Open letter to P. Lindemann

[darkwizard]

Aaron, I appreciate your sharing of thoughts, you are connected to the Absolute, i know.

John Bedini, the g-field is amazing, it put on phase it so no drag for Lenz

patmac and me have designed some variants of generator coils with 0 drag, it compensates lenz drag, by using a capacitor storing the energy produced by the north pole magnet coming (it generates drag) and releasing the charge of the capacitor into the coil when the magnet leaves the coil (it speed up the rotor) so there is almost zero drag generating negative energy, the radiant is the free lunch.

But G field, is a light year away us Is a great solution.

So one can use inteligence and build a free energy generator easily, but only if one is open minded and have the skill and the money to do this

[darkwizard]

PD Trigger coil is the most beautiful solution that i have ever seen in my short life

[Ted Ewert]

@Richard
I've always viewed the SG and it's variants as tools, and as a starting point for finding my own solution to my energy needs.
I'm using an SG type circuit for the drive portion of a motor I'm developing right now. I would have never been able to get this far if I hadn't studied John's work.
Sooner or later you'll have to start developing your own devices, you won't be happy until you do. Building other peoples stuff is great fun and we learn a lot, but you won't be satisfied until you create your own.
We are all inventors. Creation is an innate ability which we yearn to express. Once you start building your own stuff you'll never go back. The only problem is that it's highly addicting.

Cheers,

Ted

[darkwizard]

@Richard
I've always viewed the SG and it's variants as tools, and as a starting point for finding my own solution to my energy needs.
I'm using an SG type circuit for the drive portion of a motor I'm developing right now. I would have never been able to get this far if I hadn't studied John's work.
Sooner or later you'll have to start developing your own devices, you won't be happy until you do. Building other peoples stuff is great fun and we learn a lot, but you won't be satisfied until you create your own.
We are all inventors. Creation is an innate ability which we yearn to express. Once you start building your own stuff you'll never go back. The only problem is that it's highly addicting.

Cheers,

Ted

That sounds so good, very well, good luck!

[boguslaw]

Do you really want to understand free energy ? Because it is so simple that almost nobody thought about it before...

[John_Bedini]

your resaults

John,

As we seem to be having a dialogue in a public forum let's continue it.

I haven't changed is the first thing that needs establishing. My interest in your work (and that of others remains), I am far more concerned at the route things have gone since the involvement of one individual, whose influence far exceeds his capabilities.

I have built a great many drivatives of your devices. I have communicated with just about everybody who has been prominent on most forums in the last 7 years.

Your devices make great battery chargers, I have told people this continuously for years. I have built solid state SG's, rotor based SG's and Tesla switches. I have tried every derivative of circuit you have proposed that I know of. I have previously frequently published my results which were broadly in line with the best that others were reporting.

At the point the original Monopole group broke up and I was recording the results of the original tests as proposed by Brett I started querying certain people's results as they weren't following any kind of protocol. You have set the standard as being based on batteries C20 rate which means the load has to be calculated for the size battery being tested. This ensured we were comaping apples with apples as you guys say your side of the pond. Thus misleading results were being gathered by people who hadn't a clue about such things as Peukert.


It also appears that if you maintain a strict test regime over a period of time the results do deteriorate i.e. 2 weeks.

I have never seen that at all, my batteries have lasted for years.

I do wish people would stop trying to trip me up on the basic thrust of my argument.

Nobody is trying to trip you up at all, fact's are fact's. The fact remains that the SG in it's simple form does not waste any energy at all if you know what your measuring. I just corrected the OTG group on COP1> go read it.

In all this time it remains a fact that a rotor based SG has a front to back efficiency of around 35% (not allowing for any mechanical recovery). I don't measure the output power of an SG, I measure what I get out of batteries charged by an SG and I measure what goes in.

The SG in it's simple form is documented to charge many batteries on it's output under capacitive dis-charge, did you build that machine or just copy from pictures you have seen that were posted? notice what the original patent says. "Those skilled in the art." Also you could expand this machine to 360 poles. You did not build any of this. The group just assumed Here it is I have my free energy machine, Wrong you must learn the tool your working with.

I have built a full 6 coil SG as demonstrated by yourself. I spent some considerable time balancing diodes and transistors and then adjusting the position of each coil to try and get everything happening at the right time.

You built this machine from pictures and what others did not from anything I posted. I did not give away any plans for this.

I have tried 12 and 24V combinations, I have used large battery banks of 1350AHrs wired up with copper pipe and large/ multiple cables.

Yes I understand this as others posted, this is what John is doing, Wrong because Peter and I never posted anything on this when we were developing it. Sterling was told what we would give away and nothing more.

