John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[AlvaroHN]

Hi,
Do not redicule this guys opinion..he is ''partly'' correct in his thinking path because Like Electricity and Magnetism are unified so is Gravity and Vacuum (or aether). in Electromagnetic terms they bear the same broken symmerty, put it differently I have repeatedly said this else where in this forum that Vacuum Field is an explosive force, while Gravity Field is an Implosive Force..now the simultaneous presence of this is nothing but the OPEN and CLOSED paths of Elecromagnetic Universe! there is more to the Physical Vacuum field than what we know it as and the explanation to that would reveal the exact nature of Gravity as well.
Rgds,
Faraday88

Yeah it is an amazing theory , when I said that the guy who made the video is on a medical condition I didn't say it on a bad way or anything, he really have something he wrote it on his YouTube channel.

Best

Alvaro

[Dave Wing]

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

[Faraday88]

Haven't see those vids since they came out, but any dipole that polarizes the aether and has a conduction so that the positive potential turns into EMF can move to the lower potential and get dissipated to a degree on the way is happening in every circuit all the time.

The virtual poles always seemed very real to me - just stronger per area (more focused).

Later, I'll show something I came up with years ago to enhance the Q1, Q2 (scalar poles) to make the rotor turn even faster with less input. Actually part of an addendum to go with the SG trilogy - don't want to get into that right here at this point.

Isn't that structure intrinsic in any rotor for the SG if all like poles are facing out?

What voltage before being loaded? Input or output battery?

Hi Aaron,

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??
Yes it is for both the primary and secondary batteries... like in the present 'topology'' i only load the out put battery , but when i swap their position the primary Battery rest voltage settles at what i begin with (before charging the secondary) this way we can seamlessly rotate them to get high COP.
The strusture(I called it 3-Flipp Inversion back then) is made for a very good reason i feel and perhaps it is also the answers to the obscure squeezing of N-N or S-S superpole that Bedini came up with.
the reason is to bring the Bloch wall of the coil external and therby making the rotor's Field's a part of its internal!!!
Unless you have the Bedini energiser as a linear accelerator its Natural Geometry for Rotoarywheel would be like what i showed.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Faraday88]

What about comparing to wrapping the wire long ways around the coil from N to S and then try around the width (unless that is the Bloch Wall) way you're mentioning. And then there is around the thin perimeter - all 3 axis.

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.

[AlvaroHN]

Yes the person on the video said that name.

It is very interesting, and it does make more sense than gravity...

[Faraday88]

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.

Hi,
Do not redicule this guys opinion..he is ''partly'' correct in his thinking path because Like Electricity and Magnetism are unified so is Gravity and Vacuum (or aether). in Electromagnetic terms they bear the same broken symmerty, put it differently I have repeatedly said this else where in this forum that Vacuum Field is an explosive force, while Gravity Field is an Implosive Force..now the simultaneous presence of this is nothing but the OPEN and CLOSED paths of Elecromagnetic Universe! there is more to the Physical Vacuum field than what we know it as and the explanation to that would reveal the exact nature of Gravity as well.
Rgds,
Faraday88

[dennis foyil]

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

[AlvaroHN]

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

32AWG 200 turns, I wrapped the coil around the bloch wall.

Maybe with a muuuuch longer coil, and magnets way bigger it could be another story.

What about comparing to wrapping the wire long ways around the coil from N to S and then try around the width (unless that is the Bloch Wall) way you're mentioning. And then there is around the thin perimeter - all 3 axis.

[Aaron Murakami]

In a couple of John's older posts he said there was a difference between a neo-maget field and a ceramic magnet field other than just the strength. It seams in his later posts he allowed neo-magnets could be used but to compensate for a larger field and strength. Does anyone have an insight as to what he saw as the difference between those too types of fields?

For example in the Kromrey machine, if the magnets are weak enough, you can pull and stretch the field out and away as if it is taffy - really flexible. On a neo, it's like plucking a string wound way too tight, you don't get much of that flexibility.

[Aaron Murakami]

From your qoute do I read you agree with the stretching of space, but include a huge bounce effect. Is this not the same as would be seen with very small pertubations of the aether, ie infinite vibrations averaged to one bounce. Is the huge bounce not just a lumped parameter variation of many small vibrations added together, stretching space.

My gravitational ideas cover everything in the known universe, they are however just ideas. I include not only accelerating galaxies, but a fair explanation as to why there appears to be an edge of the known universe, which I reckon is infinite, etc. I also am pretty convinced Einstein has made some howling big mistakes, which are holding the hole of the payed scientific community back.

Thanks for the reply, at least someone found it interesting.

Andy

Even Einstein's original model, before he went to the dark side, was that of an elastic aether.

Space can be stretched out, but that is a separate quality from mass displacing it.

Space has one dimension and that is space. It has a coordinate system that can describe a position in that singular dimension of space but coordinates are not dimensions. So there is no such thing as "3D space + time".

This is also a mathematical engineering reality when it comes to electricity and is algebraically indisputable if numbers mean anything to you or anyone else.

Space is not filled with aether, it is aether.

It is possible for space to be stretched so that the density of aether is low - in that case, light travels very fast relative to space with higher density in which case, it travels very slow.

The premise to Einstein's intentional or unintentional psychosis was to wave the Jedi hand so you won't see the droids even though they're sitting right there. It's hard to tell what he actually believed or what appears to be what he was told to push. I'll elaborate later on but don't want to get far off topic from this thread.

Space can be "compressed" or at least densified - contrary to the belief that aether is in-compressible - that is a misunderstanding because of the belief that aether will permeate all mass and therefore you cannot squeeze down on something if it slips through your fingers.

