Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5

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

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 5.x



Image:SDA repl Bedini SG b 90.jpg

'DATA from Sterling D. Allan's fifth series of experiments on his Replication of John Bedini's "Directory:Bedini SG"'

Overview : The 5.x series experiments by Sterling Allan center around Batteries #1 and #2 being paired in series, and Batteries #3 and #4 being paired in series, swapping input and output positions at various times in the course of the experiment. All four batteries are 6V Panasonic Sealed 4.2 Ah/20 h.


5.1: changed resistor ohms to see its effect on input amps and wheel rpm.

5.2: STUMBLED ONTO SOLID STATE RESONANCE in which the input/output discharge/charge takes place without wheel rotation. Ringing sound occurs as accoustic artifact of resonance between core and magnet.

5.4 - 5.7: Keeping #1,#2 set on receiving end until "supercharged." Several fascinating effects observed during charge. It is anything but a straight linear phenomenon. Almost has a personality-like reaction.

In essentially all 5.x series experiments, the input/output discharge/charge voltage readings had a near mirror image, with the net voltage staying nearly constant, sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing, even though input amps were some 3-4 times the measured output amps. Mirror baseline generally dropped between sets when input battery set was swapped with output battery set. Exceptions to this mirror image effect, of course, were seen when a trickle charge was being applied to the input batteries in the course of supercharging the output batteries #1,#2.

See also

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp6 page commenced. Experiment to (1) determine the window where solid state (no wheel rotation, but circuit activation by resonance) can take place (2) supercharge more batteries, seeking optimal solid state charge profile in process.

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


I was running a series of tests to see the relationship between ohms resistance in the resistor of the Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic and rpm of the rotor/wheel, and amps draw from the input batteries. I tried 10, 47, 70, 100, 220, 225, 235, 470, 680, and 1000 ohms. The 22" diam. bicycle wheel lined with 16 ceramic-5 magnets was spinning at 200 rpm at 70 ohms, and went as slow as 118 rpm at 1000 ohms.

As I plotted my data by hand on a graph, I was curious to see what would happen way out to the right of the graph by going to 4.4k Ohms. I hooked two 2.2k Ohms (1/2 W) from Radio Shack together in series, hooked it up, like I had the previous ones, and when I touched the lead to the positive input battery, the circuit gave off a high-pitch ring at C# an octave above middle C. I then noticed that it was drawing 0.11 amps when I connected the positive lead (completing the circuit). Well, it turns out that I inadvertently discovered a way to run this circuit as a solid state charger.

Now, to see if this solid state (no moving parts) array will exhibit radiant energy phenomenon.

Comment from John Bedini

Oct. 19, 2004 1:59 pm


Did you write this?

: "Input current is steady at 0.11 amps. Output current is steady at 0.04 amps. Yet the discharge/charge rate of input/output batteries respectively is nearly a mirror image, inching, if anything toward increased average voltage within a run. Perhaps this mirror image effect is a result of the negative terminal of the charging battering being connected to the positive terminal of the input battery. Yet the effect was not seen in the straight 6V system of Experiment 1, in which the average voltage steadily decline. One thing that needs to be looked at is the drop in average voltage from one set to the next. This is probably where the expected losses will show up."

If you did write this, let me just direct your attention to your own data. Your meters are CLEARLY SHOWING that "electrically" the output of the system is only 36% of the input, but, the output battery is charging at almost the same rate as the input battery is dropping. This indicates that the "radiant infusion" is making up for the difference. Right now, even if you are not quite at break even, your system is running at a COP of about 2.6 (1/.36 = 2.77) And this is before you have even optimized the circuit. So, the COP of the system IS the Radiant Gain! All of your "electrical losses" are almost already compensated for, but the Radiant Gain DOES NOT show up on the "electrical meters"! But it does show up IN THE BATTERIES! Further fine tuning of the circuit can raise the COP even more.

-- John Bedini

Video & Photos

Video showing the ringing effect (1.1Mb avi format) - Taken Oct. 17, aroung 11:55 pm mdt -- before I realized this was a solid state resonant effect.Junk Science at its finest!


Per Directory:Bedini SG:Materials with the following details:

Input side has two 6-V Panasonic 4.2Ah/20h rated, in series (for 12-V). Same on output.

