The following is a reprint of the contents found at http://rpmgt.org/SSG.html
as of July 23, 2007 as posted by Rick Friedrich, who said he has build around
one hundred of these models. This is related to the Bedini
SG project at PESWiki.
[with permission per above paragraph]
End of reprint
Correspondence between Rick and Sterling
On July 24, 2007, Sterling D. Allan wrote:
In viewing your 1.5-hour presentation, I have a number of questions that I would like to address.
* * * *
On July 24, 2007, Rick Friedrich wrote in response:
This is a work in process. The page will be updated over time and will be merged with an instruction document for the BM3 list as I have time to work on it.
I am not claiming that one battery is transferring energy to the other battery, even though I may use the terms charging battery and primary battery. If that was the case then you could not see what was shown in the video where the secondary battery was at a higher voltage than the primary, as I mention in the video. Two batteries in parallel do not result in the initial lower battery becoming higher than the initial higher battery. You have missed this.
As far as your questions, in the video I expressly say that it is not intended as any proof of OU, as that is impossible to do with the limitations of video. It was intended to be a basic overview of the SSG to help people understand the system and how to build and test it. I said it was only the beginning. The Bedini DVDs show more of what you are interested in. You can only prove this to yourselves. No number of PhDs will be able to prove it to you or the world. Truth does not depend upon people with certificates. There are PhDs who believe in this, but what does that matter?
There are several objectives stated in the video along with the basic presentations given. You must watch it in a different light. You must watch it as in front of your own setup while seeing the same things. IF you see such and such, then what does that say to you? Not, I am proving with this video that such and such was happening at that person's house I was demonstrating it at. The video was sort of misc. in nature according to the time I had. If I had months of planning and the funds I could have done something different.
I was showing the other motors so that people could see that you do have some free mechanical, and the relationship to charging and amp draw with mechanical loading of the rotor. This is very clear in the video.
While the primary purpose of the SSG is to deal with charging, I was explaining in the video in relation to the desired tuning sweet spot, that you can adjust the machine so that you can get more or less charging or more or less torque. I also was giving some estimation of the kind of mechanical work that can be done with this motor/energizer. While John has made some comments along the lines as you mention he has very clearly said that you must not ignore the free mechanical factor. I show some of that. Many of John's setups have fans as shown in the recent EFTV DVDs. The picture on the front of this your SG list shows a very large fan that you saw some years ago running. I have posted some video clips of that running, and you see it in the DVDs. All agree that it takes a lot of power to conventionally drive a large fan like that, much more than that circuit draws. No conventional circuit drives a fan like that for the input the SSG puts into it, and none recover what it does into another battery. This is thus a significant amount of free mechanical work. While it is not as mechanically powerful as other Bedini motor/energizers it still is powerful and significant. John is not satisfied with it as a motor for several reasons, one being that there are other better motor systems like the window motor and also more suitable circuits like the bipolar Ron Cole circuits as shown on the GnOsis.com forums. But John has always said you could drive some mechanical loads, and always said you must calculate that free mechanical into your estimation of output work done (which I see you never did).
What I have done is compared conventional motors with the SSG over the years. I have shown a little of this online, but the point was to explain the basics enough so that everyone could show THEMSELVES. Sterling, I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. But merely help those who desire to learn for themselves. This is what the new video does. So I have compared the work done with conventional ceiling fan blades at a given rpm with the work done with a SSG driving the same blades at the same speed (and the same angle of the blades). Anyone can try this for themselves as some have. I found that I could either push more air with the same amount of input energy to the system or I could push the same amount of air with less input. I also found as John has shown, that as you load down this circuit's rotor you can draw LESS from the primary, and sometimes charge better in its own sweet spot. Anyone who bothered to listen to John, which few did, and appreciated the free mechanical would have found this.
I explain the same thing can be done with the conventional brushless motors when I remove their circuit and replace it with an SSG circuit and charge another battery. I even show that when I remove the charging battery the system takes more to run.