All of this is certainly different than the "pertubations" of the aether.

To look at space being compressed or thinned, the example that most people here would be familiar with is the inductive spike - so what is time? It can be logically deduced without fantastical ideas simply looking at it for what it is instead of what it has been turned in to by mainstream brainwashing.

Everything has to at least start with ideas so good on you.

My ideas are an amalgam of Bearden, Bedini, Dollard, JJ Tompson, Faraday, etc... and a bit of my own in the attempt to tie them together into a unified model and I've been working on that for about 18 years and its very simple. So far, it's predicted everything from gravitational attraction to the Bifeld Brown effect to real work you get from an inductive spike, etc...

How does this all tie into Bedini's magnetic model? Parts of it do, but he took his model only so far. Bearden tried to put an academic understanding to Bedini's work. When I first started to study Bearden's work, John actually warned me not to get caught up in it and not to go that route. He was straight up about that right in the beginning. That seems contrary to the Bedini/Bearden work, but its true - he told me exactly that. Any model as rigorous as Bearden's model is self limiting to the imagination. It doesn't necessarily mean that Bearden is wrong either, but models can be traps and that is what I think is the point to John's comments.

John actually thought my model of time made more sense than his own, which he didn't really elaborate on his time model very much, but he said that when I shared my viewpoints on the matter based on simply observing the basics in front of my face. But he did comment that what I shared with him was along the lines of what Bearden said, but I can't find a close enough analogy to what Bearden said in regards to time to see that close of a comparison. I actually think it is quite a bit off from what Bearden has said.

[AlvaroHN]

32AWG 200 turns, I wrapped the coil around the bloch wall.

Maybe with a muuuuch longer coil, and magnets way bigger it could be another story.

[Michael Luton]

In a couple of John's older posts he said there was a difference between a neo-maget field and a ceramic magnet field other than just the strength. It seams in his later posts he allowed neo-magnets could be used but to compensate for a larger field and strength. Does anyone have an insight as to what he saw as the difference between those too types of fields?

[Aaron Murakami]

Dave,

Here is what I'm getting at and I guess John already posted it - no prob because it is a distinction that was important to him especially early on - perhaps later too.

This first one you already posted, the cloverleaf diagram. John posted that depiction on quite a few drawings. Doesn't matter if it is a superpole diagram or not - it always applies. The thing that changes is what quadrant has what field and the first diagram below is different from the 3rd, but you see the cloverleaf concept.



This second one you already posted, the bottom diagram shows the typical circular diagram of the field, but he calls them the current lines of force. Also for the superpole, me mentions that the magnets should be at an angle in that configuration - does that mean taking a plastic or wooden shim to gap them on one of the long sides. It is amazing how much work he put into that very concept but in the later days, I don't know if he actually did that on his own superpoles, but he sure had a lot of ideas on that one. In any case, I wouldn't call this the 2 as opposed to the above diagram being the 4 and I'll clarify in a moment.



Below, I tweaked the contrast quite a bit, probably better in black/white but wanted to preserve his color coding. This shows both the cloverleaf and the ELECTRIC FIELD (current lines of force).



What it is - is not a comparison between two types of magnetic field representations, which is what the popular interpretation is. The cloverleaf representation is the REAL MAGNETIC FIELD and the non-clover leaf one is the ELECTRIC LINES OF FORCE. They exist simultaneously. And how you see that small magnet hanging - going back to very old pendulum experiments... the rotor on the ZFM FOLLOWS THE LINES OF ELECTRIC FLUX TOWARDS THE EQUATOR. That is what John's original model is and if he still believed that totally to the recent times, I can't really say because he didn't comment on it much. However, it is an important distinction between seeing the cloverleaf as the 4 lobed depiction of a magnetic field and the other as the 2 or common magnetic field depiction because in John's drawing the "2" one is NOT a magnetic field.

And when you see the parallel lines with the arrows going in opposite direction, their spins counter and repel each other and that is what keeps them separated and expanded spatially. If that wasn't the case, it would probably hug the surface of the magnet with nothing much expanding past that.

There is a lot more but I think I'll leave it there for the time being in hopes that RS, Tom C and others can share their views based on their own long history of following John's work and interacting with him and I welcome clarification, disagreement, etc... with what I've shared so far. What I've shared so far on the 23 degrees/Earth tilt, distinction between the REAL magnetic field and electric lines of force on a magnet/electromagnetic, etc. are direct teachings from John and are not speculation based on him dropping crumbs for me to figure out.

I was never that interested in the ZFM until last conference because I didn't understand it very well, but looking back over at notes he posted publicly (thanks Dave!) and some he gave me copies of long ago, which I didn't appreciate until relatively recently, there are several layers of learning about how it works. I'll share the simplest understanding as time permits because I'll have to actually draw the diagram myself.

[Aaron Murakami]

What does he say about the correlation between the two?

One being copper and one being some sort of silicon steel preferably.

valence electrons, specific weight, conductance, and structure are far different.

We've only a a superficial conversation on it and I'm waiting to find out if he is ok.

He's been in the hospital for 3 months and his friend picked up him a few weeks ago - I'm expecting to hear from him any time.

Back in Tesla's time there wasn't a lot of the core material we have today so I'm sure it was some simple core material but in any case, I'll try to find out some basic parameters to work from. There is always a relationship between them and I wouldn't be surprised if Eric has the exact simple algebraic formula to give the answer.

The SG coils always had a lot of copper for the amount of core material - I don't know if that was intentional or not.