John Bedini's Magnetic Model

[Aaron Murakami]

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

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

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

[ZPDM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Faraday88]

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

Rgds,
Faraday88.

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

[Faraday88]

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

Rgds,
Faraday88.

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

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

[Tom C]

erik laithwiate has a lot to say on the subject

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

Tom C

[Dave Wing]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Aaron,

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Wing

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Wing

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




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

In this note:



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Wing

Hi Dave,
Its simple....they use Capacitor discharge into the coil and not a battery in such coin shrinker excitation... but yes that does give you some clues on what the heck is the Bloch wall capable of!!
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Dave Wing]

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

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

[min2oly]

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

I concur Dave,
I did try to go down this road with discussions on the old yahoo forum and have always pointed to JB's talk on DVD #2 about the guy throwing the switch at Niagara falls and what happened before the current got there... the powers that be took down my youtube video on it. Many disagree with this but if you look at a couple of vids I have up you can see the spike before and after - that's 2 spikes for each trigger event. I always thought that was what Tom Bearden meant when he talked about keeping the dipole open for as long as possible.
Patrick A.

[BobZilla]

I concur Dave,
I did try to go down this road with discussions on the old yahoo forum and have always pointed to JB's talk on DVD #2 about the guy throwing the switch at Niagara falls and what happened before the current got there... the powers that be took down my youtube video on it. Many disagree with this but if you look at a couple of vids I have up you can see the spike before and after - that's 2 spikes for each trigger event. I always thought that was what Tom Bearden meant when he talked about keeping the dipole open for as long as possible.
Patrick A.

The pre-current spike is very real. I wrote about it and experimented with it back here:
http://www.energyscienceforum.com/sh...st10765http://

I later developed it farther, that thread was made when I had first started to understand a few things that were going on. What seems important when your interested in it is the potential, higher the better but not necessarily the current. I played with that MC until I got such fast switching that neither the digital or analog amp meter showed hardly any current but the spikes were in the hundreds of volts. Caps are good for pre-current spikes while inductors are good for collapsing spikes. To really see the difference try the same frequency triggering on a cap and then on a coil, you will notice quite a difference.

[Faraday88]

erik laithwiate has a lot to say on the subject

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

Tom C

Educational indeed but slightly of topic i feel
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Allen R.]

Did anyone notice the ball leap at the closing of the switch and then settle down? Great video. I'm going to use it for my son's homeschool science class.

Those huge meters should be on my bench!!!

This thread is probably one of the best on the whole forum.

Thanks everyone,

al

[min2oly]

The pre-current spike is very real. I wrote about it and experimented with it back here:
http://www.energyscienceforum.com/sh...st10765http://

I later developed it farther, that thread was made when I had first started to understand a few things that were going on. What seems important when your interested in it is the potential, higher the better but not necessarily the current. I played with that MC until I got such fast switching that neither the digital or analog amp meter showed hardly any current but the spikes were in the hundreds of volts. Caps are good for pre-current spikes while inductors are good for collapsing spikes. To really see the difference try the same frequency triggering on a cap and then on a coil, you will notice quite a difference.

I always liked that cap dump of yours. I hoped at the time it might spark the conversation of the dipole a bit further. I can’t find where you show the pre-current spike, can you provide link?

The spike I see in my scope is just as big as the spike after the current. As I’ve described it, I have only been able to produce with resistance (a coil). The Vanilla SSG will not be able to produce it. I cannot see it in my scope by using a cap to battery as you describe. I must be missing something.

So, you have a cap with potential XXX and you want to connect it to the battery with potential X.

So are you saying in order for both the pre-current and after current spike to show up, the switching has to extremely fast?

Or - in order for the pre-current spike to show up at all the switching has to be fast?

My common sense would tell me that the pre-current spike should show up regardless of the on time of the switch and that it is the after current spike that needs some coaxing?
None of this is common sense though right :-)
KR-Patrick

[AlvaroHN]

Hi guys, about the spike event, is evident that the one we see on the scope on the coil is the one that appears when the coil is turned off. But I have also always understood from John's website that the radiant appears before the current, when coil is turned ON.

I also saw the EFTV movie where is shown that the radiant appears first , green flash on cap discharge. Which I can also see if I short a cap manually with a wire. Also in my gen coils when I short the wires by hand while spinning I can also see the green flash there sometimes.

So I assume that the visible spike on the scope when coil collapses is one thing, and there is the other event that should happen when coil is energized and is not visible on the scope.

Best

Alvaro