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.

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 massless charge. That is, a 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 embedded 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 embedded 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 embedded in the vacuum, that is, something that can translate the “vacuum” movement into a “mass” movement. Well, all charged particles and ions are already embedded 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 batteries 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 embedded ions in the system. And if we are clever we don’t have to furnish any pushing energy to move pure potential around.

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 region of space, and still have the potential to 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 suppressed 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 it, 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 too 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 let’s 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, let’s 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.

READ  Genius

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 laugh 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 backward 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 work 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 backward.

The machine, or unit, that makes this possible has many different names. Some people call these units generators, energizers, alternators, etc. Conventionally such devices have one thing in common; they stress the battery backward by pushing electricity into the battery and forcibly pushing the ions in the electrolyte backward. In our theory, we are not going to push anything – the ions are going to move, 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 backward. The same would occur for an electron. Our machine will slingshot ions in the battery electrolyte backward 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 you 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 backward. Simply put, the battery, the motor, and the energizer will become resonant at some point, “ring” like a 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 occurred. The oscillatory action that has taken place by the energizer has just pulsed our “slingshot” and immediately let go. Once this has happened, the electrolyte in the battery goes wild and the ions race backward, giving off hydrogen and oxygen gas. I must make a stern warning here! The time of the stimulating pulse is very important.

If the time is too 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 that could occur would be the controller failure due to a points failure (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.

An energizer is also a simple machine, but if you 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 armature drag, bearing drag, and no exciting fields. Also, we would want to cut the magnetic fields at 90 degrees to the armature. The simpler the better.

READ  2013: Aviation is On the Threshold of Amazing New Concepts

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. generator puts out something very close to what 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. aligned 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 waveform that I want to tune to a certain frequency at a certain speed. The winding of this alternator 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 housing. 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 magneto.

Controller Construction: Figure 2 shows the controller. It should be made of two concentric 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 copper. 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 converter’s 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 back 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 battery voltage had dropped from 11.05 V to 9.10 V.

The speed of the converter was stable 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 two 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 after 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 don’t give a shit what you do with it either.

Leave a Reply