Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   today I put my hands on a WORKING FREE ENERGY MACHINE... (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/49383-today-i-put-my-hands-working-free-energy-machine.html)

P A N 05-16-2010 04:43 PM

today I put my hands on a WORKING FREE ENERGY MACHINE...
 
it's the truth. i really did.

it is called a Bedini Monopole Generator.

ive seen them on the net lots of times, but never had an extra 400 bucks lying around to build one. someone i know did though, and today i witnessed something that the governments and the financial elite of the world have been trying to suppress for a very, very long time.

i will come back to this thread periodically to post some links and tend to all the people who call it impossible when considering the 2nd law of thermodynamics and any other random thing people come up with to abide by the restrictions of their conditionings.

the main idea behind this thread though, is to help along the coming of a critical mass which creates global consciousness of and demand for these types of machines. please research free energy and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) guides to creating these things yourself. the oil companies will not allow the mass-creation of these things, and it's up to us to create them anyway.

bye for now.

P A N 05-16-2010 05:59 PM

here are the instructions that were used to build the machine i saw today:

Bedini Energizer Building Manual

i cannot express with what conviction i urge whoever reads this to build one of these.

mr dave 05-16-2010 11:50 PM

so from the start... it's explaining how to build a basic electromagnetic brush generator, not unlike my grade 10 physics textbook.

how is it possible in an environment still affected by gravity?

hold on... page 4 of the building plans (or 44 according to the file, great numbering ability).... "The system is fed by conventional electricity from a battery or a power supply unit plugged into the wall".

while there is no denying that a spike in energy is created when the magnets are charged and polarities reversed, the documentation does little to clarify the actual method of how the charged electrons are drawn from the device and moved to their storage area, all of which would cause an obvious deterioration to the overall efficiency of the device.


as soon as you make you're 401st dollar from this invention i'll honestly start thinking about it. seriously dude, you didn't even invest YOUR own money into the thing. yeah... sounds totally legit... just like every other zero point energy patent out there.


rather than urge people to build one of those send me a dollar, just 1, and i promise i'll project good vibes to the universe on your behalf and awesome things will happen to you.

P A N 05-17-2010 09:04 AM

that last line was really unexpected. do you want that in US currency?

i don't know why it's possible in an environment still affected by gravity... i also don't know why it wouldn't be.

when the guy showed me his, he said that people who think they know about electricity will talk about this thing in terms of what they know, likely resulting in disbelief. i'm not here to prove anything, because i've seen it with my own eyes. i will START proving things when i can afford to build one.

the machine needs an input. you can use a battery, cuz that way you can monitor how much charge is left. it also needs an output, which is also a battery. when you monitor this battery's charge, you will indeed see that the charge goes up faster than it goes down in the first battery. it has something to do with capturing "back EMF" waves or currents or something. i'm not too savvy when it comes to wires and stuff, but i can read, and those gauges don't lie.

and regarding those patents and their legitimacy: i think it would be wise to note that there are over 4000 patents at the US patent office involving devices of this nature. for one thing, you don't get patents for things that don't work. secondly, the financial elite know how the world has to work in order for them to retain any of their power, and free energy is not part of that imagined paradigm.

VEGANGELICA 05-17-2010 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 868254)

and regarding those patents and their legitimacy: i think it would be wise to note that there are over 4000 patents at the US patent office involving devices of this nature. for one thing, you don't get patents for things that don't work. secondly, the financial elite know how the world has to work in order for them to retain any of their power, and free energy is not part of that imagined paradigm.

Zevokes, people actually can and do get patents for devices that don't work or have never been created such that they can't be tested. As an example, from the wikipedia page on perpetual motion machines:

Quote:

On March 26, 2002, the Motionless Electrical Generator (MEG) was patented (U.S. Patent 6362718) by five inventors: Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, James L. Kenny, and Kenneth D. Moore. There is as yet no working prototype, and in 2006, Bearden claimed he still needed 10 to 12 million dollars to develop a commercial product based on the technology[134].
I haven't read a lot yet about the Bendini Monopole Generator in order to point out the precise flaws in the assumption that it is creating free energy, but from what I have read it appears to simply be a device that can be used to charge batteries, no more and no less.

