John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Faraday88]

Patrick,

I'm not brushing you off - I've supported your work and ideas for years and am shocked at your response.

If I were to brush off your experiments, I'd tell you that you are not getting the effects you are reporting - that is different from someone giving you their opinion on your experiment.

There are 2 tangibles and one theoretical intangible thing moving in a basic circuit.

One is the Heaviside flow moving from positive terminal of the battery towards the negative. That Heaviside flow is the organized and condensed positive charge of the aether or "positive virtual photons" that gathers at the positive terminal of the dipole. When that flows over the wire, it is condensed and ordered. That Heaviside Flow is what Electromotive Force is. The pressure of that gas sitting at the dipole has a voltage reading - that is the voltage potential, that is the first kind of voltage. The second kind of voltage is when it actually flows over the surface of the wave guide (conductor) towards ground or lower potential - that is what the EMF is.

The second thing moving over the wire is the theoretical anti-photon or negative charge of the aether moving to the negative terminal of the battery and then flowing towards the higher potential. Bearden will quote ET Wittaker's paper on the partial differential equations of mathematical physics dealing with bi-directional em flows and other references to support his belief in that. We know the EMF is there but the anti-flow is theoretical.

The third thing that moves over the wire is the electrons ripped from the copper atoms themselves. They are electrically attracted to the positively charged EMF flowing from the positive dipole terminal towards the negative terminal. While the EMF is moving almost at light speed, these electrons are jiggling slowly down the wire towards the positive terminal at a couple inches per hour - very slow and sluggish.

Bearden explaining those features of the electrons of how they're "pinned", and "trying to get started down the wire," is exactly what the Drude Electron Gas Model is about - so how is that brushing anything off? I'm just calling that effect by its name - it is useful to know what something is called. We also don't "hold back current" we can only try to pulse the EMF fast enough so current doesn't flow. "holding back" implies we're actively doing something with the current and we're not. Preventing it's flow with switching mechanisms is what its about.

I'm not saying the transistor is holding anything, I said it is a bottleneck. Whether you switch on the negative or positive, it is still the positive potential whether directly from the battery or from the coil being an extension of the + part of the dipole that is moving to ground. The difference being that if switched on the negative side of the coil, the coil already contains the positive potential and if switching on positive, the positive potential still has to make it to the coil through the transistor or any other switch. Anywhere there is a bottleneck to the EMF withe instantaneous application of EMF will force the voltage up just like putting a banana in a tailpipe will force the pressure up until it is so high the engine can't overcome it. If the banana shoots out, then the engine can continue to run and the pressure voltage drops back down.

You and Bearden both are taking about EMF over a circuit where it is switched on and cut off fast enough before the electrons can start moving (not killing the dipole). It is EMF whether electrons are moving or not. If current is there, then you have transverse propagation with losses and if there is no current, you can have a longitudinal extraluminal propagation since there is no current to drag it down. You may not think you are talking about or are after pure EMF, but you are.

That EMF (Heaviside flow) is what potentializes the circuit, but it is a misuse of the term potentialized if you don't want current. That is because what gets potentialized to move into action is current. If you don't want current, you are not potentializing anything. You are then moving the EMF (without current) as pure potential over the circuit. That means you're not dissipating energy since energy is only happening if work is done and if no current moves, no work is done. If the electron current doesn't move, then the EMF is no longer limited to light speed since current it is not dragging the EMF down, it can then move at extraluminal speeds from the positive terminal of the dipole to its destination.

You are mentioning that once current moves the game is over - meaning you're killing the dipole. Yes, that is Bearden-Bedini 101. But then you say if current moves the best you can do is recuperating losses with the back spike. The two concepts are incompatible - voltage without current and then recovering the spike from a coil. You can have EMF-radiant potential-whatever you want to call it move through the coil without current moving and you will not have a magnetic field to capture a back spike from.

With that being the case, on experiments where you want to see if you're successfully transmitting EMF without getting current to move, then put a coil there. If no magnetic field is created, then that would be a successful experiment. I've done that with low capacitance high voltage capacitors discharging into inductors - I can't say no current, but very little since mostly voltage. Magnetic field I'm sure was created, but so small I couldn't detect it because I'm sure a small bit of current was there from the cap dump.

You can only work to charge the coil with minimum losses (if you want magnetism) for as short as necessary and it will take current to do that. The EMF flow without current does not apply to charging coils in any of these circuits or experiments or Bedini's energizers, etc... if there is no current, they won't even work. The closest thing to the transmission of the "radiant" potential, EMF without current, etc... in the Bedini circuit is after the fact - it is the recovery from the coil where that spike can theoretically be applied as pure potential with no current to a battery to charge the battery with potential and no current from the circuit - but the battery still charges with current, current that is developed internally in the battery. But even then, the spike still has current, a little, but it is still there.

Magnetic field is from ampere turns and is not from voltage turns or any other manifestation of pure radiant potential - there is no way around it. If you can charge a coil without getting current to move, then you have a Trillion dollar invention. If that was actually proven and I verified it, I'd invest every expendable dime I had into it. The point is not kill the dipole, but for creating a magnetic field, current with no voltage is the route for that and not the other way around.

