energy

Peter Lindemann: Reactive Power and Radiant Energy and John Bedini's materials

Submitted by esaruoho on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/message/209

Nov. 7, 2004
Brett,

Glad to help. You are asking the right kind of questions. Here is my best shot at answering them.

1) My book consistently refers to the radiant spike LEADING the pulse.

That is true. The high voltage transient that leads the pulse is a much purer form of radiant energy. This circuit actually feeds this pulse back to the first battery in opposition to the forward current.

Tesla Bifilar Coil patent - Bedini Bifilar Coil usage in Schoolgirl Radiant Motor Charging devices

Submitted by esaruoho on
A couple of websites will talk about the Bedini system using Bifilar coils. Coming at this from a 0 knowledge angle, I really needed to find out what this all was about. Here are a couple of mentions. What really struck me whilst reading up on John Bedini's Bifilar Coil setups in his schoolgirl battery energizer machines, was that when i did find information on the Bifilar Coil, it was a patent of Tesla's that I had printed out months and months ago, "Coil for Electro-magnets". But what does that mean, unless if it is quantified by a couple of writeups from various sites? here:

Re: Britain to switch off energy-guzzling light bulbs

Submitted by admin on

In reply to Britain to switch off energy-guzzling light bulbs

It's not too little or too late. It's just right, and right on schedule and the New World Order wouldn't have it any other way. :-)

'We have these new super bulbs for you that use 1/5th of the energy of the old bulbs, last much longer and we'll even give you your first 4 for free.' Sounds too good to be true right? Well, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

While it can be argued that these new 'energy-saving' bulbs use less energy than the regular bulbs we've all been using, they are far more complex to manufacture, and the process uses 10 times more energy than the manufacturing of regular bulbs.

Now that regular bulbs which we've all been using for decades are to soon be made illegal and you will be fined or arrested if caught using one, lets look at some more of the differences between the two.

Well for years, I've been able to go down to the shops and pick up at least 4 regular bulbs for £1 whereas these new CFL's cost me about £5 per bulb. That's 20 times more expensive. So for 1 'energy-saving' bulb which supposedly lasts 6 years I could instead get 20 regular bulbs which would last me at least 13 years. Looking at the box in front of me, it says right on the front it lasts '6 years' all big and bold. Then when I open the box, on the inside in tiny print it says 'based on 3 hours a day average.' Living in Scotland, I for one use my main bulbs (ie, the rooms I am in most often) more than 3 hours per day even in the summer when you need them less, nevermind in winter. So already they're telling me they're not going to last 6 years. Then you take into account the fact that in order for them to be most efficient, they have to be kept on, permanently, and if you use them like other bulbs and switch them on and off as you need them, it cuts the lifetime of the bulb. So even if you do use them 3 hours a day, they're not going to last 6 years. If you do keep them on all the time then yes, they will use less energy than your regular bulbs but since you are using them all the time it cancels out their supposed energy-saving and makes them use almost the same total energy.

Subscribe to energy