John Bedini Theory

## Theory of Bedini Systems:

# Explanation of John Bedini’s Formation of Negative Resistors in Batteries By Tom Bearden 4-26-00: original at

First we must include the usual warning that the experimenter assumes all legal responsibilities for his experiments, at his own volition. This author assumes no responsibilities or liabilities for such actions. John has kindly given his permission for me to explain his use of the lead acid battery and how he gets the vacuum to contribute excess energy to the battery and to the circuit. I’ll discuss the battery a bit, very informally because I don’t have a lot of time to go back and look up all the references, etc. and prepare a formal paper. But we’ll cover the gist of it so you can understand how John uses batteries and switches them in his units, and why he does it the way he does. We’ll point out the processes that are involved in his methodology, and why he can use a lead acid battery to produce COP1.0 in perfect compliance with the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and the conservation of energy law.

One must use a combination of electrodynamics and particle physics to grasp these processes and mechanisms, because classical EM theory does not include the active vacuum interaction, even though it’s been clearly proven (theoretically and experimentally) in particle physics for decades. Vacuum energy already powers every electrical circuit and every electrical load today, and always has done so from the beginning. Contrary to the received view, extraction of usable EM energy from the vacuum is the easiest thing in all the world to do, and it is ubiquitous to all our circuits and power systems. All the coal, oil, and natural gas ever burned in powerplants added not a single watt to the powerline. All that energy input from the fuel combustion was used only to continuously restore the source dipoles in the generators, dipoles that our scientists and engineers unwittingly design the external circuits to keep destroying. The source dipole, once established, was and is a “negative resistor” of enormous power that has powered every electrical circuit and load from the beginning. As we shall see, Bedini discovered how to make a negative resistor right inside the battery itself.

Every electrodynamicist already assumes (and utilizes) the fact that you can freely change the potential energy of any EM system, at will. It’s called “regauging”. E.g., Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics, second edition (and any other important EM book one chooses), applies arbitrary Lorentz “regauging” to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, changing them to a new set erroneously said to be identical to the others in every way. They are not. Specifically, that little change (symmetrical regauging after first Lorenz in 1867 and later H.A. Lorentz), simply discards all open Maxwellian systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum. In short, it arbitrarily discards all overunity EM systems, including those that could permissibly capture and use energy from the active vacuum to power themselves and their loads simultaneously. A priori, such Maxwellian systems are far from thermodynamic equilibrium in the vacuum flux — much as a windmill is out of equilibrium with the wind’s energy exchange with it.

First, to understand John’s work one must be aware that there are several currents in a lead acid battery, not just one. For our purposes we will need just two: the heavy lead-type ion current in the battery, and the electron current in the battery but also commuting into the external circuit. Note particularly that the electrons communicate between the inside of the battery (e.g., the plates) and the external circuit, but the lead ions do not. There is thus an interface and a sharp separation between the electron current and the ion current. Here’s the point everyone is missing. Check the mass-to-charge ratio of each of the two currents. (I have it somewhere, from calculating it years ago, but have no time to search for it again. So someone should look up the numbers again and add them up; it’s straightforward.).

As I recall, the lead ions’ m/q ratio is several hundred thousand times the m/q ratio of the electrons. For our purposes here, all we need to know is that the m/q ratio for the lead ions is very much bigger than the m/q ratio for the electrons. So there is obviously a hysteresis (time delay) in the response of the massive ion current to far less massive electron currents that interact and try to change the ion current and its momentum. This time-delay in ion response to electron urging can be adroitly manipulated and used to cause the vacuum to add energy to the ions and also to the electrons. In short, the delay can be manipulated to freely “regauge” the system, freely changing its potential energy, and dramatically increasing how much potential energy is available for battery recharging and how much is available for powering the external circuit (loads and losses). Instead of thinking of the energy John inputs to the battery as the “powering” energy, one must think of it as “triggering” and “timing” energy which initiates certain other key interactions to occur. These additional interactions then add lots of additional energy to the ions and the electrons, all for free or nearly so. In short, John “switches'” and “triggers” certain kinds of vacuum interactions, including the highly specialized formation of a negative resistor in the battery itself. He then “triggers” that negative resistor in certain ways to increase its functioning even further.

John’s method does the following:
(1) It forms a true negative resistor in a most unexpected way, inside a common lead acid battery,
(2) it uses that negative resistor to extract excess energy from the vacuum and furnish it both to the ions in charging mode and to the electrons in load powering mode, and
(3) it adds several other stimuli which increase the amplification of the negative resistor and further enhance the effect, increasing the excess energy extracted from the vacuum and collected in the charging process and also in the powering process. Specifically, the delay in ion response can be manipulated to place the battery in ion recharging mode while the signal pulse electrons are simultaneously placed in external circuit powering mode.

By manipulating the hysteresis and adroitly timing the electron pulses and pulse widths, one can break the forced Lorentz symmetry of the excitation discharge in a usually closed current loop containing both the battery’s source dipole and the external load. This is possible since John’s method deliberately opens the loop so that the vacuum energy enters freely, increasing the potentialization (energy collection) upon the ions and the electrons as well. Suppose we “hit” a battery’s terminals with an instantaneous leading edge rise of a pulse of electrons and potential.

