<xml><p>&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#
%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;
#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%
&amp;%#        &amp;%#
%#&amp;   Axon Industries Present    %#&amp;
#&amp;%        #&amp;%
&amp;%#    The Kromery Converter/Free Electricity    &amp;%#
%#&amp;        %#&amp;
#&amp;%  Original articles by John Bedini, Eike Mueller, and Tom Bearden.  #&amp;%
&amp;%#  Retyped Without Permission 07/04/86 by (_&gt;Shadow Hawk 1&lt;_)  &amp;%#
%#&amp;        %#&amp;
#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%
&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#
%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;%#&amp;
</p>
<p>Tom Bearden</p>

  <p>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
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 columb 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  accom-
panying write-up, pages 10, and 11. Also see Y. Aharonov and V. Bohm, "Signifi-
cance 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
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 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 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 appre-
ciation 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 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 \-----/  
   Controller  
     
     
     
  Figure 1: The Kromery Converter  
     

   __________    
   = Brush 1   
  _-_   * =shaft   
 /xxx\ xxx=copper  
  /x/x\x\ = =brush   
  | x*x=|_________   _o--o1  
  \ \x/ /Brush 2   /|  
 \_ _/  2o--/  
   -   
   = Brush 3  o--o3  
   __________ Equivelant 
   Circuit   
     
  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 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 themselves backwards. 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
backwards by pushing electricity into the battery and forcibly pushing the
ions in 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 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 backwards.
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 occured. 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 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 that
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 armature 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. generator 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 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 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 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 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 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 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    
    || \----------/ ||  \----/     
    ||    ||       
    || /------------/|   KROMERY CONVERTER   
    |\-------.   |       
    |  |  / \  |       
    |  | /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    
    || \----------/ \----/     
    ||       
    || /-------------\  /----\   KROMERY CONVERTER   
    |\-------.   \--O-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.


 THE BATTERY CHARGER NEEDED 119 MINUTES

 TO RAISE THE BATTERY VOLTAGE FROM 11.51 V TO 12.41 V
      FIGURE K - 3

 THE KROMERY CONVERTER NEEDED 11 MINUTES

 TO RAISE THE BATTERY VOLTAGE FROM 11.51 V TO 12.45 V


  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 "Experiments 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 &amp; 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%.</p>


  <p>The end. Typed by (_&gt;Shadow Hawk 1&lt;_). 
    May be distributed anywhere as long as you keep the credits. I dont give a shit what you do with it either.</p></xml>