Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-26-2012, 04:35 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
Paul Babcock - Discussion of his findings on Magnetic Energy

I want to begin discussing Paul Babcock's recently released information. He mentions that magnetic flux is developed independently from the amount of input electricity. one example showed more flux lines created with same input by simply adding length to the conductor.

this sounds like what Bedini says about making a bigger coil to get more output from a Ssg system.

anyone else please comment on what you took from his lecture and how it relates to bedinis work or anyone else's.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 07-26-2012, 07:20 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
Arrow Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock


"Physicists Have Always Said That Magnetism Isn't a Source of Energy. Well, They're Wrong! What You're About To Learn is Something That Has Been Kept Secret From The Public For Over 170 Years! These Really Are The Magnetic Energy Secrets That You've Never Seen Before!"

REVEALED: Multiple methods to tap magnetism for a power gain in electrical circuits. Learn why universities throw this researcher out when he demonstrates these things to graduate students!




Magnetic Energy Secrets™

Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock

by
Paul Babcock

Paul Babcock has twenty-nine years of experience in industrial electronic applications, as a technician, training specialist, service manager, project manager and applications and design engineer. Paul has worked with public entities and private organizations in fields ranging from avionics, power generation, telephony and alternative energy. He has broad experience designing and implementing custom communication and electronics systems in both the public and private sectors, and in developing large-scale communications solutions for the oil and gas industry. Paul is recognized for his expertise in alternative energy systems and power generation for companies and individuals, especially in remote locations.

Conference Series, Part 1
BEDINI-LINDEMANN 2012Science and Technology Conference

GET YOUR COPY NOW:
MAGNETIC ENERGY SECRETS


__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-26-2012, 07:25 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
@Peace Penguin

Hi PeacePenguin,

I moved your post here to the official thread. I'm looking forward to this discussion. We just want to make sure copyrighted content won't be posted because some of it belongs to his company.

Anyway, anyone that was at the conference or is studying the video can comment here about their thoughts.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 07-28-2012 at 04:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-26-2012, 07:39 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
magnetism DOES contribute to work

It should be clear to anyone that watched the video regarding the power supply used in the arc experiment... this is what I mean...

Yesterday, someone told me it had to do with the frequency of the power supply and that all welders know this and this isn't demonstrating anything.

Well, this is simply not true because...

The power supply is filtered DC output, which means it is basically the same as having a 120V DC Battery.

I just want that clarified that this is the case for BOTH the resistor AND the coil but clearly way more work is being done with the coil. And the work being done because of the coil is NOT directly related (proportional) to how much energy in watt seconds per second is being drawn from the power supply.

The Bedini SG and many other circuits also demonstrate that when magnetism enters the equation, the total work done is NOT directly related to how much the system is drawing regrdless of what conventional physics says because they're completely wrong - not partially wrong, completely wrong since the foundation is wrong.

Anyway, Paul's experiment just happens to be one of the most "in your face" ways to demonstrate this that can't be argued with. Well, of course it could be argued but at the conference, 3 credentialed physicists came forward to admit that they will never look at any of this the same way again - because point blank, they cannot argue with the facts. And it is this experiment that had Paul thrown out of multiple universities.

Anyone that wants the SIMPLE explanation on this should really get the video and he also explains the basic principles of how his motor works. He can't reveal schematics, etc... because that is all company property but he gives enough info that anyone can start experimenting.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-27-2012, 09:04 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
Connections to Bedini's SSG and Lindemann's Lockridge

The main theme of the Magnetic Energy Secrets is that there is no correlation between the AMOUNT of magnetic flux generated and the input power consumed.

Watt-second = Joule. Joule is actual power consumed.

An easy way to visualize this is to look at an 8ft length of 2AWG wire.

Connect the two ends of the wire to a 12v Battery and 2ohm resistor in series.

Now current is flowing through the 8ft wire at 12v. If the resistance of the circuit is 2.01ohms then by ( Volts=Amps*Resistance ) we see that about 6 Amps is flowing through the 8ft length of wire. In 8ft, we have 5.97amps of magnetic flux all along the 8ft conductor.

Now extend the length of wire from 8ft to 16ft. The ohm resistance of the whole circuit will not increase linearly with length. By doubling length we have only increased resistance by .01 ohm of copper resistance, which is negligible.