Coil has ~425 turns of #22 and #24 gauge magnet wire (Marlin P. Jones & Associates).

Transistor and N4001 diode came from Radio Shack, per materials specs.

Multimeter: GB Instruments GDT-11 (20m setting for Amps)

Resistors from Radio Shack: 10, 47, 100, 470, 1000, 2.2k Ohms (all 1/2 W)

Image:Radio Shack resistors variety 400.jpg

22" aluminum Mountain Bike tire from junk yard.

Ceramic 5 Magnets

Built per the Directory:Bedini SG:Plans presented on this site.

Experiments 5.x

Exp. 5.1: Ohms Versus Amps and RPM

Purpose : Swap out various resistor sizes to seek optimal speed per minimal amps out.

Oct. 18, 2004

I'm thinking its possible my multimeter may have been partially at fault for causing my transistor burn-out, so I switched multimeters (same brand, measures .01 more for volts than one I have been using for volt measurements) to measure amps coming from input battery.

Results Excerpt (not in sequence taken, but in descending order)

Note, resistors come on a logarythmic scale, so the "rpm/amp" representation is misleading until plotted on a logarythmic scale.

1000 Ohms @ 1/2 W : 118 rpm 0.13 amps comes to 908 rpm/amp

680 Ohms @ 2 W : 137 rpm 0.20 amps comes to 685 rpm/amp ran for ~1 hour (meaning that's how long I let it run before manually stopping it). Tested to see how readily the wheel speeds up or slows down to run speed if manually speed up or slowed down above or below run speed. Seems to stabilize to within 2% within about 5 minutes.

470 Ohms @ 1/2 W : 152 rpm 0.28 amps comes to 543 rpm/amp ran for 12.5 minutes

235 Ohms @ 1 W (two 470s / 1/2W) : 164 rpm 0.41 amps comes to 400 rpm/amp ran for ~9 minuts.

225 Ohms @ 2 W (four 1000s / 1/2W) : 168 rpm 0.40 amps comes to 420 rpm/amp ran for ~8.5 minutes.

220 Ohms @ 1/2 W : 160 rpm 0.43 amps comes to 372 rpm/amp ran for ~6 minutes.

: (Conclusion: Watts don't seem to be a significant determining factor. Will need to take more accurate measurements and use same ohm level to characterize influence of Watts.)

100 Ohms @ 1/2 W : 130 rpm 0.70 amps comes to 186 rpm/amp ran ~8 minutes.

47 Ohms @ 1/2 W : 184 rpm 0.98 amps comes to 187 rpm/amp ran ~13 minutes.

Image:SDA Bedini SG 0-1kOhms v Amps 041018 600a.gif

After graphing the above data (amps versus ohms), and seeing the predictable logarithmic plot, I could see that the optimal ohms range is 662 ohms, which will give me a 0.21 amps discharge rate, which is the rating on the 6V Panasonic batteries (4.2Ah/20h).

In plotting out the voltage over time, the input and output batteries were essentially symmetrical, with barely any drop from the center line (no net drop in voltage) except for at the very high rpm seen at 220, 235, and 225 ohms, in which case the discharge was happening faster than the charge. Other than that, there was no net loss in voltage. At the beginning of the run, the output battery voltages increased faster than input voltages decreased.

Exp. 5.2


Before trying out the optimal 662 ohms, I thought I would try going way up to 4,400 ohms, just to see what would happen way up there, stringing two 2.2k ohms resistors in series. When I connected the hot lead on the input battery, I heard a ringing sound. I repeated, and the same thing happened, and I noticed that I was drawing 0.11 amps. The wheel was not turning. I went and got my wife to witness. I then took a video, including a shot of me manually pushing the wheel to get it spinning, which caused the ringing to pulse at the frequency of the magnets going by the coil, but the wheel did not keep rotating, but was decelerating.

I had a hunch that I may have stumbled onto a solid state charge scenario.

I wanted to see what my output amperage was, but when I did that connection, I got a reading of 0 amps, and there was no ringing when I connected the input battery.

I then commenced a collection of data, and hooked up the circuit at 12:50 am mdt Oct. 19, 2004. For the first 2.5 hours anyway, the plot shows an increase in voltage of the charging battery at a rate faster than the linear decrease in voltage of the input battery.