Not killing the dipole by preventing the movement of current on the input side is always talked about by Bearden and company but it is theoretical as the perfect situation. But it actually is not applied in any of the circuits. In practice, the best they can do is by not having a closed loop circuit like a flashlight that is on constantly or a normal DC motor attached to a battery. The only "not killing the dipole" application in these circuits is by using pulsed off/on circuits so the the dipole is not closed loop for any longer than it has to be but it is still closed while the switch is on. So by having it be a cyclic system, the dipole lasts longer. It won't prevent it from getting killed, it only delays the inevitable death of the dipole. But that is the practical application of the knowledge about not killing the dipole - they're not trying to prevent current from flowing.

Another way to "not kill the dipole" in an SG circuit for example is the radiant kickback to the front battery. That decreases the net draw from the battery and helps it run longer. You can scope the input battery and if you have enough turns and windings on the coil, you will see the little bumps that rise above the battery voltage on each cycle. If you start using diodes faster than what Bedini recommended, then you lose that effect and more radiant goes to the output battery so you can choose where you want it. Peter's last presentation has parts that are exactly related to that concept. But that is another application of extending the dipole's life and may not have even been intentional when Bedini designed his circuits. He used the diodes he used, it gave that kickback to the front battery, he knew it did that, but I don't necessarily believe he designed that ahead of time by intentionally using slow diodes.

In any case Patrick, please don't take someone else's interpretation of what you're saying or doing as brushing you off. That's the last thing I would want to do - the whole point to these forums is to share work and ideas - and counterviews are required to grow anything. If we all agree on everything, then we have no need for each other.

Aaron, Interpretation may vary but the truth remains the same when we really intend to explain something!!.. Bearden's dipole killing interpretation is a different route of the Quadrant to explain the same thing as you did..
BTW.. Current without Voltage happens in a seemingly 'non-electrical circuit' and this is nothing but a simple Bar Magnet Dipole and that is what we are after in the SSG machine ..what say??
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

Here is one relative lab note to the basic magnet structure.

I don't think anyone here has seen this one - no new revelations but for the record.

If anyone has seen this exact one, please let me know where you saw it so I can know what timeframe or collection it was in if John posted it. I wasn't in some of the Yahoo groups so don't know.

It was so faded I could hardly see it so had to change the contrast a few times just to be able to read it.

Sorry Aaron some how i missed this post of your..just read it and liked your opinion...however i wonder about the mechanism of (opening the Energy Path way into the bloch wall) the N-N Squeeze between two Magnets, what happen to their respective Bloch walls...
Here is my explanation as to what must be the happening:
The idea is to make the Bloch wall a part of the coil's electrical circuit and by doing this the coil pumps in the Vacuum Energy from the Bloch wall along the Radiant Field of the transient spike(of the coil). Now, when you arrange a N-N squeeze, you shift the Bloch wall location.. perhaps to the Poles, with the effect that the Poles taking the place of the Bloch wall (super pole or the pencil beam as JB called it)...
look what has happend!!! the Outside has suddenly become a part of the Inside and Vice -versa. just my guess
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

According to Dollard, the core should equal the mass of the copper in the inductor for the best efficiency.

Maybe Tom can work up some 3D printed coil form for a certain wire size and turns that this can be tested for the SG.

Hi Aaron,
This also evokes a thought about the 'Size-comparison-relation' between the Coil(or Coil + Core mass) against the Battery Mass(primary Battery and of course an equal size of the secondary battery bank)....what would happen if we sized the Coil to equate the weight (mass) of the battery (Newman's like massive coils spool)..makes sense ...but as you increase the coil (number of turns) the DCR increases so also the Radiant Increases too! I feel The Radiant comes closer and closer to the Impedance of the conductor (copper) and becomes apart of it!! is the switching transistor under more stress of damage??
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Faraday88]

Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but the discussion reminded me of it, so I'll post it anyway.

When I was at the first Eagles conference John Bedini was having a discussion with one of the other presenters, whose name escapes me now, but suffice to say it was a very interesting one - most if it went over my head.

Anyway, the topic of anti-gravity came up and John mentioned super-pole magnets - specifically 2 magnets where the North poles were stuck together to form a "scalar North" pole. John explained to me that rotating scalar Norths have anti-gravity properties. He said if I didn't believe him then take a scalar North magnet and a regular magnet (of the same weight) and drop them both from the same height. Which one will hit the ground first?

John K.

Hey John, I remember you telling me the same ....I have another experiment that i did share with the group.. the Repulsion between N-N is stronger than that of S-S..
this can be proven by Anti-gravity again... the N-N repusion would weigh lighter than S-S try it out please...
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

Years ago on icubenetwork, for whatever its worth, I was the first to propose that the Bedini SG showed the basic method that Meyer was actually using or at least showed the same kind of application of "voltage potential". That was on the first page of Meyer's tech doc word for word and nobody seemed to understand it - at least by what was posted online. It was because of what I learned from John and the SG that it became common sense what Meyer was doing with the WFC.


I have seen John's front battery go up beyond its starting voltage. First time was with his machine using the commutator I showed in my video with the cd rom case variation. It had a plastic wheel rotor and he used the mechanical switch commutator.

My own battery went up higher than the input with that ridiculous cd rom case commutator, but I was using 12v 7ah gel cells I think. At first I saw HUGE increases in voltage, posted a video and someone pointed out that my cheap voltmeter from harbor freight had the battery sign on and when those batteries go dead, the voltage will show much higher so I got fooled. However, with a new battery, I still got results, not as dramatic as the fluffed up results from the dead multimeter batt. However, the impedance was too high so the cap discharge to the front didn't effectively convert to real charging ability and was mostly an increased voltage fluffy charge. John's increase was a real load powering increase. I don't now if it would have run indefinitely, but certainly way beyond 1.0 COP and that proves the point at minimum.