I have published the details and given some overview of these computer fans running this way. Thus a 150ma standard computer fan can push so much air at 12v input, say 1.8W. Now replacing that fan's circuit with one or two SSG circuits (which is a little tricky because of the fine wire so I recommend doing all this with a bigger brushless motor) as you saw John do with that tape motor setup he made the day before your visit in 2004. I show that same tape motor driving several fans. Back to the computer fan. Now if I drive that same computer fan that normally takes 1.8W to get to the stated rpm, with an SSG circuit at 1.8W input what kind of rpm do I get? More rpm when the secondary battery is attached and charging. If I want to get it to the same rpm as the conventional circuit it will take less wattage to do that WHILE CHARGING A BATTERY.
So why you never saw any significant mechanical is a wonder to me. Your wheel alone would have taken some power to rotate, and easily could have had a fan attached to it, etc. But here you can see that I can drive a conventional motor even better with less power and even have recovery. Again, here you see that we can do this with only changing the circuit and still use the same blades and frame and coils and magnets.
As I have told you, it does not matter what size you go with this, the free mechanical is there. No, it is not the ideal system for motors, as there is iron in the coils that limit the mechanical, and the strength of the magnets used in the magneto. But the window motor is not the same as we have shown with the SSG driving it. John's lab notes as far back as 1971 show the SSG circuit driving a window motor.
Bottom line in answer to your two questions, while the free mechanical is not as good as other setups, it is still free. If you can get free mechanical then you can scale that up to any size to get any amount of free mechanical. That is the point. This is not THE motor setup. Not the ideal motor setup. But it is a motor generator. And I have taken the lists to a new phase beyond what John was first showing this list at the beginning. Although he was showing this even the day of your visit, and long before you came along on the other lists, web pages, and books, the first objective was for people to build the setup and notice the two energies, etc. That is done so we now look deeper. But those who do not go beyond conventional theory will never follow the further instructions, nor will they experiment contrary to the limitations of in the box conventional theory. They will never even try what John shows on the front page or in the DVD.
I have not found a limit to the amount of output that can be experienced on the SSG. Once you watch the second Bedini DVD that may make sense to you. I am not going to quote that copyrighted video here. Once you actually finish building the SSG and testing it the way John instructed, not necessarily the way Peter said to, then you should understand the two different energies and what you can do with the basic SSG. You folks are failing to consider that this is not conventional charging so you will never even understand the basics besides how to build a free radiant energy SSG. You don't know what you have so you don't know how to use it. For example, you don't appreciate the free mechanical so you ignore it, and never even try to load it down as I have shown in the video. But notice your picture on the front page of this list? This is the model and it has a very large fan on it. That is THE example given, and it is a laugh to ignore something so significant as that. So now, if you begin to notice what you have, rather than look for someone else to show it, or some thousands of others, then you will see what else you can do. I have shown in the video several other things you can do. The Bedini DVD shows you very clearly.
As far as OU. Let us look at a solar panel and wind generator, which I have used both. I have received infinite OU in the sense that nothing was required of me for the input, yet a continuous supply was given. I have had different setups run like this with Bedini systems as well as I have mentioned. Once you get enough power output then there are ways to power the front end enough to be self-sustaining. So then you are in the same situation as with the solar panel or wind generator. But there is no end to the debate. Then the debate will be where is it coming from. So I respond the same way as where does the wind come from. It is free at the end of the day. I am not a physicist, but I do know what a Faraday cage is and that it makes no real difference if you are in the desert or if you are running your setup in such a cage. So I have found no limit to the amount of output in charging that can be done with this system. And that is not referring to the length of time but the amount of work done over and above the operator input. The answers you are looking for are in this list in John's emails, some of which come right from your keyboard. When you build and test as instructed, and don't go off into other directions, and don't assume this is a closed looped conventional circuit, then you will understand what it is.
It is not my objective to gather lists of people who have done this or that. The truth is not determined by numbers. I don't care who says the earth is flat when I have lived here in the new world that conventionally was non-existent and in space. People with degrees have the exact same motivations hindering them from publicly talking about this non-existent "New World". I know it is frustrating to see all the prejudice and cowards and greed in this world, but the world has not changed in this respect. We can now fly despite the skeptics who denied it. We can now all communicate wirelessly too. We can all now get free energy from the sun and wind and other sources. The truth has always been there for those practical people who were just willing to investigate without prejudice and take freely the gifts of God.
