Friday, 2 July 2010

Bedini Motor - Clarification

Bedini 10 Pole Monopole - Only $4200 !!

If, like so many, you believe that the Bedini SSG is an over-unity device then it is not. John Bedini has emphasized this very point on many occasions. (We too were confused by the diversity of claims in this regard !)



We came across the following extract from an article on how to construct a Bedini SSG and it makes it very clear what it actually is :



STARTERS GUIDE – PART II
A GUIDE FOR BUILDING
BEDINI ENERGIZERS
BY
RICK FRIEDRICH, RICHARD L., AND RS

It must be emphasized that the Bedini Trifilar SG or SSG are not over‑unity (OU) systems. They are only one-to-one energy shuttle systems. They use one charged input battery to charge 4 or more output batteries. When set up properly, one pays for 1 and one gets the input back and three or more others for free.

The energizers are never going to show OU themselves...!!! The OU shows up in the batteries energy capacity. They last longer and take less time to charge - until they get to the point of getting 4 or more charges for the price of one!! The sooner EVERYONE understands that, the better.

This important fact needs to be understood by anyone embarking on this project. The expectation that it (the energizer) is an over-unity device has led to some misunderstandings previously.

John B. designed the Trifilar SG with the Capacitor Pulser and SSG variants as ‘proof of concept’ to demonstrate and prove his method of capturing radiant energy and get the world to understand that it is the high potential, almost currentless pulses that the different variations of energizer put out, that causes what happens within the charged batteries.

This is very important. This is where the radiant energy manifests itself, and what ‘conditions’ the batteries.

The process that occurs in these batteries is referred to as conditioning. Once conditioned, the batteries last longer and take less time to charge, etc... Other benefits are that they will not wear out by sulfate buildup that usually occurs with standard DC charged batteries. They do not suffer from the depletion of water by evaporation from heat, generated by the charging process the way conventionally charged batteries do.




So again we reiterate that the Bedini Motor is not an over-unity device - it is in fact a mechanical lead-acid battery desulphator ! It does not violate any laws of physics - in our opinion it does violate several other laws including commonsense and it can seriously damage your bank balance ! (Ref. : Desulphators)

Monday, 28 June 2010

Measurement Errors


The above waveform illustrates the fundamental problem facing every Bedini Motor experimenter who needs to measure the extracted BEMF power. The waveform is a representation of the transistor collector voltage.

If a `simple / cheap´ digital meter is used to measure the voltage, such as our unbranded NC72CG, it will measure, not the average but somewhere around the peak voltage - maybe 60 volts or more. Whereas, an analogue voltmeter, like the AVO 8, will read around 15-20 volts; not because of any inbuilt averaging function but purely because of the ballistic response of the meter movement.

Which is correct ? It depends on the definition of voltage in this case. The peak voltage is 70 volts, so our cheap meter displays a more accurate estimate of peak volts than the AVO 8.

For the battery charging enthusiasts, the ultimate question is “How much power is available ?”. Hence neither meter is capable of displaying a correct value of average voltage to permit us to measure power. Even if we could measure the average voltage by integrating the waveform, there remains another measurement - the current. Again, the same problems exist; we need the average current measurement. And another significant problem is that of the phase relationship between the voltage and current - we can not assume that Watts = Volts * Amps (even p = v * i * cos(Φ) is a gross oversimplification - Ref. : Power Factor).

In some respects, John Bedini´s approach might be considered correct. One way to determine power output is to accumulate the power in some form of storage device. The choice of a lead acid battery for this purpose seems to be a particularly bad one !

Why choose such a complex storage device ? It is well known that a lead acid battery will react to high voltage pulses and there are so many other electrical, chemical, thermal and mechanical variables and complexities associated with all batteries that only serve to confuse and dumbfound everyone.
(You can´t measure urine volume by pissing in the ocean and measuring the rise in sea level ! You can if you piss in a pot !)

As some have already tried, a capacitor can provide a much more reliable reference - we can determine the charge of a capacitor and, knowing the charge time, we can approximate power. (Care must be taken not to exceed the capacitor´s peak voltage rating.)

The real solution to determining power availability in these situations is to heat up a resistor and measure its temperature. Such measurement instruments are based on calibrated thermocouples - often simply referred to as `true RMS voltmeters or powermeters´. Agilent Technologies (ex-Hewlett Packard) have a range of such meters - not cheap but well worth `borrowing´ if possible.