As per my Research, Meyer uses two distinct method that is applicable in the Bedini battery Charger patent also. 1) Meyer Patent: 'Gas Voltage Controll circuit'(Integrated Gas Voltage control circuit) is Similar to Bedini Patent Method of 'Pulse Charging a battery and driving other devices with a pulse''. 2) Meyer Patent : Method for the production of a Fuel gas is similar to Bedini Patent : Circuit and related methods for Charging a Battery. In the last Patent makes use of very low Voltage input to produce large Gas out put in Meyer case and in the Bedini case it charges a Battery whose terminal voltage is higher the source charging it. (with a Voltage as low as 0.7V!! as per the Patent.)
Sorry it was a bit off topic but nonetheless very significant
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,
Very well..i'm in line with your opinion on all what you have stated...after all Scientific describtion are relative understandings!! Yes, absolutely JB using the spike for Battery is same as Other patents using the spike for splitting Water molecule..however this comparision if you ask me would be closer to the Stan meyer patent or the Xogen patent. if you remember Stan's patent saying that the H20 molecule can be fractured stricktly on Mechanical oscillation basis which differes from Faraday's electrochemical mode of causing the splitt and hence it is proportional to the Voltage for a given current.
Sure enough! i know the commutator you are refering to is classical to that 1984 Machine there is no discrepancy over that!! cool pal I interguied on these essence 1) the Magnetic Structure of the monopole 2) Trifilar Coil configuration 3) Switching mechanism. pertaining to JB's Pat 6,545,444
I'm keen to see the Front battery go over its Staring Voltage...have you personally seen JB acheive this?
Best Regards,
Faraday88.

Years ago on icubenetwork, for whatever its worth, I was the first to propose that the Bedini SG showed the basic method that Meyer was actually using or at least showed the same kind of application of "voltage potential". That was on the first page of Meyer's tech doc word for word and nobody seemed to understand it - at least by what was posted online. It was because of what I learned from John and the SG that it became common sense what Meyer was doing with the WFC.

I have seen John's front battery go up beyond its starting voltage. First time was with his machine using the commutator I showed in my video with the cd rom case variation. It had a plastic wheel rotor and he used the mechanical switch commutator.

My own battery went up higher than the input with that ridiculous cd rom case commutator, but I was using 12v 7ah gel cells I think. At first I saw HUGE increases in voltage, posted a video and someone pointed out that my cheap voltmeter from harbor freight had the battery sign on and when those batteries go dead, the voltage will show much higher so I got fooled. However, with a new battery, I still got results, not as dramatic as the fluffed up results from the dead multimeter batt. However, the impedance was too high so the cap discharge to the front didn't effectively convert to real charging ability and was mostly an increased voltage fluffy charge. John's increase was a real load powering increase. I don't now if it would have run indefinitely, but certainly way beyond 1.0 COP and that proves the point at minimum.

[Aaron Murakami]

I cleaned it up a bit more so we can get to the point...

John has a video on the small window motor shown prior, first he spins the motor by hand it charges the capacitor then he runs the machine for a long while off the capacitor. What is charging the capacitor? It is the energy "As the magnet is sucked in the pulse is in the downward direction" " negative sine voltage is created" this "is power returning to the to the primary section" this charges the primary powering capacitor or primary battery." This is the "...first form of energy is what we all know as conventional, taught to us from all leading books in the field..." How many energies does John say you can harvest from the SG? I know he says at least three are available.

The above is why John says the machine goes in and out of lense law when it generates the law applies and when it powers its self via the pulse it is out of the confines of the law and especially so when pulsed at the zero point or Bloch wall.

That is what I am talking about. I hope it is clear. This is the same induced current that powers the trigger circuit. Aaron you said that when you were using your spark plasma ignition to run a SG the rotor was able to turn something like 25 revolutions between pulses at rpm. So there is quite a bit of angular momentum stored in the rotor magnetics and this can then be easily converted to electrical current and sent straight to the primary section between power pulses. This of course is separate and distinct from the positive sine wave spike and coil collapse.

When one pulses the zero point of the magnet, you get rotation or angular momentum imparted to the rotor, by doing this you then are able to have access to the two opposite voltages being generated on each side of the zero point and you can harness either one separately or both at the same time if desired and power the motor. It should be noted that a North Pole magnet can generate a sine wave.

Dave Wing

The Plasma Ignition motor really isn't an SG, it's just a coil getting popped by the low voltage cap impulse over a gap. But yes, as it speeds up, it just goes faster than the cap can't get charged up to keep up with it. If it kept up with the speed of the magnet passing the rotor, it would get to ridiculous speeds. And that was with a coil that hardly had any turns on it. I haven't done any generator experiments with it, but there is quite a bit of momentum there for sure. It's a very crude an ugly experiment, but it just show you can run a motor like that. I'd like to go multi parallel windings with a lot of turns on a better geometry. I haven't optimized anything either. I'd like to build a really nice model - maybe a ZFM with quad 18awg windings, lots of them, with the plasma ignition discharge. I think it would be quite a demo!

