John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

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

Regards

Dwane

Dwane,

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Mildly Controversially

Andy

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

[Faraday88]

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

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

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

[Dwane Dibley]

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

Rgds

Andy

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

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

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane Dibley]

Pacific Time Zone.

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

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

Hi Aaron,

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

Regards

Dwane

[Aaron Murakami]

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

Rgds

Andy

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

[Aaron Murakami]

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

Perhaps electromagnetic field EMF was not the correct term.

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

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

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

Rgds

Andy

Pacific Time Zone.

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

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

[Dwane Dibley]

Hi Andy,
Be gentle with Eric, I understand he might be a bit fragile.

Regards

Dwane

[Aaron Murakami]

This relates to the ZFM and its operation - and is relevant to Bedini's magnetic modeling and how his machines work.

I've stated that the Lenz's Law does apply to the ZFM - even if not 100% of the time, at least part of the time. Last night, I received a call from an associate who will remain anonymous - a credible one.

I have my own analysis of the ZFM that tells me there is Back EMF, Yaro's demonstration actually reveals this in the videos but not sure if anyone notices or recognizes it, and then last night someone who has a working ZFM gave me the 3rd verification that Lenz's Law absolutely applies to the ZFM.

The evidence is simple - if the ZFM speeds up to any speed and the current stays the same, then it is Lenzless - this is the original belief on the motor. But if it speeds up and the current decreases, then that tells you Lenz's Law is in play.

Yaro's videos have shown this so it's been right there in front of everyone. It has Back EMF and is not a Lenzless machine at all. It doesn't mean there is Back EMF throughout the entire power stroke, maybe 50/50 - remains to be known, but just wanted to pass that on because it is important to know what the machine is and isn't.

[Aaron Murakami]

I understand you to be talking about the momentary stationary charge on the circuit at switch over, which induces the spike rising edge, am I correct. ??? This stationery charge and abrupt switch to me looks like a sudden charging of a vandergraph sphere and discharge when the current starts moving. This sudden stationery charge induces a Scalar wave which is an Impulse. For the mathematically minded it is a dirac delta function not heaviside as promoted by some. For the mechanically minded it is the fly hitting a car windscreen, it stops before changing direction. For this instant a scalar wave goes outwards that induces a radiant charge in the atmosphere, ie it displaces the negative leaving a momentary positive charge, this migrates onto the circuit, or other surfaces in the immediate vicinity before it is neutralized by being grounded. The trick is to get it into your circuit usefully and not waste it. It will manifest itself better on polished uninsulated electron rich surfaces, but will also appear as a stationery charge on anything else that is insulated from ground.

The legs of a capacitor are uninsulated, the rigging of a boat is uninsulated, St Elmos Fire is pretty impressive when you experience it first hand.

Again I could be wrong, and causing you to

Andy

When I say Heaviside flow, it is the same stuff as what the spike is made of, during switch on or switch off - Heaviside flow being the EMF moving and if we have a spike, that voltage is the gas pressure reading of that EMF not not moving but stationary.

A scalar wave can't move outwards because there is no such thing as a scalar wave. Scalar is a piece of the wave, but is not the wave itself.

[Aaron Murakami]

AAron,

In an analogous form I am thinkning of a coil of pressurized tubing instead of copper...so what your saying is that the pressure is already there and when the valve(transistor) opens it instantly allows the connection (dipole) but because it does not instantly allow the pressure to dissipate (current) so there is the delay wich brings the radiant before the flow?

I can't find my old diagrams on Energetic Forum, but this is it:

When looking at the basic dipole model - the top right is a battery by itself. The polarized + potential of the aether is only right there at the terminal. Bearden says it moves to the terminal and then radiates outwards from that terminal into space.

The left image is a coil switched on the negative. The coil is in full contact with the + terminal of the battery dipole. The coil in that situation is an extension of the dipole so the entire coils is a dipole terminal that already has the polarized aether right there and ready to go. As soon as the switch turns on, there is no time delay for the + source potential to move to the coil since it is already there. Switch goes on, then the transistor offers a bit of a bottleneck, that voltage potential moves and becomes EMF finding its way to ground.

