Bedini G-Field / Kromrey Converter Questions for Peter and John

[Faraday88]

Kromrey Converter; Magnets and Coil Core

Hello,

after having seen the Kromrey Converter on the energy science conference, I am trying to build one.
Could anyone help me with providing some experience in the following 2 matters:
1. As for Bariumferrite magnets, They can be purchased as isotrope and anisotrope magnets. Which one to use?
2. Any suggestoin on the core material of the rotationg coils? Which kind of steel or iron / any off-the shelf material that works well?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions

Steven

Hi Steven,

Magnets that have High-Electrical resistivity is prefered (any Hard ferrite will fit this requirment), DO NOT USE ALNICO, NEODIUM,as these are Electrically conducting and will be inefficient in performance.
You have to use Laminated Non-grain oriented soft iron as the core (used in Transformer core)
Thank you,
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Steven]

Kromrey Converter; Magnets and Coil Core

Hello,

after having seen the Kromrey Converter on the energy science conference, I am trying to build one.
Could anyone help me with providing some experience in the following 2 matters:
1. As for Bariumferrite magnets, They can be purchased as isotrope and anisotrope magnets. Which one to use?
2. Any suggestoin on the core material of the rotationg coils? Which kind of steel or iron / any off-the shelf material that works well?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions

Steven

[Ajay]

I have recently found some more useful information regarding this device. I have not rewound my coils yet due to the fact that school has started for me and I have been busy, but I intend to keep working on it soon. I found the following passage in the book "Pyramid Power" by Dr. Patrick Flanagan. I have read that Flanagan has experimented with the Kromrey device on one web site, but I have not gotten a response when I have tried to reach out to him on the subject, so I can not confirm that.
" If the electrodes are made of iron, and are magnetized, with the north and south poles facing each other, then the magnetic field will consist or a rotation of the ether around their axis of symmetry; and such a rotating or spinning of the ether can occur simultaneously with the circulatory movement that corresponds to the electrostatic field.
A magnetic field can, therefore, be superimposed directly upon a coaxial electrostatic field.
If the magnetic field is superimposed transversely upon the electrostatic field, then both field would be distorted, but not destroyed.
The circulating ether which constitutes the electrostatic field will no longer retain its axial symmetry, but it will, nevertheless, continue to circulate."
The objective would then be to trace the "coaxial electrostatic field" with your coil, while eliminating the magnetic field. Different configurations of the Tesla bifilar pancake coil should be used. If the magnetic and electrostatic fields are superimposed, then less predictable electrostatic phenomenon would occur, and the system would suffer losses. I believe the type of iron used plays a big part in determining the position of the respective fields. If that is the case, then anyone building this machine should be prepared to have a few if not several different types of iron inductors made, at least one of which should be made out of high quality transformer laminations. This could also mean that different coil configurations will work for different designs, some more efficiently than others. This is turning out to be a costly project!
-Ajay

[Ajay]

I seem to be getting DC output with the coils wound the same way, about 1-2 watts at 3000 rpm. Next I will reverse the direction of windings on one of my coils just to give it another shot before I try the Tesla bifilar set up. It turned out magnetic hystereses was an issue with the aluminum in my design, because I replaced the piece of aluminum with wood and now I am getting output. Watch out for that if you are building this device.
Output seems to be conventional DC current. I am only getting a few watts because I only have four ceramic magnets at the moment. Output depends on flux, so if I could do it again, I would use an electromagnet and a pulsed DC source using hall effect switches to time out the on/off cycles. I would also rotate the coils instead of rotating the magnets (like I did in my design). It is also worth a try to rotate small iron pieces in between the coils and the electromagnet to keep the stationary and avoid those expensive rotating contacts that Bedini incorporated. The best thing to do would be to make a commutator for the on/off cycles on the magnets and for output timing to play around with the capacitive effects of the coils when you leave the circuit open for longer periods during the cycle. Output should be pulsed on/off to maximize the capacitive effects. I will keep you updated on my progress,
Ajay

P.S - My device is slowing down under load, the coil configuration is trifilar clockwise wound.