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Dave,

Would like to comment the zero force motor part of your post #161, in connection with this video: http://youtu.be/3kpDMMcNQxc

Although John mentioned in this video too that the setup was a no Lenz, no back emf setup, the scope shots you have taken from this video show it otherwise. There is induced voltage across the stator coil, the 'hump' between the two 12V battery input pulses just represents it. In fact, the stator coil was energized by the input voltage (hence current) whenever the rotor magnet(s) just swept tangentially along the middle part of coil, and a good part of every second induced sine wave cycle was overriden by the input pulse. I show this in the attached picture I also took from this video and edited a little to help understand the situation. The single induced 'hunch' shown in the Naudin scopeshot is normal when a single magnet sweeps tangentially a coil, you may have seen Naudin's Mini-Romag generator explanation attempt with the 2 coil tests: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm and the waveform on the right hand side: http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/magconfig.gif (Of course, Naudin's induced waveform is not sinusoid because a single rotor magnet was used.)

In the very bottom of my attached picture I illustrated (by copy and paste of the missing sinewaves) how the induced voltage across the coil would have looked like when there would not have been input voltage pulses and the rotor just would have been rotated at the same costing RPM by an outside motor.

It is fair to say that the amplitude of the induced voltage by the rotor magnets is small compared to the input 12.5V battery voltage: about 2 V peak without the inserted core and about 4.5 V peak with the core. For me this means this single stator coil setup in this video must be a motor with low Lenz effect (especially without the core) and has a certain value induced emf (i.e. back or counter emf, who prefers what term) in it.

Regarding the input current drop from about 200 mA to about 20-30 mA (values are best estimations from the 5 Amper full scale) when John inserted the core into the stator coil: I think the explanation is that the inductive reactance (XL) of the coil was increased significantly by the core due to the increased L inductance, thus an increased impedance was connected across the battery. This invariably involved the reduction of the input current.

Gyula

PS: Before anyone wishes to 'denounce' me how I dare to say such things I did above on John's single coil ZFM setup, let me tell him I respected John but I think his scope waveforms can only mean the 'things' I wrote above.
By the way, I have been in the process of replicating his advanced ZFM and will include my findings in the ZFM thread when ready.

"It is fair to say that the amplitude of the induced voltage by the rotor magnets is small compared to the input 12.5V battery voltage: about 2 V peak without the inserted core and about 4.5 V peak with the core. For me this means this single stator coil setup in this video must be a motor with low Lenz effect (especially without the core) and has a certain value induced emf (i.e. back or counter emf, who prefers what term) in it."

You're absolutely right about this.

This is very similar to Paul Babcock's motor. The magnets on the rotor have the same basic relationship with the coil where it rides over the sides of the coils instead of interacting at the ends.

When John Bedini and I were talking about Paul's motor once, he said the ZFM had some of the same principles. However, I believe John thought the ZFM might be Lenzless - at least it has the potential to be, but for sure has reduced Lenz Law.

On Paul's motor, when it's running, the coils are switched on and the magnetic field from the coil is large enough to interact with the permanent magnets to push or pull them. The permanent magnets however are strong, but not strong enough to have a significant field that cuts the windings to induce anything into the coils. It has a small insignificant amount - yes, it has a tiny bit, but most of Lenz's law is negated so the power coils have a large advantage and an advantage of recovery as well. The ratio if way offset so instead of having an equal or close to equal relationship between the forward emf and back emf, you might have 9 parts forward and 1 parts back - that's the concept anyway, not a mathematical analysis and it is possible to to have 10 parts forward and 0 back emf.

In the ZFM, the same principle is being exploited but if you really want to get Lenz's law out of it, you simply increase the gap until the coil's charge can push or pull the magnet, but the magnet field is not strong enough to cut the windings. If you get that relationship correct, then you have a no back emf ZFM, but nobody has done that yet. But that is the idea anyway. Can do it with the same gap and weaker magnets until weak enough that they get pushed and pulled by the coils but their field doesn't cut the windings. The possibility is there for sure - its right in front of us. Does the sacrificed torque outweight the efficiency and recovery? I don't know but obviously this all has to be tested.

[Faraday88]

Uf4007 diode

Hi Aaron,
Just for discussion sake :''There is a return to the input battery, but it doesn't have anything to do with the radiant flow that starts during the switch on before current can flow. What goes back to the input battery is nothing more than the part of the transient spike that happens when the transistor turns off that isn't able to make it through the diode to the output battery. If the diode is too slow to let all that spike go to the output battery, some will kick back to the input battery. If you have a 1N4007 for example for that diode, but replace it with the UF4007, the high speed equivalent, you will see that there is virtually no more kickback going to the input battery and almost all of it goes to the output battery thereby reducing the input battery run time and reducing the output battery charge time (since it is getting more than it is used to). When I learned that, I chalked it up as John using a slower diode intentionally, but in the overall context, I don't believe John actually realized it was because the diodes he was using were too slow. I witnessed the comparison tests at Graham Gunderson's shop and this was clearly the case when we measured it all. This understanding was incorporated into Peter's presentation with the battery swapping build he showed and he even discussed the diode situation. The slow 1N4007 diode is the #1 reason for kickback going to the front battery keeping it charged up. There are many ways to show this - the simplest is that if anyone has enough windings on the coil, put the scope across the input battery, you will see little bumps above the battery voltage, that is where it comes from - put a faster diode, those bumps disappear meaning there is no longer or at minimum a lot less feedback returning to the input battery''

