Tom Bearden
John Bedini has a prototype free energy motor.
Imagine having a small D.C. electrical motor sitting on your laboratory bench powered by a common 12 volt battery. Imagine starting with a fully charged battery and connecting it to the motor with no other power input. Obviously, the motor is going to run off the battery, but by conventional thinking it will stop when the battery runs down. It isn’t running by the conventional wisdom of electrical physics. It isn’t running by the conventional rules of electric motors and generators, but it is running. And it isn’t something complex. It’s pretty simple, once one gets the hang of the basic idea. Impossible, you say. Not at all. That’s precisely what John Bedini has done, and the motor is running now in his workshop.
English: Nikola Tesla, with Rudjer Boscovich's...
It’s running off the principles of electromagnetics that Nikola Tesla discovered shortly before 1900 in his Colorado Springs experiments. It’s running off the fact that pure empty vacuum – pure “emptiness”, so to speak, is filled with rivers and oceans of seething energy, just as Nikola Tesla pointed out.
It’s running off the fact that vacuum space-time itself is nothing but pure masless charge. That is, vacuum has a very high electrostatic scalar potential – it is greatly stressed. To usefully tap the enormous locked-in energy of that stress, all one has to do is crack it sharply and tap the vacuum oscillations that result. The best way to do that is to hit something resonant that is imbedded in the vacuum, then tap the resonant stress of the ringing of the vacuum itself.
In other words, we can ring something at its resonant frequency and, if that something is imbedded in the vacuum, we can tap off the resonance in vacuum stress, without tapping energy directly from the embedded system we rang into oscillation.
So what we really need is something that is deeply imbedded in the vacuum, that is, something that can translate the “vacuum” movement into “mass” movement. Well, all charged particles and ions are already imbedded in the vacuum by their charged fluxes, so stressed oscillations – that is, vacuum oscillations – can be converted into normal energy of mass movement by charged particles or ions, if the system of charged particles or ions is made to resonate in phase with our tapping “potential”. For our purpose, let’s use a system of ions.
First we will need a big accumulator to hold a lot of the charged ions in the system that we wish to shock into oscillation. We need something that has a big capacitance and also contains a lot of ions.
An ordinary battery filled with electrolyte fits the bill nicely. While it’s not commonly known, ordinary lead-acid storage batterys have a resonant ionic frequency, usually in the range of from 1 – 6 Mhz. All we have to do is shock –oscillate the ions in the electrolyte at their resonant frequency and time our “trigger” potential and “siphon” circuit correctly. Then if we keep adding potential to trigger the system we can get all that “potential” to translate into “free electrical energy”.
Look at it this way. Conventionally “electrostatic scalar potential” is composed of work or energy per colum b of charged particle mass. So if we add potential alone, without the mass flow, to a system of oscillating charged particles, we add “physical energy” in the entire charged particle system. In other words, the “potential” we add is converted directly into “ordinary energy ” by the imbedded ions in the system. And if we are clever we don’t have to furnish any pushing energy to move pure potential around. (For proof that this is possible, see Bearden’s Toward a New Electromagnetics;
Part IV; Vectors and Mechanisms Clarified, Tesla Book Co., 1983, Slide 19, Page 43, and the accompanying write-up, pages 10, and 11. Also see Y. Aharonov an d V. Bohm, “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory”, Physical Review, Second Series, Vol. 115, No. 3, Aug. 1, 1959, pages 485-491.
On page
490 you will find that it’s possible to have a field-free reigon of space, and
still have the potential determine the physical properties of the system.)
Now this “free energy resonant coupling” can be done in a simple, cheap system.
You don’t need big cyclotrons and huge laboratories to do it; you can do it with
ordinary D.C. motors, batteries, controllers and trigger circuits.
And that’s exactly what John Bedini has done. It’s real. It works. It’s running
now on John’s laboratory bench in prototype form.
But that’s not all. John is also a humanitarian. He’s as concerned as I am for that
little old widow lady at the end of the lane, stretching her meager Social Security
check as far as she can, shivering in the cold winter and not daring to turn
up her furnace because she can’t afford the frightful utility bills.
That’s simply got to change and John Bedini may well be the fellow who changes it.
By openly releasing his work in this paper, he is providing enough information
for all the tinkerers and independent inventors around the world to have at it. If
he can get a thousand of them to duplicate his device, it simply can’t be supressed as
so many others have been.
So here it is. John has deliberately written his paper for the tinkerer and
experimenter, not for the scientist. You must be careful, for the device is a little
tricky to adjust in and synchronize all the resonances. You’ll have to fiddle with
but it will work. Keep at it.
Also, we warn you not to play with this unless you know what you are doing. The
resonating battery electrolyte produces hydrogen, and if you hit it to hard with a
“voltage spike” you can get an electrical spark inside the battery. If that happens,
THE BATTERY WILL EXPLODE, so don’t mess with it unless you are qualified and use the
utmost caution.
But it DOES work. So all you experimenters and pioneers, now’s your chance. Have at it. Build it. Tinker with it. Fiddle it into resonant operation. Then lets build this thing in quantity, sell it widely, and get those home utilities down to where we can all afford them – including the shivering little old lady at the end of the lane. And when we do, lets give John Bedini, and men like him the credit and appreciation they so richly deserve.
Tom Bearden
April 13,1984
John Bedini
[Note: John Bedini developed Two kinds of controller devices. One, being very simple, is the one I will present here. The other is quite a bit more complex, and would be impossible for me to reproduce here… Anyway if you want to see the all electronic controller, get the book “Bedini’s Free Energy Generator” by John C. Bedini, Published by the Tesla Book Co. 1580 Magnolia Ave., Millbrae, CA 94030.]
For some time man has been looking for different ways to generate electricity. He has used water power, steam power, nuclear power, and solar power. Recent papers written by Tom Bearden make a free energy generator possible. Tom Bearden, rather than patent his devices, chose to share them with people who had open ears. I myself have had many conversations with Tom Bearden. He found Tom to be one of the most reasonable men he had ever dealt with in this energy field. Most others would tell you stories of great machines they had, but would never present the truth with circuit diagrams or a look at the machine in question. Tom, on the other hand, clearly presents his ideas and clearly presents his ideas and discloses the concepts by means of which they work.
The facts I am about to present to you about free energy were never put into textbooks, only portions were. The textbooks have grounded people in conventional theory and made things very complicated. What I am about to explain is very simple; anyone can understand this theory and anyone who understands what he is doing can build this device.
I have been grounded in conventional theory for some eleven years. I have always
tried to study the simplicity of electrical circuits, but my mind wouldn’t allow
this because of my orthodox training. In any event, I had to change the way
i was looking at things. I started to wonder, why do we need to have things so
complicated? The truth of the matter is, we have been taught to consume or waste energy
at every turn in our lives, so we jump into our cars, turn on lights, etc. In other
words, we have been conditioned to waste energy and fuels lavishly, not realizing
that someday someone will sky-rocket our energy bills to a point where we will
not be able to pay for these fuels. Everything will come to a stand-still. But la
ugh as you will, at that time Rube Goldberg machines will power your future. It
probably will not be uncommon to see machines from the size of garbage cans to the
size of two story apartment houses powering everything in sight. These machines will
be using a force in nature never conceived by the conventionally trained mind of today.
The theory I am about to explain to you will bring you one step closer to gaining
free energy.
To begin my story I must state I had a vision – looking for this energy. Many times
I hammered my head into the ground, but I refused to give up in my search. Any person
with a dream should never let it be wasted by fools, who will always say “you
can’t do that”. All that statement really means is that they do not know how to do it.
There are many different ways to explain this theory. I will discuss the first
one now.
The device is very simple and uses a motor, a generator, a controller switch, and a battery. Basically, we drive a direct current motor with pulsed current from a battery, then utilize a special means to cause the battery to recharge itself. First, the battery, controller, and generator are interconnected as shown in figure 3. (See also Figure 1)
/—– /—–
o-12v | |===| || | 14v.o
[Motor==| |==||===Gen. ]
o+ | |===| || | .o
—–/ Mass —–/
Figure 1: The Kromery Converter
= Brush 1
_-_ * =shaft
/xxx xxx=copper
/x/xx = =brush
| x*x=|_________ _o–o1
x/ /Brush 2 /|
_ _/ 2o–/

= Brush 3 o–o3
__________ Equivelant
Figure 2: Controller Construction
3O To controller 1O To controller
| brush #3 | brush #1
| |
| Mass | 2O To controller
| Gen. Motor| | brush #2
| ____ = ____ | |
—-O+ |-=-| +O-/ -To batt +
/–O- |-=-| -O–+—To batt –
| —- = —- |
Figure 3: Schematic of the device
Let’s begin by stating certain facts. The ions move backwards under charging
conditions and in reverse under discharging conditions. So here we start our new
concept. Suppose we have constructed a machine that has tricked this battery into a
different space and time relationship. Simply put, suppose the battery never did any
and it should have its full charge left in it. Suppose this becomes possible because
we have stressed the terminals in such a way that the ions in the battery electrolyte
actually move themselves backwards. The machine, or unit, that makes this possible h
as many different names. Some people call these units generators, energizers,
alternators, etc. Conventionally such devices have one thing in common; they stress the
battery backwards by pushing electricity into the battery and forcibly pushing the ions
n the electrolyte backwards. In our theory, we are not going to push anything – the ions
are going to move themselves, recharging the battery.
If we go a little deeper into this theory, you are probably asking yourself, “what is
this madman talking about?” Simply put, we are going to put a stress on the battery
terminals for a moment in time and the battery will do the rest. Now comes the heavy
part of this theory. What they didn’t teach you in textbooks is that, in order for the
battery to charge, two oscillatory actions must occur, one at the positive terminal and
one at the negative terminal. Under different stress levels this then forces the
ions backwards. The same would occur for an electron. Our machine will slingshot ions
in the battery electrolyte backwards beyond the normal recoil action.
I must give a very stern warning at this time that if the voltage developed is too
high the battery will explode. Use the utmost care. Test setups in my lab have proven
that this can be dangerous. Do not build the device and experiment with it unless yo
u know what you are doing, and use the utmost caution.
When struck by a sharp voltage spike, the electrolyte in the battery will resonate
at a certain frequency and this can also force the ions backwards. Simply put, the
battery, the motor, and the energizer will become resonant at some point, “ring” like
bell when we “strike” it, and in its ringing the most energy will be developed.
[Note: sorry I can’t produce waveforms here so get the book! I will present the
explanation here, however]
The battery is really charging itself. The ions in the electrolyte are being stressed
in a curved space and time relationship, the battery is actually forced into believing
that no work ever occured. The oscillatory action that has taken place by the en
ergizer has just pulsed our “slingshot” and immediately let go. Once this has happened,
the electrolyte in the battery goes wild and the ions race backwards, giving off
hydrogen and oxygen gas. I must make a stern warning here! The time of the stimulaing
pulse is very important. If the time is to long the battery will burn itself out. If
the pulse time is too short or if the circuit fails to operate correctly, the battery
will never recover its charge. Taking this into consideration, the only failures tha
t could occur would be the controller failure due to a points faiulre (on the electronic
controller), or the multivibrator latched in the “on” position (again, only on the
electronic controller). Anyone studying this can see that we have used very little
energy to get to this point, and gained a lot of resonant energy in return.
We must remember that, if the battery is applied to the energizer longer than normal,
we must burn up the excess energy to keep the battery cool. The problem now becomes one
of embarrassing excess of energy, not a shortage.
The energizer is also a simple machine, but if yu want to, you can make it very
complex. The simple way is to study the alternator principles. The waves we want to
generate are like those that came from old D.C. generators with the exception of
drag, bearing drag, and no excited fields. Also, we would want to cut the magnetic
fields at 90 degress to the armature. The simpler the better.
I am going to throw a few ideas your way. I have run some tests in my lab and
discovered that certain types of energizers, generators, and alternators do what we
need. Also, we want to be able to tune the output of our energizer. The old D.C.
puts out something very close towhat we need, except for The drag.
In an A.C. generator output we are going to see just what we manufacture. It would
appear that this leaves this generator out. Not really, because we can make this
generator’s output change by rectifying it.
In looking at the A.C. generator with rectified output, we see that it could become
very useful to us as an energizer, simply because it is the easiest to construct and
its principles are simple. I have done experiments with an A.C. generator using ALL
N. alligned magnets, and rectified. Most people can see that that type o alternator
might have some problems. However, remember that I am looking for a certain type of wave
form that I want to tune to a certain frequency at a certain speed. The winding of
this alternatr is a problem and it is a bit tricky, but I chose to stay with this unit.
You may choose a different method if you retain the principle. The type of energizer
that was used for the prototype was a standard office type 2-speed A.C. fan housi
ng. The coils were replaced with 6 coils of approx. 200 turns of #20 wire – all in
phase. Six permanent magnets are bonded to an aluminum disc. This arrangement is
basically a magneto, but will produce more amperage than ordinarily expected of a
Controller Construction: Figure 2 shows the controller. It should be made of two
coencentric circles, one with approx. 140 degrees of copper, the other, spaced far
enough from the first for a brush to be inserted between them, a full 360 degrees of
. Provisions should be made to rotate the brushes in relationship to each other in order
to secure the required timing.
Eike Mueller
John Bedini found that the material generally available concerning Kromery’s
Converter had been altered. Rebuilding the Kromery Converter from the patent papers
ended up in a non-functioning device. Bedini found the necessary modifications
which made this machine perform.
Our first goal was to determine the converters efficiency. We found this to be
quite difficult as the efficiency changes with the load applied.
Figure K-1 shows the first setup we used. We drove the Kromery Converter from
a 12v motorcycle battery. We connected at the output of the converter a condenser
and a rectifier bridge in parallel. The rectified current was then put b
ack into the motorcycle battery. To detect any current flow, we connect into the
positive line a 12 V light bulb.
The result of this test was the light bulb was lit up. However after 15 minutes the
batrery voltage had dropped from 11.05 V to 9.10 V. The speed of the converter
was stabale at 1020 rpm.
/———- /—-
/–O Kromery +O—-+–O+12v|
|/-OConverter-O—+—O- | FIGURE K – 1 || —
——–/ || —-/ ||
|| || /————/|
| | / |
| | /FW |
TEST SETUP #1 | -Bridg+–(X)-/
| / Bulb
| /
In the next test we introduced a seperate battery (battery #2) for charging from
the converter.
We recharged the battery #2 from 12.30 V to 12.40 V within 4 minutes, and we measured
a current flow into the battery #2 of 0.8 amperes.
/———- /—-
/–O Kromery +O——-O+12v|
|/-OConverter-O——-O-#1 | FIGURE K – 2 || —
——–/ —-/ ||
|| /————-
12*| | | / /–O+#2 |
| | /FW | —-/
TEST SETUP #2 | -Bridg+–(/)-/
| / Ampere *Note difference
| / Meter in polarity from
——–. battery #1.
Figure K-2 shows the second test setup. Because the kromery converter ran too slow on one 12 V battery, we decided to drive the converter using 24 V via tw o 12 V batteries, connected in series. Next we wanted to find a correlation between the normal charging of battery #2 using a commercial battery charger, and charging this same battery with the Kromery converter. We drained the battery #2 to 8 V, connected it to the Kromery Converter, and af ter reaching 11.51 V, we measured the time it took to charge the battery from this voltage level of 11.51 V to 12.45 V. We reached this voltage (12.45 V) after 11 minutes. The indicated current into the battery was 0.94 A.
We then repeated these steps using the commercial battery charger. Because we ran out of time after nearly 2 hours, we disconnected the battery from the charger. The
battery voltage had reached 12.41 V. The measurement is depicted in Figure K-3.
NOTE: The charger could not fill up the batteries to 12.45 volts within two hours. We wanted to find a correction factor for the Kromery Converter by comparing the same effect, i.e. the charging of the same battery from one specific voltage to another specific voltage. The calculation of this factor is avilable in the book “E xperiments with a Kromery and a Brandt-Tesla converter built by John Bedini” By Eike Mueller, with Comments by Tom Bearden. Table K-1 shows the combined test results.
Because we detected an increase in the speed of the Kromery Converter as well as a decrease in the input energy when we increased the output load, we decided to measure the input energy and speed when the output was shorted. Again, the input energy dropped and the speed increased.
Measurement No Load Loaded With Shorted Corrected
Battery Fact. 5.535
Input Voltage 25.30 25.00 24.90
Input Current 3.90 3.00 2.20
Watts In 98.67 75.00 54.78
Watts Out N/A 10.26 N/A 56.78
Speed In Rev/Sec 40.00 65.00 73.00
Output Voltage DC 48.00 10.80 N/A
Output Current N/A 0.95 1.05
Watts In/Out N/A 7.31 N/A 1.32
Table K – 1
Using the earlier determined correction factor of 5.535 we calculated the energy they put into the battery to 56.78 watts (from 10.26 * 5.535). Looking at Table K-1 we see that it takes only 54.78 watts to run the Kromery Converter when the output is shorted. This result led us to continue with theese tests and load the converter output even more. The results of these tests can be seen in Table K-2. Here again, we detected that we would get a higher efficiency of the total device, the more we load down the output side. This effect is totally contradictory to the conventional laws of physics.
Measurement No Load Loaded With Loaded w/ Loaded w/ Lamp & Batt 13.5 Ohms 0.63 Ohms
Input Voltage 25.40 25.30 20.00 21.90
Input Current 3.90 3.90 3.39 2.30
Watts In 99.06 98.67 67.80 50.37
Watts Out N/A 21.00 185.19 634.92
Watts Out (Corrected) 116.24
Resistance (Ohms) N/A N/A 13.50 0.63
Output Voltage DC 48.00 28.00 50.00 20.00
Output Current N/A 0.75 N/A N/A
Watts In/Out N/A 0.85 0.37 0.08
Table K – 2
We used the Kromery correction factor for the First case, when we had connected the battery to the converter output. We did not use this factor in both other cases when we used resistors in the output circuit. The above test results show that the efficiency of the Kromery Converter is well above 100%.
The end. Typed by (_>Shadow Hawk 1<_).
May be distributed anywhere as long as you keep the credits. I dont give a shit what you do with it either.

READ  US Destroying Syria’s Oil Infrastructure Under Guise of Fighting ISIS

Leave a Reply