John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Deuis]

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.

According to Dollard, the core should equal the mass of the copper in the inductor for the best efficiency.

Maybe Tom can work up some 3D printed coil form for a certain wire size and turns that this can be tested for the SG.

[Aaron Murakami]

I tried the experiment that I came up with, it did not work. The oscillation of the 2 magnets produced nothing... 10-20mV Max, and even with coil shorting it was nothing.

You wrapped the middle magnet with wire? What awg, how many turns, etc...?

[Aaron Murakami]

+1 like for ZPDM.

I see the coil itself is tuned for John's devices (voltage,frequency,hysteresis,matched loads etc). The upshot is that the conventional coil theory doesn't match the vacuum discharge of the area/mass of the copper, Flip flopping conventional theory to vacuum theories. Therefore more copper mass equals larger vacuum pipe dumped into the batteries. I also see that John was chasing exponential equations from conventional intersections. or put in mathematical terms he was relying on P=VI (to turn a rotor) with the resultant of X^2 multiplied by Y^2 (super poles interacting with coil discharges?). the mass of the rotor forcing the squared squares to momentarily dump into something fast enough to absorb the hit (capacitor). Then again I'm probably wrong.

According to Dollard, the core should equal the mass of the copper in the inductor for the best efficiency.

Maybe Tom can work up some 3D printed coil form for a certain wire size and turns that this can be tested for the SG.

[Aaron Murakami]

Its raining again.

Just a thought. An Accelerating and expanding universe is most likely caused by the spin of the aether associated with rotating galaxies, galaxies are like spinning charges or dipoles, if they spin the same way they will mostly will repel, and accelerate.

Einstein dropped the aether because he thought it was static, he was WRONG to think this. The planets move in a stretched space or less dense aether, which ever way you prefer to visualize it. The aether is pulled along like a liquid by the planets. Rotating galaxies pull the aether with them also stretching it like big whirl pools or rivers. The universe is expanding and galaxies are accelerating away from each other(except Andromeda, which is coming this way(which way is it spinning??? Dont be alarmed its 4 billion light years away)), most galaxies are orbiting the same direction, they are like dipoles with the same spin they WILL therefore repel and accelerate. Einstein screwed up, his biggest blunder was not the gravitational constant, it was misunderstanding the aether. The aether explains everything, it is everything, it carries all known forces, it forms quantum matter and all known particles.

Does anyone think the idea carries water, "accelerating universes". Dark matter is mostly probably completely wrong, Einstein screwed up, the aether is everything, and all motion is relative to a moving aether.

If you can stretch the aether or space more in the direction you want to go, than is caused by the local gravitional stretching of space, that is the direction you will accelerate. The aether appears to have inertia as is demonstrated with motor startup accelerations, the second start always takes less energy than the first, with in a short time frame.

It is very possible the aether could be stretched centrifugally by rotating wheels, ie thrown out of the material, but this would not have a direction, except to create a local gravitational anomaly, near the wheel. It could also be stretched by a continual very high frequency charge or magnetic fluctuation over a large curved surface, curved pancake coil perhaps, curved to create a focal divergence point or inbalance.

This could of course not be worth commenting on.!! but I think its worth a nobel prize. Perhaps an internet based one, so they dont know who to shoot.

I am going to have to update my essays again.

Have a nice weekend, boa fin semana.

Rgds

Andy

It's a bold claim but my personal model encompasses 100% of all of that. Earth displaces the aether and the aether rebounds back to where it was displaced from pushing down on the mass that makes up any object. That is why the objects are pushed to the ground. If you have a vertical rotor and it is spinning, the outer part of the mass will deflect the aether that hits it from the top perpendicularly preventing it from all moving through the mass - that causes a lower inertial effect in the center. If this wheel is spinning at high speed and I throw it in the air, it will rise faster than can be accounted for when taking the force of the throw into the calculation and when it drops, it will fall faster than anything else. DePalma's spinning ball tests have already proven this and my model explains why - DePalma's explanations are overly complex but he definitely had some highly intuitive drive that drove him in the right direction. I'd have to draw some diagrams to show but it explains 100% of every gyroscopic action, gravitational attraction, etc... and so simple it is suitable for childhood education.

