John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Dave Wing]

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.

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Dave,
''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'' -John Bedini
Just to empahsis a bit more on what this means: there are two Scalar entities, one that is ''Outside-in' and the other 'Inside-out', these two Scalar entities couple between the external and Internal Magnetic Circuit between the Rotor and stator elements along the BATTERY AS THE CENTRAL NODE... most have asked(FAQ)why do we need the rotor at all if one can go the Solid state mode..??
@Aaron
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 Bedini
This is what i mean by Magnetoelectric Triggering that is the case with SG and not the 1984 Single Battery Energiser. a Matter discussed with you in a previous post
Rgds,
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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

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 radiant 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.

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.

...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.

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 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, 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 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.

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.

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.

Dave,

You quote, "the initial attraction pulse" but you don't actually show that quote in your quote from John explaining the operation of the motor.

What is the context of what John is saying about his initial attraction pulse?

[Faraday88]

Hi Dave,
''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'' -John Bedini
Just to empahsis a bit more on what this means: there are two Scalar entities, one that is ''Outside-in' and the other 'Inside-out', these two Scalar entities couple between the external and Internal Magnetic Circuit between the Rotor and stator elements along the BATTERY AS THE CENTRAL NODE... most have asked(FAQ)why do we need the rotor at all if one can go the Solid state mode..??
@Aaron
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 Bedini
This is what i mean by Magnetoelectric Triggering that is the case with SG and not the 1984 Single Battery Energiser. a Matter discussed with you in a previous post
Rgds,
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.

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 radiant 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.

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.

...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.

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 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, 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 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.

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.

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.

[Faraday88]

The switch I showed does not change how the SG is triggered. It is in series with the battery so that when the long contact is in contact, the battery is connected and it runs in normal mode. When the gap comes, the input battery disconnects and the small short contact gets switched on and at that point, the recovery cap gets dropped to the front battery.

Hi Aaron,
I understood what you thought about my previous question to you...no that's not what i meant..yes what you have posted here is perfect in its sense. what i really meant is the
1984 machine (Single battery) uses a Torque motor, while the 2000 SG motor is a speed motor, in the 1984 machine the commutator is the only switching involved(apparently at least), while in the 2000 SG there are two modes of switching present 1) The Transistor that Magnetoelectrically generates the Spike 2) The Capacitor dump circuit with the Inverted potential switch. In your earlier schematic if you include the external genny coil and make it a part of the Magnetic circuit of the SSG would that not make it JB's pat #6,545,444 ? but having done so things change, now you would charge a back battery with the recovery coil (genny) and dump the Capacitor charged by the spike into the front battery using the Inverted potential switch.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

The switch I showed does not change how the SG is triggered. It is in series with the battery so that when the long contact is in contact, the battery is connected and it runs in normal mode. When the gap comes, the input battery disconnects and the small short contact gets switched on and at that point, the recovery cap gets dropped to the front battery.

Hi Aaron,
Here is a schematic of My version of the Pat#6,545,444
the Capacitor discharger circuit is well described in the Complete Intermediate Handbook (SG) but I think there some thing more to it..like the Back pop to front battery needs a switch that is in 180 degree phase shift to the Capacitor discharger switch. Secondly the Capacitor Charging is done in the generator mode and the Pat#6545444 does not disclose the diode there..what say??

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

And a few more...

Marvelous collection....
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Dave Wing]

Here are some of the compiled posts from John that do contain some substance... They are from the old forums.

http://energyscienceforum.com/files/bedini/monopole3/John_Bedini_Posts_from_Bedini_SG.pdf

Dave Wing

[Dave Wing]

Continuation....

[Michael Luton]

Aaron,
I can not speak for anyone else, only for myself, but I find Johns lab notes interesting and extremely thought provoking. It will take me a week at least to chew through that last diagram. So I find the lab notes more thought provoking than conversation lending. I enjoy and follow when the thread discusses functional and usable theory that directly applies to the machines we build. Especially when that theory is compared with experimental results.

However, yes I do lose interest when the discussion goes the way of the esoteric and wild theories that have minimal or no real world impact on our builds. I am just not interested in the theory of the universe without experimental results performed by those that present them. Too many unknowns otherwise.

Michael

[Dave Wing]

Continuation...

[Dave Wing]

Aaron thanks for sharing... That image and description is important as John says to switch at the vortex field, which is the zero point, Bloch wall etc. for <<<<<no heat or BEMF production>>>>

If we switch, one sharp pulse, at the Bloch wall you are now able to collect or generate from the stored angular momentum of rotor via the rotating magnets on the rotor. Only if we switch at the vortex field. We only need to design a motor that produces torque for peanuts, which the window motor or larger more surface area zero force motor seems to fit the bill here... Especially if one uses a multi strand coil or coils and a heavy flywheel.

Anyways just saying....

Dave Wing

[Allen R.]

Hi all. I appreciate everything shared. I collect all this stuff and eagerly wait for more Wish I had a complete copy of John's notes.

Thanks,

al

[Faraday88]

Thanks for posting those Dave - some real gems!

Here is one - not sure if anyone has ever seen this. Interest here has dropped off so not sure there is much interest in John's lab notes. There are others that I know who are watching this that John has shared many things with and they aren't posting anything. Post 'em if you got 'em! Or at least give feedback about what your understanding is based on what John shared with you.

This goes to the beginning of what I've mentioned in the beginning of this thread about the difference in the field drawings around magnets and coils that John has posted - this is what I was alluding to, specifically and I said what it was. Maybe you all have all of this and aren't interested in saying anything that is old news to you - not sure.

Hi Aaron,

I one for sure is amoung the first to be in the list of Interested induviduals as far as John's Magnetic Monopole Theory is concerned.. just wanted to get some clarity though.. the drawing shows 'True' Electric and True Magnetic Fields, denoted by darker (green) Magnetic lines of force and Red for Electric lines of force..the lines of force for the electric field is 'additive' to the solenoid windings on the core(aircore), is this same as the intercepted Heaviside component?

Rgds,
Faraday88.