John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

Eric Dollard Feb 28th 3pm pacific time, UTC - 8 Hours.

How long is the conference likely to last, is it voice only, or over skype etc. What comms devices are needed, basic phone, iphone, computer. etc

Is it possible to have a read of Tompson's (Thompsons?)aetheric engineering equations with continuity prior to the conference, I used to be good at sums, but a warm up on the math before hand, could be useful to everyone.

Andy

At minimum, the call will probably last an hour. It is a regular telephone conference call - yes voice only. Please as a lot of questions regarding this!

This is much of the foundation of Thomson's (sorry, I've been misspelling it - no P in the name) work with aether physics: https://archive.org/download/electri...00thomiala.pdf
It's misspelled in the PowerPoint for the presentation I just found! lol - after making sure we had it right so many times. You haven't lived until you've help Eric put together a several hundred page PowerPoint.

I think I mentioned it before, but as Eric dug into his work, he rarely uses the same variable to mean the same thing throughout his work so you have to basically break it all down and rebuild it from scratch - that is what Eric had to do and is why it's said that he brought continuity to the work. There is no evidence anyone else has done this in the history of electrical science.

I'm not here trying to sell a book or video, but I can't post it for free either. In The Power of the Aether as Related to Music and Electricity, there are 2 videos in the package. The 2nd video starting at 1 hour 2 min 45 sec, Eric starts on JJ Thomson until about 1 hour 45 min - so 43 minutes just on this subject of Thomson's aether physics, which has been highly suppressed in mainstream academia. They have no problem acknowledging his discovery of the electron since that suits their needs, but you'd never know that it is his aether physics that led to that discovery to begin with.

On http://powerofaether.com this coupon code ZB54YEY will give 50% off for everything on that page. At minimum, the main video presentation Option 1 has this. If you really want to dig into the Thomson/Steinmetz notebooks of Eric's they're there too. Eric gets most of the sale and it is what pays his building mortgage, utilities, tax and insurance. Anyway, I'll delete that code in a couple days, it's the best I can do.

[min2oly]

I don't think the "pre-spike" has to do with the coil itself, it does not have to do with the coil at all. the coil is just a long wire, the "pre-spike" (and I don't even know if it is a spike) is the radiant itself, is what the aether rush into the conductor when we close the switch, before the current, etc.

If the radiant appear in a capacitor been shorted shown as a green flash, the coil has nothing to do with it, it happens every time a circuit is closed.

Now... this afternoon I will go and make some tests, because for example, if I fill up a 3300 uf cap to 30 volts and short it I don't recall seeing the green flash. But if I charge a 200v 220 uf cap and shorting, there is a big large green flash on each leg of the cap been shorted. So maybe with low voltage is there but I don't see it.

I also going to put together one of those solid state SSG with no transistor, just a reed inside an air coil and a magnet near it, so the magnet activates the reed and the coil opens it. Someone posted that on Energetic Forum years ago and I replicated it and it worked, and the reed would get some strange colored flashes. I didn't have a scope at that time, I will try that and see with the scope if the wave is different than what it is with normal transistor solid state ssg.

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.

best,

Alvaro

Hi Alvaro,
I can see you and I are both on the same thought pattern here. Yes, these are exactly my thoughts and why I'm interested in replicating Bob's cap dumper. I'm telling you and sharing my scope in the vids, and you can see the pre-spike.

Your last paragraph is exactly where I'm at and I have some videos of that as well. Coil not necessary but helps.

Kind Regards - Patrick

[AlvaroHN]

When I say prespike I don't mean the inductive collapse spike, I know the inductive collapse spike happens when transistor stop conducting.

[Bradley Malone]

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?

[AlvaroHN]

I don't think the "pre-spike" has to do with the coil itself, it does not have to do with the coil at all. the coil is just a long wire, the "pre-spike" (and I don't even know if it is a spike) is the radiant itself, is what the aether rush into the conductor when we close the switch, before the current, etc.

If the radiant appear in a capacitor been shorted shown as a green flash, the coil has nothing to do with it, it happens every time a circuit is closed.