* * * *
On July 24, 2007, Sterling D. Allan replied:
Loading a normal motor typically results in drawing more current. As you know, the Bedini SSG circuit is not set up that way. Current draw in the SSG is a function of how fast the wheel is spinning. The faster it spins, the more times the circuit fires, the more current it draws. If the wheel is loaded, making it spin slower, then the fewer times the circuit fires, and the less current is drawn. There is no mystery there, as I think you will agree. We shouldn't talk about it as if it is a mystery. It's pretty straight-forward, even though different from conventional motors.
Yes, John's SSG demo I saw had a large fan attached to it, but it didn't spin very fast, so the load was not very big. As you know, power out in the case of wind is a cubed function of the wind speed. John's set-up just barely got a small breeze going. That's not anything to brag about, nor was it intended to be. It's just an illustration that there is some load that can be applied.
What I gather from your answer is that you, nor anyone you know, does not have a presentation of data somewhere that documents overunity from this system, in the "free energy" sense of harvesting energy that is free for the taking -- some kind of environmental gift that, in this case, science in general has not yet accepted. While saying it isn't your mission to prove this, you turn around and say that this system is accomplishing just that.
All I'm asking for is a clear presentation of the data, because I don't believe this system is doing what you say it is. I think it's wishful thinking. But I would be glad to be proven wrong -- with solid scientific data, which a scientist could look at and confirm that the numbers look good, then reproduce for himself and get the same results. That is science, and it should work with this system, just as it works with wind power or solar power. It is reproducible when it is grasped accurately. The "how" of how it works can keep physicists busy for decades to come. First we need something convincing to show that this system does harvest free energy.
When you sent me notice of your new video and introduction page, I was hopeful that maybe there would be something there that not only claimed that free energy was being harvested, but would give the data and the corresponding experimental set-up to support that claim.
As for the charge of one battery moving to the other battery through this system. The reason the input battery can be lower in charge than the output battery, is because in this system, the input battery is merely keeping the wheel spinning, and as long as it has enough charge to do that, the wheel will spin, and as long as the wheel spins, it will likewise generate an output pulse directed to the charging battery, whether low or high in charge, it will increase in charge until saturated. No mystery there either. It is interesting science, but shouldn't make anyone with electrical background scratch their head.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discourage the work you are doing, or dismiss this most recent video as worthless. I'm not saying that. I'm just bemoaning the lack of solid data.
If you're going to make a claim, as you do on your intro page, that this system results in a net gain of energy, then you need to account for how you arrived at that conclusion, other than just saying that you did and that many others have as well. I don't buy that. It's as easy for a bunch of people to get pumped up on hope as it is for one. Let's see some hard evidence.
You don't need to run your video the entire duration of the experiment, just show us how the experiment is run, and show us what your numbers are, and impress us with those numbers; then others will be motivated to repeat the experiment to confirm that what you say is true, and jump aboard the task of improving the system to the point of providing practical output that can make a difference in our energy-hungry world.
I'm merely asking, "Have you or someone you know done that? if so, where might we inspect those reports?" It doesn't have to be documented on video either. Just a description of the experimental set-up and the results obtained will suffice. And those results are going to need to rule out the possibility that the energy is coming from those 12-volt batteries, which contain a lot of juice.
* * * *
On July 24, 2007, Rick Friedrich wrote in response:
What you say below is not true, and it does not appear that you have even experimented in the ways you comment.
First, the same thing would be true in a conventional circuit then. As you put more load on it it also goes slower, but it draws more current. Maybe this is new to you, I don't know. You can use a transistor to fire it as well and it will be all the same.
If you watched the video then you would have heard me say that loading down the circuit not only gives you more mechanical power output, but it reduces the primary draw and also can in many cases improve the charging rate. You bet there is a mystery in this. But you never tested this so why do you disregard it?
Again, the rotor spinning without additional load takes more energy to spin than under load. Show me a conventional motor that does that. Explain this then. Who really cares about the rpm of a motor that is not functioning as a motor? The rpm is fastest with the least load. The input is least in that condition. Now load it and it draws more and goes slower. But here it is different. If it is no mystery then why is there a difference?