In your own explanation i remember in one of your post, stated that the Battery has the Inductor as the extension of the dipole arm,(say along the positive terminal) and this makes absolute sense to the context of evoking the Spike along the length of the dipole arm that includes the Inductor. the Spike evoked does phenomenal change in the way the Battery chemistry responds. In my persuit to understand the difference in the 'type' of the Energies that does the charging process in the bedini technology way back in 2005-2008 time frame i did extensive studyof Peter Lindemann's explanation for the production of Radiant Energy that included the Fractionation methods which can be either Inductive or Capacitive method.
Of late, i realized that we are primarly dealing with the Inductive Fractionation as far as the Bedini process is concerned. the Capacitor dump circuit is indirectly involved. this gets us back to the effect of the Spike on the primary (front ) battery.however,i'm still studying on the swapability of the Batteries (front to back) as far as the Pat# 6,545,444 is concerned. I wonder how a faster switching Diode(UF4007) can clamp the effect of the spike from the battery it is evoked from?? on the contrary, i feel the effect on the battery gets bettered!!while the same counter effect in the Receive Battery like wise gets bettered..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Gyula]

Hi Dave,

Well, the controlling factor is the core: when it is in the coil the L inductance increases and input current goes down, when it is out of the coil the inductance goes down to its earlier air cored coil value and input current goes up to its value (200 mA as per the analog meter).

I suggest going through the sequencies together:

1) When he inserted the core first, he said:"the motor speeds up and holds steady", at video time 1:38. And the input current went down due to inserting the core as he showed it at 1:53.

2) Then he removes the core at around 2:06 and says (and shows) the current went back up and the wave came back to the normal wave.

3) Now we arrived at the 2:20 time mark where he said what you quoted: "now we just accelerate because there can be no back emf here so now we are going to add the controlling factor and basically start to run the motor for free" this latter is at 2:30
THIS IS what I hear in this part of the video at 2:20 mark but you included to this part some text John did not say here: 'the motor speeds up'.
No problem for me, just he did not say it here at this 2:20 time mark, he said earlier when he inserted the core.
I do not agree with John here: he still had input current when the core was inserted, whatever low value current it was (some mA). Unfortunately he did not load the rotor shaft mechanically to show how the input current would have changed then.

Now let's turn to the back emf. See my picture from the video at my #163 post here http://www.energyscienceforum.com/sh...ll=1#post25982
I indicated the induced back emf between points A and B and drew a yellow line across the peak value of the induced voltage (the back emf) in the scope shot.

John mentioned this induced waveform in his forum post to John K: "the voltage across the coil is about 3.2 volts, not much", see it in your second image.jpg

This shows John was aware of the back emf but I think he ignored it because it was much smaller than the input voltage (the battery voltage) switched across the coil. Still he called this setup a no back emf one. I would call it a low back emf setup.

Regarding the coil: indeed there must have been two coils on the spool but probably he used either one of the coils or he connected them in series and used both. In his forum post to Mark (your first image.jpg on the left) he wrote it was a standard mono-pole coil on a solder roll.

Regarding the switching circuit: yes the schematic shows the full bipolar circuit with 4 power transistors (pnp-npn pairs) and with 2 input pnp transistors to receive the control pulses from a reed switch or from a Hall sensor. If you check the video at the very beginning for instance 00:04 you can see only two heat sinks with one-one power transistor on them, this means he used only half part of the schematic i.e. one pair pnp-npn and one input pnp transistor (this latter can also be seen in a 'dead bug' position). Yes the diode bridge is shown in the schematic but I am sure he did not use it in this setup.

You asked on the trigger magnets etc and on this: "what could be done between power pulses?" Well, I do not think John in this setup did anything between the power pulses, the waveforms do not show any such shape.

No I do not have a demo on this circuit, sorry. When Naudin showed the coil tests on his Mini Romag replication pages years ago (link was in my reply #163) I also tested such coil-magnet positions and checked the waveforms with a scope so this part was clear for me. This was just my problem with John's no back emf claim on this single coil ZFM setup, why he said the no back emf feature when back emf was induced in the single coil whenever the magnets passed by the coil? He wrote the 3.2 Volt back emf on the forum as you kindly showed his post.
If you have questions or disagree I will try to answer.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,
At the 2:20 mark of the video below John says: "And now we just accelerate because there can be no BEMF here and the motor speeds up... And now we are going to add the controlling factor." What is the controlling factor controlling? Could it be BEMF, because John says when you remove the iron "we just accelerate because there is no BEMF" which implies there was with the iron inserted.
John also used eight neo magnets on that particular machine with a hall triggering on three magnets... He says he only had enough magnets to trigger three times per rotation... Is that true or was he showing something or what could be done between power pulses? He also says he used 2000 turns of number 23 yet we see green and copper color magnet wire in the spool. So there appears to be at least two wires on that spool.
Below are the posts revolving around that ZFM, you can plainly see the schematic he told everyone to use below. You can see the FWBR in the image.
Like you posted here is the video link: http://youtu.be/3kpDMMcNQxc
Gyula if you have a demo of what you are saying I would like to see it.
I am still learning like everyone else and it can be hard for me to see what others are trying to say because I have my own understanding and way that I look at things and this can confuse me or I can miss what others are really saying very easily. Sorry if that is the case.
Dave Wing

[Dave Wing]

Hi Dave,

There is nothing unusual in how John wired up his ZFM circuit in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpD...ature=youtu.be What seems unusual is the position of the stator coil with respect to the rotor disk that has the magnets like poles facing out radially towards the coil, i.e. the magnets rotate tangentially to the coil.
And the coil is switched on or off by a half bipolar switch (John says bipolar switch but the scope waveform does not show he used a full bipolar switch but half of it: no input voltage polarity change happens across the coil, the waveform does not show such). The (half) bipolar switch was controlled by a Hall sensor and the sensor by a timing wheel, these latter two were positioned at the right hand side of the setup.