Per John Bedini's circuit, it appears as though I may have achieved a solid state resonance energy device that taps into some external energy source outside of the batteries. Additional data will need to be collected to support that external energy is being tapped.

Solid State Data Synopsis

Taking readings every 5-15 minutes. Oct. 18, 2004. Here is a sampling:

12:05 (Began) : Receiving: 12.67 Volts Input: 12.45 Volts Average: 12.56

12:07 : Receiving: 12.71 Input: 12.42

12:09 : Receiving: 12.76 Input: 12.39

12:17 : Receiving: 12.81 Input: 12.37

12:33 : Receiving: 12.83 Input: 12.36

12:44 : Receiving: 12.83 Input: 12:36

12:50 : Receiving: 12.84 Input: 12.35

01:02 : Receiving: 12.85 Input: 12.35

02:43 : Receiving: 12.88 Input: 12.30

04:27 : Receiving: 12.92 Input: 12.26

05:03 : Receiving: 12.93 Input: 12.25

06:25 : Receiving: 12.96 Input: 12.21

07:02 (end) : Receiving: 12.97 Input: 12.20 Average: 12.595

Total Change Exp. 5.2 : Receiving: 0.30 Volts Input: 0.25 Volts (Average voltage increased by 0.05 V over 7 hours)

(picks up with Exp. 5.3 with switching input and output)


Rate of increase/decrease was high at first but is tapering off.

Rate of decrease in input battery voltage is less than rate of increase of in battery voltage on receiving battery, at least for the first 2.5 hours (as of the time of this report)

Input amps stayed at 0.11, constant (only two significant digits to the right of the decimal point available from the meter).


We are dealing with batteries here. They can exhibit short term effects that can be misleading when attempting a long-term extrapolation. Until the long-term data has been collected, no conclusions may be drawn about the data. The short term data shows that the output batteries are being charged at a rate that exceeds the rate of discharge of the input batteries, suggesting radiant energy input. However, this needs to be shown over a long stretch of time to be valid.

Batteries 1 and 3 were both injured (in Experiment 1.x) by

Cycling down too far (shouldn't go below 20% discharge)

Crashing (first Batt. 1 to 4.96 V. on ~Oct. 13 then Batt. 3 to 2.55 V on Oct. 14)

: One must therefore ask how much better this experiment would be performing if Batteries 1 and 3 were in good shape, as 2 and 4 are. (More batteries on their way to determine this.)

Experiment 5.3

Preface Speculations / Considerations

Oct. 19, ~4:00 am mdt (prior to data collection for this set)

The next step will be to take the output batteries and input batteries and switch them, and repeat the process. Bedini and Lindemann do it with one battery on the input with four on the output, and then rotate one from the output into the input. We may need to do something along those lines. I have already (Exp. 4.4) supercharged the two batteries (#3,#4) that are presently on the input end. That was done on Oct. 14. They reached a plateau of 14.66 Volts, while the input batteries (#1,2) were being trickle charged to be maintained within the 20% discharge range.

In Experiment 4.1 and 4.3, when I was noticing an increase in the average voltage during each charging cycle, I would see a drop in the average voltage when I switched the input and output batteries. That drop exceeded the gain during the charge cycle, for a net drop in average voltage. While encouraging, the net conclusion is not unequivocally in support of radiant (external) energy infusion. It will be interesting to see what comes of this particular arrangement -- the solid state system, where no energy is being lost to the rotation of the wheel.

I wonder how much energy is being lost to the generation of sound waves in that ringing pitch that has held constant so far in Exp. 5.2 (3.5 hours now).


I was able to get a reading on the current going from the coil to the output (receiving) batteries: 0.04 amps, steady.

Taking readings every 10-45 minutes. Oct. 19, 2004. Batteries #1,2 in series now in "input" position. Batteries #3,4 now in "output" or receiving charge.

Data Excerpt

07:06 (Began minute earlier) : Receiving: 12.30 Input: 12.70 Average: 12.50 V

07:09 : Receiving: 12.32 Input: 12.65

07:12 : Receiving: 12.33 Input: 12.62

07:29 : Receiving: 12.38 Input: 12.56 Average: 12.47

08:00 : Receiving: 12.43 Input: 12.53

09:30 : Receiving: 12.53 Input: 12.48

10:57 : Receiving: 12.59 Input: 12.43

12:32 : Receiving: 12.63 Input: 12.38

14:31 : Receiving: 12.68 Input: 12.31

15:25 : Receiving: 12.70 Input: 12.29

16:25 : Receiving: 12.70 Input: 12.26

17:41 (ended) : Receiving: 12.76 Input: 12.23 Average: 12:495

Subtotal Change Exp. 5.3 : Receiving: 0.46 Volts Input: -0.47 Volts

(Exp. 5.4 under way, which switches input and output again)

Misc. Data

RPM of wheel = zero.

