Magnetic Energy Secrets by Paul Babcock

[peacepenguin]

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.

[bobo36us]

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

[Michael Kishline]

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

[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.

[peacepenguin]

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.

[EMCSQ]

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 .

[peacepenguin]

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.

[Aaron]

coil resistance vs straight line

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!

[Michael Kishline]

Bedini Schematic For Viruses

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

[truesearch]

I too would like to see a copy of the "original" filled-in values on the left-hand side of Bedini's schematic.

truesearch

[pault]

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

[pault]

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.

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

[pault]

potential

...
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

[pault]

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 :-).

[Aaron]

conservation of energy hoax - no storing of potential

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.