rubbing against the rim of his wheel (highly inefficient) and that this pulls 0.5 Watts, so 0.08 Watts is within a reasonable range for maintaining the wheel rotation, taking into consideration substantial bearing friction due to pitting in bearing housing, and wind resistance. (YoTango's post to Bedini_SG | Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18:Watts)



I've had my motor running nearly continuously since my There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2], and have been accumulating quite a bit of data. This is a belated report of findings a few days ago.

As a general context, my most recent report was in regard to a continuous rotation of conditioned batteries in which I saw four consecutive increases in battery capacity over a 48 hour period, but that ended up being an artifact of a shorter-term effect, and the longer term trend was a gradual decline in average voltage and battery capacity. John then recommended a new procedure, which I followed, with results reported below. He also recommended some modifications to the design to get to a more efficient manifestation of his system, and I have been implementing those modifications. To wit, I have wound a new coil with 19 awg magnet wire (bifilar) with 1290 turns, completely filling the spool and then some. I've also gone to a smaller wheel diameter and have increased the number of magnets, diminishing the spacing between magnets down to 1.5 magnet widths between magnets.

I've had my coil wound for a few days, but have wanted to first document the effect of adding more magnets, using my previous coil, before introducing the new coil. Those tests are complete, and the new coil has now been glued in place and testing will begin forthwith.

My wheel is a new front bike tire rim of 16.5 inch diameter, minimal wobble. The spokes are steel, but the rim is non-magnetic. I've fine tuned the bearings so the wheel turns with minimal resistance. I've arranged the magnets so that they alternate as follows. One directly over a spoke, next one straddling between two spokes (direct middle), repeated around the wheel. I've also wrapped the magnets with fibrous packing tape to prevent magnet fly-off in case the glue gives out (which it will when bumped metal on metal).

With that introduction, let me back up and catch up on some reporting of results in a chronological sequence.

New Procedure

After I ran two experiments of continuous rotation of back battery to the front (Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp13 Continuous Rotation of Conditioned Batteries and There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3]), with the average voltage dropping over time at rate so gradual that one could easily imagine that it is flirting with over unity, considering the energy required just to maintain wheel rotation John then informed us that this is not how he has run his batteries. Rather, he separately charges one for the front end, and then dumps the load from the back-end batteries into some other use -- not cycling them to the front. "That doesn't seem work for some reason," he said.

See: New Experiment Design - Report on lengthy phone conversation with John Bedini, and plan for new experiment to prove radiant energy infusion. (Dec. 18)

I then charged two batteries, one for the front end, and one for a control and I discharged three batteries down to a certain level, and then placed them on the circuit to be charged. Due to holiday events, I was not able to watch this one as closely as I would have liked, but I was able to get some results worth noting.


I discharged Batt.s 10-11, 7-8, and 4-9 (each composed of two 6V in series to make 12V) down to 12.41 volts (after equilibrating for 16 hours). Their battery capacity weighed in at ~60% (60, 60, 59 for the three). Note that the battery rating of these 6Vs is 4.2 Ah, which doesn't change when putting them in series. The BK Precision 600 battery capacity analyzer only goes as low as 7 Ah in its test, so a 60% rating is what the meter sees, as if the battery were supposed to be 7 Ah. In other words, the actual capacity is quite a bit higher than that.

Batt.s 1-2 and 5-6 were charged with a trickle charger up to around 13.1 volts, and measured 91% capacity. (I later saw they will charge as high as "95%" capacity and hold at the time, I presumed I was close enough to full capacity.)

I started the run at 2:31 am 12/21/04, at 2.82k ohms base resistance, using same transistor as previous recent experiments (wasn't fried as thought -- I had inadvertently disconnected one of the resistors on my bread board, making me think I had fried it because the circuit would not work). The average battery voltage (one input and three output / 4) began at 12.548v, and ended at 12.562v after 35.5 hours of running, an increase of 0.014v. The average voltage climbed steadily until hour 34. It peaked at hour 32.5 at 12.567v.

The measured input current from the input battery was around 0.050 amps. The measured output current to all the charging batteries (three in parallel with diodes going to the positive terminal of each, to isolate them) was 0.017 amps.

Note : John and Peter have remarked repeatedly that standard electronics do not explain how a system that is putting out, in this case, 34% as much current to three output batteries as is being expended by one input battery, could then charge the three batteries at a rate in which their net voltage is increasing at a rate comparable to the decrease of the voltage of the input battery. While this phenomenon might not appear in the text books, it doesn't necessarily argue for radiant energy, because the circuit is essentially drip feeding energy from the input battery to the output in a spiked pulse that meters do not register correctly.