It's not completely off topic but it is difficult to comment on John's gravitational model except it does have its premise in the Sun/Earth interaction and the tilted Bloch Wall relative to the plane of rotation around the Sun. If I can find old lab notes specific to his gravity model, I will let you know.

[Aaron Murakami]

This is a great thread thank you to everyone for all of the insights and information. While it is not perfectly on topic, it might not yet deserve its own thread, so I'll post some findings of some very simple experiments I did a little while back, that I hadn't mentioned as I might not fully understand yet and are incomplete. So this concerns the magnitude of the radiant. Along with whatever else it may be the radiant is a function of the rate of collapse of the magnetic field, for a given strength of field one which changes/collapses more rapidly yields a more powerful radiant spike. This is Faraday, the displacement current is a function of dv/dt, it is really quite astonishing, it is absolutely divorced from input energy and is only a function of the behaviour of the magnetic field in time.

So to engineer for the spike one wants, a) the greatest induction for the least amount of input energy (As Joseph Neumann made crystal clear this also isn't a one to one linear relationship with input power, but that might be for another thread) and b) the most rapid change in the magnetic field.

By Ohm's Law V=IR so R=V/I. I don't know if I need to go through this given high voltage transmission lines but as I'm not an engineer and others may not be as well, let's consider two scenarios of 10 watts power: 1) V= 1, I = 10 and 2) V=10 I =1.
Situation 1 R =1/10, situation 2 R = 10/1. Same input power greatly different resistance, isn't resistance in the wire going to determine the rate of change of the collapsing magnetic field?

So I took a 0.1 uF thin film (low ESR) cap and was discharging it into all sorts of coils capturing the radiant into all sorts of other caps. This is when I started writing on the "two cap paradox". Holy flippin bejezuz Zeus' beard any simple transfer between two caps doesn't follow conservation of energy it only follows conservation of charge. Nearly any radiant spike violates conservation of charge to the upside, (which I suspect is why the SSG can be OU, the battery cares about charge). A small cap to a large through a coil might violate conservation of charge 5, 10, 50, 100 times in excess but you will only be at 0.5 -10% energy transfer because of the math with conservation of charge vs energy. If you go a cap to an equal sized cap you just slightly violate conservation of charge to upside and it is not enough to violate conservation of energy to the upside. Videos showing just that have been posted by others.

Getting back to voltage and radiant spike, does increasing voltage increase the power of the radiant for a given input power. The answer is yes and I have, a lot, of spreadsheets to attest to it. The easiest and most direct way to confirm is the following. Take a cap, say 0.2 uf (or two 0.1 uf caps in parallel), discharge through a coil, capture radiant with Bedini diode into say a 100 UF cap, measure magnitude of spike, per the voltage in the 100 uF cap. Now take two 10 volt 0.1 UF caps and hook them in series. We now have 20 volts but capacitance has decreased by a factor of four, that is to say the two caps in series have the exact same energy as the two caps in parallel, right? That is what the textbooks say and obviously the case. When you discharge the two caps in series the radiant is significantly higher. Voila, the take home from this as I haven't done a lot in this area would like to hear about it, running an SSG at 48 volts should be significantly more efficient than at 12 volts.

Now when I saw this, I thought, "I've got it". I began mapping input power versus radiant spike output power from 5 - 30 volts and saying well, from this cap to that cap with this coil, efficiency doubled from ten to thirty volts (max of the power supply), this coil will violate conservation of energy at 100,000 volts, this coil will be OU at 20,000 volts. Then I built a little joule thief transformer and went higher voltage. Now going from 30-90 volts things didn't double again they only improved say 50% (the figures are made up but in the ball park), then from 90 - 270 things only improved 25%. I didn't go beyond 400 cause a) I was discouraged and b) didn't want to shock myself even with an annoying 0.1 uF cap. Then I thought "I've got it" I used an iron core because it is better at producing large spikes at low voltages, the hysteriesis in the core is slowing down the field collapse, I'll use an air core. Sure enough the air core was worse at low voltages but improved at higher voltages then again started dropping off asymptotically over say 50 volts.

