John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Faraday88]

While it is Intuitive to do so, there is also a bottle neck, how would the trigger coil be wound for the other two geometry of the coils?? My guess is that their would be a common Trigger for all of them (as is practiced for a Multi-coil system)..what do you say on this...??
Rgds,
Faraday88[ATTACH=CONFIG]6010[/ATTACH]

Hi Aaron,
Further to the discussion earlier on the 23degree criterion, i feel that the placement of the 3-axis Magnet face at 23 degree interval between any two adjecent(either sides) magnets characterizes the central Field (S-pole) as the effective OPENED-UP Bloch wall, this gives a set of 5 Magnets to total a 16 magnets around the rotor.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

Ok, I'll give you the little trick I came up with years ago that strengthens the south superpole poking out between the magnets. You can draw it out and predict where the North face of the disc magnets want to go. This always works, does the strengthening without making the faces of the magnets stronger, which would be undesirable, but it makes it run faster, which will of course reduce the input draw.

If any of you try it, please post your results. For practicality of the ring magnet size, its easiest of course on smaller rotors. But the idea can obviously be applied with magnets strategically embedded into larger rotors to give the same effect.



You can see the idea in the sketch - more than an idea, it works because I've done it on multiple smaller SG's and it always speeds up the rotor with reduced current.

If you have north out on the magnets, superpole south squeezes out between the magnets as shown.

Drawing shows 1 ring magnet on shaft, but use 2 - one on each side of the rotor. When Yaro was experimenting with a magnet and the ZFM, it reminded me of this so here it is. This is obviously simpler than the ZFM arrangement with 2 different poles on the rotor but I believe it can be applied to that when tweaked according to the fields on the rotor.

Make sure the face of the disc magnet facing the rotor is the polarity of the superpole squeezing out between the magnets. So obviously when you try to move the disc magnets towards the rotor they'll want to repel. Push them there and glue them, whatever. The S faces on disc magnets will push on those superpole south fields and will density them so they will be stronger squeezing out between the norths.

First test I ever did was on the little pink roller skate wheel SG I have. I put the disk magnets on the shaft both sides like this. As they got closer to the rotor as the rotor was spinning, the repulsion was obvious so bit by bit, I forced them closer and closer and the wheel sped up and current dropped.

You can obviously put stronger magnets on the rotor to get a stronger superpole, but the point is to do this without increasing the actual strength of the magnets on the rotor.

While it is Intuitive to do so, there is also a bottle neck, how would the trigger coil be wound for the other two geometry of the coils?? My guess is that their would be a common Trigger for all of them (as is practiced for a Multi-coil system)..what do you say on this...??
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,
Here is what i feel about the questions you askedi'm writing it beside your question since that keeps it easy to know)

You have 3 variations of the North - are you going to use one with with 3 different kinds? Or just pick one and have than for all 3 North and compare the results between the 3 kinds?
The Genisis of having the 3-axis face of the Magnets (spaced 120 degree from each other)is based on the fact that we need to bring the Bloch wall of the coil ''Outside'',this is an alternative to make the Magnet from getting ''Inside'' where the bloch walls of the Magnet and the Coil Interact the most, this is the Natural Geometry with the N-face going towards the coil core (''inside''). since we cannot make the magnet travel into the coil core, the 3-flipp Conversion or 3-axis face does this outside.and you have an equivalent of the first.

Your coil winding, the middle one, that is actually how I wound my original trifilars because I thought the recovery winding had to be wound in the opposite direction. I thought I was going to siphon off the back emf into a cap in addition to capturing the inductive spike. I thought that because the old SG drawings show the dot at the bottom of the coil, which I thought it was supposed to mean the recovery winding was in the opposite direction. I asked John and he only said it represented a different phase. I agree with you and yes this is one of the truth of the pat # 6,545,444. the recovery coil is wound that way as per me.
there is another aspect of this pat# 6,545,444 coil winding that we shall discuss for a later time.

