John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

Upon revisiting my references I don't think spike we are looking for is from coil collapse when you open the switch. Both John Bedini and Gerry Vassilatos said the spike we are looking for happens upon switch closure... The very instance the switch or transitor turns on.

This video shows what the spike, radiant, BEMF or whatever you want to call it, appears upon switch closure. Remember the radiant shows up before the current (John has said Radiant precedes the current and even demo's it in EFV, Tony catches the radiant discharge preceding the current on film).

My questions are... What tries to prevent change in an inductor and does it have to show up first before the force that tries to change it? So perhaps the spike shows up even before the BEMF is their to resist the current flow? That is the only other explanation I can think of.

Second question... Whatever shrinks the metal alloy coin is an incredible force that is much stronger than the copper coil and or coin, yet the copper withstands the coin shrinking process but cannot withstand the current that follows the shrinking event. How is this possible? It has to be a negative (cold or converging) form of energy doing this... Yes?... No? The coil is vaporized just after the blue flash, by the current flow, which is positive (heat or expanding) energy.

As a side note... the coin is placed in the Bloch wall of the inductor.

Dave Wing

In Cole's notes, he makes a reference to Kettering talking about how it takes 6 times more average power if you fired a plug with forward EMF compared to Back EMF. He is talking about the transient spike.




Point close, primary charges, points open, coil discharges and you get the spike from the HV winding over the spark plug gap.

In this note:



It clearly shows the "obsorbsion coil charge period" (their spelling) and immediately following is the "positive back emf discharge period" - positive not meaning normal emf, but the polarity of the spike - you can have negative or positive spikes. Discharge clearly tells us it happens when the coil is discharging or when a switch is opening.

At the bottom, it shows the exact same thing but with the opposite polarity - a negative back emf discharge period.

In his notes about Kettering, he goes on to talk about how it is normally taught that it must be quenched, etc... that is the transient spike after the switch opens because the conventional training is to ground all that out so it won't cause problems. This energy source they're talking about absolutely is the transient spike after the switch opens and the magnetic field collapses.

What you're mentioning when the switch closes is that EMF that flows over the wire at near light speed limited by the electron current drag - that goes into Tesla's disruptive DC impulse technology where if you can make and break it before the electron current can flow, then you have an extraluminal impulse of that polarized and densified aether that has no drag. That is the radiant that shows up before the current. But you can get the radiant without current or at least with very little by generating the spike when the coil opens - you then have that radiant potential (that Time potential) and that for the most part is without the current.

I'd recommend this PDF: http://www.shamanicengineering.org/w...Technology.pdf

Vassilatos got a lot of technical things wrong and there are some bogus references to Tesla, but for the most part, it is very valuable. Peter Lindemann basically used this book as the Rosetta Stone to decode Gray's patent for his Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity book. Bedini recommended this book right after Peter's book came out about 15 years ago. That will address exactly what you're asking about, but is still different than the energy source as explained by the Bedini-Cole notes.

[Dave Wing]

Cole and Bedini erroneously used CEMF of BEMF to describe the transient spike for many years. It wasn't until the early 2000's as far as I know that John stopped referring to the spike as CEMF or BEMF. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from Peter's insistence.

Cole even mentions the Kettering system, which is the ignition coil spike so they're not really talking about CEMF or BEMF at all and are definitely talking about the transient spike caused by the collapsing of the magnetic field.

I'm sure you know its the spike, but just want this clarification to be posted because I don't know who is reading this thread and might get confused by that.

Tesla did use these spikes and is what he charged the capacitors with in his "Method of Conversion", which an SG with cap dump is a miniaturized variation of that.

Power station operators would get blown up by that spike when they opened the switch because all the fields in the generators would send that spike and they'd get fried - exploded is more like it. That spike was very well known.

Secrets of Cold War Technology is highly recommended for this topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...SIN=0932813801

Hi Aaron,

Upon revisiting some references I don't think spike we are looking for is from the coil collapse when you open the switch. Both John Bedini and Gerry Vassilatos said the spike we are looking for happens upon switch closure... The very instance the switch or transitor turns on.

This video shows what the spike, radiant, BEMF or whatever you want to call it, appears upon switch closure. Remember the radiant shows up before the current (John has said Radiant precedes the current and demo's this in EFTV as Tony films).

My questions are... BEMF tries to prevent change in an inductor, does it have to show up first before the force that tries to change it? So perhaps the spike shows up, umimpeded, even before the BEMF is there to resist the current flow? That is the only other explanation I can think of.

Second question... Whatever shrinks the metal alloy coin is an incredible force that is much stronger than the copper coil and or coin, yet the copper withstands the coin shrinking process but cannot withstand the current that follows the shrinking event. How is this possible? It has to be a negative (cold or converging) form of energy doing this... Yes?... No? The coil is vaporized just after the blue flash, by the current flow, which is positive (heat or expanding) energy as indicated by the green orange flames.

As a side note... the coin is placed in the Bloch wall of the inductor.

Dave Wing

[Tom C]

erik laithwiate has a lot to say on the subject

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

Tom C

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,
This is what the Sweet Floyed Conditioning done to the BaFe magnet. when you do this you get the Bloch wall flipped in its position with the Poles what does that indicate??...any one??
the G-Field magnets are also the same way..
The Magnets are oriented in 3 axis mode each representing a ''True'' Monopole way back in 2009-10 while studying the Magnetic structure of the monopole motor in JB's pat# 6,545,444 it struck to me about the representation of about the 3 magnets spaced 120 degree apart in the Patent drawing, i had never tried it out until recently...when i built a Monopole in that fashion.
What is different in the drawing of JB and mine is that it is inverted or directed inwards as opposed to what JB drew it that way..
With a S-pole facing the coil magnet between any two N-N magnets in the 120 degree alignment, would make this S-pole as the sucker from the pump from the new 'Bloch wall' of the true Monopoles.. i.e the Super S-pole translates from the Virtual (Scalar) to real S-pole.
The Field lines of Force of the resulting Magnetic structure are at right angles to the plane of the drawing which means that it is a 3D structure.
Remember JB's 3-pole monopole? no one has ever commented on why 3 pole?..even the TUV test model was a 3-pole monopole.. this fundaamental to flex the bloch wall in a 360 degree rotation...and interface the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’

Rgds,
Faraday88.

Here is the image of the rotor the way I view it to be.
Rgds,
Faraday88.[ATTACH=CONFIG]5961

In the above drawings,i describe the 3 ways of windings a coil for the 3 Flipp Inversion principle (no mattter the no.3 fascinated and obssessed Tesla so much!!!) each for the coil for the 3 pole monopole rotor(also attached in the drawing) the Magnetic field structure of each of the coil configuration also has their Bloch wall shifted, with each axis brought closer and closer to the ''Poles'' in this case you keep the normal Magnetic Field structure (all N or S facing the coil core side).
I urge you guys to try out this experiment on your own and find the benift this gives to the way the battery is charged, there is also an feature i want you guys to find out by your self..let see you can figure it out.
Rgds,
Faraday88.
the Magnetic structure after the 3-flipp brings the Bloch wall of the Coils

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,
This is what the Sweet Floyed Conditioning done to the BaFe magnet. when you do this you get the Bloch wall flipped in its position with the Poles what does that indicate??...any one??
the G-Field magnets are also the same way..
The Magnets are oriented in 3 axis mode each representing a ''True'' Monopole way back in 2009-10 while studying the Magnetic structure of the monopole motor in JB's pat# 6,545,444 it struck to me about the representation of about the 3 magnets spaced 120 degree apart in the Patent drawing, i had never tried it out until recently...when i built a Monopole in that fashion.
What is different in the drawing of JB and mine is that it is inverted or directed inwards as opposed to what JB drew it that way..
With a S-pole facing the coil magnet between any two N-N magnets in the 120 degree alignment, would make this S-pole as the sucker from the pump from the new 'Bloch wall' of the true Monopoles.. i.e the Super S-pole translates from the Virtual (Scalar) to real S-pole.
The Field lines of Force of the resulting Magnetic structure are at right angles to the plane of the drawing which means that it is a 3D structure.
Remember JB's 3-pole monopole? no one has ever commented on why 3 pole?..even the TUV test model was a 3-pole monopole.. this fundaamental to flex the bloch wall in a 360 degree rotation...and interface the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’

Rgds,
Faraday88.

Here is the image of the rotor the way view it to be.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[ZPDM]

Soon, we should get into the relationship of Time and the spike and what Time actually appears to be.

With Tesla's method of conversion, which the SG is a representation of that, the capacitors Tesla would use would be low capacitance and high voltage so that one single transient spike would fill that cap to the very top. That's called TUNED! And of course he never used resistors because those are only to make up for the lack of tuning in that context.

And we know that if you take the spikes and charge caps with it, they develop some electret type of effect where they will self charge to a higher voltage than the normal "recovery" voltage rise. 12 years or so ago when I had a tape motor SG running all the time, I was charging a very low capacitance microwave oven transformer AC capacitor with the output - it would go to about 90-100 volts until the neon bulb triggered the discharge to another battery. Well sure enough, after long enough time (couple weeks) of doing this over and over, I could short that cap and it would bounce back damn near to the 100v mark over and over and over. With my own water fuel cell concentric tube tests where I developed the white dielectric coating on the tubes, they would turn into a permanent 2v capacitor. I could short it over and over as many times as I wanted and it would jump back to 2 volts. Had I thought about it at the time, I would have made some circuit with a dpdt relay to connect a separate cap to those self charging caps to charge them, disconnect and dump those to batteries or whatever to see how long I could do it before they lost that self charging effect.

Paul's SG runs incredible at 24v, with one power winding, and that is what stair steps up his lifepo4 batts. I don't know why others didn't get those kind of results with lifepo4 batts. There are other advantages to running these systems at higher voltages, if you have a diode, it has a certain voltage drop so the higher voltage you operate at, then lower the % of loss you have with those components.

If you do want to use a core, the pellets seem to be superior to the welding rods. There are some gaps/spacing between the rods when bundled so when the core gets charged, some of the magnetic field squeezes into those spots helping to allow it to still have some steady inductance, but it's not that great. With Babcock's use of the soft shot shell pellets, you have that space between the pellets but also when spraying with acrylic, each pellet has a fine dielectric layer. Those spaces are consistent throughout the entire core. So when you charge the coil up towards saturation, the inductance does not decrease, you have a constant inductance core all the way to the top. The stuff to use is Precision Reloading Steel Shot #7. Before loading into a core, pour them on cardboard and spray with some Krylon acrylic spray. When somewhat dry, roll them around and do 1-2 more sprays. Put in core and fill with some kind of epoxy compound.

Looking at my post my math was all wrong at the end there (as Homer' Simpson's baby's translation device said "I've soiled myself, how embarrassing"). That said, one can look at power in through a cap of known size and known voltage and radiant out to a cap of known size and what one finds for all coils looked I looked at is that the power of the radiant does not match one-to-one with increasing input voltage. As I mentioned up to about 90 volts output/input doubles for each tripling of voltage and then begins showing a still present but lessened effect with further increases in voltage. The behaviour depends in part on the coil but was present in all the coils I tested. One other thing is that, and I have less certainty and precise measurements with this, but it seems to be for a given length of wire (or mass of coil) the flatter the coil gets the better the radiant for a given input power. This is odd because Wheeler apparently spent much of his career at National Institutes of Standards empirically deriving the formula for induction given coil shape. I have no way of measuring induction, but if I trust Wheeler, the flat towards pancake coils have to have less induction. To me that means a weaker magnetic field is collapsing so it would seem the only way the radiant could be stronger in that coil is that it is collapsing faster, which again would point to interwire Lenz effects as slowing the collapse and this effect being less prominent in a flat to pancake coil with less wires adjacent to each other (you would also halve the number of adjacent [interacting] wires with a bifilar). Along the same lines, the pancake type coils would show continued improvement in output power/input to higher voltages before the effect lessened. So as I mentioned I really want to look at a Tesla counter wound coil in the same way. I think I read somewhere someone saying Tesla always said this coil was OU. But then again I've never seen where Tesla said that, and I don't know if the person saying that was a 15 yo working on his book "Tesla on Mars".

You know one thing I also worked on, may have posted on it, don't think so. I saw the rebound voltage with two plates in water, like a rudimentary wet cell. I built some arduino switches where I pulsed the plates, then took the residual voltage and used that to pulse a joule thief. I was actually able to get the rebound voltage above the input voltage. The thinking was if you back pulsed this you could have an extremely efficient way of generating hydroxy. While I was able to get the voltage above the input the effect was small enough (maybe 1% improvement or something) that I dropped the whole thing. I don't know if you had a typo in your post, it would be surprising to get a rebound to 10% of input voltage, you seemed to be saying it was rebounding almost to start voltage!

So I need to build a Tesla CW pancake coil and put it through its paces. The question is not just how much output do you get for a given input compared to coils of similar wire length, it is also how does it behave at different voltages. I am almost positive it would be a dud for driving a rotor, the pancake style should be less inductance and the "two" coils charge and discharge in opposition. It might be just the thing for a solid state radiant charger though. If I am grasping some of this theory correctly and if experiments bear out some of this I may make a contribution to coil design, at this point it is all theoretical but is isn't real complicated. With the Tesla CW pancake coil, maybe it's overunity but you need a coil the size of your first floor to get there, look at Niagra Falls, Tesla had no problem going large. How could you have a multilayer CW "pancake" coil? If you have a crystal lattice, such as sodium chloride, each + is surrounded by an equal number of -'s. So if you placed your second layer precisely in the gap between the +/- winds of the first layer, then the third layer directly above the first, so on so forth you should be able to make a multiilayer "crystal lattice" where the two winds are moving in the opposite direction of each other and each wind is opposed by an equal number of winds moving in the opposite direction around it.

Lastly, re Tom Bearden, I have picked up most of his books, they are thick as molasses in winter. I have concluded there are two things going on. 1) he creates much of his own terminology. Part of this out of need, because there is none, part that hey this is powerful information and people darn well better work to get at it. Similar to the crumbs method of teaching mentioned about John 2) He tested in what > 0.01% upper ability in math. He expresses himself and looks at things often mathematically, not the end all be all just another way of modelling this odd situation we find ourselves in. I think though if one is not > 1% in math it is also difficult to know if he is a) saying something that isn't clear but would be to a mathematician, b) making up necessary terminology c) just making things difficult because it is powerful stuff. So when I first started listening to him and Bedini it was sort of like Tom would say something in that southern drawl like, "the phi delta is not, and I mean not, the dipole, the dipole has been going on since the Universe started spinning and we're just too stupid to prick that Dirac sea as Lee and Thomson clearly showed and won the Noble for, it's all there waiting for us like a paddle wheel once we master asymmetrical non-linear anisotropic re-gauging" And I'd be yea, I like paddle wheels (sorry Tom). Then Bedini would do a presentation, I can't really imitate his speech, and because he was saying common words it felt like I was understanding it then he would usually end with some large rotor and look out earnestly and say something like "there, you get it, you get it ... it spins, you see it spins". So I would be, heel yea, it spins, I have no idea what you just said either, but darn if that thing isn't spinning.

[Aaron Murakami]

I was furious when I found out Ricks 10 coiler was a bunch of garbage.
It set me back 5 years as I lost a lot of interest.
I actually gave my 10 coiler to John Koorn for a long time to do with it as he wished.
He turned it upside down and inside out to replicate JB's original machine as best he could.
I'm starting back at scratch before I try to tame that machine at a later date.

Please email me with a full testimonial as to how you were screwed by Rick. If you can include your real name, location, etc... the more the better.

@All, anything you can send along those lines would be very helpful.

[Deuis]

I was furious when I found out Ricks 10 coiler was a bunch of garbage.
It set me back 5 years as I lost a lot of interest.
I actually gave my 10 coiler to John Koorn for a long time to do with it as he wished.
He turned it upside down and inside out to replicate JB's original machine as best he could.
I'm starting back at scratch before I try to tame that machine at a later date.

hey all,

the magnet is an over unity device, it literally pulls dipoles out of the bloch wall and into the magnetic currents, leedskalnin also knew this. everyone should get his book and do the experimets, build a P.M.H. and follow his lead.

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/emery.htm

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10653-leedskalnin-pmh-help.html

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated

John got a lot of his visualization of the field from howard johnson's book the secret world of mangets. the scans show the field strengths and locations, and how they are really needed to be thought of in 3D space. the north and the south are not the same strength and there is a huge difference in the shape of the field at the corners.

you see john used neo's very sparingly. he was very upset with the neo magnets in the 10 coil Rick sold. he even went so far as to have us make a different rotor with ceramics for it.

magnet spacing was very important to him, he wanted to make sure that there was room for the scalar south to form between the norths, to turn the base of the transistor really off.

more later

Tom C

[Aaron Murakami]

Anyone think a rotating magnet rotor once rotating and thus creating a magnetic field that makes CEMF... Is this Tesla's "basic energy source"?

For clarification... Is CEMF to be considered to be an energy source and was it what Tesla
used?


Dave Wing

I do have another comment on this in regards to a rotating rotor with magnets and an energy source - it is the G field generator - different from what most would think the G Field Generator is who has followed John's work for a long time.

John's G Field Generator had nothing to do with the Kromrey - it was basically a window motor with a generator coil elevated above the power coil. I don't mean 2 coils at 90 degrees to each other like in the glass case motor (space flux motor).

If you have a typical window motor topology such as:



And lets say the uprights on the ends where the bearings are at extend say 1-2 inches into the air and then you wrap a generator coil around that so it is wound completely parallel to that motor coil, he believed the magnets spinning in that exact fashion created a vortex up above it circling around just like the coil and that generator coil was in fact the G Field - Space flux generator coil that captured that free energy. He was not considering this to be simple magnetic induction from the spinning magnets but making use of the "magnetic vortex" created by the spinning magnets.

He believed the magnetic vortex created above had a voltage much higher than the voltage being supplied by the battery to power the motor coil. He saw this as a self-running motor possibility by feeding that generator coil back to the battery running the motor and keeping the battery voltage up. He accomplished that with the space flux motor in the glass case, but the coil is 90 degrees to the motor coil and it surrounds the rotor for simple inductive generation and not from a magnetic vortex - maybe there is that going on, who knows?

The gravity waves are synonymous with the lines of force or those electric flux lines as described before.

That should be easy enough to test - have it near the magnets and move it up higher incrementally to see if it diminishes as expected and if not, there might be something to that idea. It seems the G Field generator coil is too close to be anything other than simple induction but that's his idea anyway.

You should have seen the look on John and Gary's faces when I showed them this the first time:



I obviously was trying to simply get the magnets to induce current into that air core generator winding and of course it worked perfect and it is not elevated inches above the top of the rotor, but John was excited to see it even as simple and insignificant as it was. I just had an LED that was on there and used a RC airplane prop RPM meter to read the RPM by setting it to the 4 or 3 blade prop depending on what wheel I had on that.

John's early window motors simply had the basic SG circuit and that was it.

Also, over the years, I have heard of people explaining that the window motor is called the window motor because it operates within a narrow window, etc... none of that is true. The ONLY reason it was called a window motor is because the coil, literally, is shaped just like a window - nothing more, nothing less.

So anyway, it doesn't seem to make much sense that if the magnets are spinning in the direction as shows in the pictures above, why would the spiraling vortex be at 90 degrees above it. If the rotor was spinning on a vertical axle, it might make more sense. In any case, those designs and ideas preceded the glass case motor where he has the motor and generator coil at 90 degrees in the vicinity of the spinning rotor.

[Aaron Murakami]

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

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

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

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

[Aaron Murakami]

Anyone think a rotating magnet rotor once rotating and thus creating a magnetic field that makes CEMF... Is this Tesla's "basic energy source"?
For clarification... Is CEMF to be considered to be an energy source and was it what Tesla used?
Dave Wing

Cole and Bedini erroneously used CEMF of BEMF to describe the transient spike for many years. It wasn't until the early 2000's as far as I know that John stopped referring to the spike as CEMF or BEMF. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from Peter's insistence.

Cole even mentions the Kettering system, which is the ignition coil spike so they're not really talking about CEMF or BEMF at all and are definitely talking about the transient spike caused by the collapsing of the magnetic field.

I'm sure you know its the spike, but just want this clarification to be posted because I don't know who is reading this thread and might get confused by that.

Tesla did use these spikes and is what he charged the capacitors with in his "Method of Conversion", which an SG with cap dump is a miniaturized variation of that.

Power station operators would get blown up by that spike when they opened the switch because all the fields in the generators would send that spike and they'd get fried - exploded is more like it. That spike was very well known.

Secrets of Cold War Technology is highly recommended for this topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...SIN=0932813801

It isn't just able to be used as an energy source, but the QUALITY of that spike is very different from normal electricity.

The spike is directly related to a TIME CHARGE that Bedini mentioned and it is using time as potential energy.

We'd have to get into what Time is to really see what the spike is and what it is made of. It is a potential charge, but what does that mean and what is the potential itself that is being carried by that spike?

Space is aether and this aether resists mass moving through it. That is what inertia is. Just like the aether is pushing down on us with different amounts of resistance depending on the atomic matrix, a mass moving through the aether is getting the same effect but with an inverse cause. Gravity is an object that is still with the Aether moving through it. Inertia is an object moving through the stationary Aether causing a relative movement of the Aether through the mass. As a mass accelerates through the aether, that rate of change induces an increasing push on the mass that counters its movement. The faster the object goes, the more aether it interacts with per unit of Time, which is the same thing as causing an apparent increase in the density of the aether on the object increasing its "gravity" - this is the real gravity/inertia equivalence.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

Because of this interaction between the mass and inertia, we can see that there is no energy that is intrinsic to matter. First of all, that is a misuse of the term energy since energy is work and no work is being done when an object is simply sitting there. Second of all, potential isn’t stored in the object either because all source potential (Aether) is imparted into the mass from the environment - hence the fact that potential can never be stored. E=mc^2 is simply nonsense.

“There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” – Tesla

So what is time? Space is one dimensional with multiple coordinates within that one dimension. Time is not the 4^th dimension. Time is only a dimension mathematically.

When mentioning above about the increasing in density of the Aether – that is alike a very large and very dense body that would have high gravity. The Aether displaced would be incredible and the rebound would cause a very densifying effect of it towards the surface of the planet. In that area of dense Aether, a clock would tick slower than it would on Earth if you could compare them to each other from a viewpoint that is not subject to the differences in aetheric densities (actual cause of relativity).
So there is a theme regarding the Aether and its ability to exist at various densities.

If you have a rubber band propeller airplane and wind it up and let it go, the propeller would unwind if it was in a bowl of water – not much resistance against it unwinding.

The same plane unwinding in a bowl of gelatin would unwind slower representing both high gravity on a large dense object or inertia of a fast moving object accelerating towards the speed of light. The fast the object goes, the more Aether it encounters per unit of time giving an apparent increasing in density of the Aether against the mass.

Time is nothing more than the movement of mass through the Aether. Time is the incremental measurement of that movement relative to our observation of something moving in our own reference.

A child swinging at a consistent speed back and forth and then measuring how many swings happened during whatever interval you want is just as valid as a clock that is measuring the same exact same thing. So clocks don’t measure Time at all, it only shows you motion in pre-determined increments at a certain speed.

What is the ability for Time to exist? Aether that is not at an infinite density (mass moving at light speed) for example. If you have Aether that is densified, that in and of itself is the ability for TIME to exist at some point in the future – that is TIME POTENTIAL.

If you take an inductor and charge it and turn the power off, the Aether slams that field back into the coil inducing a spike, which ideally has no pulse width (it does have a bit) but has high voltage – theoretically pushing towards infinite voltage and is pure radiant potential. Voltage is the pressure of the aether.

This radiant potential is a TIME CHARGE in and of itself, because it is cultivated TIME POTENTIAL. What happens with the TIME POTENTIAL when you put it to use? The potential drops to a lower voltage, which decompresses it and what do you get out of it? Some will say work, but in reality, you get actual TIME back out of it! It is the decompressed Aether.

Higher the density of Aether, the more restrictive it is to mass moving through it or for time to “tick.” The less dense the Aether (or when you decompress compressed Aether) – the less restrictive it is to mass moving through it and Time is realized more easily.

What the transient spike is, is TIME that you are locking up and when it is put to something that allows it to decompress (like a battery), you get the TIME back out of it evidence by work being performed.

[Aaron Murakami]

Great to know that stuff of increasing the speed for the same input using an altered Magnetic structure! when do you plan to to show us that??

After I patent it. Just kidding!

I might put that here before releasing the addendum book, but will be a while. Too much going on.

[Aaron Murakami]

Alvaro, the original guy's name was Karl Schappeller. link@p17, post 164, in the 3D printed monopole thread. Author ....Davson

Are you referring to the Davson book pdf link in that thread? Schappeller had a push model of gravity?

There is a new movie/documentary on Schappeller that was made recently and is supposed to be recently released.

Homepage: http://ausdemnichts.at/en/

Streaming video you can buy/rent: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/outofthevoid

[Aaron Murakami]

Aaron, about what you posted that the earth displaces the aether... where did that came from?

