John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

Aaron you are busy tonight, or are you in the afternoon GMT - 8, or Washington GMT -6 or 7.

Perhaps electromagnetic field EMF was not the correct term.

A scalar wave can be a result of a sudden increase in electrostatic potential, it is momentary as in dirac delta impulse, and will peak at the moment the current stops stationery on the circuit, when the current starts moving it vanishes. If you imagine a vandergraaf generator suddenly acquiring a stationery charge an Electric field will radiate outwards in all directions. A stationery charge generates no magnetic force so EMF was perhaps an incorrect term. An Electric field is normally only associated with static charges, at the moment of switch over the charges are stationery, and will therefore generate an electric field momentarily without the magnetic component, which will possibly mostly prevent a radiated Electric field.

Thank you for your responses they are interesting and thought provoking, No doubt I will be doing a batch process in my sleep, to even out any discrepancies or wordology differences.

Edit: the elecricity and matter pdf you posted for us to read mention this effect, if people done want to read it all pages 53 to 60 at the start of chapter 3 are a good place to look, the maths does not look to scary, although it has just about put me to sleep.

Rgds

Andy

Pacific Time Zone.

EMF stands for Electro Motive Force, it's not a reference to anything magnetic. It's the dielectricity and is the electrostatics you're talking about. EMF is the correct term for the dielectric aetheric medium that is flowing over the wires between 2 points, which potentializes current to flow if the loop is closed long enough. If that dielectric medium is not flowing over the wire, then you are going measure it as voltage potential at a point of potential difference between two reference points.

You're talking pure dielectric nature of electricity, that still isn't a scalar wave though. If you took a cross section in time of a wave, that is basically your scalar potential. That is why Dollard gave Bearden and Bedini so much flack for so many years because Bearden and Bedini have erroneously used the term "scalar wave", when in fact "scalar wave" is an oxymoron. I know Bearden and Bedini were trying to develop language to describe what they were involved with and Eric threw the baby out with the bathwater. Bearden and Bedini of course know what they mean when saying that even though it is technically incorrect.

[Aaron Murakami]

Would you like me to delete part or all of the post, I thought I had been tactful.

Rgds

Andy

He said Eric, is he worried you're going to go overboard on asking him too many questions on the conference call?

[Dwane Dibley]

Pacific Time Zone.

EMF stands for Electro Motive Force, it's not a reference to anything magnetic. It's the dielectricity and is the electrostatics you're talking about. EMF is the correct term for the dielectric aetheric medium that is flowing over the wires between 2 points, which potentializes current to flow if the loop is closed long enough. If that dielectric medium is not flowing over the wire, then you are going measure it as voltage potential at a point of potential difference between two reference points.

You're talking pure dielectric nature of electricity, that still isn't a scalar wave though. If you took a cross section in time of a wave, that is basically your scalar potential. That is why Dollard gave Bearden and Bedini so much flack for so many years because Bearden and Bedini have erroneously used the term "scalar wave", when in fact "scalar wave" is an oxymoron. I know Bearden and Bedini were trying to develop language to describe what they were involved with and Eric threw the baby out with the bathwater. Bearden and Bedini of course know what they mean when saying that even though it is technically incorrect.

Hi Aaron,

Reading the JJ Thomson chapter as isolated by Handy Andy, it looks to me like we are still looking at the Aetheric Inertia condition. You are quoting Eric too broadly. A few posts back you threw a quotation by Eric, which as logic would dictate, includes the Inertia concept as a basic tenet.

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane Dibley]

Would you like me to delete part or all of the post, I thought I had been tactful.

Rgds

Andy

Hi Andy,
I guess I was guessing your natural talent for seeking the truth of a situation. Your penchant for absolute perfection comes through your posts quite clearly. I do not see that as a bad thing, it suits me just fine. However, Eric, as you will appreciate has had more than his fair share of criticism and he still stands tall. I also think that you will be a match for his wireless qualifications.

As you might like, at least one thread is "hotting" up!!

Regards

Dwane

[Faraday88]

If it is charging a cap, it's not an SSG - it's an SG with a cap charger. I think John's machine for that test might have had an isolated recovery winding to charge caps. Then that switch would dump that cap back to the front battery. There was no separate generator coil on that machine. That diagram just shows what the mechanical switch looks like and how it could be wired in. I'd forget the method in that diagram, just focus on the switch. It can make and break the input battery. Then if you had a separate recovery winding charging a cap and that cap positive was at the + of the input battery, the mechanical switch will remove ground from input battery to circuit then will connect input battery ground to cap ground. That is how it works.

Large cap dumps with mechanical switch always seemed to give the most impressive results.

Yes , I understand the difference between SSG and SG, the patent 6,545,444 depicts SG only.
I Think the Magnetic Circuit(Including the Rotor'sField) and its orentation with the 3rd coil depicted as 'Recovery coil'in the patent is same as what it would be if used as the Genny (as in your schematic) i'm sure there are variations to all these, each has something to tell about it self! Next the 'Generator mode' of bias to the receive Battery in your circuit is same as the way the Capacitor is biased in the Pat#6,545,444..and the Receive Battery in that case would be accross the bridge fed by the Recovery Coil. what say???
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Aaron Murakami]

Mildly Controversially

Andy

I completely missed this post - much of the post is really off topic and should be moved to its own thread and toned down. Some of the content will be offensive to some of the members.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

Reading the JJ Thomson chapter as isolated by Handy Andy, it looks to me like we are still looking at the Aetheric Inertia condition. You are quoting Eric too broadly. A few posts back you threw a quotation by Eric, which as logic would dictate, includes the Inertia concept as a basic tenet.

Regards

Dwane

Dwane,

The inertia concept in JJ Thomson's work is something that differs from my own perspective but I still like to promote credible ideas that are different than my own. Faraday was mentioned as an experimenter - well Thomson was also very gifted as he was also an experimenter and not just a theorist so I give that a lot of weight also. I think some is a matter of different perspectives of the same workings. The aether is the source of the inertia phenomena and is not an intrinsic property of the mass and that is the most important thing.

[Aaron Murakami]

what is scalar

Andy, ask Eric questions, he doesn't want to rest - he is thirsty for conversation.

[Aaron Murakami]

Andy,

Another Eric quote for you:

...for those who’s minds have been polluted by the prevalent quantum goddess reality:

Let us turn to the Heaviside Equation which is the most fundamental equations in all of Electrical Engineering:

(RG + XB) + j (XG – RB) = propagation constant squared

where:

R resistance in Ohms
G conductance in Siemens
X reactance in Henrys per second
B susceptance in Farads per second

Therefore:

RG is the scalar or DC component that is NOT A WAVE,
XB is the longitudinal or AC component and is an alternating electric wave

XG is the transverse or OC component and is a forward moving oscillating electric wave. RB is the transverse or OC component and is a reverse moving oscillating electric wave

This equation allows for all electrical conditions in time and or space and combinations thereof. The example equation is the dimensions of time (see: Steinmetz Theory of Transient Electric Waves and Phenomenon and also my paper: Symbolic Representation of the Generalized Electric Wave.)

Example:

The air in the room; the room is filled with air and has atmospheric pressure of 2998 mB, your stereo is blasting away, the speakers are creating longitudinal waves having length and frequency and exert a oscillating force centered on 2998 mB (+ or – 10 mB)

RG is the air pressure, a scalar
XB is the sound of the stereo, a longitudinal wave

XG = RB, thus no transverse waves exist (XG – RB) = ZERO

Hence (RG + XB) is what is going on in the room, the disinformers have convinced you that this whole quantity (RB + XB) is scalar, RG is the only scalar component. It is DC and has NO FREQUENCY, no WAVELENGTH and thus NO WAVE! SCALER = NO WAVE - GET IT???

