Understanding Radiant Energy & Tesla

[quantum1024]

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?

[Grumpy]

...which means we have to apply "dielectric induction laws" (or electrostatic induction laws) rather than Lenz's Law - which is for elecro-magnetic induction.

Mr. Tesla claims that all electric and magnetic effects are traceable to the action of electro-static molecular forces, and in confirmation of this theory

About 15 years ago Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact?namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism which produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magneti&m. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules ; we can see that these lines must be closed ; that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way the most puzzling phenomenon of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Amp?re theory without possessing the vital defect of the same?namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say that I look upon all electrostatic current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces. But of all the views on nature, the one which assumes one matter and one force, and a perfect uniformity throughout, is the most scientific and most likely to be true. An infinitesimal world, with the molecules and their atoms spinning and moving in orbits, in much the same manner as celestial bodies, carrying with thorn and probably spinning with them ether, or in other words, carrying with them static charges, seems to my mind the most probable view, and one which, in a plausible manner, accounts for most of the phenomena observed. The spinning of the molecules and their ether sets up ether tensions or electrostatic strains ; the equalisations of ether tensions sets up ether motions or electric currents, and the orbital movements produce the effects of electro and permanent magnetism. The preceding remarks I have deemed necessary to a full understanding of the subject as it presents itself to my mind. Of all these phenomena the most important to study are the current phenomena, on account of the already extensive and ever-growing use of currents for industrial purposes.

[z_p_e]

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.

[z_p_e]

ERfinder,

You've referenced Tesla's 14 or 18 important papers and patents. I wonder if you would be so kind as to list them here?

Thanks.

[z_p_e]

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.