I have seen what happens to mains based power supplies when driving large SG's as I've had three 35/ 50A FWBR fail on me.

Most do not consider what takes place in inductive power and what need to be done to correct this, that was your problem.

I have seen that there are some benefits to running an SG hooked up to an aerial and a ground rod - something particularly promoted by Aaron.

Good now your getting somewhere, where does the extra energy come from?

I have built your patented capacative charger and had it fail.

Again the patent is the basic concept, What did I post, that the circuits needed to be inverted, in fact I posted many circuits even with SCR's inverted to help with this. If the devices fail you find the problem, I don't know what devices you decided to use, or if you even calculated the correct currents. Things do not always work as they look.

In all this time and after discussions with many others I have failed to achieve anything really significant - that is a fact. I don't hide it.

Right, when a group of people discuss things it seems to change things, let's try this and that going around in circles over and over never accomplishing anything. The one's who did succeed do not talk about it, and I know many and so does Tom Bearden. What are the DVD's for but to learn the technology, I did not say I would give away company stuff.
I just wanted it all documented who did it.

But here's the rub - everybody else is in the same boat otherwise they wouldn't be here.

Not everybody is in that boat, Rick is not in that boat, seems his machines work here. Peters machines work, he is not in that boat. Again you must think about what your doing with an invention before you proceed to do anything, and you must understand what the inventor is talking about instead of all this ridicule from the start. I have made all this plain from the start, I release no company information on any of the technology. Inventors invent things to hope one day some return for the work they do.

The reason I'm less personally active now is that I have recognised or thought that my absence of engineering skills may have been a contributory factor and that my inability to build things with sufficient engineering skill may have been a contributory factor. That doesn't seem to have helped either.

This does not have anything to do with it.

We (Dave R, Clive S, Lee and myself) are not about to declare the Kromrey a failure. I admire Dave's determination with this. You know we set out a sort of 'Custer's Last Stand' on this device. Some considerable time has been expended on it and I believe it is more than adequately engineered.


Richard, what did I say in my last post, that you would say that. Dave has don something wrong and why do I half to go over and show how to do COP math. the only thing is the output / input that is COP. You have not calculated that machine right. and I told everybody in the beginning it is not easy to build, but they did not listen to what I was saying.
Peter has built many Flux Gates that have COP over 1 but nobody cares. I find people here that have built a successful machines.

The one big issue with all of your devices remains the calculation of figures.

I find no problem with that here.

It needs to be kept simple. We need to know the energy input and the energy output, either directly or from a battery or driving another device in turn.


You do know that, I showed you your at 57% because your not tuning anything or figuring out what need's to be done. You have had my notes and Ron Coles notes on things that could have helped you. The whole group is not focused on one problem, it's all over the place, you need to stay focused until one problem is solved. I took off the notes from that group because I found them leaked everywhere. I also gave the theory where the energy entered the SG, did anybody listen to me, no you all just thought it was some kind of gibberish.


The manipulation of figures that has gone on and our being told to 'ignore' the input energy is laughable.

I have never said that to you as you can see in my answer to Dave.

Let's take a comparison shall we. I have a total of 48off 80W solar PV panels at home now ( I wish I lived in a sunnier climate). The panels are about 15% efficient or the like on a good day. The inverters I use (SMA Sunny Boy SB2500) are about 94% efficient.



Ignoring the efficiency of the panels, essentially for every 100W of energy the panels put into the inverter I get 94W out. This is incontrovertible, readily demonstrated and understood by everybody.


If I take an SG, for every 100W I put in I get maybe 35W out (ignoring the mechanical again).

I do not find this to be true with my machines at all. The Sg can go over COP 1 if you do it right. you can't measure it that way. Nobody gets those Results here. Let's just face it something is wrong and it just seem to be some kind of a game here.

Even if I add the mechanical to this figure the SMA inverter is more efficient than your SG.

If anybody wants to contest this I revert to my original offer about my being perpared to travel anywhere in the world to be convinced by way of a demonstration that there is something fundamental I'm missing and that includes Couer d'Alene - Idaho!!

Regards

Richard

So Richard where does this end?

[patmac]

John

Ok, I've built the devices in differents forms, my conclusion is:

We need amplify the effect so Hi Q coils are highly needed (High Impendances Coils produce output but battery seems don't take charge), Low Resistance & High Inductance.... So make a coil with many wires and his respective transistor is needed to get more reactive power on the output.

If the battery on chargning side reads peaks of 400 volts connected this is high KVA equivalence, seems the battery charge better with this method that only sends for example 14 volts @ C10 charging rate like conventionally explains the manufacturer.

