John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[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]

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=RUup...ature=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.

[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]

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]

+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]

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...?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.