[Ajay]

This guy seems to have a pretty good idea of what is going on:

http://www.hyiq.org/Research/Details?Name=Lenz%27s%20Law

The coils are wound the same direction so that the field generated causes the coils to be bucking, or N-N. Because north and south flux have opposite spin directions through space, this sets up a positive and negative condition which cancel out in the coil. Anytime you have cancellation effects, you tap the scalar potential which is all around us. The resulting phenomenon of cold electricity exhibits itself. It is like the 3 coils on each pole are suppressing each others magnetic field and when this happens, it allows for more of an E field to be established. The question then becomes, which coil design will most effectively cancel out the magnetic field? I think JB's design does this pretty well, but it is possible that the bifilar design I posted in a link earlier may be more efficient if it was stacked in layers like JB had done. I will be making a new video soon to describe this better. Progress is being made, it is only a matter of time until we figure this out.
Ajay

[Faraday88]

Hi Ajay,

The kromrey convertor was modified by JB, this is stated by JB in the video..next what modification did JB do..? he states that he lowered the Impedance using the coils ..but how..? JB gives clues him self but does tell them all..:clap (I can say that these low impedance coils are also the same low impedance coils used by Tesla in his Magnifier patent.) what was it that JB was looking for about some thing he knew that the design was incomplete ( Raymond Kromrey)and JB successfully re-designed the original Kromrey Convertor to get what he expected out of this modification???
these are the basics of the clues which can lead you to the machine..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

Can any one point it out for me what is the difference between the Original Kromery and the Bedini G-Field...why is it called the G-Field in the first place..???
I'm forwarding my own questions asked earlier..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[forelle]

erfinder, you are rude for no reason whatsoever. I don't think anyone would mind if you just stopped talking on this thread.
Faraday, I wound the coils in John's configuration with no results! Although I see how John's coils are similar to Tesla's, I also see how it is different compared to the bifilar in the link I posted.
I only found 8 references to induction in all of PL's book. From my current understanding, Tesla had two air coils in inductive resonance (which means the surface are of copper was the same on each coil), one coil was supplied with high frequency, and high voltage DC. the other coil had an elevated capacitance of an insulated conductor and a ground connected on either side of the "secondary". This caused a radiant event to manifest only because of the high frequency DC hammering in to the ground which posses a high resistance to the circuit. The resistance causes an electro radiant event to propagate from the ground to the aerial. This energy had no measurable current and was longitudinal in nature. This was his law of induction.

It is difficult to compare this form of conversion to the Kromrey in my opinion. Stan Meyers uses unidirectional pulses of DC at high frequency as well, except he uses a toroidal inductor to couple his coils, like a transformer.

I am really having a hard time with this machine, I have spent countless hours in contemplation and observation. After winding a dozen coils, I am still not seeing significant output. Faraday, if you could post some pictures it would be greatly appreciated, I would like to see what you have done to compare it to my machine, because at this point I am utterly confused. How could I see no output with Neo magnets, and then a .4 volt output with ceramic magnets? Why is it that my machine slows down under load? Why can't I light up a small light bulb?

I was hoping that some people on this forum might actually have some insight into whats wrong with my device, but so far, I have only been given riddles to solve. This process has nearly worn me out.
Ajay

Hi Ajay
I saw your Video and i think Tom is right.My Machine has a Rotor with 8 Poles.Its only speeding up if i have a very low resistor as load or a short because the voltage is then 0.At the moment i have a "normal"generator that i have made resonant at 1937rpm with 3,2uf cap paralell to the coils and it puts out 134v and 0,45A(60W) and the primemover needs 14v 5A(70w).Not finish with tuning.You have to be more exact with building.
Nice day

[Tom C]

no sorry I did not communicate with you correctly... if you look at Johns small machines that he built with ron cole you will see some differences http://www.icehouse.net/john1/kromrey.html it is small and close together. you need to get your magnets closer to each other so the field is continuous and does not drop out. if you are not getting voltage your magnetic field os not closing in on itself during the make break cycle.
Tom C

[Ajay]

I appreciate your input, Tom. I wound my trifilar coil clockwise on each iron stator, so it is as if it was one large coil. The gauss on the neo magnets was very strong, yet I still did not see output with the coils wound this way. Also, the gap between my magnets and the machine has been less than 1/16 inch the whole time. With the Neo magnets this caused too much of a clogging effect, which is why I switched them to ceramic.

I have adjusted the frequency also, so I know that is not the problem.

It is possible the coils must be rotating, but I don't know why John wouldn't specify this, because I have seen him create similar set ups to the one I have built as well. I guess I might need to just restart the whole machine and build it with rotating coils, so much for all of that time and money I spent trying to get the stationary coil design to work!