My question is:

Is this systems more like a LC so coil need less impendaces than battery to charge correctly?. So Power Battery Impendance need to equal to Chargning Batts or well this can be ever correcty by change Base resistor?

Then the system is a Resonance system C(Power Batt) L(Inductor Coil) C (Charging Batts).

[John_Bedini]

Yes you have built the machine but what kind of machine did you build? I do not see any pictures here.
JB

John

Ok, I've built the devices in differents forms, my conclusion is:

We need amplify the effect so Hi Q coils are highly needed (High Impendances Coils produce output but battery seems don't take charge), Low Resistance & High Inductance.... So make a coil with many wires and his respective transistor is needed to get more reactive power on the output.

If the battery on chargning side reads peaks of 400 volts connected this is high KVA equivalence, seems the battery charge better with this method that only sends for example 14 volts @ C10 charging rate like conventionally explains the manufacturer.

My question is:

Is this systems more like a LC so coil need less impendaces than battery to charge correctly?. So Power Battery Impendance need to equal to Chargning Batts or well this can be ever correcty by change Base resistor?

Then the system is a Resonance system C(Power Batt) L(Inductor Coil) C (Charging Batts).

[John_Bedini]

mono pole chart

If Sterling Allen could get these results the first time you people could do the same thing. His own chart proves what I said.

[Mark]

Hello John B

I know that Rick is now starting to ship the 10 coil kits out. Have you or Rick released any information yet as to what kind of output we can expect from this awesome energizer yet. I thought he would have posted a short video on it by now but haven't seen anything yet.

I have talked to Rick quite a few times and know that he has been extremely busy especially after moving and dont want to bother him as I know he has a lot of work to do to get caught up on things.

Thanks for any and all info that you care to share.

Mark

[linesrg]

Sterling's Chart

John,

You know I really must be missing something here as this old chart of Sterling's simply shows something that was happening to a battery under charge and the figures are therefore, IMHO, misleading to say the least.

I have to contest your claim that an SG is truly a COP=1 or greater.

I don't need any help understanding COP and I maintain an SG, broadly speaking, has an electrical COP approximately equal to 0.35. I'm not misunderstanding anything. I measure the DC coming out of the drive battery and I then measure the DC coming out of the charged battery. The maths is simple I'm not dealing with complex pulses.

By capacative discharge are you talking about the trifilar patent because I've built those two, inverted whatever.

I have still to see anything that screams out hey you need to look closer at this - maybe this is where I fall down.

But it's not only me - it's an awful lot of people and I am on your side so to speak.

There is indeed something wrong - I'll leave others to decide where.

I don't believe that Dave has finished with the Kromrey or that anything has been written off or that we believe everything about it has been done properly. It is as we believe it to be from what you have shown us so far plus other information you have, very kindly, provided. I don't wish to impact on this good will.

There is a determination to see the device succeed. The problem remains how we define success. In the EFTV DVD you stated 120 or 180% and that 300% was possible. I'd settle for 120%. This assumes you are referring to the relationship between energy in and energy out and clearly we are currently a very long way short of this.

A defeatist would say that we are so far short it amounts to mission impossible - we're not defeatists. All we ask is that we get straight forward answers to questions even if the answer moves in to the territory where you have to say you can't provide that information.

I was on the phone to Dave R. earlier this evening re the coil resistance figures. Right now I think we're struggling to see how the coils on the machine in the DVD could possibly be the figure you quoted you obtained on your bridge but I'll let Dave progress that.

With regards to leakage of documents from those files you posted on the OTG you will not find me to be the source. I have stuck by the unofficial NDA I agreed to several years ago when I was privy to certain things I learnt via RS with your agreement. Nothing has changed in my mind.

Regards

Richard

[John_Bedini]

10 Coiler Output

John's letting me use his computer as I don't think I am on this forum. The 10-30 coiler output will depend on the amount and size and condition of the batteries. I have said this 1000 times, the output of all these systems depends on the batteries. If you use some AAAA batteries on the front you will not get very much output. Also, if you try and charge up used batteries that are sulfated then it will not be an efficient process so your output will not be desireable. The coil is the same as the SSG Enerigzer John built with the big fan on it as shown on some of the group's front page. My kit will run the same way as it. We run that monopole with the fan all the time, which draws 1A at 12V, and the fan is like running a ceiling fan in power, and it charges about 1 to 1 depending on the batteries. Now that is 12V. My kit has 10 of these coils and should be able to run at at least 150V. You can run this at 1W or probably 12000W. So the output should be about the same as fan monopole mentioned above. I have done testing on many of these machines over the years and they give pretty much the same as each other. What we have done with this one is add a few more benefits. One allows us to spin the rotor really fast without worry of magnets flying off. I do not know yet what the maximum rpm will be but we prepaired for the highest. I have run the new kit a good but, but we did a major change to it so I have not completed it. So far testing has confirmed our expectations. I have run it upto 50V so far, as I have to make very careful charting and adjustments in my testing. I have run it on used golf cart batteries at identical voltages. We are testing it with 5 or 6 different base resistor settings (that is 80 resistors each!). So we will give a lot of flexibility so that it can be run softer or harder. Therefore output will depend not only on voltage run, but resistor settings, battery condition, and voltage of receiving battery. That is, if you run it for example on 12V and charge 150V of batteries that are huge and in good condition, then you will get much more output than if you charged up another 12V battery of the same capacity as the front end battery. So output can really vary. If the batteries are really sulfated then look out, as the charger may not even see a load and you may blow out the transistors. We did make it so you can easily swith on or off any of the coils.

