19 replies to this topic

[fancyfingers]

Does anyone have any instructions to build alternative energy devices? For example, how to turn a stationary bike into an energy maker? How to harness electricity from things we do, or use around the home if there is a power outage? Is there any site that list instructions so a homeowner can build things to keep essential items running (fridge, freezer, etc)? Any thoughts?

[gangandealer]

I don't know for sure, but I have actually been thinking about making a bike that chargers my laptop when you ride it in place. Think of as sort of a bike treadmill like thingy to charge electrical devices.

[still learning]

fancyfingers, on 02 January 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Does anyone have any instructions to build alternative energy devices? For example, how to turn a stationary bike into an energy maker? How to harness electricity from things we do, or use around the home if there is a power outage? ?

From a really quick google http://www.sciencesh...om/bike_gen.htm

Might not actually save energy though if the food you eat to fuel yourself to pedal the bicycle comes from modern industrial agriculture.  Lots of fossil fuel used to produce the US's food.  http://www.lafn.org/...cle-energy.html

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ed Begley (from the show Living with Ed) often pedaled to power his toaster, etc.
Instructions/links here:
http://www.motherear...-Begley-Jr.aspx
http://www.ehow.com/...ower-house.html

(Oh, and I like my English muffins on the crispy side, so start pedaling.)

[fancyfingers]

Thank you! I am looking for alternatives to get going now, and add on as much as we can until we are completely off the grid! I am not expecting it to happen in a few months, but, every little bit helps. Who knows, with doing all the little stuff I may create some awesome alternatives ! You never know.

[msterees]

How about a bicycle powered washing machine? I could definitely save some money and lose weight with this one:
http://web.mit.edu/t...dora/index.html

[MakingCents]

Using a bicycle to power something.  Not a bad idea.  If you're motivated enough to use what it's powering then you're saving the earth and trimming your waistline at the same time!

[Shortpoet-GTD]

MakingCents, on 04 January 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

If you're motivated enough to use what it's powering then you're saving the earth and trimming your waistline at the same time!

Yeah, riding a bike to power the blender to make a milk shake wouldn't be too productive.

[tri-n-b-helpful]

fancyfingers, on 02 January 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Does anyone have any instructions to build alternative energy devices? For example, how to turn a stationary bike into an energy maker? How to harness electricity from things we do, or use around the home if there is a power outage? Is there any site that list instructions so a homeowner can build things to keep essential items running (fridge, freezer, etc)? Any thoughts?

Yes, there is such a website. The idea is to charge cheap, high capacity lead-acid batteries for free from the energy in the local environment and use them to power anything and everything at all. John Bedini and many others have continuously invested all of their time and effort into these projects since about 1972 (maybe the last big oil crisis?). Detailed instructions to build John's patented devices are given to members of his free groups for free, plus you have free online help 24/7 from over three thousand people from everywhere all over the world like you and me who have successfully built and thoroughly load tested their own tuned and balanced devices built from locally available parts that many of us have already or can be cheaply purchased. Partial kits are also available. "Free Energy Conventions" with focused workgroups and some of the most amazing stuff anyone is ever likely to see in their life time are run for a couple of weeks every year from Idaho. I think the cost to attend must be a few thousand dollars each for parts, food, accommodation and everything else. These aren't essential and I've never been to one, but have built and am testing three out of dozens of these devices - each of which is debatable, but possible, to get over-unity from. I'm new here, so cannot post links, but if you sign up to Yahoo Groups, you can run a search for it there. It's called the Monopole Mechanical Oscillator Energizer with Simplified Schoolgirl Circuit.

[fancyfingers]

Thank you very much, Tri! I am going to check that out! I need to get our electricity bill under control. The company raises their rates, even though we are using less energy than the same time last year, and the year prior, etc. It would be awesome if we could get many people to use alternate energy sources for many different things. Necessity is the mother of inventions!

[jasserEnv]

I have done the calculations before and you don't really save anything when you consider the costs of making the equipment to generate the power versus how much you will actually use the equipment to generate power. You are far better off installing solar panels or small wind turbines that don't get tired out or lose motivation as any of us would if we were using these sort of devices on a regular basis.

[tri-n-b-helpful]

jasserEnv, on 04 February 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

I have done the calculations before and you don't really save anything when you consider the costs of making the equipment to generate the power versus how much you will actually use the equipment to generate power. You are far better off installing solar panels or small wind turbines that don't get tired out or lose motivation as any of us would if we were using these sort of devices on a regular basis.

