http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/
Discussion group for the open sourcing of the simplified version of John Bedini's "School Girl" circuit and motor, which allegedly taps into radiant energy in the process of charging batteries. Project page: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG

In the fall of 2004 an Egroup was founded to attempt a replication of John Bedini's wonderful free energy machines. A number of the posters were sycophants, and the below post is an example of the blind faith some of the members placed in Mr Bedini.

Message 75 of 80, Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [Bedini_SG] Dear Group Members John Bedini
When in the presence of a master one should be accepting and diligent in performing the tasks. Even though you do not understand at the time just do and perform the task. Don't annoy the master with trivialities, he has given you what you need. To ask thoughtful questions is important but to think is more important. To presume you know more about what he does or disprove him with some theory or another is obnoxious and stupid and rude. In this case this person does not deserve to be your master. An automatic separation will happen. As in this case on this email list.

However, the Egroup did contain a few members who were of a mildly critical disposition, and some brave folks actually requested Mr Bedini provide charts, scope shots, and other data, to validate his claims of free energy. In response to this, Bedini posted some comments:

Message 65 of 80, Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:39 pm Subject: An Answer to Koen, Horace, and others, by John Bedini
I will not supply Stefan any charts,waveforms, etc.....Stefan ....looks like he is unwilling to devote his attention to anything I have said to him. I have answered his questions with complete honesty at every turn...... Stefan has a vast lack of knowledge in this field, and apparently, so do you.

Evidently getting nervous, Mr Bedini then made a rather startling claim:

There is NO free electricity produced in these systems, or any other system that I know of.

Which came as news to most of us who have followed Mr Bedini over the years. Apparently sensing that things were starting to get a little difficult, given that no-one could replicate his claimed 4:1 free energy gain, Mr Bedini then withdrew, and refused to answer any further questions.

Message 73 of 80, Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:17 pm Subject: Dear Group Members John Bedini
However, it saddens me to see that this forum has become a clearinghouse for "other topics" which I believe will not help the learning process. Therefore, I have decided to leave the group. I remain willing to help anyone who is actually building a replica of my motor, but I can no longer spend ANY time responding to other subjects. Good luck. I believe I have given you all the necessary tools to prove to yourselves what I have been saying. Just stay focused on the experimental process and let Nature teach you the truth.

But then if we examine an earlier post, then perhaps the reason for Mr Bedini not wanting to post any data becomes clear:

Message 61 of 80, Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:58 pm, Subject: Scope shots
Check out the last couple months of Keelynet messages, Bedini says that the "magic" doesn't show up on meters (so it wouldn't show up on a scope, either). He also states on his website that hooking meters, etc. up to the motors can kill the effect.

So the free energy effect, can not be measured, does not show up on equipment, and the act of measuring it, causes it to go away. One is left wondering if the effect is imaginary, and it dissapears when a probe is attached, because it does not in fact actually exist.

Finally, I felt this post from Mr Bedini gives a fascinating insight into how 'free energy' researchers actually do their measurements. In the wonderful world of crank science, a 36% efficient system (measured), with a magic 'radiant energy' theory attached, becomes a 250% gain (not measurable).

From: "john_bedini", Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:59 pm Subject: Sterling did you write this. John Bedini
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.

The following is another post about an attempt to validate Bedini’s claims:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/message/942

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@p...>
Date: Tue Feb 1, 2005 5:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Bedini_SG] Not Hearing From John Or Peter

John,

Thanks for responding.

Had I thought this Bedini SG was just a "charger", I would not have been
interested in turning it into a PES project.

I don't know the field well enough to know if there is something else out
there that will charge and output battery using an input battery. I don't
know that there is a demand for such in today's market when it is so easy to
just plug a battery charger into the wall as the input source of energy.

While a charger that can convert the energy from one battery into another is
relevant to energy, we try and focus on technologies that tap into the
inexhaustible, ubiquitous, clean reservoirs of energy all around us. That is
what I thought your systems were supposed to do. That is what I thought you
meant by "radiant energy" in the tradition of Tesla. That is what I thought
the Bedini SG was going to show.

My load tests showed an efficiency of around 50%. By "load test" I'm
referring to tests in which one "full" battery was used to charge three "low"
batteries; and a control "full" battery ran a load, compared to the three
charged batteries running the same load. You said that this test procedure
was what you routinely did (minus the control), and that you always see more
charge than what went in.