Sometime ago I saw a youtube video, about a guy that seems to be with a medical condition, and what he says seems the most crazy thing I have ever read.

But I have to share here what he says because what you said Aaron, reminded me that.

This guy, says that, 1 - Gravity does not exist. 2 - What we call gravity is the effect of the Aether, he says that the Aether fluid, compresses all matter, in all directions. But on a planet the aether that comes from below has to cross the entire planet, losing power or speed or whatever, so the aether that comes from below has less power than the one that comes from the top, making things fall into the surface. etc.

Right after I met John, I was pouring through Bearden's work online. I saw one reference where he was saying or was quoting something regarding an electron displacing the universe by its own mass - still can't find that reference to this day. The moment I read that one sentence, the entire unified aether fluid gravitational model popped into my head like a movie and all connections were instantly made. It was beyond obvious even though it is theoretical. Anyway, that was what inspired my gravitational model. At the time, I never heard of a push theory of gravity like this and thought I was the first one to realize this. Later I found out there had been push theories of gravity by others over the years - many are similar with different variations. The gravitational attraction part of the model complete with the diagram blew me away 2 years ago when I found that one of Dollard's old SF Tesla Society talks had the EXACT same diagram for gravitational attraction - but he had a completely different explanation but was showing the bodies being pushed to each other.

There is supposed to be a Dynamic Theory of Gravity by Tesla, but nobody has ever seen it. I think some of it has roots in JJ Tompson's work or visa versa.

Yes, the aether compresses or at least pushes down on mass from all directions. Earth's mass displaces the aether it is in rebounding back to where it was displaced from. As it moves down, it pushes on the mass. 1 cubic foot of wood has a lot of space in the atomic matrix and 1 cubic foot of lead has much less space. If you lift the wood into the air, it doesn't encounter much resistance from the aether pushing down on it because of all the space that it moves through. If you do the same with lead, you can hardly lift it because the aether is pushing down on so much more mass and there is a lot less empty space so to speak to move through so it will have much more resistance. If you have a 1 square inch fishing net in the water and swoosh it in a river against the moving water, there is not much resistance - if you have 1 square mm mesh fishing net, you'll hardly be able to move it. As the aether moves towards the center of Earth, the theory suggests particles are formed by the aether getting compacted such as electrons that then rise up to the surface of the Earth. I think Tesla described something like that likening it to artesian water - the electrons rising to the surface. This way, it is constantly moving and dynamic and is far from being a static field per Einstein's lunacy.

As long as people are brainwashed to believe that potential gets stored, then it cuts off any reason for gravitational potential energy to energy the system and do real work. I don't understand how Bearden believes in conservation of energy, momentum, etc. when his very dipole theory eradicates the very need to store potential. A battery doesn't store anything in Bearden's model and Bedini agrees - it is just a charge separation to "break the symmetry" of the vacuum potential so that polarized aether can move to the terminals and move over the wire in a circuit. The dynamic fluid aether model makes proper use of Bearden's dipole model while allowing it to be consistent and seamlessly woven into the rest of reality regarding gravity, inertia, time, etc... a simple analysis shows that Bearden's dipole model is completely incompatible with conservation of energy. I don't know anyone else that has pointed that out, but its easily explained with ultra simple logic, 3rd grade math and 8th grade Newtonian equations - it also seems like common sense. The very premise of the dipole is to tap the potential on demand by having 2 potential differences with a common connection polarize the aether. If that is the case, it is a logical fallacy to ever "store potential".

[Tom C]

hey all,

the magnet is an over unity device, it literally pulls dipoles out of the bloch wall and into the magnetic currents, leedskalnin also knew this. everyone should get his book and do the experimets, build a P.M.H. and follow his lead.

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/emery.htm

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10653-leedskalnin-pmh-help.html

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated

John got a lot of his visualization of the field from howard johnson's book the secret world of mangets. the scans show the field strengths and locations, and how they are really needed to be thought of in 3D space. the north and the south are not the same strength and there is a huge difference in the shape of the field at the corners.

you see john used neo's very sparingly. he was very upset with the neo magnets in the 10 coil Rick sold. he even went so far as to have us make a different rotor with ceramics for it.

magnet spacing was very important to him, he wanted to make sure that there was room for the scalar south to form between the norths, to turn the base of the transistor really off.

more later

Tom C