Now do the same experiment, 12v Battery hooked to the 16ft length of 2AWG wire. 12v = Amps * 2.02 -> 5.94amps

But now, for the same amperage and voltage, just LONGER CONDUCTOR, we have nearly DOUBLED the amount of magnetic flux that exists outside the 16ft conductor. By simply doubling the length of the conductor.

This is also applicable to the workings of John Bedini's SSG motor. By simply using a large inductance coil, and pulsing it just for a tiny moment in time, the flux builds around the coil. It is then immediately removed from the power supply which causes the flux around the coil to collapse. If the wire in the coil is long enough, you will receive back more magnetic energy from the wire, than you had to put there to create it.

These concepts are also visible in Peter Lindemann's Electric Motor Secrets Part II (2). There, Peter says you can make a no back-emf/reduced back-emf motor, simply by pulsing a 12V DC motor, with a 120V impulse. Because a 12V motor is also a 12V generator, the back emf is in the 8-12V range, which is not nearly enough to significantly reduce the input voltage of 120V. The instantaneous torque developed by a 120V impulse is plenty to give the motor a "kick" even though your not running a DC motor on DC anymore.

I think there are profound connections to be made to this concept of magnetic flux "appearing" around a wire with current moving through it. You pay for the current, not the flux that shows up around the wire. These concepts shown by Babcock can used to analyze Bedini's SSG, and the Lockridge type motor that Peter has shown in EMS part 2.

My understanding of the workings of these devices is becoming more clear everyday. Time to start building I think.

-Peacepenguin
__________________
 

Last edited by peacepenguin; 07-27-2012 at 10:28 PM. Reason: fixed some unrealistic values
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-27-2012, 09:39 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,319
Wire resistance

Hi peacepenquin,

I am not sure where you are getting some of your information but some of it is wrong. The resistance of a wire is directly related to the length of the wire. If you double the length of the wire you will double the resistance if the wire size and material are the same. If you have some reference that shows otherwise please share that reference.




Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepenguin View Post
An easy way to visualize this is to look at an 8ft length of 20AWG wire.

Connect the two ends of the wire to a 12v Battery.

Now current is flowing through the 8ft wire at 12v. If the resistance of the wire is 2ohms then by ( Volts=Amps*Resistance ) we see that 6 Amps is flowing through the 8ft length of wire. In 8ft, we have 6amps of magnetic flux all along the 8ft conductor.

Now extend the length of wire from 8ft to 16ft. The ohm resistance will not increase linearly with length. By doubling length we have only increased resistance by .01 ohm, which is negligible.

Now do the same experiment, 12v Battery hooked to the 16ft length of 20AWG wire. 12v = Amps * 2.01 -> 5.97amps

But now, for the same amperage and voltage, just LONGER CONDUCTOR, we have DOUBLED the amount of magnetic flux that exists outside the 16ft conductor. By simply doubling the length of the conductor.


-Peacepenguin
Also please be aware that if you connect an 8 ft piece of number 20 awg wire to a good 12 volt battery the wire will melt in your hand and possibly give you a serious burn.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-27-2012, 09:51 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
The resistance of the CIRCUIT doesn't necessarily only depend on cable length. The idea is to get resistance UP in the circuit itself so when doubling cable length, the magnetic flux output doubles, but does not double resistance of the WHOLE circuit, just of the cable length.

So use the same example but with a 10ohm resistor in place, seperate from copper resistance. And increase size of wire to 10AWG. Now do the thought experiment with those params.

I appreciate the correction as I'm simply trying to begin talking about a profound new way to look at magnetic flux on wires that Babcock introduced. Thanks for pointing out that my scenario is not accurate, I was using it as a basic example.

Please don't take what I write as Babcocks lecture, I'm still trying to fully understand all that he mentioned.

The values used were for a thought experiment, not to actually be done. So don't worry about burning your hand

Also, please check out the lecture before posting here, it will be hard to understand without seeing from the source what is being discussed. I don't want to share too much as I'm sure no one involved in production of the lecture would appreciate my making his lecture available for free on the forums, when this is the place that it's being advertised on.

-Peacepenguin
__________________
 

Last edited by peacepenguin; 07-27-2012 at 10:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-27-2012, 10:50 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
OHM quality

An area I would like to explore is the idea of "Ohm Quality".

