 |
There are currently, 264 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Inverted radiant circuits
Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 @ 22:42:21 UTC by vlad
|
|
![]()
From John Bedini site: "...It's the most simple thing in nature to do, and the hardest for mankind to understand because of the mind blocks. Their is no math for radiant current, for are instruments do not measure it. It's even sick to see meters all over these machines, because their is no possible way to measure the Aether flow.
The people have had it all along and yet a little "meter" has stood in their way from the truth. Meters only measure wasted energy in the system."
Yes here it is, THE REAL McCoy pictured below, this baby is running on a 12 volt 450 ma battery and charging a 48 amp hour tractor battery Using all inverted Radiant circuits developed by Tom Bearden ,John Bedini and Peter Lindemann. the size is a standard 50 pack CD case. "No more big anything". This unit can also be made to fit in a two by three potted cube all solid state.The unit will charge any battery you put on it, including 1.5 volt zinc carbon batteries.
Just watch for products that use this technology. Think no more mass currents or big fat wires..."
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/intro.html
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4.53
Votes: 15
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 @ 11:43:23 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | OK, you've just discredited most of the Laws of Physics with your breakthrough. Now it should be a simple task to connect the output of your machine back to the input and create a perpetual motion device of the second type ( which IS allowed by the Laws of Thermodynamics). The whole world is waiting for you to hook up two more wires. |
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 1)
by ryandinan on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 @ 13:38:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Ok, so how about some easy to follow plans to reproduce the device? Even a list of what materials to get, and where to get them.
Why is this so hard to do? If you have something that works, let others attempt to reproduce and study it. I'm getting so tired of this.......
-Ryan |
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 @ 19:53:15 UTC | | Why is it I can go to Wallmart and buy a DVD player for $75.00 or less and I still can't buy one of these small devices to experiment with.If it works sell a tried and tested working model ! I,ll supply the large battery.Tom |
|
|
Comments from John Bedini to Dave Thomson (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 @ 20:20:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | An answer to David Thomson
David this is great stuff and I admire your work, but the dipole we are talking about are two different things. first of all the math does not apply since their are no equations for it. The math of today's scientist only runs you around in equation after equation, "just like Tesla said". All are electrical equations are only designed to burn energy in current. I understand the The Casimir effect, but this does not have anything to do with the charge of a magnetic moment. this does not take any high voltage since the stress field is always there. Our circuits are designed to split the magnetic moment before it becomes magnetic, this is where the radiant comes from. If we go back to Tesla and what he was doing in the end we find out he was studying through small experiments how this Radiant gas behaved, and what shapes it worked best with. His work with different lattice was very detailed and this is where The Casimir effect comes into play. As for the Radiant work their only three patents by Tesla which discusses anything, and no math. The only thing we have to use at this time is VQ without the I (current) but it should be Vr =Q ( voltage from the split Radiant = Charge) The only other factor is TIME to get the Vr. If a long time is required to collect charge in this split then C (capacitor) should be very small so that the highest V (voltage) is obtained. If the Vr is very quick in splitting this magnetic moment then C can be very big. Also frequency of this magnetic moment is very important. You must release the Radiant voltage into a radiant current de-void of any electrons. So what is charging the batteries in My system is pure Radiant Current. This means that since their is no electrons to pile up on the Ions of the battery nothing can move, this forces the Ions to change their state and they move on their own, this is nothing more then a impedance shift, if you have a low impedance in the battery you have real power, if you have high impedance in the battery you have nothing. Nature takes time to move at her own rate, so the battery may take a long time to charge but charge it will with a different form of energy. This brings me to a different point, That all that is driving the switching solid state wise is a difference in potential across the battery inverted. This then means that the whole flow theory is out the window, meaning that the semiconductors are working on potential charge de-void of electrons so their is no heat generated in the semiconductor. As for the battery it fill's in it's own electrons. I must say that Tesla was right.
John
Answer Two
David and Darren
First of all with all due respect and admiration for your work, I must still state that My work has nothing to do with "Strong Charge", or Resonance in our circuits. My work is based on real working models, and these real working models are saying something much different than what the equations are saying. My magnetic moment is based on what is occurring in the front end circuit before the normal current builds up, and then to capture the radiant voltage and then split this voltage into a current de-void of electrons to charge the batteries. So here we differ again I'm not looking for electrons to power anything, in your model you can not get away from the electrons. My models are telling me that the equations must be revised to work properly with My model. I not only have one model that is working I have 30 that do the same thing plus the solid state models. Radiant energy goes away when electrons enter the picture. Read very carefully what Tesla said about the power stations when they were DC powered, I think you will catch it. I have never seen anybody that did science right do the equations before they had a working model on the bench. Also it's not "Professional" to speak of another fellow scientists working in the field as regurgitated Bearden concepts, when nobody has check the references to find out if he is right. I have worked with Tom Bearden for 30 +years and those theories come from my bench models that are working. Now others are getting to first base and soon they will be on third base, soon you will see these machines powering loads and charging their own batteries, then where will all the math models sit? If my patents were understood it would be found out that the Mono Pole motor is not a Motor, it is a mechanical Radiant oscillator with a one to one transformer inductively triggered. being a one to one transformer you can not get more out then you put in, unless something else is flowing through it, it does not fit the math models, so this washes the forward converter theory down the drain. I say this, if I take your model and understand it correctly, everybody should have their lights burning right now! What bench model do you have running on this theory? I say these things to you with all do respect for your hard work.
John Bedini
|
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 03:59:38 UTC | Looks like it was made from off-the-shelf parts. Please include a list of each part(with specs) of the assembly and a circuit diagram.
Much appreciated. |
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, December 12, 2003 @ 04:20:46 UTC | let me make something crystal clear:
DO NOT POST PHOTOS OF A DEVICE UNLESS YOU INCLUDE A DETAILED, NON-THEORETICAL DESCRIPTION OF EACH COMPONENT AND A CIRCUIT DIAGRAM.
What you've just done is worthless, counter-productive and bordering on tauntery. It accomplishes precisely nothing, and can be likened to posting pornography on a peer-bonding dynamics website. |
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTE!!! (Score: 1)
by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Friday, December 19, 2003 @ 02:22:42 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | The email address as extractable in the above pages (i.e. john1@icehouse.net) does NOT go to John Bedini. Please don't send any email to that address as you will not reach mr Bedini !!
/Rob
|
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 17:03:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Andrew Thorp wrote (from KeelyNet list):
Hi,
Just thought that some of your list readers may benefit from something that I (re)discovered in 2001 about pulse charging batteries. Essentially, it IS possible to get 'overunity' from a pulse circuit and lead-acid batteries, so long as you assume that the open-circuit voltage represents the true charge state of the battery.
Batteries can have their terminal voltage raised above normal without adding energy if they are repeatedly 'shocked' with high voltage. The trick is to measure the voltage before and after hooking up the circuit and figure some way of calculating the increase in voltage as overunity.
Robert Adams agreed that this is the trick he used to get his 1000s percent overunity claims several years ago.
If people are spending money chasing Bedini's claims, I feel it would be a good idea to rule out this known effect before going after his 'radiant energy' and other whatnot.
Cheers, Andrew.
|
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, April 30, 2004 @ 18:54:24 UTC | What shits me about all these so called free energy devices is that someone posts a picture of some contraption, gives a good write up of what it does, and says that its overunity and is easy to build.
Well wake up to yourselves (the ones who are posting these claims) If you really had a machine that did as you claimed, you would post detailed instructions on how to build it, circuit diagrams, pics the whole lot, from start to finish. I'm getting tired of these kind of ppl who say they have had working machines (some for years they claim). Well if I had a true working overunity machine. I can tell you right now, that within a year, I'd have the whole town onto it, I'd share it so that everyone could get clean free energy. That's what a humanitarian would do. This crap about awaiting patents is bull too, you will never get a patent on a free energy device. So wake up to yourselves, People are dying of old age waiting for people like yourselves to get your crap together. If you have something so profound that it could change our lives for the better then share it. If not piss off. I dont care about your patents/money. Freedom is priceless.
|
|
|
Re: Inverted radiant circuits (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, May 03, 2004 @ 21:48:36 UTC | | I really wish you all the good fortune you desire. Please share your knowledge and let the information be readily available for others. The world may be at your doorstep, but it is very lonely on the inside. You will be rewarded for good deeds. Sounds corny but you cant take it with you when you go. If what you claim is true and you do not openly share and enlighten others with your knowledge to better understand and perhaps expound upon the basis of your working models then it is all for nothing. Dont be fooled, or tricked into beleiving hat your knowledge somehow belongs to you and you only. This kind of knowledge is for sharing. It is only when you let others in that you will reap your harvest. Its a harvest thats bountiful and sweet, and you can be sure to enjoy with delight. The harvest of greed will never be sweet or enjoyable, look back in history and you will notice that getting what you want is not always what you thaught you wanted. Please share or you will wither and nothing will be sweet. I will stand next to any man that loves. |
|
|
|
|