Let us assume the “hit” is in the “battery-charging” mode. The electrons drive in instantly, trying to force the heavy ions to start moving in the charging direction. For a moment the lead ions just sit there, and then very slowly (compared to the electrons!) start to reluctantly move in the recharging mode. During that “ion response lag” time, the electrons continue to furiously rush in and pile-up on the plates. The charge density sharply increases on the plates in that pile-up where the charges are “squeezing” together (clustering). So now we have a much higher potential suddenly rising in the squeezed charge cluster, because of the increased charge density arising there. Refer to E.T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355. Whittaker shows us that a “scalar” potential is not at all what they taught us in EM theory 101. If one hasn’t read Whittaker 1903, one will need to do so. As Whittaker shows, the scalar potential (actually its reaction cross section is what even Whittaker is decomposing) identically is a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, where each pair is a phase conjugate pair. In short, a “scalar” potential identically is a multivectorial, multiwave entity (but comprised of longitudinally polarized EM waves, and those waves come in bidirectional pairs!). In fact, because in the phase conjugate pair one wave is “time-forward” and the other is “time-reversed”, time-reversal and time-forward perturbations occur paired and simultaneously in nature’s electrodynamics. This is erroneously omitted, however, in Maxwellian electrodynamics theory. Anyway, the “scalar” potential isn’t even a scalar entity.

Since Whittaker 1903, the proof has been in the literature nearly a century and it has just been ignored! Since the QM vacuum contains and is a virtual particle flux (that’s one way to model it) and thus contains energy, it is (or can be modeled as) a special kind of “scalar” potential. Every EM potential is in fact a change to the vacuum energy density. Any EM potential in a circuit is a change to the ambient vacuum potential or to some intermediate potential that is. Rigorously, any increased EM potential in a circuit is a special kind of negative resistor, since extra bidirectional, flowing EM energy from the vacuum has been added to the circuit. However, electrodynamicists have not recognized that regauging produces a true negative resistor. Very large bidirectional energy flows (very large potentials) can be freely added to the circuit at any time.

However, to use these negative resistors so that we extract usable energy from them, we have to learn how to more carefully use bidirectional potentials so that we apply them adroitly in two opposing directions simultaneously. No textbook or professor ever calculates the potential itself, but only its reaction cross section. Consider that for awhile; it’s quite rigorous. We have been and are taught to calculate only how much energy is diverged from the potential, around a little unit point static charge (assumed), and that little “swirl-around” energy is then supposed to be “the potential”. It isn’t. The little swirl-around is the energy diverged from the potential. Calling that “the potential” is analogous to mistaking a tiny little whirlpool in a river as the entire river. Same error. For more than a century the electricians have erroneously “defined” the scalar potential “at a point” as the amount of energy diverged from it around a little fixed unit point static charge at that point The amount of energy “swirled or diverted from all those bidirectional LWs around a little unit point static charge” fixed at a point, does indeed have a scalar magnitude. For fixed conditions, there’s a fixed amount of energy in the “swirl-around” at any moment.

But that “magnitude of the energy in the swirl” isn’t the potential; it’s what’s diverted from the potential. Obviously it’s a major non sequitur to mistake “the” potential for a tiny fraction of itself. As a set of bidirectional LWs, the potential is an ensemble of mighty, rushing rivers of EM energy, with paired rivers flowing in opposite directions. From those rushing rivers of energy comprising any nonzero “static” potential, you can collect as much energy as you wish, just by adding more intercepting/collecting charges. The equation is already known and very simple: W = (phi)q, where W is the total energy collected (diverged) from a potential of reaction cross section phi, upon intercepting charges q. Fix the phi to a constant value, then add as much q as is needed to have W reach any value you wish. One can collect a billion watts of power from a millivolt, e.g., given enough intercepting charges q. The “magnitude” of the potential isn’t fixed at any point, because the potential is a set of flows involving the entire vacuum of the universe.

Anyway, back to our battery that we just “popped” with an electron pulse. Now we have a higher potential in that pileup of electrons onto the interface with the ions, urging the ions forward. Well, the potential energy being collected on those ions (i.e., diverged around them from the potential’s multiwaves) is given by W = (phi) q, where W is the energy collected from the new and dramatically increased potential with reaction cross section (phi), upon charges q — in this case, upon the ions. And also upon the piled up electrons on the circuit side of the battery plate, because the waves comprising the potential run in both directions. Set a potential in the middle of a transmission line, and it takes off like two scalded hogs in both directions simultaneously, thereby revealing its bidirectional vectorial nature. The new, increased potential from the pile- up at the interface between electrons and ions in the battery takes off like two scalded hogs in both directions — into the battery onto the ions and out into the external circuit onto the electrons. But that increased potential at the pileup is actually a change to the ambient potential of the vacuum. It is part of the vacuum and a reorganization of it, reaching across the universe in all directions (or speeding out there in all directions at light speed). Since the internal LW waves comprising the increased potential at the pile- up are bidirectional, we have added energy to both the electrons out there in the circuit and to the ions in there in the battery. Since the electrons react (relax and move) so much faster than the ions, we can now be drawing power in the external circuit and its load, due to the instant response of the overpotentialized electrons, while we are still urging those overpotentialized ions into motion in a recharging direction. For the purist, electrons really move on the average with only a very small drift velocity in the circuit, often on the order of a few inches per hour.

However, that average “drift” is comprised of an enormous distribution of electron velocities, collisions, etc. So what we have actually done is dramatically change that distribution underlying the drift velocity. The “current” in a circuit is not as simple as the physical movement of electrons like marbles through a hollow pipe, even though loosely one usually uses that kind of language. I sent you the IC-2000 paper, in which we pointed out that there is no such thing as an isolated charge anyway, when you consider the shadowing virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum that cluster around it. That is already well-established in QM theory. So an “isolated charge” really is a set of dipoles, where each dipole is comprised of a piece of the observed charge and one of the clustering virtual charges. Each of those dipoles contains a potential between its ends, and thus identically generates a bidirectional LW flow across the universe, altering (and structuring and organizing) the entire vacuum.

In particle physics, it has been known for more than 40 years (couple of Nobel Prizes awarded and all that) that any dipole is a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual energy exchange between the active vacuum and the dipole charges. By definition of broken symmetry, this means that some of that virtual disordered energy continuously absorbed from the vacuum by the dipole’s charges, is NOT radiated back as disordered virtual photons. Instead, it is self-ordered by the charges. Open systems not in equilibrium with their active environment — in this case the active vacuum — are permitted to do that, and a dipole is such an open system in disequilibrium with the active vacuum. So the re-ordered component of the energy emitted from the charges is radiated back as observable EM field energy flow, which does interact macroscopically and observably with charges.

Rigorously, this “charges pile-up” at the plate interface between electrons and ions has asymmetrically self-regauged the system including both the recharging ions inside the battery and the electron current out in the external circuit now forced into powering mode. The reorganized vacuum has added excess energy to the entire system, the excess being energy which was extracted from the vacuum by that pile-up of charges, each with its associated clustered virtual charges, so that the charge pile-up acts as a cluster of dipoles. We have specified a situation and process which asymmetrically self- regauges the system, using excess energy from the vacuum. The increased potential at the pile-up is in fact a direct change to the entire vacuum. It is an organization of the entire vacuum. To the system the change in the vacuum is negentropic because the vacuum energy has been organized into a bidirectional set of flows. Such self-organization is permissible in an open system not in equilibrium with its external active environment. All this is based on rigorous, proven physics, but it is not in the hoary old classical electrodynamics, which contains a great many foundations errors and omissions. The set of bidirectional energy flows involving the entire vacuum and comprising that increased potential at the pile-up, represents a re- organization of the local vacuum to a more ordered state. In short, negentropy. The pile-up of charges and its associated potential (negentropic reorganization of the vacuum) constitute an active negative resistor. This is the way that John creates a negative resistor directly inside a lead acid storage battery (and in several other kinds of batteries also). The pile-up becomes a true negative resistor, extracting additional biwave flowing energy from the external vacuum. The negative resistor receives energy from the vacuum in that half of the unobserved internal LWs that flow from every point in external space to the pile-up. The negative resistor then sends that organized energy out into the “circuit” in that half of the potential’s internal LWs that flow out into the battery and in the opposite direction into the external circuit and on out to every other point in the universe.

One should again check Whittaker 1903 and think about that extra “pile-up” potential as a harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs, until one understands this active negative resistance effect clearly. The absolutely permissible, justified, scientific result is that the energy of the system is freely and dramatically increased (the system is regauged) from the negentropic vacuum. The ions in that increased energy flow into the battery take on more energy than we ourselves “input”, with the excess being taken from the reorganized vacuum by the action of the negative resistor formed at the pile-up. The charges in the pile-up took on more energy, taken from the vacuum, and the higher potential also flows at the speed of light back out the terminals along the conductors, potentializing the surface charges and increasing the intercepted energy diverged into the conductors by the surface charges. Since a back-lash emf exists from the higher potential at the back-up and the beginning potential in the external circuit, current flows in the external circuit (1) in circuit-powering mode, and (2) with greater energy collected upon the electrons from the increased Poynting energy flow diverged into the circuit conductors. John puts in some electrons and potential and makes a negative resistor. The action of the negative resistor then overpotentializes both the battery-charging ions and the circuit-powering electrons. The vacuum furnishes the extra potential energy. So John now has lots more energy in the circuit than he himself put in, both to recharge the battery and power the load. The net result is that the system eats its cake and has it too, courtesy of having produced a negative resistor and tricked the active vacuum to momentarily give it lots of excess energy (potential energy). It collects some of that excess energy upon both the recharging ions and the circuit electrons back-forced to power the circuit.

Note that the formation of the negative resistor actually produced in the external circuit a “back emf” which is of the circuit powering type, even though in the battery the ion current is still moving and accelerating in the charging position – – exactly opposed to the electron current! So the timing and negative resistor effect simultaneously introduce additional energy extracted from the vacuum to (1) the battery charging process, and (2) the load powering process in the external circuit. Then we deliberately cut off the pulse sharply, with the ions now moving in the charge direction and with the electrons in the external circuit powering the load. The sharp cutoff rate produces a very interesting effect here also, if we end it just precisely while most of the pile-up (and higher potential) still exists at the plate-ion interface. In that case, Lenz’s law applies due to the sharp cutoff and it aids us, since momentarily the negative resistor potential is even further dramatically increased by the Lenz reaction! So even more potential energy momentarily surges out onto the circuit electrons in the “powering the circuit” mode, and even more potential energy simultaneously surges onto the ions in the “charging the battery” mode.

The result of this second effect is that
(1) the negative resistor is again increased,
(2) even more energy is furnished from the vacuum to the battery-charging process, and
(3) even more energy is furnished from the vacuum to the load-powering process.

In short, the system suddenly and remarkably increases the negative resistor effect, self-regauging itself for the second consecutive time, and increasing the excess energy extracted from the vacuum! This second surge of excess energy comes directly from the vacuum, from the suddenly increased negative resistor, via those suddenly increased bidirectional longitudinal EM wave energy flows between the pile-up and every point in all the surrounding space. That’s what a bidirectional set of wavepairs means; observable energy flows from the pile-up (source dipole) to every point in external space, and from every point in external space virtual (complex) energy flows to the source dipole. That is the second case where we cause the external circuit to be “regauged” and change its potential energy freely, and we cause the internal ions to be “regauged” and change their potential energy freely.

Again we accent that electrodynamicists already assume that any EM system can freely change its energy at any time; it’s called “regauging”. It is inexplicable why electrodynamicists have not focused upon actually producing self-regauging circuits which asymmetrically discharge their freely increased energy, as John has done, so that the dissipated energy is used to recharge the battery while also powering the load. Instead, the electrodynamicists continue to give us regauging circuits which symmetrically discharge their freely increased energy, so that half the dissipated energy is used to destroy the source dipole of the generator or battery while the other half is dissipated in the external loads and losses.

On the other hand, John uses half the excess regauging energy from the negative resistor to restore the battery (source) dipole, and uses the other half to power the load and losses simultaneously. So he asymmetrically discharges the free excitation energy received from the vacuum via the negative resistor. But back to John’s battery process. Now we have the Lenz effect pulse finally removed and the ions moving in charging mode but slowing down now. Since the Lenz law effect dies rapidly, we have a rapid resumption of “draw” of electrons from the pile-up into the external circuit to power it. But for a bit, the ions only start to slow and have not yet stopped completely. They “overshoot” because of their sluggishness, and keep on charging the battery a moment longer. During this third moment, the external circuit is still being powered even though the battery is still in charging mode. When all these “excess energy” mechanisms are added, one finds that excess energy can be collected from the vacuum by the negative resistor and used appropriately to produce a system with a permissible overall COP1.0 performance.

The dramatic difference in John’s method, from the conventional method, is that in John’s method the same current through the load does not pass back through the back emf of the source dipole negative resistor to continually destroy it. On the contrary, he inverts the phase of the current through the source dipole negative resistor to continually restore it. There are several other schemes that can be used at this point. If the follow-on pulsing etc. is matched to again initiate the effects discussed, one can continue to draw power in the circuit while charging the battery, etc. for about a succession of the three periods of time:
(1) the initial hysteresis pileup, formation of the negative resistor, and associated effects,
(2) the following Lenz law reaction, increase of the negative resistor, and associated effects, and
(3) the follow-on period of simultaneous charging the battery and powering the circuit from the pile-up while the overshoot of the ions is still slowing and ending.

One trick John sometimes uses is to time the next pulse front to arrive just at the time that the ions are almost but not quite stopped in their “overshoot” charging mode and are preparing to reverse into discharge mode (following the electrons in the external circuit, which are already in that mode). With the exact timing, the whole situation starts over. There are several other variations that John has also used and found effective. In developing this methodology, John long ago built various controllers and timers, and experimented with a variety of pulses, pulse widths, and timing to get it all just right for a specific battery of interest. He had one little battery-powered motor — an inefficient little beast with only about 35-40% normal efficiency — which continuously “ran off the battery” seemingly (actually, off the excess energy from the negative resistor created and manipulated in the battery) for a couple of years. The motor represented a “load” continually being driven by the excess energy extracted from the vacuum by the negative resistor continually created in the battery. He recharged the battery and ran the motor directly off vacuum energy, using the precise set of negative resistor effects just discussed.

John has freely shared his work with many researchers. E.g., an excellent microwave switching engineer named Bill Nelson visited John, observed some of John’s devices working, and reasoned correctly that the motor was just a load and played no part in producing the excess energy. So Nelson and another engineer used an electric light bulb as the load, adjusted the pulses and timing appropriately, and produced a little unit which kept its battery charged while continuously illuminating the light bulb.

John shared his research with Jim Watson, who succeeded in developing a version that powered a much larger motor (8 kW), which he demonstrated at one of the Tesla conferences at Colorado Springs. Watson and his family were later to mysteriously drop out of all contact, so that even his own financial backer could not find him.

Ron Cole visited John’s lab often, and Ron and John built several successful and similar devices together. There are several other powering schemes that can be worked out, using the negative resistor created inside the battery by splitting the current phases. E.g., with the ions moving in discharge mode and the circuit being powered, one can again introduce a sharp voltage pulse of electrons for charging, onto the circuit. This of course invokes Lenz’s law, dramatically increasing the powering of the circuit and the energy upon the ions driving the circuit powering. Now the pile-up occurs even stronger, because the ions keep bearing down in charging mode with increased energy, while the electrons are forced to keep boring in much more densely to oppose them, yet on the other end the electrons are even more strongly powering the circuit momentarily because of the increased regauging energy. So the pile- up becomes even higher than before, increasing the potential of the pile-up even more due to the “charge squeeze” effect being greater. In other words, we make an even greater “negative resistor” at that pile-up. This will greatly amplify the potential out into the circuit, and also greatly increase the potential on the “powering” ions, so that the ions have more energy to give to the pile-up and to the circuit, and so do the electrons in the circuit.