Again, not only do we draw less current under load but we still get the same or better charging. How is that?
If you notice when you start your SSG it draws a lot of current at slower speeds. Just look at the pulses. So it is not about speed as you say. Have you ever had a meter on the front end and noticed the difference in current as you start up?
I was at John's shop and filmed and have shown the film of that setup blowing air. There was a strong air flow clear across the room at full speed. This was some incredible amount of work for that setup at that piddly amp draw. Running any conventional motor to spin that very large fan at that rpm to produce that much air flow would be at least 60W as shown in my video. None of which charge any batteries. Further, all setups I have run with fans do the same thing. When run at the same rpm as the conventional circuitry will take less watts to run while charging batteries near, or at, or over the rate of discharge of the primary. As you know from your recent interview with Peter L., that as you reduce the BEMF in a motor it takes less to run that motor. And here, if you reduce it by charging another battery then you have a two-fold benefit. This is incredibly significant, and is one of the major unique themes in John's patents. If there was nothing to that then there would not be any real substance to the patent as your entire comments suggest about this technology. I say this because your comments imply that you assume this is all conventional processes.
Sterling, all you have to do is replace a brushless motor's circuit with the SSG and you can see the difference. I have shown you how to do it. You already know the SSG can charge up batteries, when it is not supposed to do that at all, now you can make a direct comparrision by seeing what it does before and after the conversion. This is what you are asking for, and I have already outlined it for you in video and in word. Remember, John made that tape motor the day before your visit to show you this very point, that you can use conventional motors to charge batteries. Now I have shown you another step in putting a load on it. Now do the same work while charging batteries. [And yes, I wrote the other day, but NO ONE even responded, that I was able to get approx. 13 times the output in charging alone from that model setup and that computer fan setup, just by doing what John said on this list as part of the instructions given. You laid it all out. You may not have taken down all the information right, and Peter may have mixed up the part about cycling the batteries back to the front against John telling him not to say that, but John wrote about what you can do with these simple SSG Energizers once you understand what you have.]
Just simply note the rpm of the brushless motor fan under a given wattage that it is meant to run at, like a computer fan. Then replace the circuit with one or two SSG circuits as I have shown and get it up to the same rpm or same wattage and tell me the difference. If it is the same rpm then I have found it to be less wattage. If the same wattage then greater rpm. This is signficant gain. Now that is all fine and much greater efficiency, but add to this a significant recovery in the charging battery and there is a GREAT mystery here. Nothing like it anywhere. You know this Sterling. You belittle the mechanical, but it is there, if you can take the time to factor it. 1.8W to drive that fan conventionally. Much less than that to drive it the same speed, the same RMP. You may say a fan is not work, but I have to pay 40W to 100W each to drive 5 ceiling fans in the house, and I have driven a SSG fan for months on end with a rotating SSG (with the added cap pulser). What is that equal to in power consumption and money. 10cents a kwh. 20 cents a day or so of piddly work. You can even make some of the resistors bulbs as you see in the new DVD, as I have done and have some free light. I like to make a switch so I can turn the light off for a resistor. There are a lot of fans around here everywhere I look. There is also need for light and other motor power. So your skepticism makes no sense. You never did the calculations, or took the time to learn how.
The video gave you more than a hint of this so your skepticism is rather pushing it. It is simple enough for anyone to verify with much less money than even making the regular SSG. Again, I outlined what the method would be.
As for my data, I have shown that to those who have been serious and not prejudicially critical. I have no interest in becoming the martyr of this cause to be plagued with thousands of people asking the same old questions about a given setup and spending my days with skeptics trying to attack me. As I said, I do not expect to prove anything by video or words. I have traveled the whole country and even demonstrated that one setup to people, some of which refused to believe what they saw. They tried to take it apart and look for tricks! PhDs could not risk their reputations, etc. Then there is what people say to you off the record... The whole point of this is for people to show themselves with their own parts what this can do. It is not about any one motor, or any one set of data.
The truth is no amount of data would be enough. You would always belittle it until perhaps the whole world finally had it in every home and laughed at disbelieving it. I say this because you have not shown any idea of the amount of free mechanical in these systems. I have given you a very simple way of looking at that in comparing it in the most direct way with conventional motors. All you have to do is replace the circuit and drive the same motor and load. One gives you no return, the other does. One gives you more Watts with less work and one gives you less W with more work. SAME MOTOR (not even an identical motor). When you do that then I will start to take your response more seriously. When you understand what it takes to move a big fan and notice how much it was taking with that fan with the SSG then I'll see.
Again, I have tested and compared identical work done with identical speeds, both AC and DC motors. I have run ceiling fans, computer fans, and even cage motors for the furnace blowers, and many others. In each case I drove the motor with significantly less Watts. This was done with all types of meters used. With or without batteries. Even with transformers connected to the wall with the wall watt meters connected between, running it either way to compare the difference. You saw two of these running on the SSG with some numbers. This shows you it can be done. This is not proof, but it is all that is needed to take this seriously. You already know that it can charge batteries. So the fact that I can get the same fan running while charging batteries ought to take away that skeptical attitude that keeps demanding more.
You want free, you get free charge back with the same work being done in the same motor that formerly gave you nothing back. And you say there is no mystery in any of this??
I shared in the video some of the data, enough of it for people to verify for themselves to do controlled experiments. I gave some pictures with the numbers of windings as well. I did say the page was just started and more will be added over time. So your condescending skepticism is rather pushy when I have just spent a lot of time giving such a detailed presentation on my own free time. This is also in the context of doing this for the very active BM3 list with 453 members, a good number of which are doing similar things. This is a Model presentation in which many will replicate in their own way, and which many sets of numbers will be presented by me and others over time.
What happens when you ask the experts to examine your data, and they even spend a whole week testing it? At the end of the week they tell you they cannot report what they have found. Look at what happened with TUV back in 2000 when John and Bearden presented such data and a model as shown here: http://www.icehouse.net/john34/bedinibearden.html
They paid big money to have that done and even filmed it with all the repeated load testing. I need not repeat what happened. The filming is there, the data is there, the models are there, but just like anything in life, there are motivations for disbelieving it. Your website shows how those motivations hinder progess all the time. And think about it, just who would be willing to sacrifice their career to put their name in with such a cause? Not very many people as we can see in many other subjects. Gather some statistics personally. I talk to thousands of people, and have met thousands of students in the finest universities across this land, and have discussed many vital issues with them and professors and professionals. I am very much aware of the cowardice and fear and prejudice that exists in the land in so many important subjects.
I have got similar results to the TUV testing even with these basic SSG setups. Even when you post the numbers people ignore you or just disbelieve it. Then you get the Myth Buster "experts" building it without magnets with MIT approval to call you a fool. Is this the kind of approval I have to have in some data posted? You see it will never be enough until the skeptic Randi approves it, when he creates the conditions of what truth is. You invite them and they will take it appart and destroy it in front of your eyes. You run it for a week and a month is demanded. Run it a month and a year is demanded. Run it for a year and a decade. Then something is wrong with everyone's meters. Then it must be something in the room. You go out in the desert or anywhere, or in a cage of choice, still something is hidden somewhere. The truth is you cannot convince someone who does not want to be convinced. The majority of experts cannot afford to even look at this and their employment is at risk to side with it. It is easy to be a conventionalist as there is so much pressure to be one. That is why we say just build it for yourself. You did but you did not follow all of the instructions and also did not know how to determine what you saw (and still do not). So I have told you what you can do at a super basic level.
Look, it is evident you plainly disbelieve in the claims of this technology, otherwise you would have not been so pushy in the data when I wrote what I did about all of this work in progress. I want to see many people post what they found. I really do not care what popular opinion believes, especially in the mechanical sciences when they stick to closed looped circuitry. If you are only changing one factor with a conventional motor, by changing the circuit, and you see this kind of difference, then there certainly is a mystery. A mystery as to why you and others ignore this fundamental difference. While I do not expect you to believe any testimony, it would be equally bad to disbelieve a testimony without verifying it. You are clearly disbelieving here without justification. Or you are just really mistaken about mechanical calculations. I write this in good spirits so don't take it the wrong way.
* * * *
Sterling was not aware that the above response had been posted until July 26, 10:45 am. Reply pending.
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan, July 23, 2007