As in 5.2, the rate of increase/decrease was high at first but then tapered off.

Input amps is remaining at 0.11.

Output amps was measured at 0.04.


Input voltage drop is a near mirror image of output voltage charge in receiving battery.

I was able to hook up the circuit minus the meter and the resonance still was in place. But not until about the tenth try, and a good 12 hours into the experiment. Until then, I was thinking the meter might somehow be contributing to the resonant effect. It's not.

The ringing sound nearly goes away when I move the wheel so that the magnets straddle the coil, and the input/output amperage remains the same, so the presence of the magnet over the core is irrelevant to the effect. Rather, it seems to be forming an acoustical resonant cavity to amplify the sound of the ringing -- not impinging on the function.

When disconnecting the meter from taking current readings on the receiving battery, I accidentally let the connection slip for a fraction of a second. When I did, the neon bulb flashed momentarily, and the resonant condition stopped. No current was flowing from the input battery. I couldn't get the effect to return until I began rotating (slowly) the magnets on the wheel past the coil. Then the ring returned, and the current started flowing again. So even though the presence of the magnets doesn't maintain the effect, it can set it in motion.

I tried to use a stethoscope to see if I couldn't hear where the vibration was originating from. Nothing that I touched (coil, magnet, transistor) picked up the vibration to convey it through the stethoscope.


I'm thinking the arrangement of one battery on the input with four on the output in parallel, like Bedini/Lindemann do it, will be the best way to see this effect bear the most fruit. However, a resonant arrangement will need to be discovered for the 6V level.


Input current is steady at 0.11 amps. Output current is steady at 0.04 amps. Yet the discharge/charge rate of input/output batteries respectively is nearly a mirror image, inching, if anything toward increased average voltage within a run. Perhaps this mirror image effect is a result of the negative terminal of the charging battering being connected to the positive terminal of the input battery. Yet the effect was not seen in the straight 6V system of Experiment 1, in which the average voltage steadily decline. One thing that needs to be looked at is the drop in average voltage from one set to the next. This is probably where the expected losses will show up.

Exp. 5.4

Batteries #3,4 on input side Batteries #1,2 in output.

Note : The best way to run this is (1) use batteries that have not been abused (2) first supercharge all batteries involved using the circuit (3) have four batteries on the back side, and one on the front, that is rotated from the back in turn (least recent). None of these three conditions is true in experiments 5.x. (See There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2] below.


Taking readings every 10-45 minutes. Oct. 19, 2004. Batteries #1,2 in series now in "input" position. Batteries #3,4 now in "output" or receiving charge.

Data Excerpt

17:47 pm (Began) : Receiving: 12.32 Volts Input: 12.61 Volts Average: 12.465 V

17:49 : Receiving: 12.37 Input: 12.57

18:03 : Receiving: 12.39 Input: 12.48

19:10 : Receiving: 12.50 Input: 12.40

20:25 : Receiving: 12.57 Input: 12.34 Average: 12.455

21:33 : Receiving: 12.61 Input: 12.29

23:27 (End) : Receiving: 12.67 Input: 12.22 Average: 12.445

Total Change Exp. 5.4 : Receiving: 0.37 Volts Input: -0.39 Volts

Misc. Data

Duration of experiment (still going)

RPM of wheel = zero.

As in 5.2 and 5.3, the rate of increase/decrease was high at first but then tapered off.

Input amps is remaining at 0.11.

I disconnected the amp meter at 20:58 pm to see if having it connected/disconnected makes any significant difference. Difference is likely to be minute. May be more of an issue on the output side, standing in the way of any radiant energy that may be flowing.


Input voltage drop is a near mirror image of output voltage charge in receiving battery.

From about 18:15 on, I had the magnet away from the core, so the ringing was not present, though the resonant effect is still in place.

Though the ringing makes for a good indicator that the rosonance is in place, the amp meter also tells you if it is in place.

Exp. 5.5: Standing

After the batteries stabilize for a few hours just standing, I plan to run another "supercharge" cycle, this time with Batteries #1,2 on receiving end. Experiment 5.5 will just track the stabilization curve.

Oct. 19,20. 6V Batteries are each isolated.

Times are relative to MDT.

{| border=1


| Time || Batt#1 || Batt#2 || Batt#3 || Batt#4


| 23:29pm || 6.30v || 6.31v || 6.07v || 6.21v


| 23:34pm || 6.29v || 6.30v || 6.07v || 6.22v


| 24:01pm || 6.27v || 6.28v || 6.08v || 6.23v


| 01:12pm || 6.25v || 6.28v || 6.09v || 6.24v


| 06:35am || 6.23v || 6.25v || 6.09v || 6.24v


| 08:34am || 6.23v || 6.25v || 6.09v || 6.24v


| || || || ||


| DELTA || 0.07v || 0.06v || 0.02v || 0.03v


Batteries 1 and 2 drop in charge, having just been on the receiving end of the circuit, now equilibrating.

Batteries 3 and 4 increse in charge, having just been on the input end of the circuit, now equilibrating.

Exp. 5.6: Hooked back up

Oct. 20, 2004, 8:36 am MDT, hooked Batt. #3,4 in series on input, with #1,2 in series on input, as in 5.4 above.

(See Exp. 5.5 pre-hook-up data)

{| border=1


| Time || Batt#1 || Batt#2 || Batt#3 || Batt#4


| 8:39am || 6.26v || 6.27v || -- || --


| 8:39am || 6.28v || 6.29v || 6.05v || 6.19v


| 8:45am || 6.29v || 6.29v || 6.04v || 6.18v


| 8:48pm || 6.30v || 6.30v || 6.03v || 6.18v


| || || || ||


| DELTA || 0.04v || 0.03v || 0.02v || 0.01v


Just to show that the circuit is still working in solid state mode, charging the output batteries while drawing power from the input batteries, without the rotor spinning.

Exp. 5.7: Supercharging

Oct. 20, 2004, Batt. #3,4 in series on input, with #1,2 in series on input, as in 5.4 above.

Purpose : To charge Betteries 1 and 2 using the Bedini unit until they take no more charge. According to Peter, this is part of conditioning the batteries to optimize the radiant energy receiving ability. Batteries #3,4 were supercharged in Exp. 4.4. (Batt. 3 was in an injured state prior to that time, and only charged to 6.64 volts, while Battery 4 charged to 8.06 volts)

8:51 am MDT Attached 2-amp NAPA 12-V trickle charger to input batteries. Notices a 1/2 pitch drop in ringing tone.

(See Exp. 5.5 pre-hook-up data)

8:51 am, plugged in trickle charger (for input Batt. 3,4). Voltage data for Batt. 3,4 not shown here because of the sporatic up/down of the trickle charger turning on and off. The pertinent data is the charge level of the output batteries, 1,2.

{| border=1


| Time || Batt#1,2


| 8:54am || 12.62v


| 9:07am || 12.65v


| 9:25am || 12.68v


| 9:57am || 12.71v


| 10:36am || 12.73v


| 10:57am || 12.75v


| 11:07am || 12.77v


It looks like the quick rate of change seen at the beginning stabilizes after about half an hour. A look at the linear rate of charge increase (known to be essentially linear from earlier data rigoriously taken) from 9:25am through 11:07am gives a rate of change of about 0.05 volts per hour. The target voltage (estimated from Exp. 4.4 supercharge of Batt. 3,4) is 8.06 x 2 = 16.12 volts. At the rate of 0.05 volts per hour, this would take an additional ~67 hours to go from 12.77 volts to 16.12 volts (3.35 volt change).

I'm impatient. I'm going to terminate this experiment and change out the resistor back to the rotation mode with a lower resistance to give a faster charge time. Plus, "RS" Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5 that when he attained a solid state Bedini through an analogous process that he found that the charge was only "surface charge."

Experiment 5.6 Terminated : Circuit disconnected 11:07 am MDT, Oct. 20

Actual Ohms of Resistor in Exp 5.2 through Exp 5.6 : 4.32k Ohms, measured with the Ohm meter.