On the generating circuit you are talking about, here is my 2 cents: there is no intentional generating circuit... What is generated by the single coil is normal induction from the rotating magnets as I explained in my above post you quoted.

You are correct that "you can decrease the primary applied or supply current by sending the induced or generating current back to the applied or primary section to lessen primary amp draw, with minimum speed loss."

But this method was not applied in John's ZFM setups, at least not in the ones he publicly demonstrated. He showed 3 videos on the ZFM with 3 different circuits and none of them used any "sending the induced or generating current back to the applied or primary section to lessen the primary draw".
How do I know this? In the other two videos on his ZFM he showed the circuits and no any such "sending back" was shown by him. In this single coil ZFM he did not show schematic but he described the circuit with his words. And the input current went down from 200 mA to say 20-30 mA when he inserted the iron pipe core into the coil because the core increased the AC impedance of the coil.

So no, he was not doing what you mention as a method on decreasing input supply current, at least not in the shown 3 ZFM setups.
Here are the other two videos on his ZFM setups I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQzcYZk9MWA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TICXxP1jI4

My aim with my post #163 (or with this one) to you has been to clarify with a 100% certainty why the input current decreased when John inserted the core. And to clarify also that in the shown 3 ZFM setups no induced current feedback was applied back to the input side.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

At the 2:20 mark of the video below John says: "And now we just accelerate because there can be no BEMF here and the motor speeds up... And now we are going to add the controlling factor." What is the controlling factor controlling? Could it be BEMF, because John says when you remove the iron "we just accelerate because there is no BEMF" which implies there was with the iron inserted.

John also used eight neo magnets on that particular machine with a hall triggering on three magnets... He says he only had enough magnets to trigger three times per rotation... Is that true or was he showing something or what could be done between power pulses? He also says he used 2000 turns of number 23 yet we see green and copper color magnet wire in the spool. So there appears to be at least two wires on that spool.

Below are the posts revolving around that ZFM, you can plainly see the schematic he told everyone to use below. You can see the FWBR in the image.

Like you posted here is the video link: http://youtu.be/3kpDMMcNQxc

Gyula if you have a demo of what you are saying I would like to see it.

I am still learning like everyone else and it can be hard for me to see what others are trying to say because I have my own understanding and way that I look at things and this can confuse me or I can miss what others are really saying very easily. Sorry if that is the case.


Dave Wing

[Gyula]

no induced current feedback to the input

I really have no idea how John wired up the demo of that particular ZFM... And I am not talking about the half or full bipolar switch, but a generating circuit. But one thing I do know is that you can decrease the primary applied or supply current by sending the induced or generating current back to the applied or primary section to lessen primary amp draw, with minimal speed loss. Is he doing that? He could be.

Dave Wing

Hi Dave,

There is nothing unusual in how John wired up his ZFM circuit in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpD...ature=youtu.be What seems unusual is the position of the stator coil with respect to the rotor disk that has the magnets like poles facing out radially towards the coil, i.e. the magnets rotate tangentially to the coil.
And the coil is switched on or off by a half bipolar switch (John says bipolar switch but the scope waveform does not show he used a full bipolar switch but half of it: no input voltage polarity change happens across the coil, the waveform does not show such). The (half) bipolar switch was controlled by a Hall sensor and the sensor by a timing wheel, these latter two were positioned at the right hand side of the setup.

On the generating circuit you are talking about, here is my 2 cents: there is no intentional generating circuit... What is generated by the single coil is normal induction from the rotating magnets as I explained in my above post you quoted.

You are correct that "you can decrease the primary applied or supply current by sending the induced or generating current back to the applied or primary section to lessen primary amp draw, with minimum speed loss."

But this method was not applied in John's ZFM setups, at least not in the ones he publicly demonstrated. He showed 3 videos on the ZFM with 3 different circuits and none of them used any "sending the induced or generating current back to the applied or primary section to lessen the primary draw".
How do I know this? In the other two videos on his ZFM he showed the circuits and no any such "sending back" was shown by him. In this single coil ZFM he did not show schematic but he described the circuit with his words. And the input current went down from 200 mA to say 20-30 mA when he inserted the iron pipe core into the coil because the core increased the AC impedance of the coil.

So no, he was not doing what you mention as a method on decreasing input supply current, at least not in the shown 3 ZFM setups.
Here are the other two videos on his ZFM setups I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQzcYZk9MWA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TICXxP1jI4

My aim with my post #163 (or with this one) to you has been to clarify with a 100% certainty why the input current decreased when John inserted the core. And to clarify also that in the shown 3 ZFM setups no induced current feedback was applied back to the input side.

Gyula

[Faraday88]

The current developed in the battery that doesn't come from the spike is not mysterious and I think it is useful to get away from the "signal" vocabulary to see it in simple terms because it isn't a signal, you could look at it that way, but to be accurate, it is a dielectric or electrostatic potential that polarizes the battery chemistry - that's it.

It is nothing more than electrostatic or more properly dielectric charging.


When you apply a dielectric field to the terminals of a battery, you're feeding compressed time into the battery, which is potential and this polarizes it. That potential potentiates internally developed current. The battery charges so when it is charged up and you apply a load, what do you get out of it? Time potential delivering work over real time.