Any machine that supposedly violates known laws of thermodynamics should be viewed with suspicion. A *lot* of suspicion. And that is an understatement. ;)

P A N 05-17-2010 02:52 PM

all i'm going to say about wikipedia is that if you use it to find information at all pertaining to anything having to do with politics in the world, you have too much faith in the idea that the controllers of available information are good people.

as far as a device used to charge batteries, if you are getting out more than you are putting in - which i watched happen - you have free energy.

it doesn't violate the known laws of thermodynamics either. it's just a product of them being applied in a very unconventional way.

Thrice 05-17-2010 03:44 PM

Diesel subs run on a rechargeable battery, and you dont even have to plug it in.

Not impressed.

crash_override 05-17-2010 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thrice (Post 868439)
Diesel subs run on a rechargeable battery, and you dont even have to plug it in.

Not impressed.

Yeah, but all Navy subs are all nuclear now anyway. So obviously nuclear power is more efficient than diesel.

But on topic,

Even if this machine does work, I don't think it can be classified as "free energy" or "perpetual motion" or whatever you want to call it these days. You're still wasting battery life to gain battery life, even if the output is greater than the input, you are still creating waste in the form of depleted batteries. Not to mention the fact that your machine relies on energy storage in batteries, which have a shelf life. This may be a cool little invention, but it's not "free energy" IMO.

Freebase Dali 05-17-2010 04:34 PM

I don't know much about this free energy machine, but I do know about one of his "products" called a "Compact Disk Clarifier", which supposedly improves the audio quality on CDs and DVDs by bathing them in electromagnetic beams...
That's hilarious, because CDs and DVDs are optical media and information is stored on them by way of pits being physically burned into the metallic disk under the face, and read optically. Electromagnetism would have absolutely no effect on the way disks are burned and read.

Knowing that, I can't say that I have total faith in anything else the man makes... but I can't be certain as I don't know much about any of his other "creations".

P A N 05-17-2010 05:25 PM

to crash override: the claim is such that batteries that have been used up (like non-rechargeable duracells or something) can actually be recharged via this device as well.


to freebase, i have no idea about cds, nor do i care about his other products concerning them. he made something amazing. created instructions. a guy i know used them. he hooked the end result up to guages... and then i read them. that's all i know.

mr dave 05-17-2010 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 868254)
i don't know why it's possible in an environment still affected by gravity... i also don't know why it wouldn't be.


friction. it's why there's no such thing as 1:1 or better energy efficiency yet.



that last bit about the $1 and good vibes was from The Simpsons when Homer found an autodialer in the trash.



as for the battery thing, have you seen a charged battery swapped out and become the power source to charge and even bigger battery yet? or have you just seen a pair of gauges where one needle is higher than the other? of course the receiving end is going to have a higher 'charge' than the provider, one is expending energy, the other is static. when that first part happens THEN and ONLY then do you actually have something revolutionary, until that happens all you've got is another bottle of Dr. Neptune's Fantastic Elixir for all that ails you.

'back EMF' sounds about as solid as anti-matter. so it's capturing a reverse electromagnetic field? how does that actually work? where's the actual science? it's not like a positive EMF field is actually different than a negative EMF field, only whether or not it's heavier with protons or electrons.

P A N 05-17-2010 05:28 PM

i'm going to ask my friend about that the swapping of batteries. will get back to you.

mr dave 05-17-2010 05:43 PM

sound good, as much as i crap on this kind of stuff it WOULD be awesome if one of these devices actually panned out.

but i had a friend who for the entirety of the last decade never once missed an opportunity to try to 'educate' me on these new devices and revelations about the world. not once did he actually have something tangible that stuck, not a single time did he ever repeat a claim, because he always found some other theory that disproved his earlier claims of a breakthrough between visits.

not once did he ever clue into the fact that he was scamming himself.

the inherent greed fueling every single one of these revolutionary devices should be enough of a flag to see that they're scams. ($10-12 million to build a commercial prototype? how about a few hundred million home sales at $400 a pop just in north america alone).

also, how big are the batteries involved? comparable to a car battery? 9 volt? AA?