So chewing on this what can we come up with? The rate of collapse of an inductor is not determined only or primarily by the straight wire DC resistance of the winds. At higher voltages (higher powers) something else is coming to the fore. This relates in part to the idea of multifilar winds but my hypothesis or guess if you like at this point is that the induced Lenz from each wind to another becomes the overriding factor affecting dv/dt at higher voltages. This isn't that nuts, if you take a .1 uf cap a 1 volt versus a .1 uf cap at 100 volts. a) the power to the coil will be ten thousand times different b) the resistance in delivering the energy will R=V/I be one one hundredth. Therefore the peak amp turns could conceivably be up to a million times more at 100 volts versus 1 volt. I really don't know but I think it has to be interwire Lenz slowing the collapse of the coil. If only, if only we had a way around this. I think Tesla gave us this with his counterwound pancake coil. Might also explain why his coils look nothing like the coils you commonly see, almost all one layer and air core. I haven't done anything for a couple months. I've got some 22 gauge wire, maybe should order some twelve gauge so I don't need so many winds (the radiant is a function of coil mass, at least until I've looked at the cw pancake), but when I order stuff half the time I waste my money and realize it worked easier and better with what I had. So, a big piece of cardboard, some superglue, a couple 22 gauge spools and let's see how a Tesla CW Pancake maps at different input voltages, eh?

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

I'm posting this here because it's related to magnetic theory.

I have been reading a lot lately, threads that I missed, etc. So some people last year was walking about barium ferrite, and why wouldn't some devices work without those magnets. If I remember correctly, in one of EVTF movies, John explains what the barium ferrite magnets do, they oscillate, and it was what Floyd Sweet was doing, pulsing coils around those magnets, and picking up the oscillation with other coil or something like that.

and I remembered what I used to do as a kid playing with magnets, everybody must have done this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUupoL53azc&feature=youtu.be

So barium ferrite oscillate, ok , but an arrangement like this also oscillates, it seems to be a gravity - magnetism oscillation.

So a coil could be wound on the middle magnet, and of course the voltage generated there must be very low, but, we could add coil shorting with a reed, that into a cap, and small cap dump into a second winding on the same magnet, a pulse on that magnet would make the other magnets oscillate again.

That's a great experiment - maybe put it on the inside of a Tupperware lid and put the bowl as the lid to make it air tight and put it somewhere on concrete basement floor or something and see how many hours they will move until sitting still - if they get still at all.

[AlvaroHN]

Floyd S got the magnets to flip polarity. JB said it was because the Barrium magnets had memory.. Two little pulses on the Ferris Wheel Hub would flip the polarity then they would remember to go back. This would drive the wheel.

I tried the experiment that I came up with, it did not work. The oscillation of the 2 magnets produced nothing... 10-20mV Max, and even with coil shorting it was nothing.

[Aaron Murakami]

A couple of points of interest, on the antigravity

1) John would say the pumping action on the magnet from the coil's field manipulates the Bloch wall (moves it) and at the Bloch wall, that is where the aether enters. That is the point where there is a Zero Force, Antigravity, Null Force, Zero Vector and about a half a dozen other names for the exact same thing.

2) There also comments on the bifilar wound coils,

On point 1 pumping space with a magnetic field or an electrostatic field, might effect the aether, IE stretch it. Gravity is represented as a stretching of space by mass. Einstein dropped aether theory because he considered the aether to be Static. There is no reason it should not move, he was wrong to drop it. Tesla referenced Veritable ropes in the sky, he was I think talking about stretching space above his flying machine, so that gravity was reversed ie stronger abover the machine, this would take a minimal force, equivalent to the gravitational force diffference between the top and bottom of the flying machine.