Yes, the voltage of the charging batteries increased to the point that the
average voltage at the end of charging was higher than the average voltage to
begin, but as soon as the batteries were disconnected, the average dropped
below the starting point, and when put under load, they performed (the three
results added, compared to the control) at 50% of the control.

After all I learned in this process, I can confidently say in hind sight that
never did I see evidence that "radiant energy" was being tapped. All test
results (and I did a slew of experiments) can be attributed to the energy
inherent in the batteries.

I don't think that is very impressive so far as the pursuit of "free energy"
is concerned, which is what I am pursuing.

Yes, you did say that one has to go to a larger size to see the effect more
pronounced, but I was led to believe that the Bedini SG design itself would
still illustrate radiant energy, albeit on a smaller scale.

It did not.

If the smaller scaled doesn't prove radiant energy, why should people be
interested in experimenting on a larger scale which is much more expensive and
elaborate?

When Peter said "mission accomplished" earlier in the process, based on my
first experiment, all we had shown was that (1) the input batteries charge the
output batteries, (2) the input amp reading was much lower than the output
amperage, yet the output batteries charged at a rate that was close to
"unity."

The problem with that second statement is that it is the load test that is
more important in determining what has happened on the output end, and a 50%
performance under load is not that hot. It's half of "unity." The voltage
levels are misleading because as soon as a battery goes under load, it drops
significantly in voltage before stabilizing.

I will concur that the rate of charge of the output batteries versus the rate
of discharge of the input batteries as measured by volt change versus amps
measured does show a disparity that could be of scientific interest. I know
that part of the reason for this will be because a regular amp meter is not
picking up the spikes that an oscilloscope will show, which will give a much
more accurate amp reading.

But still, from a "free energy" point of view, we're not interested in unusual
scientific phenomenon if it is not going to lead us to tapping free energy.

You say that this exercise with the Bedini SG brought us closer to
understanding how to do this (tap radiant energy using larger more elaborate
devices).

Excuse me if I am skeptical, because I was led to believe that the Bedini SG
itself would demonstrate the tapping of radiant energy. It didn't. You say
it did. How? Because I don't see it. Every bit of energy transfer could be
ascribed to the energy inherent in the batteries used.

On a final note, for the sake of those reading on, I need to make reference to
another statement made by Peter that to me was/is a major red flag. While
visiting John's lab, when I was brainstorming experiments to run on the Bedini
SG to prove radiant energy, Peter said, "You can't prove it." And the context
at the time was not just the Bedini SG but the phenomenon in general. At the
time, I just thought to myself, "I'll show you wrong on that. If it's there,
of course you can prove it." That he would say such a thing indicates to me
that you don't have it and never have.

I'm not saying I don't think you have anything. There may be value in (1)
your other iterations that may be pushing greater battery charger efficiencies
than are now available in the market, (2) rejuvenating dead batteries.

I see both of these as worth-while from a standpoint of getting the world off
dependence on foreign oil. I personally am not as interested in devoting my
resources to such pursuits, but I do encourage you or anyone else developing
such technologies.

Sincerely,

Sterling D. Allan
Executive Director, PES Network Inc
http://pureenergysystems.com
http://freeenergynews.com
http://peswiki.com
http://pesn.com

LINKS

 

Tom Bearden's MEG device A rational review of meg claims  and Randi's info and  very good skeptical information on Bearden

free energy scams   T

back to Eric's main Dennis Lee page    what about Joe Newman? Also, Amin, Mills (who may be legit?) Tilley, Perendev, and Bedini's Motor , Bearden Lutec, Tewari Greer's offer VMSK Moray, Bedini, betavolt, Adams, Mallove, Jack Carey ,  GWE,  Searl

Discussion of Bearden's 20 year old theory promising free energy

A closer look at some of Bearden's theory  http://www.tinaja.com/pseudo01.html - a look at psuedoscience on the web

  my $10000 prize for proof of free energy of     Carl Tilley's free energy scam EXPOSED

·  The Museum of Unworkable Devices  a great overview of them

·  INE Free Energy Devices Database -  - another great list of FE claims
 his skeptic pages and crack pot pages
 Milt's discussion of Free Energy and Ceti