Now... this afternoon I will go and make some tests, because for example, if I fill up a 3300 uf cap to 30 volts and short it I don't recall seeing the green flash. But if I charge a 200v 220 uf cap and shorting, there is a big large green flash on each leg of the cap been shorted. So maybe with low voltage is there but I don't see it.

I also going to put together one of those solid state SSG with no transistor, just a reed inside an air coil and a magnet near it, so the magnet activates the reed and the coil opens it. Someone posted that on Energetic Forum years ago and I replicated it and it worked, and the reed would get some strange colored flashes. I didn't have a scope at that time, I will try that and see with the scope if the wave is different than what it is with normal transistor solid state ssg.

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.

best,

Alvaro

[min2oly]

The Bedini circuits for example switch on the negative. That means the positive potential of the battery dipole is already over the wires in the coil.

When switching on the negative, the coil is already an extension of the primary dipole, the battery.

So the stuff that makes up the emf is already there without taking time to get there - when the transistor switches on, it just finds its place to ground, but the positive aetheric potential does not have to move from the battery to the coil, it just finds ground when the transistor switches on.

So when transistor switches on, it seems to me that it is more of a transistor effect where the EMF cannot move thru it fast enough so the transistor is a bottleneck that causes the transient until it can establish a flow - even before current starts moving.

Nothing is pinning the electrons. Bearden is explaining the Drude Electron gas model, which I for the most part agree with, but nothing is pinning the electrons. There just hasn't been time for the positive EMF to actually pull the electrons out of the 3rd electron fields of the copper atoms that make up the wire so there is a delay, but certainly nothing is pushing the electrons down.

Now if there was some negative electrostatic voltage applied across the circuit, that would be analogous to pinning them there, but when the transistor switches on, the current is moving from that direction but is supplied simultaneously across the circuit from the conductor itself.

Hi Aaron,
Thank you for the reply, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be brushing off my experiments, observations and and what I find are reasons for them. Are you saying the transistor is the thing holding the EMF not the coil not the core not the pre-amp effect of the passing magnet? Are you equating EMF to current/electrons or are you making a distinction of the two?

The pre-spike appears whether I switch the negative or the positive. The ckt is potentialized from the millisecond the connection is made, even better without silicon. forget the emf for a moment Tom B does not seem to be talking about EMF nore am I in this instance. what we care about is holding back the current - NOT killing the dipole. Once the current moves its game over, then you are only trying to recuperate the losses with the backspike.

"Drude Electron gas model" I'm not sure I understand how you brush all this off by saying he is talking about the "Drude Electron gas model" I think he is only using that as a metaphor to explain what I seem to be failing at misserably here

KR - Patrick

[Faraday88]

The diagram was 10 years ago and John's experiment was a few years before that.

It was simply an experiment to dump the recovery to the front battery while the input battery was disconnected.

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

In the Schematic you posted I feel the Recovery Battery should be in the 'Generator mode', this way the primary Battery and the secondary Battery would
fully regauge with the Rotor's Interaction with them.. This topology is an exact opposite of JB's 1984 Machine the difference: JB's machine was a Torque motor while here it is the Speed motor (or SSG rotor).
your comments please...
Rgds,
Faraday88.

The diagram was 10 years ago and John's experiment was a few years before that.

It was simply an experiment to dump the recovery to the front battery while the input battery was disconnected.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

I am talking about the negative side of the sine wave... John's wave form on the zero force motor clover leaf, the green negative area. There is no spike in that particular wave form John has drawn out though. You can see the formation of a negative spike in the one I drew in the SSG circuit with the third set of series windings.

This is the magnetic energy generated when the iron is first attracted by the magnet on the rotor on a SSG or a iron core zero force motor. In in the Beginners SSG Handbook Peter and yourself say that the energy generated is of the wrong polarity to turn on the transistor.

That is why I made reference to the kromrey paper and what was said about the pendulum when being attracted into the 6:00 position. http://rexresearch.com/infolios/kromrey.pdf

I am experimenting in this area...

