Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18:Watts

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:58 am.

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: http://tinyurl.com/7y6kf

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

----

Exp. 18 Conclusion Refuted

'YoTango refutes Sterling Allan's Conclusions for his Experiment 18 Results from his Replication of John Bedini's Directory:Bedini SG'

Summary : On Dec. 28, Sterling presented a conclusion that he had achieved over unity in his Bedini SG system. YoTango points out from experimental evidence from his (YoTango's) Bedini SG replication that Sterling's assumption about the amount of energy required to maintain the wheel's rotation is flawed, and that the amount of "energy left over" to run the wheel, calculated by Sterling, of 0.08 Watts, is within a reasonable range, not low, as Sterling had assumed. YoTango took a small motor and used it to run his wheel, by placing the metal against the rim of his wheel -- highly inefficient -- and that only consumed 0.5 Watts. This page is being posted by Sterling, as an admittance of error. The information here provides explanation for the energy required and consumed, and argues against infusion of external (radiant/aetheric) energy in Experiment 18.

Contents

1:

Refutation
2:

Pertinent Posts to Bedini SG Group
3:

See also

Refutation

Responding to Exp. 18 Report

YoTango's comment is in response to : Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp18 Load Test - Though output was less than input, the amount of energy required to keep the motor wheel in motion during charge bespeaks the tapping of radiant energy. (PESWiki Dec. 28, 2004)

Sterling's Preface

Dec. 30, 2004

I readily admit that I was hasty in concluding what I did about being over unity, based on a weak knowledge on my part of how much energy small energy consumption devices consume. I am learning here, as a novice, and did not research well enough how much energy is in the range of 0.01 Watts to 100 Watts. I can see I need to bone up on this, and I plan to compile a document that serves as a primer to myself and for others to see what devices take what amount of energy, so that this knowledge becomes more second nature to us -- at least to me.

I concede that YoTango's results are consistent with what I have observed, and that the numbers he has presented are feasible based on my own results.

The 0.08 Watts "left over" from the difference between the input energy and the output energy, is within a range that is adequate to maintain the rotation of my wheel. I was way out of range in concluding from my very brief foray into some comparable devices that the wheel was consuming as much as 12 Watts. Hence, my conclusion that the system is operating in over unity -- tapping radiant energy -- in order to account for this excess energy, was not founded.

While I apologize for my exuberance in publishing my conclusion before consulting a more knowledgeable peer for corroboration, I do not apologize for this open source approach of learning together in a public forum. It is part of being on the "bleeding edge" of science.

Mainstream science will not touch this stuff, so it is left to those who do not care about their reputation among men to be willing to pursue a dream in hopes of finding a new great energy solution for mankind. Others are doing great work in pursuing other modalities. I am fascinated by this particular Bedini SG project because I'm in the thick of it myself. Having seen so many claims come and go, only to be discredited, I am yearning for something real that I can sink my own teeth into. Thanks for your patience as I grope along here doing the best I can, tired of waiting for someone else to deliver.

I was told by someone I trust that this system is the real thing. I've not yet proven that in my replication attempts, but I'm not done yet either. I will say that this pig is pretty greased up. Each time I think I have it, it slips away. It seems that at least once each week I stumble into something that appears at first to be the big eureka, but further investigation shows the conclusion to not hold.

The learning process has been great. I hope you don't me me dragging you all along as I have pursued this objective (e.g. reporting at FreeEnergyNews.com). There are certainly some very interesting things going on with this system that do not seem to coincide with anything I learned in College about electronics. Maybe it is because I slept through those parts (my Physics classes were right after lunch -- or during, as I often ate, and nodded off, in class).

I'm honored to have the likes of YoTango, Jim, Rick, and others who are far more knowledgeable, to coach us all along in this project. I am also very grateful for the camaraderie I feel with this group. This has been an enjoyable journey because of the gentleman (and one fair lady) who grace our discussion list.

What sets it apart from other discussions in which I've been a part is that we stick to the science and do not enter into personal attacks or questioning of each other's motives. We just post what we find, share what we know, and have a general feeling of mutual encouragement in the pursuit. This is the way it should be, and, in my opinion, it works very well, and is far more productive, than spending time attacking and defending egos. Science is so much more enjoyable when politics are not involved.

-- Sterling

p.s. I should note also that someone kindly pointed out that my reference to a solar hat fan requiring 13 Watts was in error. I saw that number on the page but did not read carefully enough to see that it was in reference to another device.

YoTango's Results Contradict Sterling's Conclusion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/message/624

From: "YoTango"

Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:00 am

Subject: Re: (OT) So, You Think You Have Free Energy?

--- In Bedini_SG@yahoogroups.com, "Sterling D. Allan"

wrote:

> responding to

> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Tools:So%2C_You_Think_You_Have_Free_Energy

> referencing: http://tinyurl.com/6gw92

> ==============

> YoTango,

> In your message, you said that maintaining the wheel's motion

would only

> consume a fraction of a Watt.

> Would you mind showing your math for our benefit?

Dear Sterling,

I posted a rough math estimation about two weeks ago:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/message/539

Out of curiosity and fairness I decided to measure how much power it

would take my small 0.3 watt DC motor to turn my bicycle wheel at 60

rpms. It took 0.5 watts. Now remember this is very inefficient so

the actual power would be magnitudes smaller than 0.5 watts. I had

problems gearing the motor to the wheel so I ended up placing the

motors shaft directly on the wheels metal rim. I can't even begin

to express how inefficient that is. The diameter of my motors shaft

is 0.079 inches. There was considerable slippage and not to mention

the friction of metal to metal. The friction was due to the fact

that there were no gears. In other words, picture two flat metal

surfaces being pressed together, no gears. Therefore, I had to

apply considerable pressure on the motor against the bicycle metal

rim just to get enough friction so the motor could spin the wheel.