On point 2 The double bifilar coil is a I think a dynamic capacitor, you must view it with a pulse of current travelling around it, and imagine the adjacent winding with an opposite charge induced on it, inducing a charge of opposite polarity. Normally today this is used as a low inductance resistor, due to opposing windings cancelling out the mutual inductance. Stacking them on top of each other as in one of the posts will induce opposite charges in those plates also, like a weird dynamic capacitor.

I have played with "but not seriously" pancake coils to try and stretch or modify space, there is an interesting effect, ie there is a movement of the coil if it is pulsed in one direction but not the other. I noticed a pancake coil on Tom Batchelors picture of a Tesla flying machine post.

Its stopped raining

Andy

As a magnetic field expands from a coil, the aether is proportionately displaced. When the coil's power is cut, it is the aether, which is rebounding back to where it was displaced from and that is what causes the high speed collapse.

I would personally say displacement instead of stretching because it is a fluid being displaced proportional to the mass that displaces it.

Tesla's references appear very related to JJ Thomson's work and the Faraday Tubes, which connect one area to another thru the aetheric medium (no spooky action at a distance or quantum).

Einstein was one of the most prolific plagiarists and frauds of the last 100 years. He knew Dayton Miller's work crumbled his model but was hesitant to ever admit it writing off the interferometer results as temperature swings, etc.

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"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.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

I wish Dollard were available to comment directly on the coil's capacitive properties.

[Aaron Murakami]

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?

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

Are you talking about these two types... I'm looking at the Bloch walls, one extends outward in the superpole and the other does not extend outward but inward? Or are you talking about the four corner spins vs the conventional two spin? Or are you talking about the two opposite fields and their relationship, on any magnet (north / south) face, that oppose each other, one gives upon entering and the other taketh away upon leaving? If not please do tell what you are talking about so we can move onward towards a better understanding.


Dave Wing

Hi Dave,

I'd consider both of those to be the same. The cloverleaf diagram is what I was after. But there is one other that John drew.

If you can post the conventional 2 spin, I can comment.

It is more than a comparison of the 4 vs 2.

[Deuis]

+1 like for ZPDM.

I see the coil itself is tuned for John's devices (voltage,frequency,hysteresis,matched loads etc). The upshot is that the conventional coil theory doesn't match the vacuum discharge of the area/mass of the copper, Flip flopping conventional theory to vacuum theories. Therefore more copper mass equals larger vacuum pipe dumped into the batteries. I also see that John was chasing exponential equations from conventional intersections. or put in mathematical terms he was relying on P=VI (to turn a rotor) with the resultant of X^2 multiplied by Y^2 (super poles interacting with coil discharges?). the mass of the rotor forcing the squared squares to momentarily dump into something fast enough to absorb the hit (capacitor). Then again I'm probably wrong.

This is a great thread thank you to everyone for all of the insights and information. While it is not perfectly on topic, it might not yet deserve its own thread, I really don't know but I think it has to be interwire Lenz slowing the collapse of the coil. If only, if only we had a way around this. I think Tesla gave us this with his counterwound pancake coil. Might also explain why his coils look nothing like the coils you commonly see, almost all one layer and air core. I haven't done anything for a couple months. I've got some 22 gauge wire, maybe should order some twelve gauge so I don't need so many winds (the radiant is a function of coil mass, at least until I've looked at the cw pancake), but when I order stuff half the time I waste my money and realize it worked easier and better with what I had. So, a big piece of cardboard, some superglue, a couple 22 gauge spools and let's see how a Tesla CW Pancake maps at different input voltages, eh?

[Faraday88]

Its raining again.

Just a thought. An Accelerating and expanding universe is most likely caused by the spin of the aether associated with rotating galaxies, galaxies are like spinning charges or dipoles, if they spin the same way they will mostly will repel, and accelerate.

Einstein dropped the aether because he thought it was static, he was WRONG to think this. The planets move in a stretched space or less dense aether, which ever way you prefer to visualize it. The aether is pulled along like a liquid by the planets. Rotating galaxies pull the aether with them also stretching it like big whirl pools or rivers. The universe is expanding and galaxies are accelerating away from each other(except Andromeda, which is coming this way(which way is it spinning??? Dont be alarmed its 4 billion light years away)), most galaxies are orbiting the same direction, they are like dipoles with the same spin they WILL therefore repel and accelerate. Einstein screwed up, his biggest blunder was not the gravitational constant, it was misunderstanding the aether. The aether explains everything, it is everything, it carries all known forces, it forms quantum matter and all known particles.