When you electrostatically hit a dipole, it's just polarizing it so that the electrons in the battery know which way to go.

So even if you don't supply the current, anything negatively charged will be attracted to where the positive terminal is.

How do you split water without energy? There is absolutely no difference in how the spikes charge a battery.

If you apply an electrostatic potential at two plates of a water cell without supplying current - if the potential is high enough (voltage potential), it will electrostatically rip the water molecules apart. It will play tug-a-war on the dipolar water molecule. With enough voltage potential, the entire water bath become polarized and the bonding electrons will eventually rip from their covalent bonds and will be attracted to the positive terminal. That is the current that is created internally that was not supplied by the electrostatic source. The oxygen and hydrogen and freed up and this is the basic splitting of the water molecule without supplying current through the water.

There is virtually no difference in this and the battery charging process by charging a battery with a spike.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4427512

The only difference from what Tay Hee Han was doing is that John is using the transient spike from inductor or cap discharge with preferrably a fast enough cap contact to charging batt the batt gets slapped with potential without much current starting to flow (at least with caps that is the goal), but only the spike really did that for the most part - but same thing as Tay Hee Han.

I already understood what you're taking about with the triggering - your previous post discusses a generator coil as well, but I already said that the gen coil was not part of what I was trying to explain and is irrelevant, it was just the commutator and that was it - take my drawing, erase everything but the commutator and it will be easier to understand.

Hi Aaron,
Very well..i'm in line with your opinion on all what you have stated...after all Scientific describtion are relative understandings!! Yes, absolutely JB using the spike for Battery is same as Other patents using the spike for splitting Water molecule..however this comparision if you ask me would be closer to the Stan meyer patent or the Xogen patent. if you remember Stan's patent saying that the H20 molecule can be fractured stricktly on Mechanical oscillation basis which differes from Faraday's electrochemical mode of causing the splitt and hence it is proportional to the Voltage for a given current.
Sure enough! i know the commutator you are refering to is classical to that 1984 Machine there is no discrepancy over that!! cool pal I interguied on these essence 1) the Magnetic Structure of the monopole 2) Trifilar Coil configuration 3) Switching mechanism. pertaining to JB's Pat 6,545,444
I'm keen to see the Front battery go over its Staring Voltage...have you personally seen JB acheive this?
Best Regards,
Faraday88.

[Dave Wing]

Hi All,

This information below is extracted from this link that I posted earlier; http://energyscienceforum.com/files/..._Bedini_SG.pdf
I am getting people to think about how or what charges the primary battery, "the initial attraction pulse"... John does indeed specify this in the quotes I summarized below.

Dave Wing




John Bedini early forum post excerpts from 2004 to 2008.


Their is a lot more going on in the front end of the motor or oscillators then can be measured, there is power returning to the primary section

...then I took an open loop Cole motor, gave it a spin with my hand and it charged its capacitor and continued to run itself, you can’t do this unless you are able to turn this law on and off.

As the magnet approaches the core a negative sine voltage is created at the base, when at TDC, the sine is at zero crossover, as the magnet leaves the core a positive sine voltage is created at the base,

The abrupt discharge stress the surrounding magnetic fields, which becomes non-liner causing an imbalance between the two energies, one normal EM the other Scalar, it’s just a differential equation.

Here is what I see when the magnet approaches the coil with iron in it. As the magnet is sucked in the pulse is in the downward direction, when the magnet leaves the coil it reverses the direction of the pulse to upward,

The first form of energy is what we all know as conventional, taught to us from all leading books in the field...

I have told you time and time again where this machine runs. induction first, trigger second, collapse third.

I cleaned it up a bit more so we can get to the point...

John has a video on the small window motor shown prior, first he spins the motor by hand it charges the capacitor then he runs the machine for a long while off the capacitor. What is charging the capacitor? It is the energy "As the magnet is sucked in the pulse is in the downward direction" " negative sine voltage is created" this "is power returning to the to the primary section" this charges the primary powering capacitor or primary battery." This is the "...first form of energy is what we all know as conventional, taught to us from all leading books in the field..." How many energies does John say you can harvest from the SG? I know he says at least three are available.

The above is why John says the machine goes in and out of lense law when it generates the law applies and when it powers its self via the pulse it is out of the confines of the law and especially so when pulsed at the zero point or Bloch wall.

That is what I am talking about. I hope it is clear. This is the same induced current that powers the trigger circuit. Aaron you said that when you were using your spark plasma ignition to run a SG the rotor was able to turn something like 25 revolutions between pulses at rpm. So there is quite a bit of angular momentum stored in the rotor magnetics and this can then be easily converted to electrical current and sent straight to the primary section between power pulses. This of course is separate and distinct from the positive sine wave spike and coil collapse.

When one pulses the zero point of the magnet, you get rotation or angular momentum imparted to the rotor, by doing this you then are able to have access to the two opposite voltages being generated on each side of the zero point and you can harness either one separately or both at the same time if desired and power the motor. It should be noted that a North Pole magnet can generate a sine wave.

Dave Wing

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Dave,

I want to address these one by one and of course they're only my opinion:

1. "The first thing that appears is a radiant reactive pulse leading the switched on signal from the transistor switch (no damped waves) at witch time the adiant component and reactive component go away, the current destroys the radiant, go read Tesla again, it was stated very clear that the power house switch operators were killed by the radiant reactive pulse before the current enters the system."