No one can show that Ohms law ( V=I*R , is the simplified version) is incorrect. I'm not going to refute that law. It seems to work very well.

Generally we can find that X number of WATTS has been used by a light bulb, or motor, or other electrical device.

But how does the number of WATTS relate to actual POWER quality?

Is it possible to have a 5Ohm resistor that's built differently from another 5Ohm resistor allow more POWER to be experienced in a circuit? When using a 5Ohm resistor in a DC circuit, the resistor gets warm. What if it didn't get warm?

If you watched the lecture, you know why this question has come up. It relates to his test of the inductive resistor vs classic resistor when comparing spark size.

please share your thoughts on why the sparks were different size, even though JOULE count remains the same.

was it because the classic resistor was actually part of the "load" in that demo. and that the inductive resistor somehow acted outside of the "load" to the power supply? That's my best guess, is that the inductive resistor is simply a more efficient resistor. If this is the case, how can we make the most efficient inductive resistor?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:57 AM
tachyoncatcher's Avatar
tachyoncatcher tachyoncatcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Counterspace
Posts: 414
Parallel

Hey Guys,
I'm no electronic wizard, but what happens to total resistance when you connect multiple resistance in parallel? Magnetic flux don't care. Strength of the flux is determined by total length, regardless if it is connected in parallel or series. Right?
Randy
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:34 AM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
having resistance in series vs. parallel only changes resistance. so if you're after 10 amps and you have 12v, there's only one resistance that will fit the bill. I think magnetic flux is only based on amps. so how you wire the resistors to get there isn't critical.

what's interesting to me is that you only need an infinitely small duration blast of amps through the wire to get the collapse of magnetic energy. the amount of energy from the collapse is primarily dependant on conductor length. so with a long enough conductor, and a small enough duration pulse, the collapse could be a huge number of joules, potentially much greater than the small pulse needed to create the collapse.

This sounds like what Bedini has been saying for years. now it seems easy to understand why he could get excess energy from his impulse motors.
__________________
 

Last edited by peacepenguin; 07-28-2012 at 04:39 AM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:48 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
Paul Babcock's arc experiment

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepenguin View Post
Generally we can find that X number of WATTS has been used by a light bulb, or motor, or other electrical device.

But how does the number of WATTS relate to actual POWER quality?
To be exact, a light bulb will use up watt seconds per second, which is the same as a joule second over the period of x amount of seconds, hours, etc...

That actually isn't the power but is the actual energy dissipated, which is an actual amount of polarized/organized potential, which is then disordered through various resistances while it moves to a lower potential and when the potential is dissipated, that is what energy is (real work being done).

If we take that energy of let's say 1000 joule seconds, which is the same as 1 joule per second for 1000 seconds OR, it can be 1000 joules for 1 second... both are the same amount of energy dissipation.

However, when you mention power, the power is the amount of potential dissipated divided by the time and that is the power reading. The power doesn't have time factored in.

So if we look at 1000 watts for a second or 1 watt for 1000 seconds, that is the same amount of ENERGY (potential that dissipated = real work done).

But if we look at 1000 watts for a second and divide it by the time of 1 second, we are left with 1000 watts. 1000 watts is the POWER.

If we take 1 watt for 1000 seconds and we divide the 1000 watt seconds for 1 second by 1000 seconds, then we are left with 1 watt and that is the power.

So the first has a power of 1000 watts and the second has a power of 1 watt but when you factor in the time that each particular one had, you find the total amount of joule seconds per second is identical.

The energy in both examples are identical but the power of one one of them is at a density that is 1000 times greater.

Keeping the distinctions clear between ENERGY and POWER is important for the critical analysis of what is happening in Paul Babcock's experiments or any others.

So keeping this in mind, according to Ohm's Law, both circuits (resistive and inductive), the amount of ENERGY drawn for both is identical - at least what can be accounted for from the input "power" supply. The math shows this and conventional understanding will agree with this.

But when we look at the work being done at the arc by the sizes of the plasma being compared to each other and the rate at which the copper wire is being eaten alive, the inductive circuit is killing that rod at a little over twice the speed and the plasma at the arc is WAY bigger.

