On 12/16/2009 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:16 PM 12/15/2009, Terry Blanton wrote:
We built a Bedini motor, specifically, the bicycle wheel type known as
the "school girl motor" and measured the efficiency with a torque
meter. We found the efficiency to be around 30%.
The truth is that pulse charging of a battery removes the sulfides
that accumulate on the plates. John knows this since he has a charger
which he says "rejuvenates" golf cart batteries.
Pulse motors fool a lot of people but not a torque meter. :-)
In other words, the pulse charging of the battery in a Bedini motor
operates the battery in a mode which extracts maximum energy from it. So
the battery lasts much longer than expected. Is that correct?
But the use of capacitors wouldn't be subject to this effect, and the
decline in energy would be obvious, as voltage would continually decline
until it was too low to operate the device. Hence such devices don't use
capacitors in place of batteries.
This is even without fraudulent intent.
Supposedly many free energy researchers have been fooled by the
pulse-charge effect, which is, as I understand it, peculiar to lead-acid
batteries. There was a guy with a self-charging electric car a while
back, who eventually retracted his claims of OU; last I heard it sounded
like he had been honest, and honestly sucked into believing his claims
by the strange behavior of the batteries.
Not so sure this applies to nicads or NiMH batteries, which Steorn is using.
Add fraudulent intent, which
sometimes appears later, when the inventor exhausts his approaches to
"perfect" the device, but is under pressure to perform a demonstration
or his funding gets yanked, etc., and all bets are off. There are
countless ways to conceal an energy source. And that some parts of the
device are not clearly visible simply amplifies suspicion that this is
happening.
Consider this from the point of view of a master con game:
At this point, the obvious suspicion is that the power is being supplied
by the battery. So, after they have run this demonstration for a while,
then they start addressing the obvious objections.
1. The hours of observation. They remove the restriction. For a modest
fee, enough to pay the security guard to sit there, you can watch as
long as you want. They even make you pay the cost. Or maybe they even
cover it, and just pay the guard themselves. Whatever is needed to
overcome this obvious objection.
This by itself wouldn't help much. The motor probably draws very, very
little power.
Rechargeables have a significant self-discharge rate, which may actually
be comparable to the drain on the battery by the Steorn motor.
Consequently the battery may very well run down in a few months, without
showing anything at all about the truth or falsehood of their claims: A
battery sitting in the display case with no external load at all would
do the same thing.
In other words, even if the battery eventually runs down, that doesn't
mean their claims are false.
Back to square 1: The demo shows nothing, positive or negative.
2. The battery. They have a capacitor battery replacement. They charge
it up to the battery voltage and replace the battery with it. The device
keeps running. They even show the capacitor voltage. Damn! The peak is
staying constant or is even increasing slowly.
You can stop right there. This step can not be part of a con. That's
the end of the road; at that point we're done. The New Day has Dawned.
No need for transparent panels, save to show there's no hidden battery
anyplace.
And, of course, it's the step we're never going to see.