Does anyone think the idea carries water, "accelerating universes". Dark matter is mostly probably completely wrong, Einstein screwed up, the aether is everything, and all motion is relative to a moving aether.

If you can stretch the aether or space more in the direction you want to go, than is caused by the local gravitional stretching of space, that is the direction you will accelerate. The aether appears to have inertia as is demonstrated with motor startup accelerations, the second start always takes less energy than the first, with in a short time frame.

It is very possible the aether could be stretched centrifugally by rotating wheels, ie thrown out of the material, but this would not have a direction, except to create a local gravitational anomaly, near the wheel. It could also be stretched by a continual very high frequency charge or magnetic fluctuation over a large curved surface, curved pancake coil perhaps, curved to create a focal divergence point or inbalance.

This could of course not be worth commenting on.!! but I think its worth a nobel prize. Perhaps an internet based one, so they dont know who to shoot.

I am going to have to update my essays again.

Have a nice weekend, boa fin semana.

Rgds

Andy

Enistein did not elaborate his findings!!! could be for reasons of sabotage or otherwise!!!
But TESLA did!! I know statements that are TESLA like but stated by Einstein..now talk!!!
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Bradley Malone]

Walter russell explains in his books how atoms planets and even galaxies all work on the same principle. It is a cycle where they spin out in and every expanding slowing spin, such as a skater spreading her arms out she gets bigger and spins slower, then at some point all that energy is dissipated and begins contracting like the skater pulling her arms back in. the supposed evidence for a big bang is because our entire universe that we can see is still in the outward breath of the cycle. I can do no justice to the explanations of that man...truly amazing and I think spot on.

oh and also everything is elecric/magnetic in nature. So anybody looking into magnetism and trying to understand electric should really look his stuff up.

[min2oly]

I'm posting this here because it's related to magnetic theory.

I have been reading a lot lately, threads that I missed, etc. So some people last year was walking about barium ferrite, and why wouldn't some devices work without those magnets. If I remember correctly, in one of EVTF movies, John explains what the barium ferrite magnets do, they oscillate, and it was what Floyd Sweet was doing, pulsing coils around those magnets, and picking up the oscillation with other coil or something like that.

and I remembered what I used to do as a kid playing with magnets, everybody must have done this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUupoL53azc&feature=youtu.be

So barium ferrite oscillate, ok , but an arrangement like this also oscillates, it seems to be a gravity - magnetism oscillation.

So a coil could be wound on the middle magnet, and of course the voltage generated there must be very low, but, we could add coil shorting with a reed, that into a cap, and small cap dump into a second winding on the same magnet, a pulse on that magnet would make the other magnets oscillate again.

Floyd S got the magnets to flip polarity. JB said it was because the Barrium magnets had memory.. Two little pulses on the Ferris Wheel Hub would flip the polarity then they would remember to go back. This would drive the wheel.

[AlvaroHN]

I'm posting this here because it's related to magnetic theory.

I have been reading a lot lately, threads that I missed, etc. So some people last year was walking about barium ferrite, and why wouldn't some devices work without those magnets. If I remember correctly, in one of EVTF movies, John explains what the barium ferrite magnets do, they oscillate, and it was what Floyd Sweet was doing, pulsing coils around those magnets, and picking up the oscillation with other coil or something like that.

and I remembered what I used to do as a kid playing with magnets, everybody must have done this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUupoL53azc&feature=youtu.be

So barium ferrite oscillate, ok , but an arrangement like this also oscillates, it seems to be a gravity - magnetism oscillation.

So a coil could be wound on the middle magnet, and of course the voltage generated there must be very low, but, we could add coil shorting with a reed, that into a cap, and small cap dump into a second winding on the same magnet, a pulse on that magnet would make the other magnets oscillate again.