So if we look at the power of each, the empirical evidence shows us that more work is happening in a shorter period of time, which means that there is a POWER gain at the arc. This isn't a surprise since many things can be done to compress more work into a shorter period of time and this doesn't violate mainstream science.

What about an energy gain? This is the arena where psychological disturbances occur in those that believe in the conventional explanations. Fact 1) We know that with the resistive circuit that according to the energy draw from the input source it can only burn up so much rod in so much time. Fact 2) We know that the inductive circuit will do the same work in at least half the time (power gain). Fact 3) We know that because of this, if we continue to burn the rod with the inductive circuit over the same time that the resistive circuit burns the rod, we will actually burn up at least twice the length of rod meaning at minimum, twice the amount of joule seconds per second were done and this means that absolutely, there is at least a COP of 2.0 meaning that TWICE the WORK (dissipated potential - real work) was done and this destroys everything in the books - power gain doesn't but energy gain does.

It just just my opinion but I believe the coil simply polarizes the aether and acts as a completely difference dipole or potential source than the primary input supply. And when we see the scope shows that slight fluctuation of the coil, it is acting as a pump where it is "charged" and then on the slight downstroke of the wave form is adding more potential to flow over the wire (Heaviside flow) away from the coil and over the arc back to ground.

The magnetic field is there just from the MOVEMENT of "current" though it and NOT from the consumption of current.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:44 PM
geotron geotron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 321
When the energy present in two electromagnets produces a dual opposing magnetic field, what will happen? Will the fabric of the magnetic field expand to allow the physical substance of it to exist in the space time continuum and resultantly produce additional electricity?

Wouldn't science libraries normally include a scenario whereby empirical evidence shows results for each and every configuration of patented energy producing device for convenient analysis? Earth's environment, being the only life giving resource there ever was in the known Universe would be worth the time and effort.

When chlorine dioxide encounters pollution in the atmosphere, what is the result? Could it be harnessed in such a way?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2012, 06:39 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
thanks for the clarification on power

Aaron, excellent insights into power measure. I think my understanding of these basic principles is a bit off. can you elaborate a little more on the difference between just a Joule of energy, vs a Joule second. which you mention is a more accurate measure of dissipation.

my understanding is basically that a quantity of kilowatt-hours, which I thought was the definition of "Joule" was the final quantity needed to measure dissipation. my reasoning is that's what my utility power meter counts.

so please expand on this some more. you seem to have a solid grasp on these concepts. I think that will help me see the true power of the arc experiment from the lecture.

-Peacepenguin
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2012, 08:15 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
arc experiment - energy vs potential

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepenguin View Post
can you elaborate a little more on the difference between just a Joule of energy, vs a Joule second. which you mention is a more accurate measure of dissipation.

my understanding is basically that a quantity of kilowatt-hours, which I thought was the definition of "Joule" was the final quantity needed to measure dissipation. my reasoning is that's what my utility power meter counts.
The power meters on your house actually measure KVAR but the meter tells you it measures kilowatt hours but it doesn't.

Joule was wrong about his own measurements anyway because the actual amount of work being done was way more than what was measured - he only counted what he was looking for while ignoring all the other work done. But for simplicity, we can still use the joule for these purposes.

A joule of energy and a joule second are the same thing - 1 watt second is also the same. That is just a unit of "energy", but to be more accurate, it is actually a unit of potential. If we take this joule of energy or joule second and dissipate that much potential over x amount of time, then and only then do we actually have "energy."

The joule of energy or joule second must be multiplied by time to have the amount of energy dissipated (actually potential dissipated). Potential is the real thing that gets dissipated while energy is only an adjective to describe the activity of potential getting dissipated.

So if we have a joule second or watt second, there is no energy. If we have a joule second for 10 seconds or a watt second for 10 seconds, then we finally have energy. Each would be 10 joule seconds or 10 watt seconds.

Anyway, you could have 10 joules of potential in a capacitor. You can discharge that over 60 seconds and you have very low power at any given time for this discharge. 10 joules divided by 60 seconds = 0.167 watts is the POWER for that 60 seconds.

But if you take that 10 joules of potential in a cap and discharge it over 1 second, you then have 10 watts - that is about 60 TIMES the POWER compared to discharging the same potential over 60 seconds.