Ringing Observation

Remember, the ringing is an artifact of the cavity between the coil and the magnet overhead, and goes almost completely away when the magnet is rotated away from being right over the coil. As long as any portion of the magnet is over any portion of the core, the ring is loud. As soon as there is not magnet over the coil, the ringing subsides to a barely audible vibration.

There are basically five sound levels as a given magnet moves across the coil.

A) before it is over the coil on the approach

B) when the first few milimeters of magnet are over the first few milimeters of coil on the approach, and then as the magnet passes over that half of the winding

C) in the center, where the core is located, the sound diminishes a little

D) on the back half of the coil, similar to B

E) after the magnet is no longer over the coil.


Remarks about and reviews of the overall experiment and follow-up.

Experimental Totals

AVERAGE Battery Voltage (input + output)/2

: (Immediately before Exp. 5.x standing for nearly 24 hours, stabilized: (6.17 = 6.18 + 6.38 + 6.54)/4 x 2 = 12.635 volts (not under load))

: (Exp. 5.1: begin: 12.565 volts end: 12.59 volts) (pre-solid state discovery)

: Exp. 5.2 begin: 12.56 volts end: 12.595 volts.

: Exp. 5.3 begin: 12.50 volts end: 12.495 volts.

: Exp. 5.4 begin: 12.465 volts end: 12.445 volts.


: These averages are probably the most telling about what is happening over time. The encouraging results of Exp. 5.2 are dampened by those results not also appearing in Exp. 5.3 and 5.4, as well as by the drop in initial average at the beginning of the next experiment compared to the prior, just minutes before. These results can be ascribed to the negative factors mentioned above (one cripled battery, not all batteries supercharged, only one battery on back side instead of four, to take turns on the front side).

Other Compilations

Not as important or revealing, due to considerations mentioned below.

Run time

: (Exp. 5.1: Input begins at 12.71 volts on 10/18, 17:30pm ends 12.35 volts at 23:41pm = 6.38 hours)

: Exp 5.2: Input begins at 12.45 volts at 00:05 (12:05) am, ends 12:20 volts at 7:02 am = 5.95 hours.

: Exp 5.3: Input begins at 12.75 volts at 7:06 am, ends 12.23 volts at 17:41 pm = 10.48 hours.

: Exp 5.4: Input begins at 12.61 volts at 17:47 pm, ends 12.22 volts at 23:27 pm = 5.67 hours.

Time to Discharge from 12.45 to 12.23 Volts

: (Exp. 5.1: n.a. - was sporatic level due to changing ohms)

: Exp 5.2: 12.45 volts at 00:05 (12:05) 12.23 Volts at 5:03 = ~5.0 hours

: Exp 5.3: 12.45 volts at 10:29 am 12.23 volts at 17:41 pm = 5.3 hours

: Exp 5.4: 12.45 volts at est. 18.25 pm 12.23 volts at 23:08 = 4.7 hours

: Average = 5.0 hours.


The time to discharge and run time comparisons are not that helpful because a graph of the charge/discharge over time between the two battery sets has a sine wave appearance. The beginning of one data set might be during the rise of the curve, while the beginning of another data set begins at the peak, and another during the decline of the curve.

Probably the most helpful measurements that we have taken are the average voltage readings.

The battery charge capacity would be a better measure of the state of the battery. Need to get a device to take such a measurement.

General Battery Ramifications

I clearly really hurt Battery 3 when I discharged it down to 2.55 in Exp. 1.8 (overslept). When you look at the individual battery voltages, there is always a significant difference between the voltage of battery 4 and battery 3. During Exp. 5.3, at 12:32, for example Batt. 3 read 6.23 volts, while battery four read 6.39. When 3&4 were supercharged together in Exp. 4.4, battery 4 got up to 8.05 volts, while battery 3 only reached 6.65 volts.

So what we have here, in effect, is a three-legged dog that is limping along pretty good, considering.

It will be interesting to see what the data do when we get a fresh set of batteries running.

Follow-up Experiments

I would like to see what happens when I

use higher/lower ohms

use the batteries when they have a much higher charge

use the batteries when they have a much lower charge

change the wattage on the input resistor (they are 1/2 W) from Radio Shack.

See also

Directory:Bedini SG

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

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan - main index includes chronology of build, other replications by SDA when built.

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications

Talk:Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5

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]