Again, when the “back-popping” pulse sharply cuts off on the trailing edge, one gets a Lenz law effect of further increase, etc. There are a great variety of useful excess energy schemes which can be worked out and applied, all using the excess energy freely obtained from the vacuum by the negative resistor created and manipulated in the battery. Once one understands John’s negative resistor effect and how one gets it, how one increases it, and how one sustains it or repeats it rapidly, then one can adjust that motor (or other load) and that battery to function as a self-powering system, perfectly permissible by the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Because of the negative resistor effect and its extraction of excess energy from the vacuum, this open dissipative system can output more energy than the chemical energy that is dissipated in the battery.

In fact, the chemical energy is not dissipated, but remains, when the timing and negative resistance effects are properly adjusted. Then everything just runs off the vacuum energy from the negative resistor. The point is this. The system has two major currents greatly differing in their momentum and responses, that can be exploited to get these negative resistor effects., So why do all our theorists just continue to assume a “simple current” in and through the battery? If one ignores the duality, one will just mush around any transient negative resistor effect and the effect will not help, because one will get it wrong as much as one gets it right. But if we know what is happening in there, and if we deliberately manipulate the phenomena as John Bedini has done for years, we can make a battery recharge itself at the same time that it is powering the external circuit, because of a negative resistor formed in the battery and properly manipulated.

Actually the energy extracted from the vacuum is powering both the battery’s recharging and the circuit’s loads and losses. We point out that these negative resistor effects can in fact occur in a battery that is almost completely discharged, and John has also demonstrated such specific negative resistor formation and operation in a nearly uncharged battery for a sustained period of time.

For ease in building and timing the system, John often prefers to use two batteries and switch between them. He will charge one as ostensibly an additional part of the load, but all the while adjusting his pulses in the charging process to dramatically open the process and get the injection of a lot of excess vacuum energy in there via similar phenomenology to what we described above. Meantime, the other battery is powering the circuit normally. Then he just switches, and recharges the first battery including evoking the negative resistor effects in it, while using power from the second, recharged battery. The amount of excess charging energy he tricks the vacuum into giving him while charging the battery, is “free” energy he can then use to power the system when he switches the recharged battery into system-powering position. He continues to switch, which yields a self- powering open dissipative system, freely extracting all its energy from the active vacuum. In that case, he makes the charging battery charge a lot faster by the negative resistor effects than just with the simple energy he inputs in his pulsing and in his “normal charging currents” to the battery. He “opens” that battery-charging process and subsystem the way we described, so that the vacuum furnishes more than half the charging input energy.

Now for the skeptics who love to quote the second law of classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics is equilibrium thermodynamics. While the system is open and receiving excess energy from the vacuum, it is far from equilibrium and does not have to obey the old equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law. Indeed, classical thermodynamics does not even apply, including the second law.

Here is a magic truth: The energy of an open system not in equilibrium is always greater than the energy of the same system in equilibrium. Bye-bye second law of thermodynamics for non-equilibrium systems.

In John’s systems, the thermodynamics of a system far from equilibrium with its active environment (in this case, the active vacuum) rigorously applies. As is well-known in that kind of thermodynamics, such an open disequilibrium system is permitted to
(1) self-order,
(2) self-oscillate or self-rotate,
(3) output more energy than the operator himself inputs (the excess is just taken from the active environment, in this case the vacuum),
(4) power itself and a load also (in that case, all the energy is taken from the active environment, in this case the active vacuum), and
(5) exhibit negentropy. John’s devices have exhibited all five effects for years.

In other words, the laws of physics already permit this to happen. We just have to correct the foolish old flawed notion in electrodynamics of what powers the external circuit.

Batteries and generators do not use the energy input to them (generator shaft energy) or available to them (chemical energy in the battery) to power the external circuit! I fully explain that in the IC-2000 paper. The chemical energy available in a battery and the shaft energy input to a generator are dissipated only to restore the source dipole that our closed current loop power systems keep destroying by design. No laws of nature, laws of physics, or laws of thermodynamics are violated by John’s novel negative resistor approach. The conservation of energy law is obeyed at all times, as of course is recognized for open dissipative systems.

As an example, Ilya Prigogine was awarded a Nobel Prize for his contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics of systems similar to those we are discussing. I just wanted to set the record straight. You can make an overunity system anytime you wish, with adroit use of a lead-acid battery (or two of them) where you pay meticulous attention to the production and use of a negative resistor inside the battery itself. The science is there and it is correct. It’s already in physics, but it isn’t in the seriously flawed classical electrodynamics.

The full basis has been in the textbooks for decades, but it has not been applied by EM power system designers. Instead, they continue to ignore the active vacuum and the creation and manipulation of negative resistors in batteries by current splitting and adroit manipulation. How many readers have thought of using the appreciably different response times of the electron current and the ion current? How many professors have thought of it? How many textbooks mention it?

What EM text points out that a scalar potential is actually a set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wave energy flows, conditioning and organizing the entire vacuum? What paper in a scientific journal contains it? One gets the point after only a moment’s reflection.

Now for the scientists, advanced engineers, and strategic planners. What is needed to make all this quite rigorous is the development and usage of a dual instrumentation system., We need to develop a proper instrumentation system to measure and portray the ion current in the battery and its actions, and simultaneously to measure and portray the electron current in there at the interface. Then one can add the standard instruments to monitor the electron current, voltage, phase angles, and power in the external circuit. Well, to get those two “internal” instrumentation systems, we need to enlist some good electrochemists, who know about measuring things like that, know about overpotentials on electrodes and plates and such, understand all the internal chemical and ion reactions including their energetics, and have worked out measurement techniques for such matters.

To an electrical engineer, the problem usually appears unsolvable (many, e.g., have no knowledge of overpotential theory, or of double surfaces theory, or differentiating multiple current types in a battery, etc.). We just need a really good straightforward and well-funded scientific project by a good scientific team, to develop the instrumentation and procedures, and then to perform enough experimentation to thoroughly explore and measure the phenomenology in all its glory. Then the leading theorists can produce a good theoretical model, including of the interaction between vacuum energy and the circuit, while the developers give us a good measurement and instrumentation system for precisely measuring such systems. Once we get the experimentally-fitted theoretical model and we have the instrumentation system, then we’re off and running with ordinary applied engineering, to design and build self-powering battery-powered systems (actually as open systems adroitly extracting and using energy from the ubiquitous vacuum) on a massive scale for the world market.

Major universities and laboratories should fund such work as a matter of great scientific priority. So should the National Science Foundation and National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, the private research institutes, the Environmental Foundations, etc. If they do so, then we’ll all have overunity devices powering our automobiles and homes and factories straightaway. And we will also take a giant stride toward cleaning up the pollution of the biosphere. We need, however, to stress again one shocking point above all else. Batteries and generators do not themselves power their external circuits! Please read that again, and do not miss the importance of what we are saying. All that the dissipation of the shaft energy input to a generator does, or dissipation of the chemical energy available in a battery does, is perform work upon the internal charges to separate them and form the negative resistor source dipole.

Not a single joule of that dissipated generator shaft energy or that battery’s dissipated chemical energy goes out onto the power line. Every electrical circuit and electrical load is now and always has been powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipole acting as a negative resistor due to its known broken symmetry in the fierce vacuum energy flux. To clearly understand that startling fact, we must temporarily set aside the 136-year old flawed electrodynamics (Maxwell’s seminal paper was given in 1864), and turn to particle physics, because the old electrodynamicists did not have an active vacuum in the equations, and it still isn’t in there.

In the latter 1950s, particle physicists discovered and experimentally proved broken symmetry, and also that every dipole is a broken symmetry in the continuous virtual energy exchange between vacuum and dipole charges. The very definition of “broken symmetry” means that something virtual has become observable. This means that part of that fierce, virtual, disordered energy continually absorbed by the end charges of the dipole, is not re- radiated as virtual, disordered energy — but as observable, ordered energy.

In short, the ubiquitous source dipole is in fact a ubiquitous negative resistor par excellence. The source dipole, once made, is a true negative resistor that freely extracts observable, usable field energy from the vacuum, and pours it out through the terminals of the generator or battery. The outflowing energy moves at light speed through all space surrounding the conductors of the external circuit, and generally parallel to them. It’s a tiny bit convergent into the wires, because in the “sheath” or boundary layer of the flow right down on the surface of the conductors, that part of the flow strikes the surface charges and gets diverged into the wires to power up the electrons and the circuit. Every electrical circuit and every electrical load is and always has been powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the negative resistor source dipole. That statement is fully justified in particle physics, but not electrodynamics.

The electrodynamicists and leaders of the scientific community have refused to change the flawed foundations and gaps in EM theory, even though a great deal has been learned since 1867 that substantially changes the foundations assumptions used originally to construct the theory. The energy extracted by the source dipole from the vacuum sprays out of the terminals of the battery or generator, filling all space around the external conductors. A good illustration of this incredible energy flow is shown in Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edition. The magnitude of the energy flow extracted is so great as to boggle the imagination.

In a simple little circuit, it’s about 10exp13 times as much as is intercepted in that little “sheath flow” by the circuit and diverged into the circuit to power it. Well, the enormity of that energy flow extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole is totally mystifying and embarrassing, or it was highly embarrassing back there in the 1880s. And therein lies one of the greatest scientific faux pas of all time. Energy flow through space was discovered independently by Heaviside and Poynting and at about the same time. Poynting only thought of, and accounted, the feeble little component of energy flow that actually entered the circuit — in short, the energy in that “little sheath or strip” flow right down on the surface of the conductors. He never even imagined all that nondiverged, nonintercepted energy component missing the circuit entirely and just being wasted. But Poynting published prestigiously, while Heaviside published more obscurely, and the theory of EM energy flow was named after Poynting. Heaviside realized the entire energy flow, including the huge nondiverged component that entirely misses the circuit — the component that Poynting missed. Heaviside also corrected Poynting on the overall flow direction (Poynting missed it by 90 degrees).

Note that Maxwell was already dead at the time. Then the great Lorentz entered the energy flow picture, and confronted a massive problem. How was one to account for the inexplicably enormous nondiverged Heaviside energy flow that was pouring forth from those terminals? And why did the circuit catch such a feeble little Poynting fraction of the overall flow? That output is far more energy than even a host of power systems contained or were thought to output. At the time there was absolutely no conceivable way to account for the enormous magnitude of the nondiverging energy flow component. So Lorentz hit upon a stratagem. He eliminated the problem rather than solving it. He reasoned that the nondiverged Heaviside component of the energy flow was “physically insignificant” because it was not used in the circuit and did not even enter it. So he integrated the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface surrounding any little volume of interest. Voila! That little trick discarded that bothersome huge nondiverged Heaviside component of the energy flow (it’s physically still there around every circuit, but the circuit does not catch it and the electrodynamicists just ignore it.). Lorentz’s trick retained the Poynting component, and since that is the energy that enters the circuit and is collected by it, then it will be the energy that the circuit dissipates in its losses and loads. So it will match our instrumental measurements, since we measure dissipation.

I have a 1902 reference by Lorentz where he did that little integration trick, but it is in a book so he very probably did it earlier in a scientific paper which I have yet to locate. Anyway, following Lorentz the electrodynamicists just arbitrarily threw away far more available EM energy associated with every circuit than they retained. All the electrodynamicists fell into line, and they are still in the same line after a century, marching along to Lorentz’s cadence.

The neglected Heaviside energy flow is still physically there as a special negentropic organization of the vacuum surrounding every circuit, just waiting to be used. E.g., if you retroreflect the passed Heaviside energy flow component, you can send it back across the circuit’s surface charges again and catch some more of it. Do it iteratively lots of times — as in intensely scattering optically active media — and you will have asymmetrical self-regauging and what has been called “lasing without population inversion”. Or just resonate an intercepting charge — as per Letokhov and Bohren — and it will sweep out a greater geometrical reaction cross section and collect additional energy from the Heaviside component (18 times as much more energy as an identical but static particle collects). Letokhov has been publishing in all sorts of journals on this subject since 1957. In an article in Contemporary Physics he has freely called such excess energy collection and emission a process for a “Maxwell’s demon” — in other words, a special kind of negative resistor.

The bottom line is that true overunity systems and negative resistors have been built and demonstrated by several inventors and scientists such as Bedini, Golden, Nelson, Watson, Letokhov, Bohren, Chung, Kron, Sweet, etc. They do work, and in fact John can demonstrate one at any time. But instead of valid scientific attention and courteous scientific treatment, the scientists and inventors who have pioneered this legitimate overunity area have been hounded, persecuted, vilified, etc. Careers of legitimate scientists attempting to scientifically investigate this area have often been ruined. What is needed is not another group of grasping “vulture capitalists” and stock scam artists seeking a fast fortune by selling stock and licenses to the gullible public.

What is needed is for the organized scientific community to face its responsibility and its serious errors in electrodynamics, and
(1) correct the terribly flawed classical electrodynamics as a matter of the highest scientific priority, including at the foundations level,
(2) fund legitimate overunity EM power system investigators, scientists, engineers, and serious inventors before they produce the final demonstration model; just as they have funded hot fusion researchers for decades without the process ever adding a single watt to the power line,
(3) set aside at least 1% of the energy research budget for high priority vacuum-energy-powered systems and phenomenology research, and
(4) recognize that conventional leading institutions which are bastions of the present theory have zero experience, zero expertise and usually zero institutional tolerance for the new overunity EM systems area. They do not even have, and do not wish to develop, any legitimate theory of permissible EM power systems as open systems in disequilibrium with the active vacuum, freely using vacuum energy via the creation and manipulation of internal negative resistors.

The scientific community — including the leading scientific journals and scientific associations — now must honestly face its energy and biospheric responsibilities and reassess its adversarial position on overunity EM power systems. For decades the community has been a major part of the vacuum energy problem, not part of the vacuum energy solution. It already intercepts, controls, “cuts up,” prepares and sends down the energy research budget packages, which all those research professors, sharp grad students, and sharp young postdocs must seek funding from, in fierce competition. The scientific community has already pre-determined what shall and what shall not be allowed as permissible EM power system research. And its woeful past record as an adversary of overunity EM power systems speaks for itself. Its years of neglecting and opposing practical electrodynamically-initiated vacuum energy extraction have resulted in the ever-increasing pollution of the planet and a threat to the life and survival of every species, including the human species itself.

It is scientifically unacceptable when the scientific community still implicitly proclaims the “source charge” as ostensibly creating all that enormous energy in its fields and potentials reaching across the universe in all directions. In short, classical EM excludes the interaction of the vacuum in its power system theory, and implies that the “source charge” freely creates all that field energy and potential energy reaching across the universe in all directions, and creates it right out of nothing. Yet this same community habitually confronts the serious open dissipative system EM researcher with the label of being a “perpetual motion machine nut”. In our very worst nightmares, we could not begin to advocate such a vast array of perpetual motion machines as does the present scientific establishment, which advocates every source charge in the universe as a perpetual motion machine of the grossest kind, ignoring a resolution of the source charge problem that has been available for almost half a century in particle physics.