Also my bicycle wheel rim is a little lopsided, lol. Lastly my

bicycle takes less than 90 seconds to go from 60 rpms to a stop.

The data I used in my math estimation was 110 seconds, as provided

by Jim.

The motor had 2.5 volts on it with 0.2 amps which is 0.5 Watts. As

a very rough guess I would say the gearing system, if it can even be

called that, was at most 10% efficient and the motor under those

loads was perhaps 25% efficient. I understand that's a very rough

guess but that being said it comes to about 0.0125 watts.

That's the amount of total friction including air and bearings to

spin my bicycle wheel. In all fairness I understand your wheel has

some extra weight such as magnets, but I believe the weight of

magnets is small compared to the entire wheel.

I would like to thank you for posting the "[[Tools:So%2C_You_Think_You_Have_Free_Energy|So, You Think You Have

Free Energy]]" letter. I hope people see it as an aid and

encouragement to creating a free energy machine. I've seen to many

people come so close to manufacturing their machine and too many

people dying of sudden deaths. Hopefully the next inventor will

take my advice:

http://tinyurl.com/6gw92

> I know the wheel has a lot more kinetic energy, but I'm talking

about what

> it takes to accelerate it, decelerate it, as I have done so

manually

> hundreds of times with this set-up in speeding up the time it

takes to get

> to equilibration so I can take a data point reading.

That's not fair. The Bedini device does not accelerate the wheel

and then throw away that energy in decelerating it and then starting

that acceleration process all over. It takes considerably more

energy to accelerate the wheel, but that's not what we're interested

in. Also, the amount of power / watts to accelerate something

depends on how fast you want to accelerate it. The amount of total

energy required to keep the wheel spinning at 60 rpms is far less

than half watt.

The point is that I would like to see people use tiny batteries. I

understand some people think the free energy is coming from the

batteries. That may be the case but I am fairly certain it is

coming from the magnetic material. I am not trying to sway people

away from studying any possible free energy from batteries. The

problem with using such large batteries that amount to nearly 1

million joules is that such batteries can generate 0.0125 watts for

over two years or 0.5 watts for three weeks. Therefore, how would

one expect even an unbiased scientist to dedicate their time and

money in analyzing such a device? You bring a scientist such a

device and he says, "But you have enough energy in this device to

run it for months without free energy."

On the other hand, what if the device had enough batter energy to

spin the wheel for only 10 minutes, yet the device kept spinning

after 10 hours!? That's a different story and any open minded

scientist would eventually take a look at that.

Simply stated, the amount of energy in the system, such as

batteries, should be as small as possible relative to the amount of

wasted energy. Wasted energy could include anything that generates

heat or radiates energy in some way just as long as the device is

not recapturing that wasted energy. A good example would be a

device that burns a 1 watt bulb in addition to 0.1 watts in heat

friction but only consumes 0.5 watts in energy.

> They are comparable, and I think I'm being more than fair in

saying that the

> maintenance of my wheel at ~60 rpm, with friction of the bearings

and wind

> resistance of the magnets, is approximately equal to the energy it

takes to

> run a model train in "coast" mode (lowest power consumption during

gradual

> deceleration), which the website I cited says consumes 12 Watts.

Wow, 12 watts? I'd like to see that since I did it in 0.5 watts

under extremely inefficient conditions.

I find Eric's challenge quite interesting. Eric seems like an open

minded person. Although perhaps lacking a great deal of intuition.

I think Eric would consider analyzing your device regardless how

large your batteries are. The reason for this is that Eric is most

likely interested in the 2nd method I mentioned in my "So, You Think

You Have Free Energy" letter, which is measuring the total power in

and out. Therefore it would not matter if you had ten million car

batteries. I personally do not like this method because it would

take more time to get the science communities attention. Don't get

me wrong. The science community will demand the total power in and

out data! It's just that they're going to frown at a device that

contains 1 million joules of battery energy and only demonstrates

0.5 watts of wasted energy. I think you would have Eric's immediate

attention but it may take months to get the attention of numerous

reputable scientists even if your device generates 10 watts out and

1 watt in. It's that huge battery that looks bad. My concern is

that you would either mysteriously disappear or be quieted dear

Sterling.

Pertinent Posts to Bedini SG Group

Chronologically

Bedini SG report: new procedure results more magnets new coil - I, Sterling, report Exp. 18 data, and erroneous conclude over unity based on flawed assumption of comparable devices energy usage. [Note: this is an archive of the original report. The Exp. 18 page conclusions will be modified to reflect the new information.]

So, You Think You Have Free Energy? - YoTango's missive on free energy claims in general, with mention of Sterling's recent results. ([[Tools:So,_You_Think_You_Have_Free_Energy|posted here at PESWiki by Sterling, Dec. 30])

Re: (OT) So, You Think You Have Free Energy? - Sterling responds to YoTango and asks him to elaborate on his statement about the wheel taking less than a Watt to maintain its rotation.

YoTango's response and results - Reports 0.5 Watt result for turning wheel inefficiently.

Bedini OU Conclusion for Exp. 18 Retracted - 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. (Dec. 30)