The battery capacity, after this run, measured 70% for the charging batteries, up from 60% at the start -- an increase of 10% each (times three is ~30% equivalent for one battery). The input battery measured 64%, down from 91% at the start -- a drop of 27%.

The average battery capacity of all four batteries went from 67.8% at the start to 68.5% at the end, an increase of 0.7%.

Comment : Based on the results obtained in Experiment 17, I would predict that if I had run the system until the input dropped to the same level (60% capacity) that the output batteries had started at, that the average capacity would have shown a slight drop. The peak of output battery voltages increasing faster than input voltage was dropping had been reached, and the trend was going the other way. Holiday activities prevented me from running the circuit longer to discharge the input battery down to 60%. However, even with the slight drop, with the energy required to maintain the wheel in motion, an over-efficiency is indicated as will be discussed below.

Load Tests


To approximate the amount of energy put into the run, I took control battery 5-6, which began at 91% capacity, 13.03 volts, and put it on a load (small, quasi calibrated light bulb from Radio Shack). I recorded the current and voltage regularly during the load, took one capacity reading in the interim, and then terminated the test when it reached 12.30 volts on load, which measured 58% capacity after a ten minute rest time.


I then took the bank of three batteries that had been charged, and ran them in parallel on the same bulb. Due to a holiday activity, I was not able to watch this one closely, and it went down to 47% capacity by the time I was able to get the next measurement 10.40 hours after I started it.

Comparison / Calculations

Though it would be nice if more data were available from the bank load test, a load comparison is still possible based on safe assumptions about curve shape and extrapolation.

A close approximation assumes a linear decline in watts as the batteries discharge, which is a fair assumption after an initial logarithmic decline (which usually lasts 5-10 minutes). The data carefully taken for the control supports this premise.

Image:SDA BediniSG Exp18 Control Load.jpg

Click here for Excel spreadsheet with raw data and graph.

The watts (volts x amps) is near linear in its decline over time for the 1-2 control load test.

Another assumption, which the data support, is that the Watt load will be the same for a given voltage, whether the voltage is supplied by a single battery or by a bank of batteries in parallel.

For the control, the starting voltage (after load and initial logarithmic drop) was 12.76 volts, with the bulb pulling 0.211 amps (2.692 W). After 7.383 hours, it registered at 12.30 volts 0.205 amps (2.522 W).

That comes to 19.25 Watt-hours expended, calculated as follows:

(7.383 h x 2.522 W) + (1/2 x 7.383 h x [2.692 W - 2.522 W])

rectangle + triangle

For the bank, the starting voltage (after load and initial logarithmic drop) was 12.45 volts, with the bulb pulling 0.208 amps (2.590 W). After 10.40 hours, it registered at 12.10 volts 0.205 amps (2.481 W).

This defines a slope of -.00105 Watts/hour. The slope of the control is 0.0230 W/h, for a ratio of 2.2 to 1. If the energy transfer were 100% efficient, and the slopes were purely linear, then the ratio would be 1:3, for one battery in, three out. The difference in slopes bespeaks a 73% efficiency of energy transfer (including the energy required to keep the wheel rotating in process of running the motor-energizer).

I now take the 2.522 Watts cut-off point of the control test, and subtract that from the 2.590 Watt starting point of the bank, to get 0.068 Watt difference. And difference between 2.522 W and 2.481 W (cut-off point of the bank) is 0.042 W. That fraction (0.042 / 0.068) is then multiplied by the 10.40 hours that the bank test ran which comes to an approximation of 6.42 hours approximated to the time that the 2.522 Watt point would be reached. I then use the same math as above to calculate the Watt-hours up to that point, and I get 16.41 W-h, to compare to the 19.25 W-h obtained from the control battery to the extrapolated "same" cut-off point.

According to this, the bank of charged batteries supported just 85% of the amount of load that the control battery did. This number is in fairly close agreement with the 73% derived by comparing control and bank Watt slopes, considering we are extrapolating and assuming a perfectly linear rate of decline.

Factoring in the Wheel Friction

The question is this. Is the difference in Watt-hours -- what is "left over" -- which comes to 2.84 W-h, comparing control to bank load, enough to run this wheel for 35.5 hours at 68.5 rpm? A significant departure on one extreme would indicate an inefficient system. A significant departure on the other extreme would argue for over unity -- the extraction of energy from some unseen external source, e.g. "radiant" or aetheric energy.

