mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-12-26 07:49:37 -05:00
510 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
510 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#
|
||
%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&
|
||
#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%
|
||
&%# &%#
|
||
%#& Axon Industries Present %#&
|
||
#&% #&%
|
||
&%# The Kromery Converter/Free Electricity &%#
|
||
%#& %#&
|
||
#&% Original articles by John Bedini, Eike Mueller, and Tom Bearden. #&%
|
||
&%# Retyped Without Permission 07/04/86 by (_>Shadow Hawk 1<_) &%#
|
||
%#& %#&
|
||
#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%
|
||
&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#
|
||
%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&%#&
|
||
|
||
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 go
|
||
ing 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 riv
|
||
ers 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
|
||
sy
|
||
stem 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 "physica
|
||
l 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 po
|
||
tential 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
|
||
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 w
|
||
e 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 electro
|
||
nic 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 woul
|
||
d 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 \-----/
|
||
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 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
|
||
i
|
||
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
|
||
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 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
|
||
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 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
|
||
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 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 || \--
|
||
--------/ || \----/ ||
|
||
|| || /------------/|
|
||
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 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.
|
||
|
||
|
||
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 "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 outpu
|
||
t 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.
|
||
|
||
DOWNLOADED FROM P-80 SYSTEMS...... |