[Tom C]

Ajay,

I have not chimed in here for a couple of reasons. anyway........ the Kromrey coil is 1 coil split between 4 coil centers...... so when you wind it regardless of where they sit, they must all be the same. it must look like 1 coil to the machine, not a bucking pair. if you were to stack them all it must be one long coil. 2nd if you look at Johns Kromrey you see the magnets stacked as a continual pole piece, 12 or 15 magnets, that is a huge amount of gauss. you have your magnets spinning and the coils stationary. you have too much distance between your magnets pole to pole it does not close the loop strong enough. build it Like Johns machine you will see some result. shrink the whole thing.

[erfinder]

erfinder, you are rude for no reason whatsoever. I don't think anyone would mind if you just stopped talking on this thread.
Faraday, I wound the coils in John's configuration with no results! Although I see how John's coils are similar to Tesla's, I also see how it is different compared to the bifilar in the link I posted.
I only found 8 references to induction in all of PL's book. From my current understanding, Tesla had two air coils in inductive resonance (which means the surface are of copper was the same on each coil), one coil was supplied with high frequency, and high voltage DC. the other coil had an elevated capacitance of an insulated conductor and a ground connected on either side of the "secondary". This caused a radiant event to manifest only because of the high frequency DC hammering in to the ground which posses a high resistance to the circuit. The resistance causes an electro radiant event to propagate from the ground to the aerial. This energy had no measurable current and was longitudinal in nature. This was his law of induction.

It is difficult to compare this form of conversion to the Kromrey in my opinion. Stan Meyers uses unidirectional pulses of DC at high frequency as well, except he uses a toroidal inductor to couple his coils, like a transformer.

I am really having a hard time with this machine, I have spent countless hours in contemplation and observation. After winding a dozen coils, I am still not seeing significant output. Faraday, if you could post some pictures it would be greatly appreciated, I would like to see what you have done to compare it to my machine, because at this point I am utterly confused. How could I see no output with Neo magnets, and then a .4 volt output with ceramic magnets? Why is it that my machine slows down under load? Why can't I light up a small light bulb?

I was hoping that some people on this forum might actually have some insight into whats wrong with my device, but so far, I have only been given riddles to solve. This process has nearly worn me out.
Ajay

Riddles huh.....you just don't know what you want, if you did, you would understand at least part of what I have tried sharing with you, and rude is not showing you anything solid, working. I back everything I have said up with working prototypes, unlike faraday88, if you haven't seen what I have done, I'm sorry. No, I don't have cold electricity, but that's because I know its not real. You are barking up the wrong tree! Electricity isn't cold.......now those fields associated with it....that's another story......

Good luck

[Ajay]

erfinder, you are rude for no reason whatsoever. I don't think anyone would mind if you just stopped talking on this thread.
Faraday, I wound the coils in John's configuration with no results! Although I see how John's coils are similar to Tesla's, I also see how it is different compared to the bifilar in the link I posted.
I only found 8 references to induction in all of PL's book. From my current understanding, Tesla had two air coils in inductive resonance (which means the surface are of copper was the same on each coil), one coil was supplied with high frequency, and high voltage DC. the other coil had an elevated capacitance of an insulated conductor and a ground connected on either side of the "secondary". This caused a radiant event to manifest only because of the high frequency DC hammering in to the ground which posses a high resistance to the circuit. The resistance causes an electro radiant event to propagate from the ground to the aerial. This energy had no measurable current and was longitudinal in nature. This was his law of induction.

It is difficult to compare this form of conversion to the Kromrey in my opinion. Stan Meyers uses unidirectional pulses of DC at high frequency as well, except he uses a toroidal inductor to couple his coils, like a transformer.

I am really having a hard time with this machine, I have spent countless hours in contemplation and observation. After winding a dozen coils, I am still not seeing significant output. Faraday, if you could post some pictures it would be greatly appreciated, I would like to see what you have done to compare it to my machine, because at this point I am utterly confused. How could I see no output with Neo magnets, and then a .4 volt output with ceramic magnets? Why is it that my machine slows down under load? Why can't I light up a small light bulb?