So, again we make this plea; understand your measurement principles and limitations of your instruments. Seek out the `real truth´ - John Bedini should be able to acquire a calibrated power meter - let him prove and substantiate his claims without the unnecessary encumbrance of lead acid batteries ! At the moment, this is clearly not science - it´s more akin to a magician´s act - elaborate sleight of hand is deceiving everyone !



There are an almost infinite selection of measurement error examples from Bedini Motor related sources : (What do you think ?)

Input of 12 volts DC at .08 amps has a watt value of .96

Output of 315.9 volts DC was connected in series through a 32,600 ohm ( Measured) resistor as a load. The end result is a watt value of 3.06.

Thankfully, the maths are correct and this example has avoided the complexity of batteries. So here we clearly have the proof of over‑unity - 1 watt in and 3 watts out - 300% ...

Sadly all that we have is a gross simplification founded on measurement errors by a dedicated and enthusiastic experimeter who has been given a false belief and a false expectation.

It is obvious that, if 3 watts of power was being dissipated, then the resistor would be hot ! On other sites, the lack of heating of resistors or batteries has been conveniently explained to be due to the strange and beneficial characteristic of `radiant energy´ ... nothing gets hot - maybe that’s because there’s no power !

Here is another example of nonsense measurements - this time by John Bedini (Ref. : Mechanical Monopole Oscillator) :


Voltage across charging battery was 12.56
Amperes measured going to the battery was 38ma
Watts = V * A = 0.48 W or 477 milliwatts


As has already been shown, a simple multimeter will tend to read the peak voltage / current. In John´s example, the current might peak at 38mA but the average current will be substantially less (Looking at the waveform, the average current might be lower than a hundredth of that of the peak.)

John Bedini concludes :

“When the machine is properly built and tuned, by measuring with conventional meters we will see more energy leaving the receiving battery via a constant load than entered it.”


“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard P. Feynman (1918–1988)



We enjoy these motors and so should the rest of humanity. Why ? Because they’re fun and there’s so much scope for creative talent and fundamental learning. What makes us angry and upset is that the perpetrators of this myth are held up to the world as the scientific innovators of the future and dare to associate their names with the true geniuses such as Guass, Faraday, Lenz, Maxwell and Tesla.

The consequence of their actions has incurred a significant expenditure in time, effort, thought and money by so many.

Governments pass legislature to prevent us falling foul of ‘too good to be true’ financial investments the same should hold true for this type of nonsense … education, good judgment and a healthy dose of scepticism are the best defenses against becoming a victim. Remember, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is, even if it is on the internet !
The Emperor’s New Clothes






We close this entry with a quotation :

There is NO free electricity produced in these systems, or any other system that I know of. I have stated this repeatedly. The only thing these systems produce are a series of “high voltage spikes” that have no current associated with them. Voltage without current is the nature of Radiant Energy. This is what Tesla said. I call this “reactive power” because it does not represent voltage and current simultaneously, that could be measured as WATTS. This Radiant Reactive power WILL charge batteries, light light‑bulbs and other things but it DOES NOT meter as REAL POWER. This is why your math is useless !

So please, quit quoting your theories and analyses to me. My light‑bulbs are on. Are yours ? You are welcome to believe in your theory, but I KNOW that Tesla was right about the nature of electricity, and how to successfully tap its useful fractions. If you would just build the motor the way I have said, you could begin to learn about this too.

Beyond this, I am done CHATTING with you. Leave the people alone who are trying to learn this. Your ignorant comments are of no use. That’s as nice as I can be about it.

John Bedini

It seems that John Bedini is clearly saying that his motors do not produce surplus electricity - just high-voltage pulses with little current or power. And all that it’s good for is desulphating batteries !

The motor is no more than the magician’s distraction ... is it possible that the `real magic´ takes place within the chemistry of a lead acid battery and its reaction to high voltage pulses ? Does it seem probable that `Radiant Energy´ can not be proven to exist, measured and quantified until it has been processed within a car battery ? Sounds more like `Hocus Pocus´ than science !

We leave the debate and conjecture to others ...

Tuesday, 22 June 2010

Low Power

Seiko Instruments Inc. S-882Z Ultra-Low Voltage Charge Pump

Working at the extremes of very low power provides a greater understanding and appreciation of all aspects of this type of pulse motor design. Our definitive benchmark in low power consumption is based on the circuit on the right.