If you took that 10 joules and discharged it in a nanosecond, you would have megawatts of power for that very short period of time.

All of this is actually very conventional and there won't be any disagreements with this.

The only deviation from conventional is the distinction I'm making that there is no such "thing" as energy. Potential is the real thing. Potential gets polarized by establishing a dipole (potential difference). The potential, polarized aether, comes into the system there and imparts a push on the mass that it is interacting with and when this push on the mass is resisted, that is work. When work happens, the potential is acting energetically. So when we say there is energy as if it is a thing, that is incorrect. Potential is the thing and energy is the activity of what potential does when it is dissipated back into the environment when resistances are met during the time the potential imparts a push on mass.

This distinction is important because conventional scientists have absolutely no idea what energy is or what potential is and they always misuse the terms. Conventional science says energy is the thing while potential is the abstract but the opposite is actually the case.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing others replicate this arc experiment - and always SAFETY FIRST!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-29-2012, 03:32 AM
bobo36us bobo36us is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 95
Great video!

I loved the way Babcock explained Free Energy in black and white using ALL of Ohms law, Faradays law, Joules law, Lentz law, and Kirtchhoffs law!

Also provided every single person on this forum with the ammunition they need to put ANY non believer of free energy in their place!

I especially liked his references to Joe Newmans book, whick I personally found most helpful in understanding disturbing ambient and collecting energy. Newmans book is available for free here:http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/

Also love Peters Electric Motor Secrets and Rotary Attraction Motor videos.
What he makes clear is pulse a motor/coil, create an "event", recapture 85% of your pulse, and enjoy the benefits of the "event" for free!

But most of you know that already :-)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-29-2012, 06:10 AM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
The only deviation from conventional is the distinction I'm making that there is no such "thing" as energy. Potential is the real thing. Potential gets polarized by establishing a dipole (potential difference). The potential, polarized aether, comes into the system there and imparts a push on the mass that it is interacting with and when this push on the mass is resisted, that is work. When work happens, the potential is acting energetically. So when we say there is energy as if it is a thing, that is incorrect. Potential is the thing and energy is the activity of what potential does when it is dissipated back into the environment when resistances are met during the time the potential imparts a push on mass.

This distinction is important because conventional scientists have absolutely no idea what energy is or what potential is and they always misuse the terms. Conventional science says energy is the thing while potential is the abstract but the opposite is actually the case.
Aaron, thanks for expanding on the difference between Power and "Energy". That helps a lot with my understanding of all this. Great explanation of what "Energy" is (quoted above).

I have a few more questions that I would love some guidance on, thanks in advance for any help.

During the arc experiment, Is the resistance of the "coil resistor" purley a copper resistance of the wire itself? (since it was a dc input, i assume there would be no inductance, but wanted to verify the copper resistance is the only factor in the Ohm count)

would the size of the arc be the same as the "normal resistor" if the wire used was stretched out in a straight line instead of wrapped as a coil? Meaning that is it the geometry of the wire when in a coil that allows the larger arc size and energy, or is the effect simply dependant on cunductor length, which allows more flux to be present? (or perhaps it requires a combination of both conductor length and coil geometry to actually get something extra back. maybe the coil geometry allows you to capture the energy provided by the conductor length?)

Any input on this would be helpful.

Thanks.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-30-2012, 12:21 AM
bobo36us bobo36us is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 95
Extremely basic free energy videos!

By the way, here are a couple of simple simple videos that
also prove Babcock and Newman right.

Exact same energy input in both videos, but bigger magnetic
results with bigger inductors!

By Coil Design, When Less Becomes More.wmv - YouTube
Generating Electricity - 3 Factors - YouTube
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:57 AM
Michael Kishline's Avatar
Michael Kishline Michael Kishline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
2012 Energy Conference

For those who didn't make it this year here are some videos I took at the 2012 Energy Conference, about 100 videos altogether under Playlist Titled "Radiant Energy by Nikola Tesla and John Bedini", but these two pertain to Paul Babcock shooting the breeze in the backround, check it out.

Paul Babcock around Ralphs 6 Coiler (1 of 2) - YouTube

Paul Babcock around Ralphs 6 Coiler (2 of 2) - YouTube

Enjoy

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-30-2012, 06:17 PM
TheStone TheStone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to TheStone
Well I bought the video, and there is nothing there to make no motor.... or nothing new about coils and electromagnetism...