Really?
I've built two of these devices now and each time I build I get better at it. The first one cost over $60 and the second one less than $50. I can charge a bank of 12V Lead-Acid wet cell batteries (very cheap) faster and deeper and to a greater capacity than by conventional means. There are detailed instructions for tests that you can do to prove this to yourselves. Compare this to trickle charging a bank of batteries via solar or wind power which damages batteries very quickly and you can see how the costs fall heavily in your favor. Solar panels come with a long warranty and last a long time, but are very expensive, do degenerate in their performance over time and can be broken or stolen, which insurance may or may not cover or you may need to pay extra premiums for. Wind turbines need regular maintenance due to all the moving parts that wear and get damaged in adverse weather and natural disasters. Batteries in both systems are subject to lots of abuse both during the charging and discharging process that shortens their life considerably to the extent that they may only just last the warranty period. These specialist batteries are extremely expensive to replace and are usually only available from a single supplier who can charge whatever they please. These systems need specialist electricians to replace anything that goes wrong. The parts may be covered under warranty, but labor may not be. The inefficient inverters that convert DC to AC means you are paying for losses you don't use, and they are just another piece of electronic equipment that can go wrong at any time for any reason, which may or may not be covered under warranty. Feed-in tariff programs (thanks to another bit of electronic equipment that may or may not malfunction inside the warranty period), which made these incredibly expensive installations "pay for themselves" are being axed by state governments all over this country as it is not economically viable to pay such exorbitant sums of money for such a tiny contribution to the grid. Recently, the installers here have failed to earth the frames of solar panels, resulting in massive damage to solar systems from lightning strikes. The installers claimed that "it wasn't in the manual", and the end result is "the user pays". All in all, there are many reasons why people should really think hard about the promises that come with paying a few thousand dollars of heavily subsidized solar systems... that are really not "owned" by the user.

The point made about motivation is valid. This is why it's important to do something like this as part of a big, helpful group. It really does make all the difference. :-)

[jasserEnv]

You have to think about costs in terms of inherent energy costs and financial costs. The fact that a battery is "cheap" doesn't take into account the inherent energy of mining the materials, creating the chemicals, manufacturing the product and shipping that battery. Nor does it take into account the food required to power yourself to generate the energy. All of this has to be overcome before you have any positive in using your body to make the energy.

Then you decide to exercise and you generate about 300 calories for 15 minutes of effort and ignoring everything I have just mentioned, just focus on the cost of the battery.

300 calories x 4186.8 joules/calorie = 1256040 joules

1256040 joules x 2.77777778 × 10-7 kw hour/joule = 0.349 kw hour

This means that after approximately 45 minutes of activity, you have generated 1 kw hour of electricity

At 10 cents/kilowatt hour ( a good rate), you are working for 13.3 cents per hour.

This means that to pay for the battery before taxes, you will have to be on the exercise bike for 450 hours.

That is also a lot of food to eat and that has not been considered.

Let me know if I am drastically out in my calculations but this is how I came to the conclusion on solar or wind power being better regardless of the problems that you have mentioned. They are working for you all the time.

[tri-n-b-helpful]

jasserEnv, on 06 February 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

You have to think about costs in terms of inherent energy costs and financial costs. The fact that a battery is "cheap" doesn't take into account the inherent energy of mining the materials, creating the chemicals, manufacturing the product and shipping that battery. Nor does it take into account the food required to power yourself to generate the energy. All of this has to be overcome before you have any positive in using your body to make the energy.

Then you decide to exercise and you generate about 300 calories for 15 minutes of effort and ignoring everything I have just mentioned, just focus on the cost of the battery.

300 calories x 4186.8 joules/calorie = 1256040 joules

1256040 joules x 2.77777778 × 10-7 kw hour/joule = 0.349 kw hour

This means that after approximately 45 minutes of activity, you have generated 1 kw hour of electricity

At 10 cents/kilowatt hour ( a good rate), you are working for 13.3 cents per hour.

This means that to pay for the battery before taxes, you will have to be on the exercise bike for 450 hours.

That is also a lot of food to eat and that has not been considered.

Let me know if I am drastically out in my calculations but this is how I came to the conclusion on solar or wind power being better regardless of the problems that you have mentioned. They are working for you all the time.

