Positive Versus Negative Radiant Energy

[ZPDM]

Apologize for making a whole new thread on this but have been poking around the board and not quite got this cleared up.

To guide this discussion/request for help I’ll reference two of our guideposts in this field Dr. Lindemann and John Bedini. But first by way of a little more background let me just mention what led to all this.

First off there is a great deal of discussion on what the inductive radiant spike is, with some people arguing, though not so much on this board that it is simply back EMF. I think John Bedini definitively put that position to rest with episode seven of Energy from the Vacuum. I would just add as a very small additional point that I have put single pulses through an air coil captured a single spike in a cap and calculated the joules. I’ve then added an iron core to the air coil and done the same. If the inductive spike is caused solely by the rapid magnetic flux of the collapsing magnetic field, well, adding the iron core increased the magnetic field strength of the electromagnet by what, a couple orders of magnitude. I may be betraying my lack of background in the field but I will just note that gee the “BEMF” didn’t increase by orders of magnitude with a much stronger magnetic field collapsing. All that said “BEMF” has almost become a convention so I will use the term while noting that it is not BEMF but radiant energy being captured.

Recently I was running a small joule thief with the output going into a 640V ceramic capacitor. This was set-up with the backwards diode from the collector pointing to the positive of the cap and the negative of the cap going to the positive charge source. Read where Slayer007 was noting “BEMF” coming off not just the collector but the base and emitter as well, and sure enough there it was though in lesser amounts than from the collector. I then tried reversing the diode back to a normal orientation and found a very curious thing, the ceramic cap charged with negative voltage and when the diode came off the emitter the negative voltage was the same as the positive voltage obtained when the diode was placed in reversed orientation from the collector. Ahhaaaa! so there is not just a “BEMF” when the coil collapses there is “FEMF” as well (both being radiant). Ahaaa, so this is why I see people are using bridge rectifiers so often. If you’ve made it this far, bear with me because here is where it gets interesting and where I get quite confused on the whole matter.

I want to go back first and excerpt a comment from Dr. Lindemann from late 2011,

"The terminology of "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" was Tom Bearden's first attempt to inform us all that there was a QUALITY DIFFERENCE between these two manifestations of electricity that the meters were saying were identical. This was a gigantic philosophical leap for most people, at the time, but as usual, Tom was right! Whether "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" are the best ways to characterize these differences is not the point."

This goes a long way towards explaining for me why some days my batteries didn’t want to stop charging and other days with the same set-up they looked at me as though to say just what do you think you are trying to do here. I was mixing negative and positive quality radiant energy. To keep terms distinct I will refer to electric polarity as neg/pos polarity and radiant energy as pos/neg quality.

So my first question would be a very practical one, if you take neg or pos quality radiant energy and charge a cap and then discharge the cap. Is the discharge of the cap always plain old positive polarity electricity?

Is there a simple test, besides neg quality radiantly charging a battery and then noting it doesn’t want to charge conventionally for determining whether one is dealing with pos or neg quality radiant energy?

Thirdly, is the pos and neg polarity radiant energy (BEMF, FEMF) captured by placing a bridge rectifier over the collector/emmiter the same as pos/neg quality radiant energy. (If so a bridge rectifier would seem a bad approach for battery charging). Or is it pos/neg polarity, all negative quality, radiant energy. John Bedini really went over my head at points in the Energy from the Vacuum series 7 discussion. He negatively radiantly charged a battery, then showed the problem with positively charging a neg quality radiantly charged battery by converting a Bedini Cole motor to run off pulsed DC, captured the radiant spikes but these were positive quality radiant energy (which didn’t want to charge the previously negatively radiantly charged battery). At some point earlier in the video I believe he circled a bridge rectifier off one coil in a circuit and noted in passing that it was “positive” energy, circled the other coil and said that one was negative energy.

So at this point I have no conceptual framework for guessing whether I am dealing with neg or pos quality radiant energy in a circuit or a simple and/or rapid test to see which one I might be getting. It is a great start to know that if you are mixing the two types your batteries won’t want to charge very well, but I have found I can have, let’s just say very many reasons, for why my batteries may not be charging, up to and including me forgetting to turn the circuit on.

Any thoughts/guidance very deeply appreciated, and by the Way

Congratulations on an AWESOME, AWESOME FORUM. You guys Rock!!!

[mbrownn]

It is a difficult concept and I don't feel that I know enough to try and explain it. I think the energy from the vacuum series is an excellent starting point for getting into the field and the more you learn the more you will understand what Tom Beardon is talking about. I believe there could be both positive and negative radiant although it could be just a reversed flow of the same thing. There is also confusion in in understanding the terms.

Cooling effects are often associated with negative energy and it is also likely to crystallize a battery.

Radiant is not the same as "normal" electricity as it requires no conductor. Devices such as capacitors are able to convert this radiant effect into "normal" electricity.

I hope others will chip in to try and explain it.

[boguslaw]

Explaining is not good way. I would rather would like to see experiment . Even with ordinary joule thief with led replaced by fast switching diode like 1N4148 charging electrolytic capacitor.
Now,if we place opposite polarised diode just in parallel to the described above and a second identical electrolytic capacitor connected to this second diode (of course with reversed polarity) what power consumption from battery would be ? I believe it will be the same and we will have additional charge in second capacitor. Someone definitely should check it with good measurement tools.
You should see what I'm about. I believe this is all about self-oscillating coil which when disconnected tries to oscillate using own self-inductance and self-capacitance.That create high frequency oscillation which looks like spikes.
With very fast diodes we could at least recover part of it in form of positive and negative spikes.

[boguslaw]

Radiant energy is HIDDEN in those spikes.A very very tiny bit of excess energy....for each spike correctly created....
Ask Ismael Aviso for example.

[Farmhand]

First off there is a great deal of discussion on what the inductive radiant spike is, with some people arguing, though not so much on this board that it is simply back EMF. I think John Bedini definitively put that position to rest with episode seven of Energy from the Vacuum. I would just add as a very small additional point that I have put single pulses through an air coil captured a single spike in a cap and calculated the joules. I’ve then added an iron core to the air coil and done the same. If the inductive spike is caused solely by the rapid magnetic flux of the collapsing magnetic field, well, adding the iron core increased the magnetic field strength of the electromagnet by what, a couple orders of magnitude. I may be betraying my lack of background in the field but I will just note that gee the “BEMF” didn’t increase by orders of magnitude with a much stronger magnetic field collapsing. All that said “BEMF” has almost become a convention so I will use the term while noting that it is not BEMF but radiant energy being captured.

Hi ZPDM, There is a difference between magnetic flux, magnetic field strength
and flux density. It's explained fairly well below. As far as I can tell the
magnetic field strength can change as can the magnetic flux density while the
total amount of flux remains constant. This would explain well why the joules
did not increase along with the magnetic field strength increase or magnetic flux
density increase, to increase the amount of joules you would need to increase
the amount of magnetic flux, not it's strength or intensity. How to go
about that could depend on different things.

I used some bold to highlight some bit's from the document.

Source document.
Transformers Part 1 - Beginners' Guide to Electronics

2. Magnetic Core Terminology
This list is far from complete, but will be sufficient to either get you started or scare you away. I have included the symbols and units of only three of the entries below, since most are of no real interest.

Coercivity - is the field strength which must be applied to reduce (or coerce) the remanent flux to zero. Materials with high coercivity (e.g. those used for permanent magnets) are called hard. Materials with low coercivity (those used for transformers) are called soft.

Effective Area - of a core is the cross sectional area of the centre limb for E-I laminations, or the total area for a toroid. Usually this corresponds to the physical dimensions of the core but because flux may not be distributed evenly the manufacturer may specify a value which reflects this.

Effective length - of a core is the distance which the magnetic flux travels in making a complete circuit. Usually this corresponds closely to the average of the physical dimensions of the core, but because flux has a tendency to concentrate on the inside corners of the path the manufacturer may specify a value for the effective length.

Flux Density - (symbol; B, unit; Teslas (T)) is simply the total flux divided by the effective area of the magnetic circuit through which it flows.

Flux linkage - in an ideal inductor the flux generated by one turn would be contained within all the other turns. Real coils come close to this ideal when the other dimensions of the coil are small compared with its diameter, or if a suitable core guides the flux through the windings.

Magnetomotive Force - MMF can be thought of as the magnetic equivalent of electromotive force. It is the product of the current flowing in a coil and the number of turns that make up the coil.

Magnetic Field Strength - (symbol: H, unit; ampere metres (A m-1)) when current flows in a conductor, it is always accompanied by a magnetic field. The strength, or intensity, of this field is proportional to the amount of current and inversely proportional to the distance from the conductor (hence the -1 superscript).

Magnetic Flux - (symbol: ; unit: Webers (Wb)) we refer to magnetism in terms of lines of force or flux, which is a measure of the total amount of magnetism.

Permeability - (symbol; µ, units: henrys per metre (Hm-1) is defined as the ratio of flux density to field strength, and is determined by the type of material within the magnetic field - i.e. the core material itself. Most references to permeability are actually to "relative permeability", as the permeability of nearly all materials changes depending upon field strength (and in most cases with temperature as well).

Remanence - (or remnance) is the flux density which remains in a magnetic material when the externally applied field is removed. Transformers require the lowest possible remanence, while permanent magnets need a high value of remanence.

I mention these here for the sake of completeness, but their real importance is not discussed further in Section 1. Section 2 of this article will revisit the terms, and their importance is somewhat enhanced in context.

This part is also at the beginning of that document and I believe it simply
states that the Back or Counter emf is always slightly less than the applied
emf when current flows in the primary. I prefer the term Counter emf because
it more accurately describes the counteracting nature of Counter emf which is
only present when there is emf to counter. Voltages I think are instantaneous,
so when the emf stops so does the counter emf. In my opinion there is then
an emf produced to maintain current flow in the same direction, that emf is
then countered by counter emf as well. If it were back(wards) emf making the spike
the current would flow the other direction.

For any power transformer, the maximum flux density is obtained when the transformer is idle.

The idea is counter-intuitive, it even verges on not making sense. Be that as it may, it's a fact, and missing it will ruin your understanding of transformers. At idle, the transformer back-EMF almost exactly cancels out the applied voltage. The small current that flows maintains the flux density at the maximum allowed value, and represents iron loss (see Section 2). As current is drawn from the secondary, the flux falls slightly, and allows more primary current to flow to provide the output current.

It is not important that you understand the reasons for this right from the beginning, but it is important that you remember that for any power transformer, the maximum flux density is obtained when the transformer is idle. Please don't forget this

This also brings up the radiant energy issue because with a toroidal core the
energy stored in the magnetic field can still be collected but it does not hardly
exist outside the core so where does it radiate from to be called radiant
energy ? I thought Nikola Tesla's description of radiant energy was energy
radiated from one thing to something else, like from the stars to the Earth.

Anyway that's how I see it.

Cheers

[mbrownn]

Great info Farmhand, could you expand the info to include a little on torque produced in a motor and its relationship with flux. I am experimenting with multiple configurations of a Universal motor and trying to understand the transformer interactions with the counter EMF and torque produced. I know it is very complex so a link to any sites you know would be great.

On the radiant, I see it as being present in all things including a vacuum and it is only when we polarize it, or interact with it, that it flows. It is radiant in the sense that it does not need another medium in which to flow but needs a potential between two points in a given space.

[Farmhand]

Hi mbrownn, Yes it is complicated, but I think I can find some Tesla
documentation that could help you, I've got some time to re-find it and I'll post
in one of your threads what I can find. No probs. I think I know the appropriate
device for research.

Yes I agree the radiant energy is everywhere. Of course it must be. All energy is
radiated when dissipated I think. From what I can gather physicists say that it is
then a lower grade energy by entropy. But, as we well know it can be collected
and made high grade energy again. However physicists would have us believe
it cannot. Which then means the universe will eventually reach an equilibrium or
something and everything will stop or something silly like that. Maybe who
really knows about that bit, I don't think they do anyway.

Cheers

[ZPDM]

@Mbrownn,

I agree, it is a difficult concept and I also agree that there is a lot of confusion with terminology, or as the chaingang boss said to Cool Hand Luke, "What we have heaah, is a failya to comunicate." I've been thinking a bit more on this and will try give my guess on all this while keeping in mind I may be wrong or simply have no idea what I am talking about.

I have considered the terms "radiant energy" negative energy" "etheric energy" "zero Point energy" to be synonymous. In homage to Baron Von Reichenbach (Odic energy) and Bruce DePalma (OD energy), though I think these last two might be different energies, I am tempted to group the first four as "wierd energy". Let's stick with Tesla's "radiant energy" and guess that it is in fact identical to negative energy. Radiant energy is defined and characterized by the high voltage pulsed DC experiments that Tesla performed. He described it as a penetrating, chargeless gas like form of energy that could be converted to usable electricity. He evidently was getting very pure "radiant energy" with his set-ups. John Bedini has replicated the "impulse DC" or pulsed DC approach at lower voltages and also found "radiant energy". In both cases there are claims of what on the surface would be viewed as overunity if one does not take into account the addition from the radiant energy pool. Radiant energy as far as I know is only claimed at this point to be seen in the context of pulsed DC, the amount of radiant energy in turn is said to be dependent on: pulsed input wave form, duty cycle, impulse frequency, voltage, and degree of resonance of the system.

Alright so far so good, my absolute guess on all this at this point is as follows. When ever there is the pulsed DC inductive spike, a portion is "radiant energy" and a portion is conventional electricity. The radiant portion accounts for the strange well replicated effects, cooling, changing battery characteristics, etc. as well as theoretical, apparent "overunity". Radiant and negative energy are identical. What has absolutely thrown me then is John Bedini (Energy from the Vacuum 7) first charging a battery from an SSG giving it a "negative radiant charge" then charging it again from a pulsed DC inductive spike and noting that this was a positive charging. I thought a pulsed inductor always gave the spike which had negative enrgy in it. Apparently in some set-ups there is more radiant energy in the pulsed DC inductive spike and at others nearly all conventional positive energy. I would further guess that if one is capturing an inductive spike which is nearly all positive there would not be OU. If there were OU in such a set-up where would it come from? This would imply that there are actually two species of radiant energy itself positive and negative to go along with the positive and negative polarity of conventional electricity. For the time I'm going with the first idea, i.e there is only one species of radiant energy and it is synonymous with negative energy . I think, this is all sort of counting angels on the head of a pin at this point and my take home thought is to be sure to throw in a cap if I am trying to mix radiant and conventional electricity.

Finally, your idea of looking at temperature is a great one ... why didn't I think of that? I broke down and bought one of those point and click temperature guns a couple months ago and it might be a "cool" experiment to point it at various compenents in an SSG type set-up and record before and after temperatures. It is a rapid test and might even give you some idea of the magnitude of negative energy present. Thanks!

[ZPDM]

@ Boguslaw and Farmhand,

Farmhand,

Thanks for the references, I have read a little on magnetics since starting this hobby but certainly could read more, if I can find the time will try to dive into the info you gave me. H fields and B fields, hysteresis, its all very confusing to me. I suppose it is possible magnetic field strength might not determine CEMF. Still as you point out there is the issue with torroidal coils. Another strange thing, if we go with CEMF is as you mention the CEMF is always slightly less than the input EMF, somehow though the spike gets transformed to a higher voltage, whatever is going on this is not happening through the more commonly employed method of a higher winding inductively coupled secondary coil. For that matter induction is pretty mysterious itself.

Bogulsaw and Farmhand,

I wish now I had paid more attention to what I was doing when I was throwing diodes around and saw the FEMF. Will likely want to replicate that in the future. Will point this out. If you reduce the SSG type setup to its absolute simplest bare bones you have, it appears to me, a Buck-Boost converter, others on the forum have pointed this out. A schematic of the Buck-Boost converter is here Buck–boost converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The polarity of the spike produced from the buck boost converter is opposite that of the input energy. We can now look at the Boost converter. A schematic is here, Boost converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In this closely related circuit the spike is of the same polarity as the input energy. Both converters employ pulsed DC. So from a single inductor we can get spikes of positive and negative polarity.

While no one I suppose fully understands all this, I am paying close attention to the models JB proposes based from lots of experimentation. If, which also certainly may not be the case, I understand what he is saying, he views it as the current creates an electromagnet. The electromagent then focuses a stream of input energy from ... somewhere, into the Bloch wall. When the current stops this energy spreads out again with energy spiking out from the inductor. I think of his model as a little bit like a spring being compressed and released.

Well the discussion has probably been too academic and not pratical enough. I think one project I have for the spring is to see if I can wind coat hangers around a coffee can, use the wound coat hangers as a big torriodal coil and see if I can get that bad boy oscillating as a really big joule thief.

[Farmhand]

Yes well, it is complicated. I'm no expert that is for sure. Here's the thing.
the current continues in the same direction. The polarity of the coil changes
when it changes from being a load (when charged) to a supply (when discharged).
But it kinda changes only when not considered in relation to the negative of the
battery. The positive of the coil is still positive when compared to the
negative of the battery I think. In reality we should be thinking in terms of
more negative or more positive. Only the bottom of the coil changes in
relation to the battery.

Buck–boost converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When charged the current enters the positive of the coil, it is more positive
than the negative terminal of the battery, then when the switch is opened in
order for the current to continue in the same direction the negative end of
the coil becomes more positive than the positive end of the coil which is still
connected to the positive of the battery which is more positive than the
negative of the battery. Or it can all be less negative the opposite way the
battery positive is less negative than the battery negative. Current flows from
the less negative to the more negative.

It is true the bottom of the coil goes from being more negative than the top in
charging to less negative than the top during discharging.

My point is that the current is still flowing in the same direction. So how could
the emf be reversed ? A reverse emf should produce current in the opposite
direction. That is the point I was addressing. Reverse the force, reverse the
effect. Simple really, but very complicated. Well that's how I see it.

Maybe a electrical engineer could confirm that, or explain how a reversed emf
can keep current flowing in the same direction. Because that don't make no
sense to me.

Cheers

P.S The way I see it the "polarity" of the coil must change the way it does to
maintain the emf in the same direction. And of course when the coil
discharges through the load there is Counter emf opposing the emf that
causes the current. Back emf cant be opposed by more Back emf so the emf
producing the current is regular normal emf, it has to be. Counter emf does not
make current flow it opposes it.

Furthermore I don't think that a magnetic field collapsing in on itself could be
considered a radiant effect. Radiations go out from the source and do not
return by definition. Radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People are free to define their own terms though so it pays to ask what they
mean by "radiant". It's a catch word I think.

Tesla did study the radiant effect yes, but I don't think he was referring to a
collapsing magnetic field, I think he was referring to the radiations emitted.

..

[Farmhand]

Another strange thing, if we go with CEMF is as you mention the CEMF is always slightly less than the input EMF, somehow though the spike gets transformed to a higher voltage, whatever is going on this is not happening through the more commonly employed method of a higher winding inductively coupled secondary coil. For that matter induction is pretty mysterious itself.

I don't mind if others use the term Back emf as long as I know what they mean by it.

OK, this is fairly easily explained. When the switch is opened the cemf
opposing the coil charging current stops immediately. Then when the coil is
discharging the emf that produces the current through the load is opposed
immediately by cemf due to the self inductance of the load and wires.

The voltage potential produced by the magnetic field collapse depends on the
resistance it meets.

If the load is taken away and an extremely high resistance is the load the
voltage will rise accordingly until it can dissipate the energy somehow. If the
field contains enough energy it will spark a gap or if transistors are used for
the switch it will put a hole in them to get to the negative of the battery at
which point current will flow and the voltage of the spike will drop.

This is why if you build a very powerful Bedini machine SSG with a big coil
when the load is removed the neons fire up, or if no protection the transistors
can be destroyed. The neons are connected to the negative of the battery
too by the way.

If you use a secondary coil to take the input energy to a load there will be a
transformer effect and a field collapse event, if the windings are the same
number there will be no increase in the voltage produced by the transformer
action it will be 1:1 transformation ratio. So if you charge a 6 volt battery
using a 12 volt source and use a FWBR to supply the load from a secondary
winding the battery will be charged by transformer action as well. In my opinion.

[Farmhand]

These drawings show a high side switch when we usually use a low side switch.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rating.svg.png

Because the fact is that if with a single winding coil and a low side switch if a
neon is connected between the bottom of the coil and the negative of the
battery with the switch in between as a low side switch, and if the load circuit
is removed, the coil will discharge into the negative of the battery by way of the
neon more or less completing the same path as the charging current, I would
say the coil becomes connected in series with the charging circuit with the neon
as the load in that case.

The polarity of the coil is changed not because of a reversal of the emf as
such but because the voltage potential of the original negative end of the coil
increased above the voltage potential of the original positive end of the coil.
The emf remains in the same direction during coil discharge and is opposed by
Counter emf due to the self inductance of the conductors and load, is how I see it.

I say again I am not trained in this stuff but this is how I see it logically.

Cheers

I expect and I hope that if I say something too far wrong an Electrical
Engineer will come along and say where and why.

..

[mbrownn]

@Mbrownn,

I agree, it is a difficult concept and I also agree that there is a lot of confusion with terminology, or as the chaingang boss said to Cool Hand Luke, "What we have heaah, is a failya to comunicate." I've been thinking a bit more on this and will try give my guess on all this while keeping in mind I may be wrong or simply have no idea what I am talking about.

I have considered the terms "radiant energy" negative energy" "etheric energy" "zero Point energy" to be synonymous. In homage to Baron Von Reichenbach (Odic energy) and Bruce DePalma (OD energy), though I think these last two might be different energies, I am tempted to group the first four as "wierd energy". Let's stick with Tesla's "radiant energy" and guess that it is in fact identical to negative energy. Radiant energy is defined and characterized by the high voltage pulsed DC experiments that Tesla performed. He described it as a penetrating, chargeless gas like form of energy that could be converted to usable electricity. He evidently was getting very pure "radiant energy" with his set-ups. John Bedini has replicated the "impulse DC" or pulsed DC approach at lower voltages and also found "radiant energy". In both cases there are claims of what on the surface would be viewed as overunity if one does not take into account the addition from the radiant energy pool. Radiant energy as far as I know is only claimed at this point to be seen in the context of pulsed DC, the amount of radiant energy in turn is said to be dependent on: pulsed input wave form, duty cycle, impulse frequency, voltage, and degree of resonance of the system.

Alright so far so good, my absolute guess on all this at this point is as follows. When ever there is the pulsed DC inductive spike, a portion is "radiant energy" and a portion is conventional electricity. The radiant portion accounts for the strange well replicated effects, cooling, changing battery characteristics, etc. as well as theoretical, apparent "overunity". Radiant and negative energy are identical. What has absolutely thrown me then is John Bedini (Energy from the Vacuum 7) first charging a battery from an SSG giving it a "negative radiant charge" then charging it again from a pulsed DC inductive spike and noting that this was a positive charging. I thought a pulsed inductor always gave the spike which had negative enrgy in it. Apparently in some set-ups there is more radiant energy in the pulsed DC inductive spike and at others nearly all conventional positive energy. I would further guess that if one is capturing an inductive spike which is nearly all positive there would not be OU. If there were OU in such a set-up where would it come from? This would imply that there are actually two species of radiant energy itself positive and negative to go along with the positive and negative polarity of conventional electricity. For the time I'm going with the first idea, i.e there is only one species of radiant energy and it is synonymous with negative energy . I think, this is all sort of counting angels on the head of a pin at this point and my take home thought is to be sure to throw in a cap if I am trying to mix radiant and conventional electricity.

Finally, your idea of looking at temperature is a great one ... why didn't I think of that? I broke down and bought one of those point and click temperature guns a couple months ago and it might be a "cool" experiment to point it at various compenents in an SSG type set-up and record before and after temperatures. It is a rapid test and might even give you some idea of the magnitude of negative energy present. Thanks!

On radiant energy, there does appear to be two types, the positive one is where you collect the spike directly with a single diode and it is positive in charge.

The other is where it is collected with a bridge rectifier and the spike goes negative, This one is the one called negative energy even though it does have a mostly positive component. There are two ways John shows to get this, the first being from a third coil on his school girl motor and the second by placing an inductor in the input and putting a bridge rectifier across it.

With both types the output is measured as less than the input, but when connected to a charging battery the positive radiant usually gives a near 1 to 1 charge rate The negative seams to do something similar but when the battery is discharged on resistive loads the battery seems to have greatly increased capacity. The battery continues to charge after it is disconnected from the charger for some time. The battery has greater self recovery. There are big problems with the negative energy, It tends to crystallize the battery rendering it useless. The battery will no longer charge on a normal charger and appears shorted even before it crystallizes. It is difficult to reverse this negative charging effect.

It must be said that the overunity effect is in the battery and not the device.

I hope I got all that right

The temperature is important as a loss. when measuring the losses on a universal motor it is easy to see why they are so inefficient. Using resonant frequency on a universal motor via an LC circuit the motor performance was poor and I wanted to know why, by measuring the heat loss I was able to establish that the gains given by resonance were been lost in heat. reducing the ohmic resistance did little to reduce this so it must have been the iron loss.

With the Bedini setups they all produce heat, only on a few occasions did I detect a drop in temperature and that was on the charging battery. That was on a negative circuit and the drop happened after an initial rise. The drop was small so it may have been due to some other influence such as evaporation so i will not say anything conclusive on this. When the battery started to crystallize the temperature rose greatly. I used a mercury thermometer graduated at 1/10 of a degree.

[Farmhand]

So is the "radiant" energy we are talking about here the energy delivered to
the load by way of the collapsing magnetic field ?

Here is an analogy I just drew up. I think the contraption would work. Not
certain though. I haven't tried it. Looks like fun.


It should work by switching the on/off valve on and then rapidly switching
rapid switch valve. This would cause the bag to expand and the momentum
of the water plus it's weight would blow up the bag on closing the bottom
valve, working against the elasticity of the bag, the weight of the water
would then prevent backflow but the elasticity would force an amount of
water past the one way valve (diode) the weight of the water that the
elasticity of the bag must overcome would be less than the weight of the
water in the tank and so it would easily force some water well above the
original height.

The elasticity of the bag I assumed as the self induction of the coil, the bag
contracts back to it's original unstretched size. The pressure inside the bag is
more than it's surroundings, if it were holed pressure would leak out, not air
in.



The magnetic field of a coil is much stronger, more intense or whatever than
the natural surroundings I think.

Cheers

P.S. Here's a couple of questions I asked myself, I'll present them as rhetorical
questions. But I am interested what other people think or know.

The magnetic field of the coil as it is building and in steady state has a polarity.

After the "initial" point of collapse, does the polarity of the magnetic field flip ?

If a varying one way but not stopping current was put through the coil the
magnetic field would change also.

But does it change polarity when declining compared to when building ?

..

[mbrownn]

Interesting analogy, I might have to try that.

No and No

I think the term "changing polarity of a coil" often confuses. The magnetic force is proportional to the current flow and its polarity depends on the direction of that flow.

With a coil it is the electrical polarity that changes. So if we have a battery across a coil the positive of the battery makes the end it is connected to positive and a current flows. If the battery is then disconnected the current will continue to flow in the same direction provided there is a path for it but what was the positive end of the coil now appears electrically more negative that what was the negative end.

I would say it is a relative change in electrical polarity, relative to the other end of the coil.

Did I explain that well?