Thrice 05-17-2010 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override (Post 868444)
Yeah, but all Navy subs are all nuclear now anyway. So obviously nuclear power is more efficient than diesel.

....all with battery backup, and not every country favors the nuke sub. China is hard on for diesels, and I know France, Germany and Israel still rock them pretty well too. Diesels are a lot sneakier, and smaller as well.

Im pretty sure all nuke subs have a backup diesel as well.

VEGANGELICA 05-17-2010 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 868386)
all i'm going to say about wikipedia is that if you use it to find information at all pertaining to anything having to do with politics in the world, you have too much faith in the idea that the controllers of available information are good people.

What I like about Wikipedia is that it provides the exact opposite of controlled information: volunteers write the articles and anyone who logs in can edit them. The information is not controlled by a single authority, but rather incorporates the wealth of knowledge of regular people all over the world.

Since the Wikipedia articles are not reviewed by experts in given fields, the chance of errors is higher than with a peer-reviewed journal, but citations are provided so that you can look at the original sources of information, making many of the articles quite scholarly, I feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 868386)
as far as a device used to charge batteries, if you are getting out more than you are putting in - which i watched happen - you have free energy.

it doesn't violate the known laws of thermodynamics either. it's just a product of them being applied in a very unconventional way.

I suggest this article by Tom Napier, which points out problems with "perpetual motion" machines (which appear to have greater output of energy than input), and criticizes observations of input and output needles as a source of "proof" that the "free energy creating" device is actually doing what the creator claims:

Quote:

From Tom Napier's online article, "Free energy with wires and magnets - can you come out ahead?" free energy with wires and magnets

No arrangement of wires and magnetic fields and moving parts is going to generate more electrical power than the input mechanical power or generate more mechanical power than the input electrical power. If you want to experiment, by all means have fun, but please don't think you are going to bring about an energy revolution.

What about systems involving batteries?
Putting an occasional back surge of voltage in a battery can help get a temporary increase of performance. Also, most batteries after being discharged and disconnected can revive a little on their own. FE claims involving batteries never are operated indefinitely which would show if they are just running down the batteries. Most demonstrations I know of (like the farces Joe Newman puts on) involve pathetic means of comparing input and output energy levels.

crash_override 05-17-2010 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thrice (Post 868547)
....all with battery backup, and not every country favors the nuke sub. China is hard on for diesels, and I know France, Germany and Israel still rock them pretty well too. Diesels are a lot sneakier, and smaller as well.

Im pretty sure all nuke subs have a backup diesel as well.

I'm just saying why would they use nuke power if they already had a free energy system on board? It doesn't make any sense.

Thrice 05-18-2010 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override (Post 868595)
I'm just saying why would they use nuke power if they already had a free energy system on board? It doesn't make any sense.

They have to surface with the diesel to recharge the batts, thus sacrificing sneakiness. Nuke subs can remain submerged indefinently, the only problem is running out of food. I don't know if I would consider it being free energy.

P A N 05-20-2010 01:24 PM

i've been putting this off, cuz it's probably going to be a long one. so here goes:

to mr.dave: my friend has not swapped batteries out for a bigger one. the reason being that he needs what is called a "deep cell" battery, which apparently is necessary for the purpose of starting with a battery which has been 100% drained. they cost $200, and apparently he will be getting one soon, so more on that later.

the batteries he's using are 12V.

$10-12 million for a commercial prototype is a pretty solid deal. car manufacturers like ford and dodge put upwards of 500 million of r&d into their engines alone every year, and engines have been around for a long time.

concerning the term "back EMF," i looked into it, and it's not actually a term. BUT, it is used in Bedini's patent descriptions, as it was the only way the patent office could circumvent creating new science in order to describe the phenomenal behaviour of his devices.

concerning the "inherent greed" serving as the driver for such projects: that's pretty f*uckin black and white man. no offense, but you saying that says more about you than it does the people involved in these projects. take bedini. he doesn't want ANYTHING for the information he provides people. he just wants people to build them instead of creating arguments based around a science which is not yet fully understood.