I haven’t checked the details of your calculations, but they seem perfectly fine and valid to me… for the type of system that you are referring to; not the one I’m referring to. I think there may have been some misunderstanding. My fault for not providing sufficient detail, I guess. I agree that the exercise system of using “human power” to generate electricity compares very poorly to current solar and wind systems, for one of the reasons you mentioned at least, being passively “there” all the time with no need for human input. I can also argue that solar power and wind power are intermittent sources of energy, whereas our requirements to use energy are 24/7, but that is best left for another time. There are very thorough and detailed arguments against existing solar and wind powered systems which have been done by others like Tom Bearden, John Bedini and many others who are no longer living amongst us.
My apologies for the poor and brief description of “cheap” regarding the batteries. The term was used comparatively. This system uses standard lead-acid wet cell batteries available for the last hundred years or so in pretty much every country in the world where they are, to the best of my research, made cheapest locally, as they’re made from either lead that is either mined or recycled and sulphuric “battery” acid which is very cheap and easy for everyone to make and expensive to ship due to the weight, as you could imagine. By “cheap”, I also mean that this particular type of battery will give you the highest output “bang” for your buck. With the system I’m referring to, this type of battery can be recharged and restored to a capacity greater than that specified by the manufacturer each time it’s charged with radiant energy. In this way, this type of battery charged and discharged correctly with this type of system will last forever. John has his original set-up still running continuously to prove a point since 1974. This is very good news environmentally. I guess you’ve heard how many of these batteries get dumped each year that could otherwise have been rejuvenated. In contrast, sealed lead-acid batteries that come with solar / wind systems these days are lighter, smaller and more expensive with a higher energy density. These are often imported and are becoming “all the rage”. These use absorbent glass mat technology (AGM) or valve regulated technology (VRLA). Once the water inside of these runs out due to incorrect charging and discharging (which is what normally happens in solar/wind systems), there is nothing anyone can do to rejuvenate them. They go into landfill mostly with a more toxic effect on the environment than lead-acid wet cells. They are also manufactured with more expensive and more environmentally unsafe materials. Some recycling centers do accept this type, but pay very little if anything compared to lead-acid wet cells. By far the very worst for the environment are the newer lithium batteries, popular due to their smaller size and very high energy density. No recycling center I can find will pay anything for these. They’re extremely toxic to the environment and made from expensive materials that cannot be sourced locally. They have the highest fire and explosion risk I have heard of.

The system I’m attempting to describe is self-running once set up correctly. In the simple form shown, it only needs one slight flick of the finger to start and will happily run by itself until the primary source is removed. Thank you for your interest in this. I wish I could post links; it would make it so much easier for others.

[still learning]

jasserEnv, on 06 February 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

You have to think about costs in terms of inherent energy costs and financial costs...... 300 calories for 15 minutes of effort....
means that after approximately 45 minutes of activity, you have generated 1 kw hour of electricity.....let me know if I am drastically out in my calculations

I didn't actually check, but I think you're being really generous in the effective kwh output of the human body...
If I have it right, you figured that all that 300 Calories (or dietary calories or kilocalories) is being turned into electricity, 100% efficient.  Looks like the human body can turn food calories into mechanical work at 20 to 30% efficiency http://mb-soft.com/p...2/humaneff.html and http://www.brianmac....k/energyexp.htm The bicycle generator wouldnt be 100% efficient either.  Also, don't think a body can burn off 300 calories in 15 minutes.  A champion cyclist maybe.

[jasserEnv]

I can burn 300 calories in 15 minutes. That is why I used the number.   It is an intense workout for me mind you but nothing compared to an elite athlete. As for the efficiency, you are right, but that accounts for the food coming in in the first place. If I burn 300 calories on the machine, that is what it observed in me doing work so that is roughly the amount actually generated. My body may have worked harder, but the machine thinks that is how much I did.