I was hoping that some people on this forum might actually have some insight into whats wrong with my device, but so far, I have only been given riddles to solve. This process has nearly worn me out.
Ajay

[erfinder]

I never said Induction gets cancelled...did I?, I mentioned Inductance Inductance is the CURRENT'S way of its definition do you all get what I'm talking about?????This is where it is ASYMMETRICAL in definition.
and BTW Bedini's trifialr is no different from the Universal Geomtry of Tesla's Patent on the Coils for Electromagnets.(Flat pancake spiral)
Bifilar coupling gives us High-Inductance with UNIFORM CAPACITY and low Impedance.(Again ASYMMETRICAL) I don't feel the need to show my work unless it is really required!!!!!!!!
Rgds,
Faraday88

For the record....I was talking to Ajay.....Do me and yourself a favor......don't communicate with me......

[Faraday88]

No! I did not say that bifilar connection eliminates induction. You are mixing what I say with faraday88. Look at the bifilar coil through a LCR meter and note what it indicates!!! You have a 4x increase in inductance. What does that tell you about the inductive reactance of such a configuration. Don't quote me please......



The sad thing here is you are looking for something that is very good at hiding itself, and I am personally grateful for that, because it means that the profane will never posses it. You would rather listen to faraday88 who still hasn't shown us anything, rather than to investigate the suggestions that I have made. I'm cool with this, I wont make anymore suggestions. No one anywhere on the entire net has shown you real "cold electricity". My opinion may not matter but I think they haven't shown this phenomena because its not allowed, at least, not till the peanut gallery (us) trips over the mechanism which makes it possible, this isn't likely! The really insanely high voltage experiments don't count as viable and verifiable demonstrations of cold electricity! Stop calling it cold electricity, (not to be taken as a suggestion....) look at what you are presented with, (again not to be interpreted as a suggestion) in the absence of current there is only voltage, what is voltage? Where is its seat, in the end if you are lucky you will come to the conclusion that

Quote:

"VOLTAGE IS TO DIELECTRICITY AS CURRENT IS TO MAGNETISM"

End quote..

Now where did that come from! Cold "electricity"? I think you are barking up the wrong tree. But then again....what do I know.


Regards

I never said Induction gets cancelled...did I?, I mentioned Inductance Inductance is the CURRENT'S way of its definition do you all get what I'm talking about?????This is where it is ASYMMETRICAL in definition.
and BTW Bedini's trifialr is no different from the Universal Geomtry of Tesla's Patent on the Coils for Electromagnets.(Flat pancake spiral)
Bifilar coupling gives us High-Inductance with UNIFORM CAPACITY and low Impedance.(Again ASYMMETRICAL) I don't feel the need to show my work unless it is really required!!!!!!!!
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Faraday88]

Are you saying that conduction currents displace current, where as induction currents displace pure voltage, which exhibits a cold effect when separated form current? Peter's book is a favorite of mine, but I didn't find too many references to induction vs conduction.
If this is the case then would the coils be wound like Tesla's bifilar coils or Bedini's bifilar coils? Bedini's are considerably different.
I believe I am finally on the verge of unlocking the secrets behind this device. My coils are currently wound with 13 turns of #14 gauge wire on each layer of the coil on each pole. there are three coils wound in three layers on top of each other and connected at the two ends of the device. All of my coils are wound to the right, and there is a total of 156 turns on the iron bar. The bar itself has a thickness of 3/4 inch. There are no longer Neo magnets because they caused too much of a make and break effect for my motor. The frequency of rotation is now much higher with ceramic magnets on, and because frequency determines impedance, the impedance will reach zero at a certain RPM. If this configuration does not work, I will proceed to test Tesla's coil winding method to see if that works. As always, I will keep you updated. Thanks Faraday,
Ajay

Hi Ajay,

I don't know how well you have been through the FESCE book, but there is a clear description by Peter on the difference between Faradaic Electromagnetic Induction and the new Laws of Electrostatic Induction Discovered by Tesla, I can and do see the difference in plain view, the method of Conversion patent of Tesla where he apparently 'shows' us the unifying link between the AC and DC Electricity to this form of Electricity (Radiant Electricity). one more thing I Finally saw the same in Stanley Meyer's Patents as well!!!I Don't know how many have this pointed out???
Cold Electricity is the real term and E.V Gray is the other guy who has demonstrated the excessive Cooling (condensation) taking place in his Motors (he used to pressurize the Motor chamber in order to minimize Condensation! well how much more clue can one expect to be given...!!!!!!
Rgds,
Faraday88.