Even if there is the "radiant" flow during the switch on that happens before current can flow does not mean it is being used in the SG or any other Bedini circuit. I can get a LED flashlight from anywhere, hit the turn on switch knowing that the EMF flows before the current can catch up for a quick moment, but it doesn't mean that there is any advantage to know that it is happening when it isn't being used.

2. "Their is a lot more going on in the front end of the motor or oscillators then can be measured, there is power returning to the primary section so the meter is in error."

There is a return to the input battery, but it doesn't have anything to do with the radiant flow that starts during the switch on before current can flow. What goes back to the input battery is nothing more than the part of the transient spike that happens when the transistor turns off that isn't able to make it through the diode to the output battery. If the diode is too slow to let all that spike go to the output battery, some will kick back to the input battery. If you have a 1N4007 for example for that diode, but replace it with the UF4007, the high speed equivalent, you will see that there is virtually no more kickback going to the input battery and almost all of it goes to the output battery thereby reducing the input battery run time and reducing the output battery charge time (since it is getting more than it is used to). When I learned that, I chalked it up as John using a slower diode intentionally, but in the overall context, I don't believe John actually realized it was because the diodes he was using were too slow. I witnessed the comparison tests at Graham Gunderson's shop and this was clearly the case when we measured it all. This understanding was incorporated into Peter's presentation with the battery swapping build he showed and he even discussed the diode situation. The slow 1N4007 diode is the #1 reason for kickback going to the front battery keeping it charged up. There are many ways to show this - the simplest is that if anyone has enough windings on the coil, put the scope across the input battery, you will see little bumps above the battery voltage, that is where it comes from - put a faster diode, those bumps disappear meaning there is no longer or at minimum a lot less feedback returning to the input battery.

3. "then I took an open loop Cole motor, gave it a spin with my hand and it charged its capacitor and continued to run itself, you can’t do this unless you are able to turn this law on and off."

Yes and I've seen this, but if you overspeed any motor by force compared to its input energy, you will turn it into a generator to generate the difference.

4. "This statement is correct: mnlakes1 wrote: As the magnet approaches the core a negative sine voltage is created at the base, when at TDC, the sine is at zero crossover, as the magnet leaves the core a positive sine voltage is created at the base, therefore at 23 degrees into this positive sine is when the base triggers the emittercollector to turn on."

The degree that it fires is relevant to rotor diameter, etc... if the rotor is 10 feet in diameter, it can fire at 23 degrees - that only applies to a certain diameter rotor. Obviously, the induced voltage is negative when the magnet sweeps over the core.

5. "The abrupt discharge stress the surrounding magnetic fields, which becomes non-liner causing an imbalance between the two energies, one normal EM the other Scalar, it’s just a differential equation."

This statement about the discharge is as the coil is charging and about to switch on and not when the coil turns off. So do you mean when the coil turns off?

6. "Here is what I see when the magnet approaches the coil with iron in it. As the magnet is sucked in the pulse is in the downward direction, when the magnet leaves the coil it reverses the direction of the pulse to upward, Brett and I were watching this all day, so I would say if you catch this just right the magnet would be pushed away. The first form of energy is what we all know as conventional, taught to us from all leading books in the field..."

The magnet is attracted to the core no matter what since it is magnetic. Peter covered this thoroughly in the Beginning book I believe. That doesn't mean it is running in attraction mode - it will do that in repulsion mode before the coil is switched on - I think that is an important distinction that needs to be said. Of course the "pulse" is in the downward direction - it is very conventional electromagnetic induction where the magnet is inducing current to flow in the coil's windings. When the magnet leaves the coil, the trigger voltage flips to turn the transistor on, coil charges and of course the coil will charge with a magnetic field in the upward direction pushing the magnet away - if it is running in repulsion model.

7. "The current is developed by the battery inside in the charge process from the signal supplied by the spike, the second current is developed by the discharge process, these two currents are very different, not understood by main stream science."

This sounds like mixed language to me. The current developed by the discharge process is what I posted to Faraday - hit the battery with a dielectric potential (the spike) and it will polarize the chemistry so that the negative charged elements will know which way to go and visa versa. That is what is not understood or at least admitted by conventional science, but it is kinda of ridiculous on the conventional academic part because Townsend's Avalance is understood to be a negative resistor where the HV potential gets the electrons to avalanche so there are more electrons moving than what was supplied by the source dipole. But to say the "current is developed by the battery inside in the charge process from the signal supplied by the spike" sounds to me like the exact same non-conventionally developed current as what develops in the charge battery supplied by the spike.

8. "I have told you time and time again where this machine runs. induction first, trigger second, collapse third. Where does the energy come from the SPIKE not the back EMF, back EMF is always much less then the source."

John only started to talk about the spike not being the same as back emf way later on - like I stated earlier in the thread, I would be surprised if it was from Peter's influence.

9. "By taking the the Bloch wall where the two domains come together and pumping that we open a window for Zero Point energy, very small in this machine but workable for this group."

The Bloch Wall gets pumped with any push or pull no matter what - it can't not as far as I can tell. When the coil's field collapses, it sucks in some of that potential from the permanent magnets and that loss in the permanent magnet is restored freely to keep it in equilibrium.

The context that John shared this all in is with the repulsion mode. I've been hesitant to elaborate on his experiments with extracting the "Phi Dot" current and making transistors run cold, making the SG run longer, etc... but I'll probably share that soon.