In the bottom one, that is switching on the positive, the coil is not an extension of the dipole. The coil will not have the source potential until after the switch turns on, then the EMF hits a bottleneck in the transistor, then makes it into the coil towards ground. In this case, it takes a bit of time for the coil to receive the EMF.

The EMF moves almost at light speed with current moving in the opposite direction - so probably too small of a difference to tell, but anyway that is all I was trying to say.

Can recognizing the fact that the coil is a dipole terminal if switched on the negative lead to something useful? I don't know, just an observation.

[Aaron Murakami]

preventing current from flowing

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.

[Bradley Malone]

Now.. about what someone say about switch off before the current starts to move, as I understand it won't be possible unless we have one of those doped aluminum wire 98% aluminum and 2% iron, that we don't have and can't make at home.

I understand the timing necessary..and get what your saying. However if we only let the current flow a very very small amount then we only would have to replace a very small amount into the cap. Instead of discharging completely with each pulse if we can switch it to as close as we can get to the current flow then the cap will only drop some of its potetial...it is the dipole that causes the radiant so if we trigger the dipole without destroying ALL of what created it

[Aaron Murakami]

I appreciate the length of your answer, it takes some time to absorb.

High speed microwave electron spin device could be pulsed pancake coils.

I agree with some of what you have written and question other bits. Do you have more information on the vertical aether flow experiments or papers on the subject. Is it a flow towards or an increased vibration in the aether as an object is approached. An increased vibration as an object is approached makes sense, a continual flow towards an object does not. What about a single atom, a vibration in the aether around the atom makes sense, a continual flow into it does not. Gravity acts like a scalar force in all directions. Using motor theory electrons will always spin one way around a proton, these will cause a disturbance in the aether around the atoms, these disturbances will spiral away from the atom in all directions, causing accumalative vibrations in the aether, which will reduce as the distance from the atom increases. Electrons or dipoles spinning will causes disturbances around them in the aether also etc. Vertical aether flow is counter intuitive, I strongly suspect it is increased aether vibration as a body is approached, but am open to pursuasion, I do not view anything as being cast in stone. I view all things as being aether including atoms forces everything, so aether flowing into aether does not make sense, aether disturbing aether does.

After thoughts: the gravity wave (not a graviton or other so called scientific nonsense) eminates from a mass or atom etc, it is in the form of a wave or vibration that expands outwards, not inwards. I think this supports my reasoning. Viewing a simple hydrogen atom the gravity wave could be viewed like an archimedes screw twisting around the atom radiating out into space in all directions.

You commented there is nothing in space to curve, my view is that space is the aether, it moves with us, it can be excited giving the appearence of stretching or curving space.

Andy

If you can get pancake coils to do that to an aluminum sphere, that would be much lower cost. Alzofon told me that machine cost about $45k.

The continual flow - as I mentioned, as it moves towards the center of the mass that displaced it, particles are created and these can rise to the surface. Tesla said something to this effect, but can't find the reference right now. He said the electrons formed and then rose to the surface like artesian water. So there is a constant flow from the outside of the mass towards the inside. If you look at the Babbit's Atom, in my opinion represents one of the most accurate depictions of what is probably happening at the atomic level, it feeds on aether coming into it and out of it. Each particle polarizes the aether or breaks the symmetry of the virtual photons if you want Bearden's language, that Aether then moves to the particle supplying its source potential to move, then moves away inducing the perpetual spin - and that flow never stops. To me, the vibration concept is at odds with the dipole theory since the dipole theory applies to each and every piece of matter being a dipole. But who knows? These are all ideas anyway.

The displacement model I'm going with is because it is consistent with the overall trend in thinking from the beginning of Aether physics that the Aether is a gas and all observations and empirical evidence in greatly in alignment with how fluids move - Tesla and many others agree with that idea and I can't argue with their results. Obviously everything is happening at various frequencies and that is all vibration is - is some event happening and then not happening at a certain frequency. There are of course advantages to using certain frequencies like in the Alzofon experiments - if the frequencies were way to slow, then nothing would happen, so it has to be in a certain range to elicit the desired effect. There are going to be optimum frequencies for similar results for other materials. The aether flow appears to be primary, while any vibrational characteristics are secondary.