If people don’t get this fundamental concept – my time is better spent talking to my pet Coyote… I have nothing further to say…

[ZPDM]

There can be a radiant event BEFORE the coil is "charged" before the current gets going. This first event can be prolonged - "we can potentialize the whole circuit, meanwhile the current is frozen it's pinned the electrons are trying to get started down the wire the iron and so forth is delaying them they're not moving..." Tom Bearden part5. This is what you see on my scope in the vid.
- Patrick

Hi Patrick,

I have zero problem with that. All I am saying is that if, as Faraday showed, there is electricity produced from a magnetic flux, a displacement current to use Maxwell's term, will occur with charging and discharging a coil. Both will produce flux, though of opposite polarity. The SSG only captures the displacement current, to my knowledge, when the coil collapses. If you charge up a coil and never collapse it you never get a radiant with a Bedini diode. If you put in place a diode to capture the displacement current caused by the change in flux when the coil is charging that diode it is a short to your cap around the coil. You can put that diode in series with the coil ala Utkin and see higher voltage in cap. W/o it rectified, it (the displacement current caused by the charge of the coil) won't show up on a scope. I don't think electrons, per Newton, know if they are at rest or in motion but show effects with change in velocity. Likewise, does a magnetic field "know" its magnitude or only demonstrates effects from flux. As I said in a battery SSG set-up my guess is the charging radiant is less prominent because the peak outflow from a battery is far less than the peak amp outflow from a discharging coil. I am certainly not 100% on all this who knows maybe there is only one spike, it seems to follow though right from Faraday that it always occurs with any change in magnetic flux. But yes, I would agree that the radiant likely precedes/causes? current flow. Would happen in every firing nerve cell. Will be sure to look at your video

[Aaron Murakami]

Aaron I would rather listen than bang away with questions, so Eric can relax. At this moment I have not worked out how much the call will cost me.

When I was in the states a couple of years ago, I found the telephone service to be extremely expensive especially on international calls, I might need to take out a loan for an hour long conference call. I still need to check into how much credit I will need to load my mobile with.

If you're overseas, the least expensive probably is to add funds to a Skype account for outgoing calls. Many places it is 1 to 2 cents per minute so an hour is very little. That includes calls from UK to US, etc... if you're calling to a US line, almost next to nothing. Forget mobile phone, Skype call to US.

https://secure.skype.com/en/calling-rates/united-states?wt.mc_id=revamp&expo365=bundled

[min2oly]

Hi Patrick,

I have zero problem with that. All I am saying is that if, as Faraday showed, there is electricity produced from a magnetic flux, a displacement current to use Maxwell's term, will occur with charging and discharging a coil. Both will produce flux, though of opposite polarity. The SSG only captures the displacement current, to my knowledge, when the coil collapses. If you charge up a coil and never collapse it you never get a radiant with a Bedini diode. If you put in place a diode to capture the displacement current caused by the change in flux when the coil is charging that diode it is a short to your cap around the coil. You can put that diode in series with the coil ala Utkin and see higher voltage in cap. W/o it rectified, it (the displacement current caused by the charge of the coil) won't show up on a scope. I don't think electrons, per Newton, know if they are at rest or in motion but show effects with change in velocity. Likewise, does a magnetic field "know" its magnitude or only demonstrates effects from flux. As I said in a battery SSG set-up my guess is the charging radiant is less prominent because the peak outflow from a battery is far less than the peak amp outflow from a discharging coil. I am certainly not 100% on all this who knows maybe there is only one spike, it seems to follow though right from Faraday that it always occurs with any change in magnetic flux. But yes, I would agree that the radiant likely precedes/causes? current flow. Would happen in every firing nerve cell. Will be sure to look at your video

Hi ZPDM,
Much of what you're saying makes sense. I'm not one to explain it, all I know is what my experiments show. I can see both spikes on the scope. When I enable the pre-spike, charging almost doubles. This is the question I've always had since the begining. I remember JB talking about that Niagara Falls generator switch operator and I then subsequently watched the Tom Bardeen video and then at some point over the next couple of years saw it on the scope. It all seems to fit. I posted a video on it which was taken down. Youtube gave me an explanation of copyright infringement...
At least you took the time to address my post - much appreciated.
Kind Regards - Patrick

[Aaron Murakami]

@Aaron post 203, if you think I do not understand basic complex numbers or the difference between DC power and AC power, or even how reactive power is used to generate power, you might as well speak to the coyote, I have deleted the posts as requested. I did as another of my jobs design wind turbines using induction generators, these run super synchronously to generate power back into the grid using reactive power, I assume post 202 was referencing this technique, and I am not going to look at too closely and I will take no further part in this thread.

Best wishes

Andy

My quotes of Eric serve one purpose - to give you the definition of scalar, which you are using incorrectly.

Why would you assume post 202 references making use of reactive power when we haven't even discussed that?

Should be pretty clear - you asked why is scalar wave on oxymoron so I gave you an authoritative definition.

You told me what scalar wave means to you, but what it means to you takes a back seat to what it actually is - don't you think?

[Faraday88]

Dwane,

First of all, you don't know what the hell I know or do not know and you don't know the slightest thing about what Eric actually does know or what he has done - I don't care how long you have been following him. Your comment about Andy giving Eric a run for the money on wireless qualifications in such as smug condescending manner is laughable. There was a respectful way to state that but you missed the opportunity.

Second of all, asking Andy to remove a post that is disrespecting one religious group while praising another is off topic, not suited for this forum, and is factually way off base is the right thing to do! Posting about Eric and his Christian references is one thing, fine, but then badmouthing Christianity, etc... beyond poor taste. Now had I been asking him to remove a post related to his opinion on the aether, etc... that would have been completely inappropriate for me to do that. For you to claim I have an attitude to ask him to remove that kind of post is all telling about something in your makeup - how could anyone possibly think that is ok? And you claim that will be the demise of the forum because I think it is inappropriate to chastise Christians while praising Islam - especially on a forum called ENERGY SCIENCE FORUM? And me asking to remove that kind of post is your premise for the smart ass statement about taking over from John? You've got some problems.

Third of all, you are selectively misquoting me for your own agenda - I did not say inertia is not an intrinsic property - I said inertia is not an intrinsic property of the MASS, it IS an intrinsic property of the AETHER and its relationship with the mass. It's all about distinctions but you don't seem to be interested in details - only what is convenient for you.

For Andy to come back with some comment about complex numbers and other nonsense is completely disingenuous and inauthentic. That is classic Reichian Evasion of the Essential by not focusing on the topic, the definition of scalar, and misdirecting attention to other matters that have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on - because I showed an exact authoritative reference to what scalar is - and Eric is a proven authority on the subject. Apparently the truth is too hard to swallow and instead of conceding to an established and factual definition, the attention is pointed elsewhere in a way where the finger is pointed at me personally to make me the issue instead of focusing on the definition of scalar. Does anyone still fall for these kind of games? Please don't answer that, at least I know there are those that still expect others to fall for it, but that isn't going to happen here. Was much easier to simply state there is a disagreement on Eric's definition of scalar instead of the dog and pony show.

My last comment on this matter.

Aaron,
The forum has full attention for you..please do not get distracted by loose comments..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5955[/ATTACH] Here is the image of the rotor the way I view it to be.
Rgds,
Faraday88.[ATTACH=CONFIG]5961[ATTACH=CONFIG]5962[/ATTACH]

In the above drawings,i describe the 3 ways of windings a coil for the 3 Flipp Inversion principle (no mattter the no.3 fascinated and obssessed Tesla so much!!!) each for the coil for the 3 pole monopole rotor(also attached in the drawing) the Magnetic field structure of each of the coil configuration also has their Bloch wall shifted, with each axis brought closer and closer to the ''Poles'' in this case you keep the normal Magnetic Field structure (all N or S facing the coil core side).
I urge you guys to try out this experiment on your own and find the benift this gives to the way the battery is charged, there is also an feature i want you guys to find out by your self..let see you can figure it out.
Rgds,
Faraday88.
the Magnetic structure after the 3-flipp brings the Bloch wall of the Coils

Hi Aaron,


Here is my latest Magnetic structure of the Scalar Magnetic Field for the monopole rotor..
i have not tested it since i need to make new Rotor with slots cut for the new Magnets geometry placement.
here is the brief Theory: the Super South pole in this case is played by the Squeezed S-S between Alterante 2-axis geometry of the Monopole Magnets. I'm anxious to see the result they produce.
Rgds,
Faraday88.