John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

The lines of force mentioned above are most likely magnetic field lines, and if moving over a surface they will induce a moving charge or current that has a magnetic field which opposes the moving magnet. This is most noticable if you simply take a permanent magnet and move it over the surface of a none magnetic conductive surface, orientating the magnet at different angles at each pass. Aluminium foil could be used to demonstrate this. A similar but less noticeable effect must also happen in air a charge will be induced, which will oppose the movement of a magnet. I take the view that all things are aether, which is exhibited as either particles or forces or simply just space itself, all points in the aether are connected it is a conceptual thing, and explains quantum entanglement. The Aether can be regarded as the air, the air has inertia as does the aether. A rapidly moving magnet field, traveling down a tube may cause the air or aether to move, or be disturbed. If a plastic tube was used and a ring magnet was dropped down the tube you may see a movement in the air. (I state a plastic tube to shield the air inside the tube from the mechanical movement of the air caused by dropping a magnet through it rendering the experiment pointless.) A similar thing could be done with a magnet on a rotating wheel perhaps an SG type arrangement.

Hi Andy,

In regards to the Faraday/Tompson aether physics, I'd highly encourage everyone to get on the live call with Eric Dollard on Feb 28th 3pm pacific time.

Conference Dial-in: 1-857-232-0155
Conference Code: 582590

This is directly related to what Eric wants to talk about since it was in his presentation The Power of Aether as Related to Music and Electricity. The end of the presentation, he gives the first ever overview of Tompson's aetheric engineering equations with continuity. He is the foremost authority on this exact subject and Bedini even agreed. John has said countless times that you cannot argue with Eric's math. Eric was never really into motors and he admits that, but for transmission line theory and application, these aether physics concepts are fundamentally tied to those experiments at the most basic level.

[Gyula]

....
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
....

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.

[Dave Wing]

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

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

[Dwane Dibley]

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.

Hi Mollygarage,
Could you supply a link to the Free Energy News that you have quoted?

Thanks

Dwane

[Faraday88]

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.

Hi,
ZFM with refference to the bloch wall is very interesting.! Where is the Bloch wall of a toroid (electromagnet) magnet??? centre??
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[mollygarage]

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.

[Faraday88]

My concern with overall theories is I look with great respect towards Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and the time in which they worked. Scientists were then known as physical philosophers a term I like as it says more about seeking physical truths.

Faraday's strength was as a master experimentalist and being able to reduce complicated ideas to simplified experiments. He was not trying to develop a great encompassing idea, but rather find experimental truths from the pieces.

Maxwell was a mathematician and had no personal scientific theory to prove. He took the bits and pieces from Faraday and other physical philosophers from all over Europe and tried to develop a comprehensive model that satisfied all the experimental information at that time. Yes there were politics and personal prides yet overall it was sort of a large collaborative effort. Since that time the line between scientist and mathematician has gotten very muddied to non existent.

A model at the time was just a representation of the information known and not something set in stone. What we know as Maxwell's model was actually his third model. The first was mechanical, the second was hydraulic, and the third was purely mathematical, so it was an evolving thing to satisfy existing evidence.

Now instead of evolving our model to include new experimental proofs we pick and choose what to include to prove our overall grand theory instead of adjusting the overall model to match all known truths from the bits and pieces.

I can see where John Bedini may have had some ideas on the big picture theories, but it seems to me he was more concerned about the pieces he could prove on the bench.

Do you guys still wonder why my forum name is Faraday88...? after all the above facts the no. 8 associated with it is also significant with the Electromagnetic Physics.. especially the Radiant Electricity discovered by Tesla...incidentally it is also the no.3 of Tesla written twice simultaneously from oppsite direction!!! (lateral inversion)graphically at least....
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Michael Luton]

My concern with overall theories is I look with great respect towards Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell and the time in which they worked. Scientists were then known as physical philosophers a term I like as it says more about seeking physical truths.

Faraday's strength was as a master experimentalist and being able to reduce complicated ideas to simplified experiments. He was not trying to develop a great encompassing idea, but rather find experimental truths from the pieces.

Maxwell was a mathematician and had no personal scientific theory to prove. He took the bits and pieces from Faraday and other physical philosophers from all over Europe and tried to develop a comprehensive model that satisfied all the experimental information at that time. Yes there were politics and personal prides yet overall it was sort of a large collaborative effort. Since that time the line between scientist and mathematician has gotten very muddied to non existent.

A model at the time was just a representation of the information known and not something set in stone. What we know as Maxwell's model was actually his third model. The first was mechanical, the second was hydraulic, and the third was purely mathematical, so it was an evolving thing to satisfy existing evidence.

Now instead of evolving our model to include new experimental proofs we pick and choose what to include to prove our overall grand theory instead of adjusting the overall model to match all known truths from the bits and pieces.