Actually, in that Dollard presentation on The Power of The Aether, a great deal of that is about frequencies interacting with matter. More leaning into the right accumulation of harmonics, if that is how to describe it, to levitate objects - Tibetan Monks supposedly using sound to levitate rocks, etc... We know that sound absolutely can levitate and this is done at small scale in labs all over the world - plenty of YouTube videos on this subject. That has more to do with vibrating the air molecules so it is a much more mechanical interaction and probably has nothing to do with anti gravity.

Lifters - With a highly ionized positive charge, it deflects the downward flowing aether and allows the negative charge of the aether to pull it upwards. It will move in whatever direction the positive is according to the model. Skeptics claim the ion wind explains everything even though it is way too small to account for everything. The US Army even agrees with that:

"When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net
force toward the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect). We have verified this effect by building four capacitors of different shapes. The
effect may have applications to vehicle propulsion and dielectric pumps. We review the history of this effect briefly through the history of
patents by Thomas Townsend Brown. At present, the physical basis for the Biefeld-Brown effect is not understood. The order of magnitude of
the net force on the asymmetric capacitor is estimated assuming two different mechanisms of charge conduction between its electrodes:
ballistic ionic wind and ionic drift. The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least 3 orders of magnitude too small to explain the
magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor. The ionic drift transport assumption leads to the correct order of magnitude for the force,
however, it is difficult to see how ionic drift enters into the theory. Finally, we present a detailed thermodynamic treatment of the net force on
an asymmetric capacitor. In the future, to understand this effect, a detailed theoretical model must be constructed that takes into account
plasma effects: ionization of gas (or air) in the high electric field region, charge transport, and resulting dynamic forces on the electrodes. The
next series of experiments should determine whether the effect occurs in vacuum, and a careful study should be carried out to determine the
dependence of the observed force on gas pressure, gas species and applied voltage."

But I think it is obvious what the Biefeld-Brown effect is as explained in my other posts, just my opinion of course.

I used to have an entire section on the gravity wave phenomena and it is perfectly explained with the model I've presented.

If you have a gravity wave, it is evidence of an asymmetrical object spinning in space.

A symmetrical object will displace the aether symmetrically all around it.

An asymmetrical object will displace the aether, but the point of asymmetry - like if Earth was an absolute perfect sphere and lets say there is one mountain on it 5000 miles diameter and 100,000 feet tall. As it rotates, the area where the mountain is at is displacing the aether, then the mountain is no longer there as the sphere rotates and the aether is snapping back and is pulling on all the aether moving out to a far distance. It does this in rotary fashion. The wave is a tug on the aether from the snap back when the asymmetrical part of the rotating object moves from one place to another.

If you have a tub of water and stick your hand in the middle of it with palm opened flat and you suddenly moved your palm in one direction, that is like the aether moving towards the surface of the object. What happens to the water behind your hand? It gets pulled along. How far out away from the back of the hand does the water get tugged? Of course you have to account for the size of the water bath, size of you hand, how much power there is per unit of time that you whipped your hand over, etc... So the gravity wave phenomena is perfectly explainable with these fluid properties and is completely consistent with mass displacing aether and the aether dynamically flowing back towards the center of the mass that displaced it. This tugging on the aether is in my opinion falsely perceived as something leaving the object.

[Aaron Murakami]

By 'Recovery' do you mean to say the Indcutive collaspe of the SSG Power coil? (two coils shown in your diagram). Next,the Make and Break at the Primary battery is not just recovering the Mechanical Energy by way of the Genny coil at the top, but in essence regauging itself for the Indcutive switching caused by the SG circuit. the 'Generator mode' of connecting the front battery enchances this regauging, other wise you would symmetrically regauge it with the top coil (genny coil)
Rgds,
Faraday88.

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

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