All this are new ways to market the same thing with different name...

I trying to get a refund.

The Stone.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-30-2012, 07:01 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
Mike, thanks for sharing those videos of the conference. did anyone make an online copy of the paper/diagram that John bedini was handing out? looked very interesting from what I saw in the YouTube video, something related to healing properties.

but back to the actual lecture, does anyone else have any insights as to why the arc was bigger on the coil resistor, vs. normal resistor?

what do you make of the "fluttering" of the magnetic field that Babcock mentioned? could having a plasma in a dc system actually increase energy if the plasma is being fed through an inductor? does the fluttering add energy, or simply transform it to a higher voltage?

I assume it added energy since heat output increased. anyway please post any insights into what you think is going on in that inductor/resistor coil.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-30-2012, 07:38 PM
EMCSQ EMCSQ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 88
a practical solid state device ...

.. would convince me more than a another theory , even if it's correct.
This whole thing leads to a kunel device, Melnichenko provides a video, but without power measurements, therefore senseless.

Does the video provide a practical example ?
If not, include it! Maybe a higher price, if it's worth .
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:04 PM
peacepenguin peacepenguin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 31
focus on the lecture and content, not "free-energy"

emcsq, the video has lots of practical examples, and measurements. Please watch it before commenting here.

back to the actual lecture:
does anyone else have any insights as to why the arc was bigger on the coil resistor, vs. normal resistor?

what do you make of the "fluttering" of the magnetic field that Babcock mentioned? could having a plasma in a dc system actually increase energy if the plasma is being fed through an inductor? does the fluttering add energy, or simply transform it to a higher voltage?

I assume it added energy since heat output increased. anyway please post any insights into what you think is going on in that inductor/resistor coil.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-31-2012, 07:11 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
coil resistance vs straight line

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepenguin View Post
During the arc experiment, Is the resistance of the "coil resistor" purley a copper resistance of the wire itself? (since it was a dc input, i assume there would be no inductance, but wanted to verify the copper resistance is the only factor in the Ohm count)

would the size of the arc be the same as the "normal resistor" if the wire used was stretched out in a straight line instead of wrapped as a coil? Meaning that is it the geometry of the wire when in a coil that allows the larger arc size and energy, or is the effect simply dependant on cunductor length, which allows more flux to be present? (or perhaps it requires a combination of both conductor length and coil geometry to actually get something extra back. maybe the coil geometry allows you to capture the energy provided by the conductor length?)

Any input on this would be helpful.

Thanks.
I believe it is the pure resistance of the pure copper wire itself. I can get clarification next time I talk to Paul but I think it is pretty straight forward.

That is a GREAT question if the wire was stretched out - would the arc be the same. I believe it wouldn't off hand but then again, this is what is great about getting others involved is that many people can corroborate the results. I'm sure someone could run that coil wire around the perimeter of their back yard a few times or something like that. The resistance would be the same as the resistor so the arc should be the same.

Of course my opinion but I believe with it wound into a coil to increase the inductance, the arc would be greater. Again, great question!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:32 AM
Michael Kishline's Avatar
Michael Kishline Michael Kishline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 52
Bedini Schematic For Viruses

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepenguin View Post
Mike, thanks for sharing those videos of the conference. did anyone make an online copy of the paper/diagram that John bedini was handing out? looked very interesting from what I saw in the YouTube video, something related to healing properties.

but back to the actual lecture, does anyone else have any insights as to why the arc was bigger on the coil resistor, vs. normal resistor?

what do you make of the "fluttering" of the magnetic field that Babcock mentioned? could having a plasma in a dc system actually increase energy if the plasma is being fed through an inductor? does the fluttering add energy, or simply transform it to a higher voltage?

I assume it added energy since heat output increased. anyway please post any insights into what you think is going on in that inductor/resistor coil.
Your welcome Peace, my pleasure.

Yes, you can download the paper at my scribd page here John Bedini Schematic for killing all Viruses Including HIV and Hepatitis C

or

See the Video of the original photocopy at the conference which was actually missing 1/8 inch on the left side of the paper when it was copied. John Bedini Schematic Kills Viruses/HIV (3 of 5) - YouTube

Aaron, maybe you could help us with getting a complete copy or let us know what values to fill in the blanks on the left side of the schematic. Maybe in a new thread so we don't interrupt.

