John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Dwane Dibley]

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

Hi Aaron,
If you read chapter 16 of Davson's book - Gravitation , it is easy to see that Schappeller had formulated a notion of stored "Inertia". As an object passes through the ether vertically up or down this storage either decreases or increases. If an object is travelling parallel to the lines of force, so to speak, inertia becomes more neutral.

Regards

Dwane

[Aaron Murakami]

Commutator switching is only for one type of ''Conversion'' the Bedini SSG energiser is a Magnetoelectrically triggered 'timing device''
for the Dual counterpart of the ''Conversion'' this is accompalished using a Transistor only that JB introduced.
I personally do not know of any other mechanism that does this.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

The switch I showed does not change how the SG is triggered. It is in series with the battery so that when the long contact is in contact, the battery is connected and it runs in normal mode. When the gap comes, the input battery disconnects and the small short contact gets switched on and at that point, the recovery cap gets dropped to the front battery.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,
If you read chapter 16 of Davson's book - Gravitation , it is easy to see that Schappeller had formulated a notion of stored "Inertia". As an object passes through the ether vertically up or down this storage either decreases or increases. If an object is travelling parallel to the lines of force, so to speak, inertia becomes more neutral.

Regards

Dwane

I'll definitely look into that. Sounds very in alignment with JJ Thomson and Faraday.

This is copy and pasted from Eric Dollard's Power of Aether presentation page:


For many years, it was thought that there were magical interactions between things at a distance much like quantum physics of today.

Michael Faraday developed the ideas of the Lines of Force, which shows the interconnectivity between electrified and magnetized objects.

J.J. Thomson is the key person here who allowed us to express this in simple mathematical form.

Thomson came up with the dynamics of these Lines of Force, which he called Tubes of Electric Induction and this became an engineerable manifestation of the aether even though the aether itself remains an unknown. His most important concept is that the aether is the storehouse of momentum. This means that when the aether is electrified, it exhibits the properties of a substance with inertia and momentum that acts upon physics matter. This leads to an understanding that matter in and of itself is an accretion of the aether.

The Aether Physics of J.J. Thomson

Thomson came up with the dynamics of Faraday's Lines of Force, which he called Tubes of Electric Induction and this became an engineerable manifestation of the aether even though the aether itself remains an unknown.

His most important concept is that the aether is the storehouse of momentum. This means that when the aether is electrified, it exhibits the properties of a substance with inertia and momentum that acts upon physical matter.

This leads to an understanding that matter in and of itself is an accretion of the aether. Thomson shows that the aether is a substance that is directly engineerable both mathematically and in concrete form and that there is a direct equivelancy between aether and matter.

J.J. Thomson's work has not been understood very well as there is no continuity between the variables used in his mathematical equations. One letter may represent something in one part of his writings and it may mean something entirely different in another. Part of this work has been to straighten out the confusion in his book Electricity and Matter so that others can begin to see what he was getting at. This has never been done until now!

This is the practical foundation for not only understanding the physics of the aether, but in being able to apply practical engineering to it.

Thomson is credited with the discovery of the electron, but it was his studies into the Aether physics and the Faraday Tubes, which led him to that discovery to begin with. Much of this history is covered up and discarded in conventional material and these notebooks delve into the facts.
Thomson also had the most quantitative theory of an electrified theory and this is what Dollard is expanding upon in these notebooks.

[Faraday88]

The switch I showed does not change how the SG is triggered. It is in series with the battery so that when the long contact is in contact, the battery is connected and it runs in normal mode. When the gap comes, the input battery disconnects and the small short contact gets switched on and at that point, the recovery cap gets dropped to the front battery.

Hi Aaron,
By two ''Conversion'' methods i mean exactly like what Peter said either Inductive or Capacitive Fractionation. the Cap dump is the SPACE switicing(what you showed as A-B-C in your diagram) as per me...and the Inductive spike capture is the TIME Evoke method of Radiant electricity. i do not know how you can trigger the later(TIME evoke) other than what JB showed us (Transistor/Trigger method) iam refering to this Switching that is the basis of the SG spike production.
Yes, that is what is done in the pat# 6,545,444 the Cap dump and What you showed here is also what is applicable in the Pat #6,545,444 the Time evoke is done at two different instances as per me..with the Magnetic structure i showed the rotor runs at constant high RPM even when the back battery is as low as 7.45V (of a 12v Battery) with that said, the pat#6,545,444 is truely a combination of JB's 1984 Single battery(front) Machine and his 2000 SG (dual capture)implementation.. self runner.
Rgds,
Fardaay88.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,
By two ''Conversion'' methods i mean exactly like what Peter said either Inductive or Capacitive Fractionation. the Cap dump is the SPACE switicing(what you showed as A-B-C in your diagram) as per me...and the Inductive spike capture is the TIME Evoke method of Radiant electricity. i do not know how you can trigger the later(TIME evoke) other than what JB showed us (Transistor/Trigger method) iam refering to this Switching that is the basis of the SG spike production.
Yes, that is what is done in the pat# 6,545,444 the Cap dump and What you showed here is also what is applicable in the Pat #6,545,444 the Time evoke is done at two different instances as per me..with the Magnetic structure i showed the rotor runs at constant high RPM even when the back battery is as low as 7.45V (of a 12v Battery) with that said, the pat#6,545,444 is truely a combination of JB's 1984 Single battery(front) Machine and his 2000 SG (dual capture)implementation.. self runner.
Rgds,
Fardaay88.

That switch is based on a different application of this:

[Faraday88]

That switch is based on a different application of this:

Hi Aaron,
I'm in Absolute agreement with You..!! JB said (his website) that the motor was the ineffeicent part of the whole system in his 1984 endavour of a self-sustained motor/generator system..and then he came up with the SSG Energiser that we know today. it is simple..if you seek Torque go with the 1984 machine..if you seek Energy storage go with with 2000 SG... but yes his 10 coiler is a combo of both i still feel!!let alone the obscure Magnetic structure of the rotor. I do not understand Quatranion math but but i'm ahead from the opposite route to get it all right!! Maths by itself is a Science, people have ruined it altogether to make it complicated.
the picture you posted is monumental of its day i must say.. I can also say it is the E.V Gray machine scaled down in a way, Build that Energiser and configure it the right way and you have done it!! how many have replicated it here..???
I would love to exhibit my model in the up comming Conference if you let me
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[AlvaroHN]

The gravity / aether / magnetic / electric subject is very interesting.

The gravity been the aether effect on a large object, like a planet, is very interesting and straightforward,

it might be as you guys say, that the planet distorts the aether around it and that is what we see as gravity.

or it might be as I saw on a video that I told about, that the aether enter the planet in all directions with lets say "10" of force, and the other aether that comes from the other side of the planet and has to get through it, it looses "power" or "speed" or whatever, and exits the earth with say "5" of force. So in all parts of the earth we get a aether with force "10" from the top, and "5" from below, and that is why we get a pulling down force on the surface of earth.

Anyhow, both theories implies that the aether is there, we can suck it, or alter it to get antigravity, etc. I have to get back to Peter L website where we talks about a person creating anti gravity with 2 parallel plates electrified in different ways.

best,

Alvaro

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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.