The blue oscilloscope shots are from John Bedini's video, the image on the right is without the iron in the core and draws a lot more current. The scope shot on the left hand side is with the iron inserted into the core and as seen the current is noticeably reduced. Here is the video again... http://youtu.be/3kpDMMcNQxc

Dave Wing

Yes, the voltage is negative and that shuts off the transistor. When the magnet leaves the core (in repulsion mode) or the scalar pole leaves the core (in attraction mode), the voltage flips in the coil supplying positive to the base and that turns on the transistor.

I'll have to think more about what you're saying.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

John's earliest work, the zero force motor is fascinating. Indeed, zero force is reference to the Bloch wall. John's zero force motor is an electromagnetic motor generator that re-gauges the process for acquiring available electromagnetic energy. There's a circuit diagram in Free Energy News that assimilates exactly how John's model runs. You might also get a few notes from it. Thanks a lot for creating this thread.

Thanks - which diagram exactly? There are thousands posted over the years there.

Every cycling system that cyclicly creates a new potential difference is a regauging process - just like dropping an object and having it bounce is a regauging process. John used "regauging" for certain devices, but in fact, the SG, etc... are all regauging processes.

[Aaron Murakami]

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

The Bedini circuits for example switch on the negative. That means the positive potential of the battery dipole is already over the wires in the coil.

When switching on the negative, the coil is already an extension of the primary dipole, the battery.

So the stuff that makes up the emf is already there without taking time to get there - when the transistor switches on, it just finds its place to ground, but the positive aetheric potential does not have to move from the battery to the coil, it just finds ground when the transistor switches on.

So when transistor switches on, it seems to me that it is more of a transistor effect where the EMF cannot move thru it fast enough so the transistor is a bottleneck that causes the transient until it can establish a flow - even before current starts moving.

Nothing is pinning the electrons. Bearden is explaining the Drude Electron gas model, which I for the most part agree with, but nothing is pinning the electrons. There just hasn't been time for the positive EMF to actually pull the electrons out of the 3rd electron fields of the copper atoms that make up the wire so there is a delay, but certainly nothing is pushing the electrons down.

Now if there was some negative electrostatic voltage applied across the circuit, that would be analogous to pinning them there, but when the transistor switches on, the current is moving from that direction but is supplied simultaneously across the circuit from the conductor itself.

[Aaron Murakami]

Thanks Aaron for your invitation will soon post/email it to you the details and have my Machine ready for the Exhibit!!Also i would be delighted to give a presentation on the theory of its Principles in my own terminology developed over the years as a tribute and primacy to NikolaTesla and of course to John Bedini as well!!
Best Regards,
Faraday88.

Please show me what the machine does.

[Aaron Murakami]

Dollard had the identical diagram in a presentation that I found out a about a year and a half ago. He had a different explanation but the nature of the gravitational attraction was the same.

This is what causes the low and high tides.

The sun is going to be about the same distance from Earth day or night. The main difference is the moon.

On the side that the moon is not there, there will be the lowest tide and where the moon is, there will be the highest. If the sun, moon and earth are in alignment where moon is between sun and earth in a straight line, the tide will be highest.

The moon will displace aether according to its mass and will take away some of the aether that is displaced on that part of Earth creating a subtle asymmetry. That means less aether is rebounding back to Earth where the Moon is meaning there is less of a push so the water will be higher. If the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth, that water will be the lowest because the Moon is not there to take away some of the aether rebounding back to the Earth so gravity will be stronger pushing and displacing more water away from those areas hence the low tide. If there was a scale subtle enough to weight it to x decimals, an object will weight less when the moon is overhead than when it is 180 degrees on the opposite side. The model predicts this as it predicts the tides. There are 2 high tides and 2 low tides in most places and you can see this interaction in live streaming time.

Einstein's new gravity law is blasphemy as far as I'm concerned.

There is no such thing as curved space - space being curved is as ridiculous as claiming 3 dimensional space.



Look at this quintessential demonstration of curved space. Wouldn't it have to apply 360 degrees x 360 degrees x ????

That means this fictitious analogy is an asymmetrically biased viewpoint that has no basis in reality demonstrating Einstein's blindness to common sense and overwhelming willingness to be a puppet for the anti-aether establishment.