I ordered the Paul Babcock video and I loved it, that's the kind of proof and documented experiments you won't get in any University.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-01-2012, 03:11 PM
truesearch truesearch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
I too would like to see a copy of the "original" filled-in values on the left-hand side of Bedini's schematic.

truesearch
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-02-2012, 01:49 AM
pault pault is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 162
endorsement

I just watched this video for the first time.

Like with Peter's Lockridge video (MS 2), I expect to view this video many more times.

Babcock points to something that my classical training hasn't explained, and in the back of my mind I've sensed that a better explanation is needed.

pt
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-02-2012, 02:02 AM
pault pault is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I believe it is the pure resistance of the pure copper wire itself. I can get clarification next time I talk to Paul but I think it is pretty straight forward.
"Resistance" is a specific term. It's not frequency-specific and, hence, refers to the resistance of the pure copper wire. Babcock seems competent and appeared to use the term in its proper context.

Quote:
That is a GREAT question if the wire was stretched out - would the arc be the same.
If you stretched out the wire, you'd get a "transmission line".

Heaviside, Steinmetz, Dollard.

The "core" and the distances through dielectrics would be different, so you would get a different result, but related (imo).

pt
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-02-2012, 02:33 AM
pault pault is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 162
potential

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
...
The only deviation from conventional is the distinction I'm making that there is no such "thing" as energy. Potential is the real thing. Potential gets polarized by establishing a dipole (potential difference). The potential, polarized aether, comes into the system there and imparts a push on the mass that it is interacting with and when this push on the mass is resisted, that is work. When work happens, the potential is acting energetically. So when we say there is energy as if it is a thing, that is incorrect. Potential is the thing and energy is the activity of what potential does when it is dissipated back into the environment when resistances are met during the time the potential imparts a push on mass.

This distinction is important because conventional scientists have absolutely no idea what energy is or what potential is and they always misuse the terms. Conventional science says energy is the thing while potential is the abstract but the opposite is actually the case.
...
Scientists use the the terms "Potential Energy" and "Kinetic Energy".

If you take a heavy bowling ball and hold it out of a second story window, you have "potential energy". You've "loaded" the ball with energy by lifting it up the stairs (using energy) to the second story.

When you let go of the ball, it falls.

When it hits the ground, the bowling ball "releases" its 'potential' energy and converts it into "kinetic" energy - the actual smash into the ground.

Dollard said this early in his thread, with the car analogy - you only feel a "force" when you hit the brakes.

Aaron, thanks to your description, I finally get what is meant by a "dipole".

Something "stretches" a line of force and increases the "potential" between its ends.

pt
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-02-2012, 02:56 AM
pault pault is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 162
E = 1/2 mv**2

Newtonian kinetic energy Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Capacitor - Energy Stored
The energy stored in a capacitor can be expressed as

Capacitors - Energy Stored

W = 1/2 CV**2 (1)

where

W = energy stored (Joules)
C = capacitance (Farad)
V = potential difference (Voltage)

pt

edit: EE teaching tends not to emphasize E & M as forces. Babcock (and Dollard) do make this connection. I was suprised when I saw in Heaviside (about page 22, vol 1 ET) how the capacitor energy equation was derived. It is the line integral of potential. The similarity to the kinetic energy is eye opening (for me at least :-).
__________________
 

Last edited by pault; 08-02-2012 at 03:54 PM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-02-2012, 06:39 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
conservation of energy hoax - no storing of potential

Quote:
Originally Posted by pault View Post
Scientists use the the terms "Potential Energy" and "Kinetic Energy".

If you take a heavy bowling ball and hold it out of a second story window, you have "potential energy". You've "loaded" the ball with energy by lifting it up the stairs (using energy) to the second story.

When you let go of the ball, it falls.

When it hits the ground, the bowling ball "releases" its 'potential' energy and converts it into "kinetic" energy - the actual smash into the ground.

Dollard said this early in his thread, with the car analogy - you only feel a "force" when you hit the brakes.

Aaron, thanks to your description, I finally get what is meant by a "dipole".

