Kromrey Disclosure! Bedini SG - Beyond the Advanced Handbook by Peter Lindemann

[BroMikey]

Aaron is not here for you to correct when someone attacks a veteran
member. You are here to sit and listen. If you are here to moderate then
I will apologize, until then as far as I can tell Aaron did the right thing by
putting "MM" in his place. If you desire to side with "MM" in his attacks
then this puts you in left field.

I can't believe that grown men will not stick up for one another. If anyone
is wrongfully attacks on any level then all should stand up and be heard. So
far all I hear is a lot of bile flowing out about how Aaron has missed the boat.

Please stand by while I go heave. That is so disgusting, how little trust
and consideration for the chief man, all over silliness. But it does teach me
that few men have any allegiance to their leaders here on the site.

I have watched Aaron these past few years and he is always right, did you
hear me? ALWAYS, and I am not kidding, thats what pisses most of you off.

Suggesting Aaron is short tempered, Ill mannered, myopic or blind to
what the deal is, doesn't understand what he is talking about, picking
on members without cause is unacceptable.

Aaron does not respond this way due to his enormous depth of personality
which is more than I am seeing here today. Anyone attacking our leaders
in a belittling manner will be pointed out and somehow I am suppose to
beg forgiveness?

How dare I stand up? Defending a bully or a person who insults our
honorary members shows you have no respect for them. I knew that
already but now everyone does.

This user came on this forum and insulted and talks about science
all over the web. There is no mistake as is being suggested. These
small digs or ugly remarks show a deep rooted hate for the members
here. We knew that, this is not our first day realizing this.

Go ahead change your handle and keep making the money you are
paid to disrupt. The leaders here understand the rivalry between
sites and ideology. Just keep signing in under a new name.

Your name will be posted fool.

[RAMSET]

An imaginary Line

here anonymous handles are used for a reason...it is part of this particular Venue .....for reasons which should be self evident.
However,
I agree with Mikey..
it is good for members [or potential members] here to know who is in charge and How they run their house.

I am not certain it is ethical or even a good business model ...However that's just one mans opinion.

You do still allow opinions here ?? { being quite serious ]

respectfully

Chet K

[Peter Lindemann]

This is what Disruption looks like...

I just think there are others option better than releasing confidential info. Even I do not know if it goes against some registration agreements in case when signing there would have been a message advising that your name and email would not be published. I do not know.

I wont post more into this subject. I have already shown my point.

Regards

Dear hanon1492,

What MM did here is DISRUPT THIS THREAD! The proof of that is that the actual TOPIC of the thread has been completely diverted, and the last 20 or so posts have been OFF TOPIC and now people here are debating a controversy that doesn't exist instead of the topic of the thread.

THAT IS WHAT DISRUPTION LOOKS LIKE!!

What Aaron did was look for and find, elsewhere on the internet, a place were MM freely disclosed who he is. Then he brought that information back here, and put the guy ON NOTICE that acts of ANONYMOUS DISRUPTION are not tolerated in this Forum.

So here is the message to ALL OF YOU who think that disrupting a thread is OK: if you keep it up, you WILL be identified publicly, and banned from the forum eventually. If you don't like it, LEAVE NOW while you can still slink away anonymously. Anybody who "jumps on the bandwagon" with a disrupter automatically "puts themselves" on a watch list by the rest of us, just like BroMikey said!

The ONLY reason more real science is happening on this Forum than any other Forum on the Internet, is that Aaron unceremoniously OUTS anonymous disrupters and BOOTS people off the Forum when all else fails. If it was up to me, I'd boot more people than he does!!

hanon1492, you are new here. Either take advantage of the open, scientific exchange going on here and appreciate it, or leave. But don't stay and criticize the people who are providing that environment or criticize the products that pay for that environment, like MM did.

And here is the final point. This Forum is a PRIVATE COMPANY, paid for by the revenue from the sales of products advertised here. No one is required to buy anything and there are no fees levied against participants, but that doesn't mean there are no costs associated with maintaining this Forum. When you signed up, you accepted a set of "Terms and Conditions" which include no disrupting and being respectful to other participants. When you violate your agreement to behave in a civil manner, you can be thrown out. So this is the bottom line: being here is a PRIVILEGE, you have NO RIGHTS here! Your participation here is by CONTRACT. Behave in a civil manner and you are welcome to stay. Behave any other way, and you are not only not welcome to stay, but you are not welcome to remain anonymous either! Those are the RULES, behave accordingly.

I hope this helps you understand what is going on here a little better.

This diversion is OVER! Let's get back to the Topic of this Thread.

Peter

[Aaron]

your misrepresentation of the facts

Aaron, what you did is not fair. You have associated an anonimous nickname with a real name and real email address which were disconnected from that user till now. It was not known that before. I regret you decided to keep your same idea. As a proverb says : correcting is common of wise men. Please reconsider your idea. Never it is late. Thanks

I'm not sure what part of a free public google search you don't understand. Not fair? He's posted personal insults to me in about 3 different posts in several different threads. I'm free to use google as anyone else is and if he thinks he is anonymous and freely posts his email right there in google for the world to see - that is his own problem. Yes, it is very fair.

You are dedicated to self-deception if you think I revealed confidential information. If you don't know how to use google or click a link that goes to google to figure it out for yourself, then please stop posting irrelevant and misleading statements about what I have done.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to be a jackass and they think they can hide behind some anonymous username, I'm going to call them out and will spend as much time as possible searching google to in order to know exactly who they are, period. This doesn't have anything to do with the policy of this forum or how it is moderated. Again, I'm free to to use google as anyone else is and any non-moderator member here is free to do the exact same thing!

If a regular member searched google and posted the same thing I did, would you claim they are violating their privacy? No - why? Because it is a hypocritical double standard being applied to me.

Please let this be the LAST message about this topic and as Peter mentioned, users agree to terms and applying a double standard to me where it is ok in your opinion for people to violate those terms and slander myself and my associates, yet when I defend myself by NOT posting confidential information but instead, I post what they say about themselves in google - calling that a violation of privacy is completely out of touch with reality.

[Aaron]

Energetic Forum Privacy

Privacy and Energetic Forum, please read if you are concerned about your privacy as a member: http://www.energeticforum.com/forum-...tic-forum.html

[John_K]

Let's move on shall we?

Peter
I purchased your presentation, and after watching it I feel it's worth the money.
I would not have expected that diode in that location to make that much difference.
Thank you.

So this was the last post related to the topic of this thread - to get us back on track.

Peter, I need to ask. Why put the diode in that position? I would've thought to put it on the positive line between battery 1 positive and the positive input to the SG. In my thinking, it would block all of the regauging spike from getting back to the series batteries there as well.

John K.

[Peter Lindemann]

Charging Isolated to Battery C

So this was the last post related to the topic of this thread - to get us back on track.

Peter, I need to ask. Why put the diode in that position? I would've thought to put it on the positive line between battery 1 positive and the positive input to the SG. In my thinking, it would block all of the re-gauging spike from getting back to the series batteries there as well.

John K.

John,

Great question. The idea was to run the batteries as conventionally as possible. That meant the circuit needed to run from the batteries in positions A and B, and charge the battery in position C. It also meant that I didn't want any of the charge to find its way back to the front batteries while they were running the machine.

During the development of the design, I talked these ideas over with John Bedini. We both agreed that total disconnection was the best solution, like the bi-polar switch that disconnects both the positive and the negative lines. So we started by drawing in diodes on the common negative between batteries B and C, and on the positive line between battery A and the positive input to the motor. As we studied the circuit with the diodes in place, we realized that when the radiant spike came back out of the coil and was applied to battery C, the transistor was already OFF, so the positive line in relation to battery C was already disconnected. That meant we only needed the diode on the common negative line to produce total isolation.

Aaron and Graham ran some preliminary tests on a small SG Aaron had that definitely showed that a fast diode in that location increased the charge rate on battery C.

So that is the evolution of the diode on the common negative line for this set-up. It seems that the total Radiant Energy available to charge battery C can be "throttled" so to speak, by the switching speed of the diode you select to put in this location. The one I showed was a 600 volt, 30 amp Ultra-fast switch-mode diode rated at 60 nano-seconds. It was clearly too fast for the circuit as it was constructed at the time. I think 80 to 100 nsec would have been closer to what was needed to increase the charge rate on battery C without almost blowing all the transistors!

Since the Conference Demonstration, I have cleaned the machine up quite a bit, traded out all of the bad batteries for new ones, gotten rid of all of the crossed wires, and traded out the 1N4007s for UF4007s. Now, the Neon Lights come on during the start-up process (which they didn't before) and stay on until the motor reaches about 300 rpm, and that is without the diode on the common negative line. This demonstrates that lowering the impedance of the entire circuit is still the most important feature of these machines.

For the most part, I have run the machine without that diode on the common negative line to make sure I am maximizing the functions of the rest of the circuit. But my real job interrupts my ability to work on this project except a little here and a little there. I hope to have enough time to get back to these experiments sometime soon.

Thanks for being interested.

Peter

[serendipitor]

Original Kromrey patent alterations

I just reread a line in the "Visit to John Bedini" paper by Eike Mueller that I am curious about. It says (page 1) "John Bedini found that the material generally available concerning Kromrey's converter had been altered. Rebuilding the Kromrey Converter from the patent papers ended up in a non-functioning device. Bedini found the necessary modifications which made this device perform."

Can anyone say what those specific modifications are, other than what Peter gave in his lecture ? Does the patent paper as printed in the SGADV and SGBeyond pdf's reflect those modifications? It looks to me like the winding diagrams at least are the same in all the documents I have.

Thanks.

[Jeff Pearson]

In the Kromrey patent, there is a diagram showing the coils wound conventionally. Only the lab test diagram shows funky wound coils. Maybe this is the issue with patent??

[serendipitor]

In the Kromrey patent, there is a diagram showing the coils wound conventionally. Only the lab test diagram shows funky wound coils. Maybe this is the issue with patent??

Ah so. I guess you mean fig.5 vs. fig. 6. In fig. 5 the winding on the shaft end of one of the cores jumps directly over the shaft to the shaft end on the other side of that core, continuing in the same direction. In fig. 6 the winding on one side finishes on the shaft end of the core, and then jumps to the *far* end of the same core.

I wonder how that would affect things. The usual way to way to make a winding for higher voltage is to go back and forth with several or many layers. In this case, that might not be what is wanted. However, the picture of JB's early replication does seem to show windings of multiple layers, so maybe it is not a concern.

[bjdea1]

Serendititor,

1) sell the prototype to some nameless company for $50M?
2) install it in your home and tell all your neighbors?
3) install it in your home and quietly go on with your life?
4) demonstrate it at a public venue to an audience who has a track record of "sitting on their hands"?

Just wanted to add some feedback.

I think I would choose:
2) install it in your home and tell all your neighbors?
3) install it in your home and quietly go on with your life?

I'm very keen to build a prototype, but for me time is the problem, raising young children, working to pay the mortgage, etc, etc.......but I will do it sometime soon!

I have an idea that I noticed no one else seems to have considered. To maximise what you can gain out of a single coil you could have 2 wheels on a single coil. One wheel on either end of the coil, to use both polarities of the generated magnetic field. This should then double the amount of generator coils you could have without costing any more on power input. I have seen someone else do this on youtube and noticed that the wheels naturally sync their speed.

You could also orientate it so that you have the 2 wheels on the same axis stacked up along side each other, maybe 2-3 inch space between them and use a transformer C shape core for the coil. That way you could again have 2 wheels on a single coil, using both polarities of the generated magnetic field. Doubling up on the generator coils at no cost at current draw.

My main objective is to gradually setup little powering stations around my house to directly plug appliances into. I don't plan on fiddling with any house wiring, just wanting to build little power units in boxes type thing and have say a TV plugged into that rather than the wall socket. Same for computer, heater, A/C, etc.....this would be to radically reduce my power bill (say by 90%) but not eliminate it entirely. I also would like to get an electric car and end the need to pay for fuel, recharging from free electricity generated from these kind of devices.......

Anyway just love your work Peter, Aaron & John.......I find myself repeatedly searching the internet for any new updates, or checking my email for new releases. Keep up the great work and really loving everything you guys are doing ! I know you guys put in a lot of work and I know we are all very lucky to have you guys doing this !
.
.

[serendipitor]

EFV Chapter 10 video info

I just watched the Energy From the Vacuum DVD chapter 10 "The Kromrey Converter". JB gave his theoretic explanations, in his language, and some details of the operation of the machine, but overall this interview adds very little to what is known about this device, beyond what Peter has given in his presentations and SG books.

In a remarkably perfect bit of theatrical dialogue, JB began a sentence by saying "The problem with the patent was..." and the unfortunately incompetent interviewer interrupted him and said "Who is Kromrey?" and the whole thought got derailed and lost in story telling. The video cuts and continues on another tangent, but JB never completed that sentence. So we are still not sure where the patent is incorrect.

I am laughing at the perfection of this!

JB does at one point give a very sketchy description of using trifilar windings on the four rotor coils, with the three wires in parallel, for a resistance of .4 ohms. From the sound of it, there was quite a bit of tinkering to get to that point.

I notice that JB used a solid rod rotor, which gets quite hot when the machine is running, presumably due to eddy currents. Kromrey used standard laminations in his rotor, which makes more sense.

In response to the question about COP. JB mentions 120%, but says it was over 300% with another of his revisions. However, the Eike Meuller paper test results on the original machine gives much higher COP, so this is again rather amusing theater.

The most interesting part to me showed the battery being charged by the machine becomes colder, and that makes it clear that cold electricity is indeed flowing. So further experimentation is worthwhile.

[jegz]

The Madman has arrived

Hey Marmalade-man,

Brave talk! When are you going to bring out your working model of the Figuera Device, demonstrate how it works in front of a live audience of 150 people, and give away the plans and schematics? I showed a large model of a home-built motor/generator to a live audience, running on a set of batteries that weren't discharging, showing the schematic and explained everything about it. I also demonstrated a model of a Kromrey Generator delivering more than twice as much power into a battery as the motor driving it was drawing from the supply. To the best of my knowledge, it was the most significant demonstration of a Kromrey Generator since John Bedini's "Town Hall Meeting" demonstration over 30 years ago, and we all have John to thank for this model working again, as well.

We are giving people who weren't at the Conference an opportunity to purchase a film of that event. Everyone who has seen it and posted here has said that they learned something important from it. This thread is about that film and that Conference Presentation.

Why are you here puking up your bile about something you know nothing about? Figuera may have had a working device in his day, but you don't have one. All you have done is fluff up your sense of self-importance with the IDEA that you know how it works! With such a long list of accomplishments, its a marvel that you haven't completely worn out your keyboard yet.

Peter

I see he made his way here.This guy spends a lot of time on forums talking crap. Check out the Figuera thread at overunity and see just how racist he is..using the N word on people who don't share the same view as he does.

[Matthew Jones]

I just watched the Energy From the Vacuum DVD chapter 10 "The Kromrey Converter". JB gave his theoretic explanations, in his language, and some details of the operation of the machine, but overall this interview adds very little to what is known about this device, beyond what Peter has given in his presentations and SG books.

In a remarkably perfect bit of theatrical dialogue, JB began a sentence by saying "The problem with the patent was..." and the unfortunately incompetent interviewer interrupted him and said "Who is Kromrey?" and the whole thought got derailed and lost in story telling. The video cuts and continues on another tangent, but JB never completed that sentence. So we are still not sure where the patent is incorrect.

I am laughing at the perfection of this!

JB does at one point give a very sketchy description of using trifilar windings on the four rotor coils, with the three wires in parallel, for a resistance of .4 ohms. From the sound of it, there was quite a bit of tinkering to get to that point.

I notice that JB used a solid rod rotor, which gets quite hot when the machine is running, presumably due to eddy currents. Kromrey used standard laminations in his rotor, which makes more sense.

In response to the question about COP. JB mentions 120%, but says it was over 300% with another of his revisions. However, the Eike Meuller paper test results on the original machine gives much higher COP, so this is again rather amusing theater.

The most interesting part to me showed the battery being charged by the machine becomes colder, and that makes it clear that cold electricity is indeed flowing. So further experimentation is worthwhile.

Even more interesting is the fact he flips the wire connection from the bridge to opposite poles and the battery still charges. Most people missed that.

Matt

[serendipitor]

Photo of JB's demonstartion unit

Yes, I did miss that. Good eyes. At 33 minutes, he lights a car head lamp in series with the battery, but as you say, the polarity is reversed from what he was using earlier. I can't say if that was intended or not, but it could be that the battery was discharging through the lamp via the backwards polarized bridge rectifier. That is perhaps why the lamp was so bright, when it was not previously. Not really a valid test.

Here is a screen grab of JB's Kromrey unit that was shown in the LA public demonstration, in the mid 80's. Due to very poor VHS quality, I am not able to clean it up much. But it shows that the device was close to the patent, with two poles, DC energized stators, horizontal shaft, and larger pole faces than the unit shown in the DVD. In the demo, he lit a bank of lights through very thin wires, again a signature of cold electricity.