Over 35.5 hours, that 2.84 W-h left over comes to around 0.08 Watts through the duration of the charging cycle of the experiment.

The following parameters need to be integrated in a calculation about actual energy required to maintain the wheels' rotation.

It was rotating at around 68.5 rpm.

22" diameter.

16 magnets around the perimeter.

Each magnet weighs 0.70 ounces and is 11 mm thick (to measure center of mass about the perimeter).

Wind resistance is not negligible either. 18 inches from the wheel (in the plane of rotation) on the back of my hand I can feel the breeze coming from the rotating wheel.

This particular wheel has a fair amount of resistance in its bearings, as later conformed when extracted. The rim of the bearing housing was pitted substantially (e.g. several indentations of about +/- 1 mm deep x 4 mm wide).

Without an accurate means of measuring the actual resistance, I am left with the necessity of calculating the resistance from deceleration data, and as of yet have not been able to get together with someone to walk me through these calculations.

I have been saying that "until the numbers are crunched on the wheel frictions, or derived experimentally with some kind of dynamometer, whether this set-up is achieving over unity will remain in question. It is close -- perhaps over."

Wheel Likely to be Maintained by 0.08 Watts Left Over

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18:Watts that he can spin his wheel (analogous to mine) using an external motor rubbing against the rim of his wheel (highly inefficient) and that this pulls 0.5 Watts, indicates that 0.08 Watts is within a reasonable range for maintaining my wheel rotation.


Presently, I am in process of pursuing a more optimal design, per John's Directory:Bedini SG:Coaching:Dec 21 '04, with more wraps of the coil, thicker wire in the coil, higher concentration of magnets on the wheel, and using a low-friction wheel. Also, the tape around the perimeter of the magnets serves to cut down the wind resistance. Allegedly, these modifications will enable me to achieve the over unity manifestation.

Relevant Posts to Bedini_SG Group Regarding this Experiment


Peukert Effect

Peukert Effect may disqualify load test results - The Peukert Effect basically states that there is an exponential relationship between current draw and battery capacity: the more current drawn from the battery, the less capacity it has to power that load. To make matters worse, the effect is a little more amplified in lead acid batteries over NiCd and NMH batteries.

Sterling's Response - proposal to run next test with each battery running separate bulb, rather than from the bank in parallel.

Jim confirms that proposed modification will remove Peukert Effect

Don't Cry Wolf

Tools:So, You Think You Have Free Energy - 'YoTango' sets forth a recommended procedure for (1) confirming the claim and (2) publishing, to avoid shut-down. Says maintaining wheel rotation only consumes a fraction of a Watt.

Experimental Set-up

Image:Bedini SG by SDA Exp17 Dec17 2004 500.jpg

This image is from Experiment 17. In Experiment 18, only one battery set (two 6V in series) was on the input, with three battery sets on the output.

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4] for enlarged view: (2098px X 1536px)

I'm using the Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic and Directory:Bedini SG:Assembly Instructions as defined in this project, and as reported in Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data.


Image:BK Precision 600 100pxw1.gif

BK Precision 600 Battery Capacity Analyzer (12V Storage Type Only) Directory:Bedini SG:Instrumentation

Ten 6V Panasonic-BSG 4.2Ah/20h sealed lead acid batteries part number LC-R064R2P from Data Sheet | photo | catalogue

14 V, 200 mA, Screw-Base Lamp #1487 Radio Shack 272-1134.

Multimeter by GB Instruments, GDT-11. Used to measure volts.

Multimeter by UNI-T, Model UT60A, with accuracy of three digits to the right of the decimal point for current readings.

Optical/digital tachometer by (DT2234A)

See also

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18:Watts - Sterling posts YoTango's results and concedes that his (Sterling's) assumptions about Watt usage were flawed, and that an OU conclusion is not supported by Exp. 18.

Image:Bedini SG by SDA Exp17 Dec17 2004 101.jpg

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[5] - Continual rotation of conditioned batteries from the back to the front to the back, etc, sees four consecutive increases in battery capacity in 48 hours. Subsequent data explains. Commenced Dec. 10 terminated Dec. 18, 2004.

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp13 Continuous Rotation of Conditioned Batteries - first continuous rotation of conditioned batteries test by Sterling.

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[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]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[11]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[12]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[13]