And for space to curve if there is nothing in space to curve - it is beyond ridiculous.

Reality would show arrows (or other bias) pointing or moving from the outside towards the object from every x,y,z coordinate from x distance from the object. What that would prevent is the hoodwinking attempt that blinds people to the fact that there is no curvature to space, just a displacement that causes varying densities of the aether around it, which is proportional either to the mass of the object that displaces it or to the varying density of the mass moving through stationary aether creating a relative densifying effect or displacement of the aether.

On page 195, we see other errors in perceptual logic. Work done by falling is mgh. mgh, the simple Newtonian equation to show the gravitational potential energy does indeed show the correct potential energy. The Newtonian equations have always shown the right numbers but for hundreds of years they have been interpreted upside down and backwards. mgh show not how much potential energy is stored by virtue of the object's height, which actually says absolutely nothing - mgh shows how much external gravitational potential will contribute to MORE work that will be done in a future time when the object is allowed to fall and come under the influence of gravity.

This goes back to my comment that Bearden's dipole theory, which I believe is the strongest contender for reality, is actually completely incompatible with conservation of energy, etc...

If you dissipate 1 joule of energy, real work, to lift an object of x mass to y height in Earth's gravity near the surface, you just exerted REAL WORK of force x distance.

mgh does not tell how much energy is stored. You cannot store energy that was dissipated and there is no energy that is intrinsic to the mass just as Tesla said, the energy mass has is what it gets from the environment.

So, you used up energy to lift the object, yet the same amount of energy is stored in the object after you already used it? This is a complete embarrassment to the entire concept of intellectual honesty.

You dissipated and paid for 1 joule of energy to lift the object, NOTHING is stored.

What happened is that there is energy dissipation, then there is a dipole that is created, a potential difference between the object and the ground.

When the object is released, it will perform an EQUAL amount of work when it comes to a standstill as was already dissipated to lift the object.

You put in 1 joule, all dissipated, mgh is how much gravitational potential energy will enter the system to do more work, another 1 joule is done on the objects way down until it is still. Total work done is 2 joules and you paid for 1.

It's right there with 3rd grade math, 7th grade equations and very simple logic. There is no such thing as storing potential energy (dipole process tapping source potential destroys the need to store potential even if Bearden doesn't state or believe that).

Therefore, there is no conservation of energy.

There is dissipation of energy, new dipole created, incoming potential that does more dissipated work, new dipole created, incoming potential that does more work, repeat.

This is what 100% of Bedini's machines do that re-gauge themselves after each and every cycle. Work is done, new potential difference is created, new potential comes in, repeat.

Energy is never changed or transformed into something else. Energy is simply dissipated and disorganized into the SAME source potential that it always was. When new potential comes into a dipole and then does work, it is brand new unconserved source potential that is completely disconnected from the original potential that did work that preceded it's involvement. Each cycle is a new freshly generated cycle - no storing of potential and no conservation of energy.

On the same page, Davson's book says kinetic energy is energy that exists in a moving body by virtue of its motion - there is no such thing as energy in a moving body. The body moves and energy is work - the dissipation of organized potential as it moves through a resistance.

On page 199, I see his explanation of the air, aether, etc... he is on the right track, but I can't say he has enough sagacity to comprehend the basic nature of the process. You're talking many decades ago and the viewpoint, even if on the aether path is very rudimentary and naive when putting everything in context.

208 - he talks more about "stored energy" - I enjoy these older readings of the though processes that went into analyzing these situations and can appreciate their significance for historical sake, but we've advanced quite a bit past these ideas. Thankfully, they are on the aether path, but getting down to the details, he's quite outdated.

Almost 10 years ago, I was one of the first that Martin Grusenick told about his experiment:

Years after, here are some acknowledgements about these experiments showing the aether is predicted by the model years before I ever heard of other similar ideas.

[Aaron Murakami]

This is the chapter XXVI I think Dwane was talking about ref gravity.