I can see where John Bedini may have had some ideas on the big picture theories, but it seems to me he was more concerned about the pieces he could prove on the bench.

[Michael Luton]

In my own personal view of things the environment around us is working itself toward equilibrium. So while on an atomic level there may be much activity the + and – tend to cancel each other out. With this equilibrium in place a passive energy collection device can only collect extremely low energy at best. Therefore to reap energy from the environment you need to shock the environment out of equilibrium or condition the local environment to be different than the greater environment around the device. One method is sharp gradients within our circuits and it does not matter whether it is on switch open, switch close, or multiple coil shorts at raised potential. The only thing that matters is how well we disturb the environment and how well we can capitalize on collecting from that disturbance. When we look at why and why-fores we need to be careful at seeing aether, quantum mechanics, or anything else as the only source as there are many factors and we run the risk of trying to work with blinders on which mainstream science has been doing for too long with their departmentalization.

This is just my opinion as I see it and not trying to upset anyone's apple cart.

Michael

[min2oly]

There are two "radiant" events one when the coil is charged, one when it is discharged, that is what I believe. Along with the evidence you note it follows that if the radiant results from the change in magnetic flux in a coil (is there evidence for a different theory) it must be there of opposite magnitude when the coil charges. I think it is seen in the SSG when you screw up the diode orientation and get a dud of a radiant. Why is this backwards/backwards diode radiant less powerful? The peak instantaneous amp output of a battery will be far less than a coil where once it is cut off the only things stopping amp flow are wire resistance and ? interwire effects. If you had something like the Niagra falls DC? system where there is a huge amp source available at start-up and only straight line wire (not storing power in a coil), the radiant spike might be much more prominent at start-up as opposed to shutting the power off. 2) You see it with Vladamir Utkin's set-up where you have a coil in series with a nine volt battery to a cap, through a Forward facing diode. The voltage in the cap ends up at 10 or 12. As there is no transforming secondary coil, the higher voltage in the cap is from the coil, as the diode was not backwards I would have to guess this is seeing the "radiant" from the coil charging and rectifying through to the cap. Forward facing diode, capturing the charge up event is a short to the power source, I would suspect though there might be some arrangements where you could capture the up ramp and down slope of the coil, in the same way that the SSG only uses one end of the coil for motive power. Lots of speculation on my part but if the radiant is from change in flux, how could it not be there when the coil charges up?

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

[Dwane Dibley]

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

.................

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.

.............................

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

Andy

Hi Andy,
Swapping threads. Your arguments are too literal! Would not boiling water be releasing energy or inertia through vibration? Paradoxes? None so many truths as those that cannot be hidden.

Rgards

Dwane

[ZPDM]

So what we have is two events one at switch closure and one at switch opening... Sometimes things can get confusing, look what Gerry Vassilatos book says below and John's post... This was also discussed on monopole Yahoo groups and was common knowledge on that group as well... Sorry but we need to be on the same page.

Dave Wing

There are two "radiant" events one when the coil is charged, one when it is discharged, that is what I believe. Along with the evidence you note it follows that if the radiant results from the change in magnetic flux in a coil (is there evidence for a different theory) it must be there of opposite magnitude when the coil charges. I think it is seen in the SSG when you screw up the diode orientation and get a dud of a radiant. Why is this backwards/backwards diode radiant less powerful? The peak instantaneous amp output of a battery will be far less than a coil where once it is cut off the only things stopping amp flow are wire resistance and ? interwire effects. If you had something like the Niagra falls DC? system where there is a huge amp source available at start-up and only straight line wire (not storing power in a coil), the radiant spike might be much more prominent at start-up as opposed to shutting the power off. 2) You see it with Vladamir Utkin's set-up where you have a coil in series with a nine volt battery to a cap, through a Forward facing diode. The voltage in the cap ends up at 10 or 12. As there is no transforming secondary coil, the higher voltage in the cap is from the coil, as the diode was not backwards I would have to guess this is seeing the "radiant" from the coil charging and rectifying through to the cap. Forward facing diode, capturing the charge up event is a short to the power source, I would suspect though there might be some arrangements where you could capture the up ramp and down slope of the coil, in the same way that the SSG only uses one end of the coil for motive power. Lots of speculation on my part but if the radiant is from magnetic flux, how could it not be there when the coil charges up?

[ZPDM]

erik laithwiate has a lot to say on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tJfqMYHaQw

Tom C

Many thx, enjoyed it and learned.

[Faraday88]

Email me details emediapress.com with info at in front of that. I'm always open to having demos.

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

I would love to exhibit my model in the up comming Conference if you let me
Rgds,
Faraday88.

Email me details emediapress.com with info at in front of that. I'm always open to having demos.