These circuits place no reliance on semiconductors; other than the solar panel. The trigger is a simple reed switch which requires no power to operate other than an infinitesimally small force to close.

Solar cell specifications look good on paper – 0.65V at 4mA. But indoors, under ‘normal’ lighting it’s more like 0.2V at 100µA ! Pointing a 60W light bulb at it produces some improvement – only in full sunlight is the promised power delivered !

Using a magnetically levitated rotor, the first circuit worked but it required the close presence of a 60W light source; maybe only to be expected with barely 0.3V at 1.5mA available. The rotor ‘chugged’ along, hesitantly, at a sluggish 100 RPM.

Adding the 100µF capacitor changed the performance dramatically. The rotor sprang into life accelerating up to a healthy 2,000 RPM. Even with the 60W light source removed, it continued to produce around 200 RPM !

Why did the capacitor produce such a performance improvement ? Nope – not ‘radiant energy’ ! The answer is that it created an energy reservoir for the solar cell. For 80% of the time the solar cell’s power was not being used. Only when the reed switch closed was there a demand for power – and there was hardly any to be had from the tiny solar cell. But, by adding the capacitor, it allowed a charge to accumulate until the next trigger.

(This is technique called ‘burst’ supply – power is delivered in pulses rather than continuous; we use this approach in our designs to cater for situations when power availability becomes very low.)

With a lot of effort to optimize the reed switch location, we successfully got the motor to run from the lowest power levels yet achieved – the motor operated at 200 RPM using 0.15V at 500µA (75µW).

Silicon based semiconductors do not work at such voltage levels. They need a minimum of 0.65V to operate. No work has been done using germanium devices. They are considered to be archaic and are becoming obsolete; but they work down to 0.25V.

The reed switch is hard to beat. They’re cheap and you can replicate similar motors for the cost of a reed switch, a bobbin of copper wire, a few magnets and a ‘borrowed’ solar panel using a garden solar lamp – or just use an old 1.5V battery.

In our implementation, using a 1.5V battery, we reached speeds where magnets were being thrown off the rotor !

To date, we’ve not bettered the reed switch performance – we did toy with the idea of forgetting all the electronic design; to go with a product that used something that was so simple. But there are a few problems with reed switches. To get the extremes of performance, the switch position and rotor geometry was critical. The other point is that a reed switch ultimately will fail through metal fatigue. The best estimates are 109 operations before failure – this sounds a lot but for a rotor using 2 magnets, spinning at 10,000 RPM 24/7 means that the reed switch might fail in less than a year.

Reed switches have a much reduced lifespan when high currents are involved. For those, making ‘bigger’ motors, this can be remedied using a power transistor that is driven by the reed switch.



Our test results from the above circuits are detailed below. We used three multimeters, an old analog AVO 8, Fluke 85 and a very cheap digital meter whose origin is unknown - model no. N72CG.

These results show the problems associated with measurement of pulse driven systems. Using solar cells exaggerates the problem - unless drawing a relatively high current, battery voltage will remain constant - a solar cell does not !

Solar Cell O/C Voltage S/C Current
AVO 8 0.35 1.35mA
Fluke 85 0.35 1.38mA
N72CG 0.35 1.41mA

  Motor (no capacitor) Motor (100µF capacitor)
Volts Current Volts Current
AVO 8 0.15 1.10mA 0.15 1.00mA
Fluke 85 0.58 1.85mA 0.15 1.00mA
N72CG No reading No reading 0.24 3.35mA

From examination of the above test results, it is clear that the AVO 8 provides the most consistant figures. We presume this to be due to the averaging effect of the meter ballistics. Both digital meters appear to display the peak transient levels rather than an average value. (In fact the cheap meter could not cope with the pulse nature of the first motor and displayed random numbers !)

If we had extrapolated these measurements, it is clear that we could be led to believe and substantiate evidence to show that `extra´ energy was being created.

Again we highlight the danger of interpretation of measurements from test instruments. In our experience, digital meters tend to measure peak transients ... and that then leads to conclusions that make no sense ... and permits us all to enter the strange world of `free energy´ !



(We had intended to discuss ‘Energy Harvesting’ and DC-DC Charge Pumps but that subject will be covered later.)

Monday, 21 June 2010

Timing Revisited


Following on from the discussion “Timing Is Critical”, the above circuit provides control of the Bedini Motor that was hitherto not available. Maybe the time is coming when this should no longer be considered to be a Bedini Motor and we can wave goodbye to the SSG.

The circuit utilizes a CMOS 4538 Dual Retriggerable Monostable Multivibrator as the main controlling element. The transistor is non-critical and any NPN transistor can be used. The reed switch could be any form of sensor; Hall-Effect, optical or a trigger coil; the only proviso is that whatever the sensor is, it must provide the 4538 with the correct logic levels. (We used a Meder Electronics Reed Switch from Mouser - 876-KSK-1A35-1520)

The first monostable is used to control the speed of the motor. It is used in a retriggerable configuration. The time constant (RC) is chosen to set the RPM of the motor. So, if an upper limit of 2,500 RPM is required then this equates to a period of 60*1000/2500mS or 24mS. If C is chosen to be 100nF then the corresponding resistance is 24mS/100nF = 240K. (This assumes only one rotor magnet; our design uses two magnets, so the resistance is halved - 120K.)

The second monostable is triggered by the leading-edge of the first monostable´s output and provides the control of the power pulse duration. The approximate duration should be about one tenth that of the speed monostable; this is reflected in the capacitor size of 10nF. There is no `hard and fast´ rule for the optimal duration - it needs to be of sufficient duration to accelerate the rotor. (As will be shown later, it is non-critical and is largely dependent on the type of rotor and bearing quality.)

When the rotor starts spinning, the first monostable is triggered which in turn triggers the second monostable and therefore fires a power pulse to drive the rotor. This sequence continues until the rotor is spinning at a rate that is just greater than the corresponding period of the first monostable. At that time the monostable has not completed its timeout period and as the monostable is retriggerable, a new timeout interval is restarted - therefore, for that trigger there was no consequent power pulse. Only when the rotor has slowed down fractionally will another power pulse be delivered. So there is now a balance, speed is maintained constant and there is a considerable saving in power consumption.

So, even though the power pulse duration might not be optimum, the action of a more powerful pulse will simply push the rotor a bit faster and the time interval to the next pulse will have been extended.

A third monostable could be introduced between the existing two to control the interval between the trigger pulse and the power pulse. In practice, this is not necessary as the trigger sensor normally can be moved physically in relationship to the power coil - but the option exists !

The first monostable can be reconfigured to be non-retriggerable. This means that a power pulse will occur for every trigger pulse. Now what happens is that the rotor will rotate at a rate that is always a little greater than the monostable period - sometimes considerably greater ! This mode consumes more power but is better suited to those who want to continue to `recharge´ their batteries !

From this most basic of circuits, there are now opportunities to add greater functionality and to consider different design options. For example, in our levitating motor, the pulse synchronizes with the rotor sending it into a wobbly resonance. One solution is using two monostables, to set an upper and lower speed. When the rotor exceeds the upper speed, it then freewheels until the lower speed is reached; the sequence repeats and voila - no more wobble and another slight saving in power consumption !

As specialist digital systems design engineers, we consider that monostables belong to the analog domain, not part of a digital system. So, another approach is to use a crystal oscillator and digital counters. Now all sorts of options become available - counting the RPM is child´s play, as is replicating the functionality of the monostables. Logic can be introduced to respond to power availability. It becomes easy to determine the rotor state - is it speeding up, slowing down or stopped ? With the appropriate rotor design, self-starting can be achieved too.

Operating parameters can be dynamically changed to maintain efficient and smooth running ... but that is moving into the realms of microprocessors and software. Isn´t that overkill for a motor ? No, it´s fun and that´s what it´s all about ! It beats the `socks off´ trying to charge car batteries and potentiometer tweaking ! Nor is it expensive.

For those of you making Bedini Motors from Imhotep axial fans - have you ever stopped to look at the technology and functionality of the chips that drive these motors ? Some are utterly amazing and you throw them away and replace it with a neon, a 2N3055 and a potentiometer then call it progress - shame on you ! If all that you want is the back emf from the motor then add a diode and extract it and leave the technology intact !



This recording is from our levitating motor using the above circuit. It accelerates from start to 2,500 RPM and there are two brief periods when friction was applied to the rotor. The clicks are the power pulses - as the speed stabilizes, the number of pulses decreases. The power consumption peaks during startup at 2.8mA @ 3.0V, dropping to less than 1mA when the rotor reaches its target speed.

(The hum in the background is the induced voltage produced by the free spinning rotor.)


Our levitating motor uses two magnets. There is a tendancy for the circuit to synchronize with one magnet, so the power pulse applied to that single magnet makes the rotor wobble and resonance is established - this undesirable effect is clearly audible.

Saturday, 19 June 2010

Dart Motor

Dart Motor

The low rotational speed requirement for this motor proved to be the most difficult to design. High speed motors are very easily achieved and control is relatively straightforward using circuitry similar to that in our entry `Timing Revisited´.

This motor operates just above what might be considered to be its `stall´ velocity. Accurate rotational sensors control not only the duration of the power pulse but its amplitude too.

This motor uses two coils to power the rotor - the driver circuitry is similar to that found in a stepper motor.

The power consumption of this motor is substantially higher than our other designs, but it can still run 24/7 from the same small solar cell array.

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Timing Is Critical

Animation of Trigger / Power Pulse Timing

Before starting this topic, it´s time for a little thought and some experimenting by you Bedini enthusiasts !

Let´s consider our power consumption. Simple, measure our voltage source and the current consumption using our trusty digital meter. OK, multiplying volts and amps gives the wattage.

Now let´s think of a simple way that we might be able to cut our power consumption by 50% or more ?

Try this. Run your Bedini motor up to speed. Now disconnect the power and count to 5. Now reconnect it again and count to 5. Keep on repeating this - your motor will continue to run (if it´s got reasonable bearings). Some of you might even find that the motor speed is only marginally effected.

Amazing ! That means we´re wasting power; its ability to charge a battery will be impacted, but the power was coming from our running battery in the first place.

So our power consumption is now 50% less. But wait, how do we measure that just to make sure ? The applied volts can be measured but what about the current ? The trusty old digital meter isn´t very good at averaging over our on/off period.

But wait, if you stop to think again, the current was pulsed on and off by the motor - it´s only on when a rotor´s magnet passes the trigger coil ... but that´s fast and our meter reads a constant value. Is it the right value ? How can we be sure ?

This is the catch ! Working with pulse driven systems makes it all extremely difficult to measure anything with certainty and accuracy.

(As we use solar cells, there were times that even measuring the running voltage was difficult. Without a smoothing capacitor across the cells, we found that the our Fluke 85 meter showed an increase in voltage that was proportional to the motor´s speed - it moved from 1.2 volts to 1.8 volts ! `Radiant Power´ ? No, just the impedance of the cells supplying a pulse demand causing our meter to read wrong. Our old AVO 8 remained steady on 1.2 volts.)



The relationship and timing of the trigger and power pulse is critical for a high performance and efficient motor.

(A motor that `sprays´ a rotating magnet field into the environment can never be considered to be efficient in the normal sense. Every `true´ design of electric motor considers this fact by striving to contain and focus such precious `radiant energy´.

Motors are designed to provide quantified torque / power - again this is of no concern in the Bedini Motor.

But the Bedini Motor provides a source of discovery and inspiration. Everyone can make one from basic, low cost materials. They can own it, refine it, modifying and improving its performance whilst requiring little theoretical knowledge.

The leaky rotational magnetic field is fun - most have observed the remote interaction of other magnets which does not happen with commercial motors.)


In the SSG, the trigger and power pulse are coincident. Therefore, if the approach of a rotor magnet triggers the circuit too early, then power is wasted. At its worst, the power pulse might decelerate the rotor before it is accelerated. There is an optimal moment to `push´ the rotor.

If the trigger is late, then again power is wasted as the rotor magnet has passed the optimum point of acceleration.

The analogy of an internal combustion engine and its ignition timing sequence is valid and useful. Consider the effects of early or late ignition - terms such as `pinking´ and `knocking´ are known by all car mechanics - engine noise produced by timing errors.

The SSG does not allow adjustment of timing. The trigger must be processed independently and in isolation from the power pulse. The use of a separate coil, reed switch or Hall-Effect sensor are good solutions. The sensor can then be physically moved in relation to the pulse coil.

Those who have created Bedini Motors using an independent sensor can confirm these observations and conclusions.

Looking back at the internal combustion engine, there is another factor - engine speed. The optimal operating ignition point varies according to piston speed.

The same is true for the Bedini Motor.

Some will have discovered this fact. By mounting an adjustable, independent trigger, it has been demonstrated that performance improvement can be made as the rotor speed varies.

It should be evident that the SSG is indeed simple and, as a consequence, little performance improvement can be made.

Like the fuel injected by the carburetor, consideration needs to be made of the power pulse duration. This and more will be the topic of a later entry.

Saturday, 12 June 2010

Bedini `SSG´ Circuit

Animation of the Bedini `SSG´ Circuit

The Bedini “Simple School Girl´s” circuit is so named because it was constructed by Shawnee Baughman of Idaho in 2000 and won 1st prize in her school science fair.

The history of this motor design goes back much further, probably to 1974, when it was patented by Roger Andrews of Salem, Oregon as a novelty electric motor. (Ref. : Patent 3,783,550)

This is a relevant extract from his patent :

   50


55


60


65
The moving magnetic lines of force provided by the spinning magnet top cuts the turns of the coil and thus induces a current in the coil. As is well known, the flow of current through the coil is reversed when the turns are cut by the lines of force associated with the opposite poles of the magnet. Thus, in one direction of current flow through the base-emitter of the transistor switch, the transistor is turned on momentarily to connect the battery 18 across the coil 16. A pulse of battery current thus is applied momentarily through the coil, whereupon the latter produces a magnetic field which is imposed upon the spinning magnet top in such manner as to accelerate the spin of the top.

The Bedini SSG motor, to all intents and purposes, is identical to that patented by Roger Andrews. It is based on what is commonly known as a `blocking oscillator´.

Blocking oscillators are often used as voltage converters / simple switch-mode power supplies; for example fluorescent light inverters. For many, it will be recognized as the circuit for a `Joule Thief´.

Many people have made `strange´ observations about the behaviour of the Bedini SSG Motor :

“The weird thing is that the amount of current required to drive the rotor goes DOWN when you bring the generator in to play or add a load.”

“Even weirder is that the rotor doesn’t appear to be strictly necessary for the battery charging side of things. If the coil and associated electronics are used on their own, or with the application of a magnet on the top and bottom of the coil, induces self resonance and the charging process still takes place.”


The Bedini SSG Motor is a mechanically triggered blocking oscillator. By careful coil design or the addition of a potentiometer, it is arranged that the motor is close to self-oscillation. As the transistor starts to conduct, current begins to flow in the inductor’s power coil which induces an increase in voltage in the trigger coil. So the transistor is driven harder into saturation by this feedback loop. In the absence of this positive feedback, the trigger coil would not have the sensitivity needed to react to the change in magnetic flux as the rotor turns.

With the SSG, this sensitivity is adjusted by the potentiometer. At one extreme, there is insufficient transistor base drive and the motor will not run. At the other extreme, the circuit will self-oscillate - marked by a step in power consumption. The neon bulb will illuminate and `battery charging´ is possible. (For those without the luxury of an oscilloscope, a domestic radio, tuned to 200KHz or thereabouts, can provide an audible clue as to what is happening.)

Many SSG enthusiasts refer to this point just before self-oscillation as the `sweet-spot´.

When a load is applied, this balance is altered - the response of the power coil changes and this is reflected in the amplitude / shape of the trigger pulse drive to the transistor - the power consumption will decrease.

Voltages produced by a blocking oscillator can be enormous and many hundred volts are readily achievable.

So what happens to the `charge battery´ when it receives a high voltage pulse ? The answer is that the battery is desulphated. Accumulations of lead sulphate are stripped from the battery plates, allowing the battery to perform better. This is the crux of the Bedini Motor myth - it can desulphate a lead acid battery making it work more effectively - it is NOT a true battery charger !



So if you really need a battery desulphator then here is a simple example - it has no moving parts and is probably 100% more effective ! This example is typical, deriving the power from the very battery that it is rejuvenating !

It costs very little to make and there are many kits and products available that are tried and tested over many, many years - it is not new technology - it is as old as the lead acid battery itself - it is not `Energy From The Vacuum´, it is simple text book chemistry - lead sulphate (PbSO4) !


The really wierd and strange discovery is that Bedini and Lindemann produce and sell desulphators ... and despite all of the claims that magnetic motors are the panacea for the world´s energy crisis there is not a magnet or moving part in their design !

Energenx Renaissance Charge Tesla Chargers

The above is `The Classic´ RC-2A12 desulphator / charger - `Compact, Affordable Radiant Power for 12V Batteries´ at only $260.00 ! (That´s a lot of batteries to recover !)

Whilst over on , desulphators are available for less than $30.00 but they don´t have that magic ingredient - `Radiant Power´ !



Later entries will explore some design considerations to improve system performance and efficiency. Aspects relating to battery charging / reconditioning will not be investigated. These motors are really fun, so let´s make them run faster and longer using less power !

Visitors