It is interesting what is written about the stress field in the aether. To make a rigid object lighter than air and make it float, it must become less dense, than the aether around it. Like filling a balloon with helium, or electrically or magnetically or both, stressing the aether, vibrate it, push it away, in all directions from a mass. With my view of the aether I dont think will this will work, a body already stresses or vibrates the aether, making it vibrate more will make it heavier.

However my ideas are flexiblewith Aarons view of the aether if I understand it correctly: how about using multiple pancake coils all over a saucer shaped surface and stressing the aether, in all directions, creating a kind of bubble. Slightly different angle, but interesting . Also there may be mileage in thinking about using the double bifilar coil, it will move its charges around one hell of a lot faster than single bifilar coil. Perhaps use one to induce a current pulse in the other.

To float like a bubble or sink like a brick, which is it?, using an analogy a boiling molecule of water rises to the surface, which way is the surface for gravity??? down or up, does the earth suck or does it push.

A Bifilar coil could induce a current in a curved surface.

Too Many Paradoxes to dream on! I think I will stick with lightning.

Andy

That's a great chapter - read thru once, printed and reading again.

To make an object less dense than the Aether around it to get it to float is on the right track, but I'd offer a few clarifications.

If an object is spinning, it will not automatically start to float. What it will do is have less influence from the downward pushing aether so if you lifted it, while spinning, it will take less force x distance = real lifting work to get it to a certain height compared to the same object that is not spinning. See the DePalma reference I posted earlier about the spinning ball experiment. This model also predicts those results. Likewise, dropping the object while spinning will fall faster than normal free fall speed compared to a non spinning object. Einstein is wrong, indisputably, and the claims that it has to do with air resistance, etc... are all bogus attempts to debunk DePalma's experiments.



As the object spins, it is deflecting the downward flowing aether perpendicular for the most part. That means that less of the aether that would normally move through the atomix matrix to push it down to the ground is lessened. Towards the center of the object, there is then less inertial effect if/when the object is to accelerate in the up or down direction. This is the primary reason for DePalma's experiments although he was unaware of this.

This is why Prof. Laithwaite can lift a 50 pound or whatever spinning wheel on a shaft in the air above his head with one arm. It doesn't float in the air, it just has reduced inertia and weight if just sitting in gravity, so when lifted, it has less of a resistance to the downward push of gravity. I don't think he understood why, but he knew the benefit.

So if you lift this object into the air, it can be lifted and accelerated upwards with less resistance to the push of gravity. If it is spinning, when it falls, the bottom part of the spinning object is moving the aether out of its way laterally like a diver parting the water with their hands so there is less resistance when moving down. This doesn't make the object necessarily less dense compared to the aether around it, it simply diflects the aether around it so there is less resistance to its movement through it.

When I met with Frederick Alzofon quite a while back, a Lockheed saucer engineer, he shared some of the basics of his anti-gravity method that he developed for the company. This was quite a while before he passed away several years back. He could get an aluminum sphere to tip on the balance beam and become lighter than its counter weight? How? He said it was an some high speed microwave electron spin device - something like that. Essentially, it pumped the atomic polarity of the aluminum off and on and got all the atoms to polarize like a magnetized piece of iron. He had some complicated unified field theory that explained it to his satisfaction. For me, it was simply the fact that when polarizing the atomic matrix of a non-ferrous metal, you create more space through the material for the aether to push through that doesn't have as much mass to push on.

Analogy is if you have 10 tennis rackets and you place the nets of each one over each other and criss cross them, then that is aluminum. The atomic matrix is scattered and there is more chance for the aether to push on the protons that make up the mass so it will have a certain weight. But if you line up all the netting so that they're all aligned - from a bird's eye view you look through them from the top and can't even tell there is more than one net, then you just created a situation for a non-ferrous metal where the aether moves through it more easily with less chance to push on the mass. That is what the electron spin device did when polarizing the atoms in the aluminum. Therefore, it has less resistance to the downward push of gravity - it will not just automatically start to rise in the air. But with the relative relationship with its counter-mass that weighed more, the balance beam tipped. That was the premise to his anti-gravity and inertia reducing technology.

For the pancake coils, not sure how it fits in yet.

But the above are 2 methods, spinning mass and polarizing the atomic matrix of a non-ferrous metal.

Electrostatically, we can polarize the shell of an object with high voltage potential at one side and negative at the other. The positive charge of the aether (+ virtual photons if you're using Bearden's terminology) - will be deflected away from the positive charged edge of the object preventing it from moving through the atomic matrix of the object itself. That positive aether will then be attracted towards the negative charge of the object. That deflects the aether around the shell and to the negative meaning there there will be a reduction or absence of inertia since inertia is not stored in the aether, is not stored in the object, but is rather the effect of the object creating a relative densifying effect of the aether as it moves through more aether per unit of time.

The positive edge of the object will be attracted to the negative or implied anti-charge of the aether and will move in the direction of the positive charge if the positive charge is a bit more biased than the negative charge. (asymmetrical capacitor).



That is an image from my book that has been there 10 years and I actually wrote it quite a bit before then for my own personal interest. It predicts the Bifeld-Brown effect years because I ever heard of T Townsend Brown.

Negating inertia is to deflect the aether, the cause of inertia, around the mass traveling through the inertia. It can be done with a spinning mass to mechanically deflect it, it can be done eletrostatically to electrostatically deflect it, or it can be done with non-ferrous metal by polarizing the atomic matrix of it to reduce the downward push of the aether through it.

Davson's book goes into Gravitational Attraction and compares Newton's law and particle attraction, but they get lost in the technicalities instead of seeing what the nature of it is. They get lost in the math but don't seem to grok the essence of what it is.

An object like a large star will displace the aether so the aether then pushes symmetrically on all sides of the star equally.

If there is another object like that, the same will happen to it.

If they're in a close enough vicinity, then the aether displaced between them is split proportionately between them depending on the mass meaning the sides of the large objects facing each other will have less of a push there.

If you have a bar of soap and squeeze equally down on it from all directions, it just stays there.

If you apply pressure towards one end, it will be pushed in the opposite direction.

That is what gravitational attraction is - the reduced displacement on the sides facing each other creates an asymmetrical situation where the aether squeezes on the objects towards each other.



The aether between the objects is divided between them so the aether asymmetrically pushes them from the outside towards each other - the cause of gravitational attraction.

[Faraday88]

Hi Dave,

I don't think you're coming at me - not in the slightest bit and I welcome all of it. There are however various clarifications that I think need to be addressed and defined because as you said, we need to be on the same page. I also don't have all the answers anyway as I stated in my first post and want to get the conversation going. I do have some for sure things I'll continue to share that wasn't left go guesswork when John shared them with me.

When you say the solid state SSG and ZFM produce a negative spike - now are you talking about during power on or power off?

For the power on spike effect, I searched to see if there was a transistor equivelant to switch bounce. With a manual switch, switch bounce will chop the power off and on and cause these spikes because if there is an inductor, that inductor is also discharging as it charges some and then discharges causing a spike(s) when turning it on. Many of those spikes can be less than 1 microsecond. There is something called Ground Bounce with transistors:

"In electronic engineering, ground bounce is a phenomenon associated with transistor switching where the gate voltage can appear to be less than the local ground potential, causing the unstable operation of a logic gate.

Ground bounce is usually seen on high density VLSI where insufficient precautions have been taken to supply a logic gate with a sufficiently low resistance connection (or sufficiently high capacitance) to ground. In this phenomenon, when the gate is turned on, enough current flows through the emitter-collector circuit that the silicon in the immediate vicinity of the emitter is pulled high, sometimes by several volts, thus raising the local ground, as perceived by the transistor, to a value significantly above true ground. Relative to this local ground, the BASE voltage can go negative, thus shutting off the transistor. As the excess local charge dissipates, the transistor turns back on, possibly causing a repeat of the phenomenon, sometimes up to a half-dozen bounces."

I don't know if that is what is happening but wanted to add that. The single transistor is not a microchip where it sounds like the ground bounce happens more often but it might be plausible that it causes the power on spike in any of these circuits. Coils that are rapidly charged can have power on spikes so that could be the source as well. Is the emf experiencing back pressure as it is applied to the coil and then the flow is established? If so, then that will raise its voltage higher than the source when the switch closes. In both cases, does anyone have an elegant solution to doing something with it? It would be taking it before it can be used so would that take away from what is needed for the applied charge?

John has mentioned the radiant that flows before current starts to flow when the power station operator closes the switch. That is a reference to early inspirations of Tesla's radiant matter electricity. But, radiant matter explosions are not created or used in John's machines. John has said for years the spike on the collapse is pure radiant potential, but anyone with a scope can see there is a small width to it meaning there is a little current associated with it. I think the primary point is that there is the emf (heaviside flow) that can exist without electron current, which is a component of Tesla's radiant matter process.

If we look at what the emf is made of, it is polarized and condensed positive "virtual photons" if you want to use Bearden's terminology that moves to the + terminal of the battery and flows over the wire towards ground. Being that there is 2 difference voltages - voltage potential - the pressure of that gas sitting a terminal of a dipole and then emf, the actual moving flow of that gas, which under normal circumstances is what potentializes and attracts the electrons from the copper atoms and attracts them towards the positive terminal. This is Bearden 101 so you I'm just preaching to the choir, but am posting for clarification.

So if that is what the EMF is, which can exist both with or without electron current, this gets compressed to a higher voltage potential when the coil turns off and that is how John is utilizing the same stuff that flows before current flows. He's sending it to a battery directly hitting with the a "potential charge" - the voltage push and the primary current develops in the battery on its own, which wasn't supplied by the circuit. John said there were 5-7 different currents flowing in a battery simultaneously so that gets complex. In any case, knowing what that stuff is that can flow before current flows lets us see how it is being used. The spike when the coil turns off is how it has been used and even if there is the spike when the power is turned on doesn't mean it is useful or is being used. The reference to the switch being closed causing it is to define that there is a flow that can move over the circuit before electron current moves.

@Bobzilla, I don't understand your circuit well and am have never used Adruino, but what you're mentioning to Patrick is the other way it is being used. It's still that potential charge to a battery where you don't supply current if you can slap that cap on the battery fast enough before current flows. Like I said I'm not familiar with what you were doing with it but sounds like you are rapidly blasting it multiple times to a battery in the same time that someone could dump it once - so you're taking multiple slices from it in the same time.

If we're just using a potential charge without current - if we have a cap charged to 50 volts and we hit the battery fast enough and if it only drops to 45 volts for example and not a full discharge, we hit the battery with 50 volts of pure potential. We only have to charge it 5 volts and not the whole fifty and can keep repeating so that we hit the battery with 50 volts of potential each time but we're only paying for 5 volts. Since we're not interested in actually getting the cap to charge with current, we don't need it discharged - just hitting the battery with polarized pressure. That's the idea anyway. This is basically the way this concept was always discussed at John's shop. However, I've never really seen this happen in its purest form. Look at these hundreds of amps peak current pulses from John's cap discharge circuits - electrical or mechanical - and you can see that the batteries are getting charged with serious impulse currents and not potential. Charging with spikes is a different story, but I haven't seen a cap make and break fast enough to prevent a significant current rush.

Maybe your computer controlled system can do it, I don't have experience with microcontrollers, etc. Actually I think Paul Babcock's switching circuits if tweaked for this application could be fast enough that there would be an extremely small amount of discharge to give a battery a real potential charge from a cap. If so, the caps can be topped up with flea power.

@Dave - you and everyone here probably already know this but this is the basic method that gave the best self running results I ever saw John achieve - or I should say that commutator method where caps were charged and then discharged to the front battery every 1/xth of the rotation - NOT this same circuit but with cap charger - large cap bank and mechanical switch:

Hi Aaron,

In the Schematic you posted I feel the Recovery Battery should be in the 'Generator mode', this way the primary Battery and the secondary Battery would
fully regauge with the Rotor's Interaction with them.. This topology is an exact opposite of JB's 1984 Machine the difference: JB's machine was a Torque motor while here it is the Speed motor (or SSG rotor).
your comments please...
Rgds,
Faraday88.