Something "stretches" a line of force and increases the "potential" between its ends.

pt
That is the problem - when the ball hits the ground, it doesn't not release any potential because there was none ever stored in it.

When you lift it to begin with, you can account for 100% of the input in the LIFT in and of itself. That means 100% of what you put in is dissipated at the peak of the lift. There is zero potential stored in the object at any height.

When you lift it, you dissipate everything and now you have created a dipole - you created a potential difference between the object and the ground. That isn't potential stored in the object, it is simply a potential difference and based on the mass of the object, the height and gravity (MGH), that will tell you how much potential work is possible when than object is released for only one single cycle.

When you leg go of the ball, it is fresh NEW gravitational potential input that is imparting an ACTIVE push on the ball towards the ground. See - the potnetial was not stored in the ball. The intrinsic characteristic of the ball never even changed.

We lift it - 100% dissipation.
We release it - NEW potential comes into the object from gravitational potential and that contributes to more work - just like the magnetic coil. The magnetism can do work just like gravity can do work.

The entire notion of storing potential is a hoax and no potential is ever stored. Doesn't need to be. The gravitational potential is never ending so new potential comes into the system, just like new potential enters a circuit where magnetism is just like the coil.

This shows that there is no such thing as conservation of energy and energy does NOT transform from one form to another. There is only always ONE single form of "energy" and that is when the source potential moves from a higher potential to a lower potential imparting a push on the mass of an object, matter, etc... and when that push encounters a resistance, the dipole is reduced so that there is less of a potential difference and thus less potential enters the system.

The gravity analogy is exactly what Paul's experiment shows.

When you drive a car up a hill, you can account for ALL the energy dissipation in the work the car did to get up the hill. There is zero potential stored in the car. When you put it in neutral and coast back down the hill to a flat road, that is NEW gravitational potential entering the system and when you account for any work that is done on the roll down and over the flat road, the TOTAL amount of work counting the climb up the hill and the roll back down is 2X what we put into it by driving it up the hill to begin with.

Nature always gives a freebie. You put in 1 part work under such circumstances and you get a total of 1 MORE back for a total of 2 parts work for 1 part input. This is assuming an experiment that does not allow the object, car, etc... rise back up against gravity in order to establish a new (but lower potential difference) dipole with each successive dipole becoming less and less.

Anyone can do the simple math. It is irrefutable. It proves that gravity is a source of potential that can do work just like magnetism is a source of potential that can do work and 100% of ever text book that says anything different is 100% wrong.

Add up the Force X Distance of the car going up the hill. That is the real amount of energy dissipated. Then at that peak, MGH will tell you how much MORE work potential there will be when the car rolls back down. That is 2 TIMES the original force x distance in getting it up the hill to begin with.

Take a ball of clay - bouncing efficiency is about less than 1% efficient.

If you lift a ball of clay to 1 meter, the energy dissipated to get it to 1 meter can be determined by Force X Distance. That is REAL dissipated energy and 100% of that can be accounted for in the LIFT. That's it.

Now MGH will tell you that at 1 meter, it will have x amount of potential energy "stored" in that ball of clay, which of course is a fraud. There is no potential stored in that ball of clay. But watch this, let go of it, NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential and imparts a push on the ball downwards and when it hits the ground, there is heat, deformation of the clay, etc... it doesn't bounce, it just goes flat. Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it.

Add up the FXD to lift it and then add up the work done AFTER it was released and it is 2 TIMES the original F X D. That is a COP or coefficient of performance of 2.0 with a bouncing efficiency of near 0% efficient.

Conservation of energy is a hoax.
Storing potential in an object when lifting is a hoax.
Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax.

There is only always...
1. X amount of work done from energy dissipation.
2. New dipole is established.
3. New source potential enters and does work (energy dissipation).
4. Goto #2

I know this is hard to believe for many people that think the basics can't be questioned, but this argument wins 100% of the time. There is nobody in the world that can debunk this argument, because this shows what is going on. It is 3rd grade math with 8th grade equations.

Because of the FACT that there is a calculable amount of work, which exceeds the input and if it is with a bouncing ball for example, all the Force X Distance that happens on EACH and EVERY lift added together is MANY times more than the initial lift.

"Overunity" is required by nature with open non-equilibrium systems and the only thing that mainstream science has proven is that mass-hypnosis works.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers