Bedini Motor and backup power

rsevs3

Sounds bogus to me too. As well as the claim that they improve the capacity of the battery every time it cycles. I would be stunned if no battery manufacturer hasnt heard of the device and employ it to improve their batteries if it works.

RS_

Just forget for a Minuit about any OU clams, or charging 3-4 battery's from one battery...

What do the Bedini Chargers Do:
They increase the time that the battery's last under a given Amp load by 20 to 30% making them BETTER than When NEW, if starting with new battery's, and will recover most dead battery's to a useful state....
They Decrease the time that it takes to fully charge the battery's by 20 to 30%
They increase the useful Life span of the battery's because they will not ware out from sulfanation
Once conditioned, they have a 4 hour standing voltage over 13V, where a standard charger fully charged 4 hour standing Volts are 12.6 to 12.7V

What more could you ask for in a battery charger....?
Show me ANY other Battery charger or Desulphnator that can do this......
If this is not good enough for you, than I don't know what is....

Everyone gets hung up on the OU and charge 3-4 with one issues, and totally missis the point that the chargers really make battery's better and better the more charge discharge cycles they are used.

I have had neighbors bring me dead battery's that would not start their cars, and after several charge discharge cycles, i gave them the battery back, and they are still on the car, in some cases for over 3 years now........

Show me a charger that can be made from a 12-24VDC Fan, that will charge battery's while blowing air around your greenhouse, etc......

And if you don't want to believe the charge 3-4 with one data, that is fine, but you can't say they Don't work at all.

So I get really tired of the arm chair critics that have never built one, or used a commercial model, saying that the chargers Don't Work, they work great for charging battery's, that is the POINT here, nothing else....

RS_

Admin: This post was edited by mistake and original content was lost.. Sorry RS_.

SuperVeg

earthbound wrote:

This subject has a resurgence here about every 6 months or do..

Yeah but it's fun isn't it ? :laughing3:

BullwinkleII

SuperVeg wrote:

earthbound wrote:

This subject has a resurgence here about every 6 months or do..

Yeah but it's fun isn't it ? :laughing3:

I'm going to run "over unity" through the invention engine and see what it comes up with.

As it's ultimate and final test, I bet (bragging rights only ) that it can come up with a device that you cant fault

Actually, it might be a really good way to get a few million extra hits to my blog.

SuperVeg

I bet you 20 bucks I can fault any over unity device you can come up with.

Here is my intensive battery of tests I will use.

Does it work ?

No

QED

BullwinkleII

SuperVeg wrote:

I bet you 20 bucks I can fault any over unity device you can come up with.

Here is my intensive battery of tests I will use.

Does it work ?

No

QED

.

BullwinkleII

A few posts back I accidentally edited a post by RS_ and made it look like RS_ was saying some stuff that was never said.

I tried to find the original content of the post from the way back machine but unfortunately BYAP had not been crawled for a while.

I'm really sorry about my stupid error and really wish I could undo it.

The edit button is right next to the quote button, and I must have accidentally pressed the wrong one. I assure you it was unintentional and I really am sorry.

It's also a shame because RS_'s post is now lost for ever.

Charlie

your only human bull :thumbright:

A while back I deleted a newbie's post as it looked to me to be a double up (this happens from time to time)

anyways it turns out it was a double up but one had photos and one didnt..... I deleted the wrong one.

Faye informed me she had been on the phone for most of the day teaching the new member how to post pics of their system, they finally succeeded and I went and deleted it.

wasnt I feeling like a drongo

BullwinkleII

SuperVeg wrote:

I bet you 20 bucks I can fault any over unity device you can come up with.

Here is my intensive battery of tests I will use.

Does it work ?

No

QED

An open invitation to all (bragging rights only) - My over unity power generator

earthbound

Loses in friction of the cable with it's points of contact and the multiple points you'd have to have on the hill to hold the cables up.

Ummmm, would this be a bit like having a few helium balloons, let them rise, then compress the helium at the top so it's dense and heavy and drops down, then let it expand, etc...?

rsevs3

You would not have 400 tonnes falling from that height. It would be only fractionally heavier than the weight going up. The tanker will only dishcharge to the pressure in the pipeline. Which is marginally lighter than the pressure in full tankers. So you would actually have a full tanker trying to lift a mostly full tanker.

SuperVeg

Ive done the math, and I have worked it out..

EB + rsev = BW -$20

BullwinkleII

earthbound wrote:

Loses in friction of the cable with it's points of contact and the multiple points you'd have to have on the hill to hold the cables up.

Ummmm, would this be a bit like having a few helium balloons, let them rise, then compress the helium at the top so it's dense and heavy and drops down, then let it expand, etc...?

Yes. but finding a better solution isn't really an argument

So that's a fail. You're just claiming it would work, but not as well as your system

The logical fallacy would be "Appeal to better solution".

BullwinkleII

The overwhelming argument from all the people that have responded in various forums and directly into my junkmail folder via my blog has been that the gas dumped into the return pipe would be almost a liquid at the bottom and a rare thing indeed at the top. This would dose my extremely expensive power-plant with a sedative that would be beyond my linguistic skills to twist to even my demanding will.

Some people used some math that didn't use words like "Bullwinkle" so I am VERY convinced by their arguments.

Others who were less impressive include Noether and his "theorem", Rudolf Clausius and his thermo stuff, blah blah Einstein etc.

I have one of those cap/helmet magnifiers to aid vision, but it doesn't seem to be working.

I hate myself for using "math" instead of "maths" in a sentence.

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics