Talk:John Bedini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Engineering This article is part of WikiProject Engineering, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, join the project, visit the project portal, and contribute to the project discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Bedini article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Proposed B.A.S.E. merge

I don't understand why there is a call to merge the article about the Bedini Audio Spectral Enhancer (B.A.S.E.) product with its inventor. Regardless of whether the claims as to how it works are conflicting, bogus, or just exaggerated, B.A.S.E. does actually exist (in contrast with a perpetual motion machine) and is fairly prominently credited on a number of commercial sound recordings. The recordings I have that use it have interesting stereo effects that resemble those of Q-Sound. I think it's pretty notable. Please explain the reason why the merge is requested.—mjb 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No response in a week, so I've removed the mergefrom template. I also rewrote the section on his 'free energy' theories to hopefully make it clear that they're considered pseudoscience.—mjb 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added 1974 Rife Investigation Work and Information

A few pages on Bedini's web site have several videos and lots of pictures involving the technical aspects of this investigation. Also there is the 3 hours of MP3 audio of the radio show that are available too.

In addition, there is the potential for important history to be reported by this article if Rife's work becomes more important in the future should acceptance happen eventually.

Already there is some kind of new "dual photon" microscope that should also be able to view "live viruses." News of this is from 2005 time frame. A southern California university offers time on this new microscope. Another medical engineering / physicist researcher is hoping also to reproduce and verify Rife's original pathogen radio frequency Beam Ray investigation. That investigator said that there were other universities that had one of these microscopes, but few specifics were disclosed. If many in-vitro replications of RF electrotherapy are demonstrated and accepted, human trials, it would seem, should be forced down the throat of the AMA and pharma cronies. Oldspammer 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of all of my contributions here

(cur) (last) 10:24, 5 July 2007 Mjb (Talk | contribs) (2,353 bytes) (rv most changes since last stable version except ref to non-equilibrium thermodynamics & interwiki link. This is not the place to advance Bedini's theories; don't detail experiments, drama, etc.) (cur) (last) 09:50, 5 July 2007 Mjb (Talk | contribs) m (8,300 bytes) (rm extra heading) Oldspammer 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to publish, promote, extrapolate from, speculate about, and lend undue credibility to largely untested and controversial theories is expressly forbidden by WP:V and related policies, which in no small part were designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
As I mentioned on my talk page, you probably have a case for mentioning in the John Bedini article, if you can cite sources, the information that Bedini led an effort to verify certain theories of Royal Rife. I, personally, am fine with that, as long as you are careful in how you characterize everything: when the ultimate source of info is Bedini's own writings, you have to be honest and say that the claims are his. For example, I haven't reviewed it in detail, but on the Royal Rife article, Bedini's videos are described as if it's indisputable that they show what's claimed they show. In any case, going into detail about drama and specific experiments that are already well documented on his own site, and speculating about the importance of his theories if they're confirmed, is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The more terse the article is kept, the more likely it won't attract a deletion nomination.
You should consider using Wikisource as a place for the bulk of the material you wanted to add to the Bedini article. You can go into as much detail and provide as much analysis (e.g., to conclude that his free energy theories aren't pseudoscience) and speculation as you want there, and we can even link to it from the Bedini article in Wikipedia via a {{wikisource}} template reference. Wikisource was set up, in part, to handle this kind of information.
The continued existence of the John Bedini article on Wikipedia is attributable to my efforts to keep it concise and skeptical (to the degree required by policy), and to carefully cite sources where possible. You also might consider reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and its talk page where I brought up the recent issues. —mjb 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It would have been slightly more agreeable if you had at least left behind something of the topic(s). In some articles that I have seen, each point of view is able to make their case in the article--that is, demonstrate a balanced coverage of the subject matter. With the entire bit excised and hidden, what?--the article won't be deleted? Few have done what Bedini did. Few knew or know of it. If consensus about such work was that it was not trickery, why not permit that legit POV? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the sequence of reasoning that a deletionist would apply to such an article had you left in at least some of the material and cited other references? Oldspammer 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Balanced coverage is inappropriate - the coverage should reflect that these are fringe claims with no mainstream support. Bedini's claims are extraordinary, and instead of extraordinary evidence we are offered anecdote and on-line videos. LeContexte (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not perpetual motion

Please remove the tag that this is perpetual motion, even Bedini states that this machine doesn't create its own power. He claims the reson to why he can generate electricity from it is that it taps energy from another energy source, (much like a normal generator makes its electricity) and tranform that into usable energy.

That is not perpetual motion and shuldn't be called it either.--Nabo0o (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there haven't been any replay in over a week so i'm soon gonna remove that section. --Nabo0o (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait for a reply from User:LeContexte, who added the template. I'll send him a message. I feel there should continue to be some kind of notice to the reader, to make it clear that Bedini's energy-related theories are on the fringe / aren't widely regarded as plausible. But if it's inaccurate to lump all such theories under the "perpetual motion" heading, then that's something that I agree should be addressed. I don't know enough about it, myself. Also it hasn't been over a week. Less than 4 days passed between your posts. —mjb (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If there’s a “free energy” template, that would be better to add than the perpetual motion one. Otherwise, I suggest that the perpetual motion one is close enough and maybe should be edited to apply also to free/fringe-science-alternate energy claims. “Zero point”, “vacuum energy” and some others are just free energy claims under different names. — NRen2k5, 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been away for a while. Thank you, Mjb. The stigma of perpetual motion is such that it is unusual for an inventor to admit to his machine being a perpetual motion machine. That does not stop Wikipedia labelling these inventions as such, if that is what they are. See, for example, Steorn, Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, electromagnetic energy from the vacuum), water fuel cell, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, amongst many examples. If Bedini was indeed tapping an energy source that was being diminished then this would not be a perpetual motion machine. However, so far as I can see, he does not claim to be doing this, even if we take his claim on its own terms. His website at [1] explicitly says that conservation of energy does not apply to his equipment, purportedly because of a curvature of spacetime across the battery terminals (!). This is a claim of perpetual motion. He goes on to say that he is drawing on the "energy of the universal vacuum spacetime" (whatever that may be) and that it is inexhaustible. I am not sure how this claim is reconciled with the earlier claim, but even taking it on its own terms, it again amounts to perpetual motion. LeContexte (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Its right there that he states that this is NOT perpetual motion, he says that it is coming from the "vacuum spacetime". I think that what he means by that is the "quantum vacuum energy". In another wikipedia article about the vacuum energy it states that existence of the casmir effect verifies the force of a new energy. Also in the end of that article this section accepts the posibility of a free energy devise:

"The existence of vacuum energy is also sometimes used as theoretical justification for the possibility of free energy machines. The possibility of converting some amount of vacuum energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle.[citation needed] Furthermore, due to the concept of broken symmetry (in QED), free energy does not violate conservation of energy, since the laws of thermodynamics only apply to equilibrium systems. References are made in Nikola Tesla's patents to 'radiant energy', which may be similar or identical to energy from the vacuum." --Nabo0o (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Googling for some of these terms leads to this FAQ by Myron Evans, which says Bedini's School Girl motor "demonstrates conclusively" the "Spin Connection Resonance" (SCR) aspect of Evans' ECE theory. ECE is tagged as pseudoscience in the Myron Evans Wikipedia article. The FAQ attempts to differentiate between "energy from spacetime" and "energy from the vacuum", and it also attempts to distance Bedini's motor from the "perpetual motion" label.
As for the energy source, according to Bedini's own website (and here especially), it's "energy from the vacuum", but Evans seems to insist that it's "energy from spacetime" which is something different. I also note Bedini uses the term "Free Energy Generator" quite a bit (it's the title of his book, and Energy from the Vacuum is the title of his cohort Bearden's book). So I'm highly skeptical of all this semantic sidestepping.
More importantly, according to Evans' paper 94, as referenced in the FAQ, "Once the rotor is spun manually, and the power source and storage device are connected, the rotor will accelerate to a select speed determined by a tuning rheostat, and the machine will maintain that speed indefinitely, charging the storage device, using less energy to run than it stores, thereby achieving over unity in its operation."
That sure sounds like perpetual motion to me. Now, I can see how maybe the fact that some part of the circuit is purportedly causing additional energy to be infused from the natural properties of spacetime suggests that maybe it's not really a closed system, so there may be an argument there that the perpetual motion label is inaccurate.
Evans' FAQ says it's not perpetual motion because the rotor could be replaced with solid-state materials—Apparently his argument is simply that if one can eliminate moving parts, then it can't be called perpetual motion. Paper 94 doesn't test the hypothesis; it just says the wheel could be replaced with a "rotating magnetic field (for example based on three-phase AC voltage)". IMHO, to say that's not motion is splitting hairs, and is irrelevant since Bedini's design does rely on moving parts.
Regardless, I'd be OK with a pseudoscience tag like is in the Evans article, if the perpetual motion tag isn't something we can agree on. —mjb (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would in my view be much more apropiete. Since this subject in many peoples view might be a bit contrevesial and on the border to what science teach us, I can agree on a pseudoscience tag as necessary for the article's neutrality. Both John Bedini and Tom Bearden (which has reviewed his work) say that its not perpetual motion, but instead working on other laws of phycics which is not included in electric power theory, but included in particle-phycics (amongst other things). --Nabo0o (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think now that the actual tag itself shuld say something like this "Free Energy Devise" and mabye change the "theory violation" to "Possibly in conflict with" or something like that.

Bedini has newer himself told anybody that this is a perpetual motion machine, and he was the inventor of it, even though others like to target it as one. --Nabo0o (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. If this approach is followed then we will end up not using the "perpetual motion" label at all (except for historical devices) because, as I mentioned above, those who claim to have invented devices go out of their way to avoid the "perpetual motion" label. That does not change the fact that, objectively, their claim does violate the laws of thermodynamics and therefore amount to a claim of perpetual motion. Evans' suggestion that a "perpetual motion" machine has to move is either an ignorant or wilful misunderstanding of the term: the commonly accepted definition does not require that the device move itself. See perpetual motion. I would add that the Casimir effect is a red herring here - Bedini's statement about the curving of spacetime is nothing to do with the Casimir effect. It is also, plainly, bonkers. LeContexte (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If his machine isn't violating the laws of thermodynamics and that he also explains this, than I don't think that a perpetual motion flag would be appropiate for this article, (although this article is about bedini, not the machine).

He have used the sentence "power itself" but only to make the fact visible that you don't need to put anything into the system, it collects that itself, and in his case, the energy collected is what he calls "radient energy", and I think that this might be the same as the vacuum flux energy which has been mesured in the casmir expermiments.

So, if he is able to collect energy into the system from an outside source, than of course he isn't violating any of the known laws of energy which we have a created. The only problem is that its hard to explain how he do it, but the potensial already exists there, the energy is allready proven to exist, and can to a degree be tapped, and as I see it, it looks like the most likly reson to the generation of energy in his circuit.

And of course we don't need a moving circuit to tap into the quantum energy radiation, in the future we could problably build solid state units which collected this type of energy, but in this case Bedini made it to create a COP of over 1 with moving parts, and as long as it works it is well above anything else that we could persive to create (at this moment).

P.s Just as a reminder, Bedinis circuit has one thing in common with both a solarcell, a windmill, a heatpump and a hydroplant; they all have a COP of >1. --Nabo0o (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)