I would like to use this particular message thread for an open discussion on the idea proposed by John Bedini and T.E Bearden. I watched their videos and read their literature and web site info, including some of their experiments and found them interesting.

Let me talk about the way in which I believe they refer to energy, in the negative form. They basically state that negative energy, exists in and around all circuits and space. That the negative energy seeks impedances and uses them as incoming channels or incoming flow areas into circuits. That the higher or more impedances/resistances the better. That nothing has to be done in order for negative energy to come into a circuit because it is already there, seeking a way in. The problem is one of conversion, and that this energy is enormous.

Ok, lets look at this for a moment from a fresh perspective. Pretend where underwater and we are inside a large pipe. If I drill a hole from inside the pipe then water wants to get inside if the pressure is less then the pressure outside the pipe (negative pressure), if the pressure was larger inside the pipe then the pressure outside then it would push air or water out (positive pressure). This is a simple analogy, I know, but it does go to prove a point, that energy could indeed be attempting to get into a circuit and yet is pushed outwards (primarily by positive energy), if it exceeds a threshold.

John Bedini refers to radiant energy as a spike (or backemf) of pure potential without current! (or as least the smallest amount of current as possible), while maintaining pure potential. Which is exactly what a large backemf  spike is. In other words, if we have a condition where we could have tremendous voltage potential in the form of a spike, and current is controlled via time and since time is so small, current is irrelevant. We then have radiant energy. Pure energy that is pure potential only, no current. Go figure.

They (Bedini and Bearden) both claim that we should be working towards converting negative energy since this would yield larger output and zero or less losses. So I figured I would do a couple thought experiments on this as well. I begin by looking closely at John Bedini?s Monopole motor, which I am sure you are already familiar with. My concentration went into analyzing the pickup/drive coil and what its doing. I should state that I have been building these motors for years.

Here is what I believe is going on inside the pickup/drive coil. Firstly, this is not just a simple coil, with simple AC or DC currents and voltages flowing through them, John has build very nice motor/generators and has put much thought into it and how it functions, I credit him for all his hard work.

Think about inductive reactance with pure potential and extremely low or no current and medium drive frequencies, you will realize that Lenz law does not really apply!


Yep, and here is why, Lenz law states ? induced current opposes primary current.  But if there is only pure potential and extremely low or no current then this law becomes null and void.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Physics/selfinductance.htm

Also inductive reactance will increase if the number of winds in the coil is increased since the magnetic field from one coil will have more coils to interact with. False, Inductive reactance would be meaningless since there is almost or no current. Pure potential only.

So here is the problem then, how is it that pure potential is traveling in the wire? If it has no magnetic component then what is it? I believe the answer is pure electrical and electrical fields with no magnetic component. The idea that adding magnetic fields is the root cause of enormous losses is just to me plainly unbelievable.

Tesla I believe knew this, which is why he worked so hard on electrical rather then magnetic components and ideas.  Telsa?s induction coils show higher and higher potentials while dramatically decreasing or eliminating current, why? I thing we see evidence here that he knew that reducing or eliminating reactive inductance was prime in reducing the losses and increasing the potentials. 

Comments?

quantum102,

Think about inductive reactance with pure potential and extremely low or no current and medium drive frequencies, you will realize that Lenz law does not really apply!

Yep, and here is why, Lenz law states ? induced current opposes primary current.  But if there is only pure potential and extremely low or no current then this law becomes null and void.

It's easy to take what B&B say without question, but be cautious about what they say and what you regurgitate from them.

First, the spikes seen from collapsing inductors is not bemf, it is simply an inductive kickback. BEMF is the result of the Lenz effect.

Stating that little or no current exists in the inductive kickback is a grave error, and it's being made frequently here.

In terms of REAL inductors, Lenz always applies, even if the coil is left open-ended upon collapse. Flux and current is conserved, and infinity does not exist when dealing with real inductors.

Flux, current, and hence Lenz, must be integrated over time, otherwise assumptions are meaningless.

Bedini (with all due respect) is simply utilizing inductive kickback as a means to the RE end. The same RE effect can be realized by causing an abrupt "positive" potential change, as opposed to the "negative" one created by an inductive kickback.

Bottom line: there is nothing magical about an inductive kickback, aside from it's apparent ability to elicit a RE effect. In this regard, it is simply utilized as an abrupt change in potential, nothing more. Switch a high voltage DC supply ON and OFF through a coil or long wire, and you have achieved the same effect. Utilizing inductive kickback is a cheap and easy way to step up relatively low voltages, and that is the only reason why it is used.

Erfinder,

It's interesting that you should label "inductive kickback" as a "new age" term. That's hardly the case, and in fact it is quite a common term and definition of the effect. Do a search of your own....there are many hits. One is from MAXIM-IC who are indeed quite experienced in the field of switching power supplies involving the use of inductors: http://www.maxim-ic.com/glossary/index.cfm/Ac/V/ID/175/Tm/Inductive_Kickback

Glossary Term: Inductive Kickback

      Definition
      The very rapid change in voltage across an inductor when current flow is interrupted. Snubber diodes are often used to channel this energy in relays, and other inductive loads. Kickback can be a problem (causing EMI and component failure); or it can be used in power supply circuits to develop higher or opposite-polarity voltages from a single supply.

      See Also
          o Show application notes for: "Inductive Kickback"

Are you refuting the well-known fact that inductors do indeed "kick back" when their magnetic fields collapse? Why does this trouble you?

The Tesla quote you provided does indeed describe the use of inductive kickback for charging the capacitor.

The use of the term and method of inductive kickback is perfectly valid. Are you sure I'm the one delving into the "new age"?...I don't think so.

@ Grumpy...the point being? I think you've just echoed pretty much what I mentioned above.

@ Erfinder, thanks for the patent numbers.

The point is that you are using the term "BEMF" incorrectly to describe the release of energy from an inductor when it actually means current induced in accordance with Lenz's Law.

Good grief mate, check again what I actually said in my post above:

First, the spikes seen from collapsing inductors is not bemf, it is simply an inductive kickback. BEMF is the result of the Lenz effect.

 

I asked once what RE was and someone responded that it is the "negative side of electricity" - not a direct quote.

Is this correct?

From the video of Eric Dollard with a TMT in which he shows that copper is "attracted" to bulbs lit by RE, while the hand is expelled, and taking Francis Nipher's work in which he views conductors as a "positive column" (electrically speaking), and then compare this with the laws explained by Walter Russell:

Positive charge attracts positive charge and expels negative discharge.

Negative discharge repels both negative discharge and positive charge.

Add all of this to the interpretation of Tesla's MT - that the ground connection is not negative, but is positive to the aerial capacitance (which is a virtal ground) and it appears that RE is "positive".

Now, this is by no means "difinitive", and may be totally wrong, so I open it for discussion...

The electrical theory of Helmholtz required longitudinal waves, and an ether.  Tesla thought very highly of him.

Eric Dollard ran across a few things in his work the he stated "defied analysis".  I think he did all he could do and that this amounts to proving that Tesla's statements are correct (like you stated) and that we have much to learn about electricity.  As far as I know, he never defined RE or electricity -  at least not adequately.  I think Eric sought to understand Tesla's work and shared his findings - typical engineering approach to some degree. You are correct that he added to in some instances - specifically in reference to the e"qual weight of the primary and secondary" - which Eric changed to "equal surface area".  Had Tesla required "equal surface area", he would have stated it!   

So, the question is, what would equal masses provide that surface areas would not?  If you view mass as "potential energy" this may indicate that Tesla was working with something more "fundamental" than surface area and skin effects!  How is "matter" made manifest? What is "mass"?

My my erfinder! you have been buisy!

@tesla, russel, and others quoted---

-------brilliant, we must all spend more time conversing with you---------