Are you planning on putting those 2 windings in opposite direction in parallel?
Yes this is how they are already in action on my SG machine, I guess in JB's double decker machine this is how they are wound also..!

Back when he was at the "palace" building, he drew me a diagram in the sand outside the building when were were talking explaining the experiments he did with taking a single winding and winding it in one direction, then he would switch and wind it in other direction, then reversed again and so on. He didn't get into the results or what he was trying to find, just that it was an experiment he did.

Your 3rd winding diagram will not necessarily be like the bifilar pancake coil winding, it will just put those two windings in series. Yes! It is not meant to be, on the hind sight they are Magnetically 'Parallely Coupled' the Implication of that coupling is to tend to become a Flat pancake Magnetically speaking. We did that something like 8 times on the generator coil that we had on the machine that Peter demonstrated a few years back at the conference.
Do you mean you wound in alternate direction 4 times for each direction in alternate fashion? yes that did occur to me as well as for the Genny coil.
Like I mentioned before, there is a way to strengthen the S fields that are already there to make it run faster and with less draw. I might post it here - not sure yet.

[/QUOTE]

Hi Aaron,
Yes, now about the other aspect of the Coil windings methods for the Pat # 6,545,444 :
This Patent is a Capacitor-Discharger circuit or the SG and not SSG, as clear as JB stated it.. 'view them in Inverted fashion'
The Capacitor -Discharge works backwards from the monopole Circuit that is Magnetic('Majorly') towards the coil at the secondary recovery coil to the primary/trigger combined into the Battery.
if one takes the schematic literally..the Trigger coil is less in number of turns as compared to the power and the recovery...!!this is where the Inverted circuit make sense. A Discharging Capacitor is the Magnetic eqiuvalent of a Negative resistor (a Battery) this sucks the Magnetic Scalar so to speak from the monopole Field at the instance of the Discharge, which shows up as the Gain in the Battery being charged. Here is attached a schematic of one of the iteration of the 6,545,444 as per me. the Capacitor charged in the Generator mode while the Battery is actually connected accross the bridge recovery coil. (please note: consider the literal winding directions and the turns ratio as shown in the schematic you shall observe something new!!)
Just returned from my experiments!!! and look what a revealation!! the above circuit works with little modification to the trigger circuit. Now it is very convincing that this machine is a direct inspiration of the 1984 Single battery Motor/Generator with the difference that the later (2000SGor Pat#6,545,444) is a ''True Energiser'' since it accumalates storage of Energy for useage at later time..while the 1984 machine can be viewed as an ''Extended Motor'' that lasts for extended time giving the same power for long Durations..!
I just reposted the schematic,as there was a mis-connection in it the correct one is here below.. attached below is also the 'butterfly'Field lines of repulsion producing the super S-pole, the interseting aspect of the S-S pole(or N-N squeeze) squeeze is that they are directed inwards such that the resultant position of the Bloch wall (effective) and the poles are flipped in manner that the Outside( space around the Magnet) is the Bloch wall(now Dipole..Real!) and the Inside(way directed by the pencil beam) is the pole place (Monopole...Virtual!!), the implication are as simple as Virtual and real interchanging but the real is backed up by the virtual potentials and the virtual of course becoming usable!!
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

Ok, I'll give you the little trick I came up with years ago that strengthens the south superpole poking out between the magnets. You can draw it out and predict where the North face of the disc magnets want to go. This always works, does the strengthening without making the faces of the magnets stronger, which would be undesirable, but it makes it run faster, which will of course reduce the input draw.

If any of you try it, please post your results. For practicality of the ring magnet size, its easiest of course on smaller rotors. But the idea can obviously be applied with magnets strategically embedded into larger rotors to give the same effect.



You can see the idea in the sketch - more than an idea, it works because I've done it on multiple smaller SG's and it always speeds up the rotor with reduced current.

If you have north out on the magnets, superpole south squeezes out between the magnets as shown.

Drawing shows 1 ring magnet on shaft, but use 2 - one on each side of the rotor. When Yaro was experimenting with a magnet and the ZFM, it reminded me of this so here it is. This is obviously simpler than the ZFM arrangement with 2 different poles on the rotor but I believe it can be applied to that when tweaked according to the fields on the rotor.

Make sure the face of the disc magnet facing the rotor is the polarity of the superpole squeezing out between the magnets. So obviously when you try to move the disc magnets towards the rotor they'll want to repel. Push them there and glue them, whatever. The S faces on disc magnets will push on those superpole south fields and will density them so they will be stronger squeezing out between the norths.

First test I ever did was on the little pink roller skate wheel SG I have. I put the disk magnets on the shaft both sides like this. As they got closer to the rotor as the rotor was spinning, the repulsion was obvious so bit by bit, I forced them closer and closer and the wheel sped up and current dropped.

You can obviously put stronger magnets on the rotor to get a stronger superpole, but the point is to do this without increasing the actual strength of the magnets on the rotor.

Excellent thinking Aaron!!Thanks for sharing that. In my previous post the Super S-pole were added effect of the 3-axis N-face and the Super-S-pole produced by two S-S squeezed Magnets placed between any 2 -axis Magnets of the Monopole.
Next, why not use each style Coil winding for each pole in the 3-pole monopole???
While it is Intuitive to do so, there is also a bottle neck, how would the trigger coil be wound for the other two geometry of the coils?? My guess is that their would be a common Trigger for all of them (as is practiced for a Multi-coil system)..what do you say on this...??
Best Regards,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

Is one of the primary points to your experiment to make the superpole south stronger by actually using magnets instead of what the other magnets are squeezing out between them?

Hi Aaron,
Here is what i feel about the questions you asked i'm writing it beside your question since that keeps it easy to know)

You have 3 variations of the North - are you going to use one with with 3 different kinds? Or just pick one and have than for all 3 North and compare the results between the 3 kinds?
The Genisis of having the 3-axis face of the Magnets (spaced 120 degree from each other)is based on the fact that we need to bring the Bloch wall of the coil ''Outside'',this is an alternative to make the Magnet from getting ''Inside'' where the bloch walls of the Magnet and the Coil Interact the most, this is the Natural Geometry with the N-face going towards the coil core (''inside''). since we cannot make the magnet travel into the coil core, the 3-flipp Conversion or 3-axis face does this outside.and you have an equivalent of the first.

Your coil winding, the middle one, that is actually how I wound my original trifilars because I thought the recovery winding had to be wound in the opposite direction. I thought I was going to siphon off the back emf into a cap in addition to capturing the inductive spike. I thought that because the old SG drawings show the dot at the bottom of the coil, which I thought it was supposed to mean the recovery winding was in the opposite direction. I asked John and he only said it represented a different phase. I agree with you and yes this is one of the truth of the pat # 6,545,444. the recovery coil is wound that way as per me.
there is another aspect of this pat# 6,545,444 coil winding that we shall discuss for a later time.

Are you planning on putting those 2 windings in opposite direction in parallel?
Yes this is how they are already in action on my SG machine, I guess in JB's double decker machine this is how they are wound also..!

Back when he was at the "palace" building, he drew me a diagram in the sand outside the building when were were talking explaining the experiments he did with taking a single winding and winding it in one direction, then he would switch and wind it in other direction, then reversed again and so on. He didn't get into the results or what he was trying to find, just that it was an experiment he did.

Your 3rd winding diagram will not necessarily be like the bifilar pancake coil winding, it will just put those two windings in series. Yes! It is not meant to be, on the hind sight they are Magnetically 'Parallely Coupled' the Implication of that coupling is to tend to become a Flat pancake Magnetically speaking. We did that something like 8 times on the generator coil that we had on the machine that Peter demonstrated a few years back at the conference.
Do you mean you wound in alternate direction 4 times for each direction in alternate fashion? yes that did occur to me as well as for the Genny coil.
Like I mentioned before, there is a way to strengthen the S fields that are already there to make it run faster and with less draw. I might post it here - not sure yet.

Is one of the primary points to your experiment to make the superpole south stronger by actually using magnets instead of what the other magnets are squeezing out between them?

Hi Aaron,
Here is what i feel about the questions you askedi'm writing it beside your question since that keeps it easy to know)

You have 3 variations of the North - are you going to use one with with 3 different kinds? Or just pick one and have than for all 3 North and compare the results between the 3 kinds?
The Genisis of having the 3-axis face of the Magnets (spaced 120 degree from each other)is based on the fact that we need to bring the Bloch wall of the coil ''Outside'',this is an alternative to make the Magnet from getting ''Inside'' where the bloch walls of the Magnet and the Coil Interact the most, this is the Natural Geometry with the N-face going towards the coil core (''inside''). since we cannot make the magnet travel into the coil core, the 3-flipp Conversion or 3-axis face does this outside.and you have an equivalent of the first.

Your coil winding, the middle one, that is actually how I wound my original trifilars because I thought the recovery winding had to be wound in the opposite direction. I thought I was going to siphon off the back emf into a cap in addition to capturing the inductive spike. I thought that because the old SG drawings show the dot at the bottom of the coil, which I thought it was supposed to mean the recovery winding was in the opposite direction. I asked John and he only said it represented a different phase. I agree with you and yes this is one of the truth of the pat # 6,545,444. the recovery coil is wound that way as per me.
there is another aspect of this pat# 6,545,444 coil winding that we shall discuss for a later time.

Are you planning on putting those 2 windings in opposite direction in parallel?
Yes this is how they are already in action on my SG machine, I guess in JB's double decker machine this is how they are wound also..!

Back when he was at the "palace" building, he drew me a diagram in the sand outside the building when were were talking explaining the experiments he did with taking a single winding and winding it in one direction, then he would switch and wind it in other direction, then reversed again and so on. He didn't get into the results or what he was trying to find, just that it was an experiment he did.

Your 3rd winding diagram will not necessarily be like the bifilar pancake coil winding, it will just put those two windings in series. Yes! It is not meant to be, on the hind sight they are Magnetically 'Parallely Coupled' the Implication of that coupling is to tend to become a Flat pancake Magnetically speaking. We did that something like 8 times on the generator coil that we had on the machine that Peter demonstrated a few years back at the conference.
Do you mean you wound in alternate direction 4 times for each direction in alternate fashion? yes that did occur to me as well as for the Genny coil.
Like I mentioned before, there is a way to strengthen the S fields that are already there to make it run faster and with less draw. I might post it here - not sure yet.

Hi Aaron,
Here is what i feel about the questions you askedi'm writing it beside your question since that keeps it easy to know)

You have 3 variations of the North - are you going to use one with with 3 different kinds? Or just pick one and have than for all 3 North and compare the results between the 3 kinds?
The Genisis of having the 3-axis face of the Magnets (spaced 120 degree from each other)is based on the fact that we need to bring the Bloch wall of the coil ''Outside'',this is an alternative to make the Magnet from getting ''Inside'' where the bloch walls of the Magnet and the Coil Interact the most, this is the Natural Geometry with the N-face going towards the coil core (''inside''). since we cannot make the magnet travel into the coil core, the 3-flipp Conversion or 3-axis face does this outside.and you have an equivalent of the first.

Your coil winding, the middle one, that is actually how I wound my original trifilars because I thought the recovery winding had to be wound in the opposite direction. I thought I was going to siphon off the back emf into a cap in addition to capturing the inductive spike. I thought that because the old SG drawings show the dot at the bottom of the coil, which I thought it was supposed to mean the recovery winding was in the opposite direction. I asked John and he only said it represented a different phase. I agree with you and yes this is one of the truth of the pat # 6,545,444. the recovery coil is wound that way as per me.
there is another aspect of this pat# 6,545,444 coil winding that we shall discuss for a later time.

Are you planning on putting those 2 windings in opposite direction in parallel?
Yes this is how they are already in action on my SG machine, I guess in JB's double decker machine this is how they are wound also..!

Back when he was at the "palace" building, he drew me a diagram in the sand outside the building when were were talking explaining the experiments he did with taking a single winding and winding it in one direction, then he would switch and wind it in other direction, then reversed again and so on. He didn't get into the results or what he was trying to find, just that it was an experiment he did.

Your 3rd winding diagram will not necessarily be like the bifilar pancake coil winding, it will just put those two windings in series. Yes! It is not meant to be, on the hind sight they are Magnetically 'Parallely Coupled' the Implication of that coupling is to tend to become a Flat pancake Magnetically speaking. We did that something like 8 times on the generator coil that we had on the machine that Peter demonstrated a few years back at the conference.
Do you mean you wound in alternate direction 4 times for each direction in alternate fashion? yes that did occur to me as well as for the Genny coil.
Like I mentioned before, there is a way to strengthen the S fields that are already there to make it run faster and with less draw. I might post it here - not sure yet.[/QUOTE]

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

Ok, I'll give you the little trick I came up with years ago that strengthens the south superpole poking out between the magnets. You can draw it out and predict where the North face of the disc magnets want to go. This always works, does the strengthening without making the faces of the magnets stronger, which would be undesirable, but it makes it run faster, which will of course reduce the input draw.

If any of you try it, please post your results. For practicality of the ring magnet size, its easiest of course on smaller rotors. But the idea can obviously be applied with magnets strategically embedded into larger rotors to give the same effect.



You can see the idea in the sketch - more than an idea, it works because I've done it on multiple smaller SG's and it always speeds up the rotor with reduced current.

If you have north out on the magnets, superpole south squeezes out between the magnets as shown.

Drawing shows 1 ring magnet on shaft, but use 2 - one on each side of the rotor. When Yaro was experimenting with a magnet and the ZFM, it reminded me of this so here it is. This is obviously simpler than the ZFM arrangement with 2 different poles on the rotor but I believe it can be applied to that when tweaked according to the fields on the rotor.

Make sure the face of the disc magnet facing the rotor is the polarity of the superpole squeezing out between the magnets. So obviously when you try to move the disc magnets towards the rotor they'll want to repel. Push them there and glue them, whatever. The S faces on disc magnets will push on those superpole south fields and will density them so they will be stronger squeezing out between the norths.

First test I ever did was on the little pink roller skate wheel SG I have. I put the disk magnets on the shaft both sides like this. As they got closer to the rotor as the rotor was spinning, the repulsion was obvious so bit by bit, I forced them closer and closer and the wheel sped up and current dropped.

You can obviously put stronger magnets on the rotor to get a stronger superpole, but the point is to do this without increasing the actual strength of the magnets on the rotor.

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

Is one of the primary points to your experiment to make the superpole south stronger by actually using magnets instead of what the other magnets are squeezing out between them?

You have 3 variations of the North - are you going to use one with with 3 different kinds? Or just pick one and have than for all 3 North and compare the results between the 3 kinds?

Your coil winding, the middle one, that is actually how I wound my original trifilars because I thought the recovery winding had to be wound in the opposite direction. I thought I was going to siphon off the back emf into a cap in addition to capturing the inductive spike. I thought that because the old SG drawings show the dot at the bottom of the coil, which I thought it was supposed to mean the recovery winding was in the opposite direction. I asked John and he only said it represented a different phase.

Are you planning on putting those 2 windings in opposite direction in parallel?

Back when he was at the "palace" building, he drew me a diagram in the sand outside the building when were were talking explaining the experiments he did with taking a single winding and winding it in one direction, then he would switch and wind it in other direction, then reversed again and so on. He didn't get into the results or what he was trying to find, just that it was an experiment he did.

Your 3rd winding diagram will not necessarily be like the bifilar pancake coil winding, it will just put those two windings in series. We did that something like 8 times on the generator coil that we had on the machine that Peter demonstrated a few years back at the conference.

Like I mentioned before, there is a way to strengthen the S fields that are already there to make it run faster and with less draw. I might post it here - not sure yet.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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

[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]

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…

[Aaron Murakami]

what is scalar

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

There are some very serious misconceptions in the world of Electrical Engineering today. (The writings of Oliver Heaviside and Proteus Steinmetz gravely warned about this...) Let us start with the YouTube MIT Physics Demo video that Armagdn03 posted a link to on 11-10-2009 on page 2 of this thread. This is a good demonstration for several reasons.

1.) Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form. This should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today…

2.) That this simple fact and reality “blows some people’s minds” clearly illustrates that it’s just all gone way, way, too far… The Einsteinian Lie has succeeded in instilling a mind virus in most everyone and also in confusing Main Stream “Scientists”, who today waste billions of dollars of funding each year, only to chase their own tails in a canonic sequence.

Chris Carson Built the Rotary Electrostatic Converter. His design was based entirely on my electrical theory and math. It was designed to demonstrate and validate the concept of Synchronous Parameter Variation and the Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity. The device worked well. It had to spin up to around 10,000 RPM. This unit took Chris months to complete; to get all of the parts together, and to get it perfectly balanced and operational. Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens). Hence the generation of electric energy. Then, disinformants, whom I refer to as the “Montauk Crowd” swooped in on him after he completed this device, and he was never the same again, - he died of Brain Cancer a year or two later…

There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…

(Where is the video that was made of this device being tested with my Navy electrical switchboard instrumentation anyway????)

I have a device, built for the Army Air Corps during World War 2, A/N number PP-18/AR Power Converter, which self-sustains the electrical system in my car. It uses the same theory of operation as Chris’s device but involves a different mechanical implementation utilizing a vibrator, several capacitors and 12V and 24V batteries that are connected in parallel through the device, rendering them as one.

I had a young student from Korea visit me a few years back. He had no problem understanding the basic concept of producing an energy synthesizing apparatus, because his mind was uncontaminated by all of the Bedini/Bearden falsehoods. The term Scalar Wave is an oxymoron, as scalar is part of the propagation constant that is NOT A WAVE! (Idiots!)

Most are clueless about the importance of the Variation of Inductance and Capacitance with respect to time – and synchronous parameter variations. Read chapter 21 (XXI) titled REACTION MACHINES in Charles Proteus Steinmetz’s book titled “Alternating Current Phenomena”. There is also a Russian paper (brought to me by the Korean student as a gift) titled: “UBER DIE ERREGUNG VON ELETRISCHEN SCHWINGUNGEN DURCH PARAMETERAENDERUNG” von L. Mandelstam und N. Papalexi, published in 1934 in: J. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR (umlaut on the U - as should also be on the first U in the title of the paper) TECHNISCHE PHYSIK Band IV, Heft 1, that continues with what Steinmetz teaches in his books, and takes it all the way (Title translation: Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes). In one picture in the paper, there appears to be a brightly glowing incandescent lamp connected to a network, with no apparent connection to a power source. It appears to be an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode. (Alexanderson Patent # 1,328,797 Jan. 20, 1920): Even though my copy of the paper is in Russian, the equations speak for themselves and echo the work of Steinmetz and Alexanderson. Ernst Alexanderson emigrated to America because of Steinmetz’s book, - he was determined to work with Steinmetz after studying it. Steinmetz was forced to reverse many of his equations in later books and was severely criticized by physicist Michael Pupin of Columbia University for not using Maxwell’s ideas and instead developing a methodology that was actually useful and practical for engineers. (Read, “Steinmetz, Engineer and Socialist” written by Ronald R. Kline.) Here it was said that General Electric gave Steinmetz permission to create Electricity form the square root of minus one…

I personally created so much Electricity form the square root of minus one out of the compressor plant’s synchronous machines at the Richmond Ship-yard that I was working in at the time (which also housed one of my laboratories) that it tripped the reverse power relays of the Richmond substation and shut off all power to the City of Richmond. For that to have happened, means that the City of Richmond was producing more power than it was consuming, hence the reverse power relays tripped and shut the city down. PG & E trucks were there almost immediately. Shortly thereafter, I presented my Four Quadrant Theory to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. executives and engineers on behalf of the lease holder of the shipyard and they became my friends (however they would not allow the shipyard meter to turn backwards). So much for Corporate Suppression… In actuality PG & E would love to have energy sustaining devices connected to their power grid. Profits would soar and pollution would drop. Such devices tend to operate above 500 kva and are not scalable into smaller devices, and therefore are only appropriate for substations. In West Marin, the Tocaloma PG & E substation on the Ignacio/Olema 66 kv line, has only one line for both the input and output. It represents the vestige of such devices, - an installation that has been in operation for at least 70 years. Today, probably no one in PG& E, even knows how it all works. (Don’t expect the lights to stay on for too much longer… today, engineers have been replaced by lawyers and safety has been replaced by insurance. It’s a LET-IT-BURN policy…)

At the time, the Bolinas RCA-Marconi Station, through corporate encouragement by RCA and Bell Telephone, gave me free run of that site to set up one of my laboratories. My plan was to produce a system utilizing no rotating machinery but only static devices, such as coils and condensers in an Alexanderson configuration to possibly power the town of Bolinas and at least provide PG & E with all of their reactive power needs. The network experiments would consume no energy to operate and therefore cost nothing. The plan was to use the electrical substation on-site to connect to PG & E’s grid, giving power to them for free, in exchange for being able to use the 12kv power line for my experiments. Everything of importance including engineering records and notes as well the equipment at the Bolinas RCA-Marconi Station was destroyed by State of California Environmentalists through Jerry Brown (former California Governor) and the environmental politician Burr Henneman, this in conjunction with The National Park Service. The NPS is an EMBEDDED FOREIGN ORGANIZATION within the United States Government. Massive quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury were released into the environment by environmentalists in their endeavor to destroy the Station as quickly as possible. (See the link already posted by phi1.62 on 01-21-2009 on page 2 of this thread) The same group destroyed my Civil Defense Facility in the town of Bolinas which was on the property of Nashama Franklin. The same property was embezzled afterwards from Ms. Franklin by the same crowd that embezzled the Reynolds funding.

Also in Bolinas, U.S. Coast Guard Communication Station NMC worked with me on certain problems they were having and their reutilization of the RCA site. This enviro-group went to NMC and warned them of the consequences of doing business with Eric Dollard. Today NMC cannot even be heard in Half Moon Bay 50 miles away, if they are on the air at all. (Who needs Bin Laden?) Who doesn’t like Tesla then? Is it the government? (no). Is it the environmentalists? (you got it) They call themselves Commonweal. Altman link

As far as inventing the log periodic: it was invented by Raymond H. Du Hammel, I believe, as an Air Force Project and the University of California Berkeley was where most of the work was done. Check patent number: 2,985,879, it is a fascinating design.

On the other hand, I did invent the Log Periodic Multiple Wave Oscillator based on the initial Lakhovsky patent. I got rid of all the bull and added a Golden Ratio Log Periodic antenna which was etched out of a double sided printed circuit board and then Gold plated which was widely sold and probably still is, for which I did and do not receive a dime. It seems to have some sort of radionic effect even with out power being applied.