[jasserEnv]

tri-n-b-helpful, on 06 February 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

I haven’t checked the details of your calculations, but they seem perfectly fine and valid to me… for the type of system that you are referring to; not the one I’m referring to. I think there may have been some misunderstanding. My fault for not providing sufficient detail, I guess. I agree that the exercise system of using “human power” to generate electricity compares very poorly to current solar and wind systems, for one of the reasons you mentioned at least, being passively “there” all the time with no need for human input. I can also argue that solar power and wind power are intermittent sources of energy, whereas our requirements to use energy are 24/7, but that is best left for another time. There are very thorough and detailed arguments against existing solar and wind powered systems which have been done by others like Tom Bearden, John Bedini and many others who are no longer living amongst us.
My apologies for the poor and brief description of “cheap” regarding the batteries. The term was used comparatively. This system uses standard lead-acid wet cell batteries available for the last hundred years or so in pretty much every country in the world where they are, to the best of my research, made cheapest locally, as they’re made from either lead that is either mined or recycled and sulphuric “battery” acid which is very cheap and easy for everyone to make and expensive to ship due to the weight, as you could imagine. By “cheap”, I also mean that this particular type of battery will give you the highest output “bang” for your buck. With the system I’m referring to, this type of battery can be recharged and restored to a capacity greater than that specified by the manufacturer each time it’s charged with radiant energy. In this way, this type of battery charged and discharged correctly with this type of system will last forever. John has his original set-up still running continuously to prove a point since 1974. This is very good news environmentally. I guess you’ve heard how many of these batteries get dumped each year that could otherwise have been rejuvenated. In contrast, sealed lead-acid batteries that come with solar / wind systems these days are lighter, smaller and more expensive with a higher energy density. These are often imported and are becoming “all the rage”. These use absorbent glass mat technology (AGM) or valve regulated technology (VRLA). Once the water inside of these runs out due to incorrect charging and discharging (which is what normally happens in solar/wind systems), there is nothing anyone can do to rejuvenate them. They go into landfill mostly with a more toxic effect on the environment than lead-acid wet cells. They are also manufactured with more expensive and more environmentally unsafe materials. Some recycling centers do accept this type, but pay very little if anything compared to lead-acid wet cells. By far the very worst for the environment are the newer lithium batteries, popular due to their smaller size and very high energy density. No recycling center I can find will pay anything for these. They’re extremely toxic to the environment and made from expensive materials that cannot be sourced locally. They have the highest fire and explosion risk I have heard of.

The system I’m attempting to describe is self-running once set up correctly. In the simple form shown, it only needs one slight flick of the finger to start and will happily run by itself until the primary source is removed. Thank you for your interest in this. I wish I could post links; it would make it so much easier for others.

You don't need to include a link to provide a url as raw text. That is always possible.

As for your commentary on the batteries, I can see the point about lack of recycling in some areas and toxic chemicals. However, I know that in my general area, the sealed lead acid and lithium batteries and have to be taken back and recycled by the company that sells them. I just replaced on in my electric lawn mower during the summer.

As for these devices, you talk about "over unity" function. In straight physics terms, there is no such thing as generating more energy than is put in based on the laws of thermodynamics so this is experimental or unproven technology to say the least. In looking up John Bedini, he is widely criticized for his products because of the unproven claims that come with them. That said, it is hard to follow that route when our current understanding of physics indicates that these devices are not possible and the inventor isn't trusted by the scientific community.

[tri-n-b-helpful]

How do I provide a url as raw text? I tried to cut and paste the url and this forum prevented me from posting because I'm a new user.

Over unity has already been done on many products. In 2006 Lutec Australia had their over unity device patented. You may check their website. There's no information on what's inside of it though and it's really expensive to buy. John and Tom have just as much praise and backing as criticism from the scientific community. How was it possible to get such devices as Tom's and John's patented in the US without scientific acceptance of his explanations? You are right that current or majority thinking is still in terms of the conventional laws of physics. You can check out US Patent 6,545,444 if you wish. Have you checked their own websites? Have you read their books? Of course anyone who has anything worthwhile and practical to offer has critics. For every critic who hasn't built any of John's devices, you're likely to find three more who have built and tested his devices and are full of praise. You can search for Bedini_Monopole3 in the yahoo groups. All the information you will need can be found from the links, etc on that page.

[michrrdn]

gangandealer, on 02 January 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I don't know for sure, but I have actually been thinking about making a bike that chargers my laptop when you ride it in place. Think of as sort of a bike treadmill like thingy to charge electrical devices.

Would u have to keep pedaling or would the power be stored somewhere?

[j_pin]

I saw them do this on that Discovery Channel show The Colony! It was pretty cool. I actually learned a lot from that show, though I'm not sure I could actually make anything that they did. Most of the men who were making the electrical things were mechanics and engineers.