Rick

[John_Bedini]

Richard,

In all my years I never heard of such poor results. I didn't think someone could even get lower than 50%. A very poorly made and tuned SSG will give back 80% recovery or lower. So people should stive to get 80 to 95% recovery using equal size small batteries. That is one 12V on the front and 12V on the back.
Now 35% is the world's worst battery charger. It would be worthless Richard. Again, why are you still hanging around on these lists making such foolish statments like this. I can't get out of you a yes or know answer as you go back and forth. I mean, if there is nothing to this technology then why spend so much time on it. If their is, why say their isn't and then the next moment there is. Doublespeak methinks.
Anyway, it is not about the machine itself, but about the batteries or load also. If you use junk batteries no wonder people would get poor results. If your battery is tiny you will not have a sufficient receiver/collector to get significant results.
Anyway, I am not seeking to convince you as you know all these things full well. I am just addressing everyone else in response to your bogus statements. I told John not to bother to respond to you as you will just take up his time as you did mine a few years ago.

Rick F.

John,

You know I really must be missing something here as this old chart of Sterling's simply shows something that was happening to a battery under charge and the figures are therefore, IMHO, misleading to say the least.

I have to contest your claim that an SG is truly a COP=1 or greater.

I don't need any help understanding COP and I maintain an SG, broadly speaking, has an electrical COP approximately equal to 0.35. I'm not misunderstanding anything. I measure the DC coming out of the drive battery and I then measure the DC coming out of the charged battery. The maths is simple I'm not dealing with complex pulses.

By capacative discharge are you talking about the trifilar patent because I've built those two, inverted whatever.

I have still to see anything that screams out hey you need to look closer at this - maybe this is where I fall down.

But it's not only me - it's an awful lot of people and I am on your side so to speak.

There is indeed something wrong - I'll leave others to decide where.

I don't believe that Dave has finished with the Kromrey or that anything has been written off or that we believe everything about it has been done properly. It is as we believe it to be from what you have shown us so far plus other information you have, very kindly, provided. I don't wish to impact on this good will.

There is a determination to see the device succeed. The problem remains how we define success. In the EFTV DVD you stated 120 or 180% and that 300% was possible. I'd settle for 120%. This assumes you are referring to the relationship between energy in and energy out and clearly we are currently a very long way short of this.

A defeatist would say that we are so far short it amounts to mission impossible - we're not defeatists. All we ask is that we get straight forward answers to questions even if the answer moves in to the territory where you have to say you can't provide that information.

I was on the phone to Dave R. earlier this evening re the coil resistance figures. Right now I think we're struggling to see how the coils on the machine in the DVD could possibly be the figure you quoted you obtained on your bridge but I'll let Dave progress that.

With regards to leakage of documents from those files you posted on the OTG you will not find me to be the source. I have stuck by the unofficial NDA I agreed to several years ago when I was privy to certain things I learnt via RS with your agreement. Nothing has changed in my mind.

Regards

Richard

[Aaron]

cop and efficiency

In all this time it remains a fact that a rotor based SG has a front to back efficiency of around 35% (not allowing for any mechanical recovery).

I don't need any help understanding COP and I maintain an SG, broadly speaking, has an electrical COP approximately equal to 0.35. I'm not misunderstanding anything.

Hmmm, efficiency around 35%. COP about 0.35.

I think you have clearly spelled out that you have no idea what the
difference is and you are misunderstanding all of it.

----------------

If you want your "overunity", go look in OTG, I asked in there before
who has seen over 1.0 cop and I saw claims of cop 10, 15 and even up
to 20. So maybe they have it all figured out

[darkwizard]

I will post some work here soon, my SG is at least 75 % efficient with a very bad enginering, it has Neodymiun magnets and a air core coil, this sunday will add another power coil, and a generator coil. It has good torque...