and then take a look at the rest of the world, which is based FUNDAMENTALLY on what you are casting blame on free energy freaks for, which is capitalism. "inherent greed" can easily be viewed under the light as something inherently human (something i flat out don't agree with, but cite as testament to the fact that people in today's world equate their time with as many means as possible that they can acquire the stuff of life with), and to say that these people (the free energy freaks) are somehow more abominable than anyone else when they ACTUALLY TRY to SELL their product (note that many of these people want no light shed on their personal lives, because free energy machines are what is known in the world of economics as "disruptive technology" and happens to be one of the things black-ops and the CIA might kill you for) to make a living, is flat out ignorant.

in the world we currently live in, you invent something great, you make a killing. and if you don't invent something and you're not in a certain kinda bloodline, then you're just a b*tch like the rest of us, scrambling to PAY THE ENERGY BILL.


on to vegangelica: again, you put too much trust in the providers of information. wikipedia is a mindf*ck. it's a novel idea. except the powers that be have this thing on their side called the federal reserve bank (which, if you don't know, you SHOULD KNOW is a PRIVATELY OWNED INSTITUTION), and that bank can give them money to do whatever they want whenever they want (if you disagree, consider the size of america's debt. that is UNPAYABLE, yet they can still funnel billions of fiat currency into the system at their will). what they want (for one thing), is for people to adopt an idea of the world that is unchanging and lends itself to ignorant social proclivities. again, wikipedia is a great idea. but when someone has the resources to tend to an outlet for usable information which is created in a open-source framework, that framework is no longer open-source. the mere fact that it claims to be open-source is candy for the taking for the makers of what we know as truth.

concerning Napier: i didn't read the article. i've already heard those arguments. the term "back EMF" is used in the patents to describe the process by which this device captures radiant energy. it's funny that Napier says in what you quoted that normal batteries can recharge a bit on their own, because that's his intuition stating plain and clear that energy can be tapped right from the environment.

more on back EMF: again, words not actually describing what is going on in the machine, or even a characteristic of the machine. it DOES work something like this though: the magnets on the rotor are all facing north out. when the space between them passes over the electromagnet, something switches somewhere from north to south very fast, and this produces a surge that is something like 700 volts. that's a big surge of energy apparently, and one that doesn't drain the input battery accordingly. this means that the non-conventional circuit happens to be arranged in such a way that is acts as a conduit for cold energy, having a larger output than one might assume. as far as how this energy is actually drawn into the output battery, that's where i get lost.

i'm sure there's more to come.

dark shadow 05-20-2010 04:47 PM

I think your failing to see the point of the wikipedia article. the fact is patents ARE created on items which either aren't complete or never completed. The IDEA is patented to protect the eventual product. Also, the surge of electricity isn't coming from the environment as you speak but is a "fluke" so to speak...
As for the magnets switching poles quickly and that creates free energy that can be captured, than why dont roller coasters like V2, which use LIM's which use powerful electro magnets to pull than repel coaster cars to accelerate etc etc.... why doesnt this rapid changing of poles create capturable energy?

P A N 05-20-2010 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dark shadow (Post 869797)
why doesnt this rapid changing of poles create capturable energy?

i have no idea. do you know for sure that it doesn't create "capturable" energy? is it possible that we just don't know how to capture it?

as far as the patent topic, i'm just going to call that a moot point, being that if people can get patents for things that don't work, then patents just have no place in this conversation.

indeed, i apologize if it was myself who brought it up in the first place.

EDIT:

and, fluke? so, first you admit to the presence of this unexplained spike in energy, and then you deny anything resembling a possible explanation (ie. a radiant, cold, (a)etheric or "environmental" energy tap) on the grounds that your label for the spike is simply synonymous with "anomalous"? gimme a break!

Neapolitan 05-21-2010 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 869666)
concerning the term "back EMF," i looked into it, and it's not actually a term. BUT, it is used in Bedini's patent descriptions, as it was the only way the patent office could circumvent creating new science in order to describe the phenomenal behaviour of his devices.

lol "back emf" is a term that I doubt needs a news science, it probably mean CEMF

P A N 08-21-2010 12:02 PM



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:47 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.