Many skilled scientists have tried to get electrodynamics changed and the flaws corrected — including Nobelist Feynman and the great John Wheeler, as well as many others such as Barrett, Evans, Cornille, Lehnert, Yang, Mills, Vigier, de Broglie, etc. When Maxwell constructed his theory, the electron and atom and atomic nucleus had not been discovered.

The three dozen electrodynamicists worldwide all believed in the material ether, so to them there was no place in all the world where mass was absent. A “charge” was just a piece of electric fluid, nothing more, nothing less. Maxwell wrote a material fluid flow theory, and he also left out half the energy, half the wave in space, etc. because he omitted Newtonian third law reaction. Both mechanics and electrodynamics continue to omit one of the most fundamental principles of all nature: that the effect acts back through the observation process upon the cause. This principle does appear, however, in general relativity. But in mechanics and electrodynamics, as a result of this terrible omission, Newton’s third law remains an effect without a cause, mystically appearing out of nowhere and producing that half of the energy and effect that Maxwell erroneously omitted.

The purpose of this long write-up is to set the record straight on what John Bedini has been doing in his overunity battery powered devices, including some that have been self-powering.

A final word on entropy. Simply put, entropy refers to increasing energy disorder, where disorder is the effect. But the back-reaction of the effect upon the cause, omitted from mechanics and electrodynamics but present in general relativity, has not been taken into account. That principle means that each time there is a disordering of energy, there is simultaneously a reordering of an equal amount of energy. Entropy and negentropy occur as twins, simply from the occurrence of the potential as a harmonic set of bidirectional phase conjugate pairs of longitudinal EM waves. We usually apply one set of those waves (the forward time set) and ignore the second set (the time-reversed set or phase conjugate set).

In every experiment where an incoming EM wave from space affects a receiving wire antenna, not only do the Drude electrons recoil, but also the positive nuclei recoil with equal energy, though highly damped because of the enormous m/q ratio of the nuclei. Earily, hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers have been taught to measure the Drude electron recoil and state they are measuring the “incoming wave” disturbance. Not so. They are measuring the effect of half of the interaction; the other half of the cause omitted by Maxwell interacted with the time-reversed nuclei, and produced the Newtonian third law recoil forces.

Every scientist will acknowledge the accompanying recoil of the nuclei, then will mystically invoke a demon who stands in the wire, observes the disturbance of the electrons, and kicks the nuclei equally and oppositely. A similar situation occurs in a wire transmitting antenna, where the recoiling nuclei also perturb the surrounding spacetime with equal energy as do the perturbed Drude electrons. Equal energy perturbation of ST means equal ST curvature perturbation. So two ST perturbation waves are launched simultaneously, not one. One is a time-forward wave, and one is a time-reversed wave, paired together. Look at it this way. The vacuum is a giant potential, which means it can inherently be decomposed into Whittaker’s bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepair sets. Any perturbation of the vacuum must a priori disturb those bidirectional waves, thereby producing bidirectional wavepair disturbances, not “plucked string” waves. There are no taut physical strings in the vacuum! Maxwell omitted the time-reversed half of the vacuum disturbance, because the atom, nucleus, and electron had not even been discovered at the time, and because he assumed the taut string wave a priori. The reasoning was just that a single electrical fluid under tensile stress was perturbed. Anyway, I wanted to explain what John Bedini is doing in that lead acid battery, and why his systems really do work. He has done enormous experimentation for years. He’s built many units which exhibited the overunity effect due to creating a negative resistor in the battery, and some which also exhibited the self-powering effect. With a little proper scientific funding and support, a team of scientists working with Bedini can quickly produce working overunity EM power systems, the theoretical model, and the instrumentation system. Bedini-type systems are easily and cheaply produced in conventional manufacturing plants. Development and availability of such Bedini-type negative resistor systems will start a rapid, world-wide resolution of the so-called “energy” problem. That will also start a rapid clean-up of this suffering biosphere that is now being poisoned and destroyed by hydrocarbon combustion waste products at an ever- increasing rate. It will also revolutionize the living standards of the developing nations and peoples. In spite of the previous and present vilification of the overunity researchers by the scientific community, I have great faith in the scientific method, once it is permitted to function and be funded. But just now, our own scientific community continues to impose seriously flawed theories and approaches upon the laboratories and scientists, and actively blocks the innovative overunity EM power systems research that could save this planet and humanity.

We can do better than that, and we must do better than that. Else in a few more decades none of the rest of the scientific works will matter anyway, as the nature we are now destroying turns upon this upstart humanity and destroys us all.

Thanks, Jerry, for bearing with this very long write-up and explanation of Bedini’s method. It is of great importance — to the experimenters, the inventors, the scientists, our nation, and every human being on this planet.
Very best wishes, Tom Bearden

# For a full detailed Bedini’s Theory by Bedini himself: see Welcome to Bedini Technology

# Bob Paddock : Extracted from

So to be more precise, in the quantum mechanical vacuum you do not have observable charged mass, but you do have virtual charged mass. So you can have a virtual E-field in the vacuum, which is just a potential gradient without the presence of observable charged mass particles. [29] 29. Recall again Feynman’s statement. In the vacuum, one just has a force-field-free gradient in the potential until one places an observable charge in there for the potential gradient to couple to. With such charged particle(s) in place, the local interaction and coupling of the potential gradient with the charged particle(s) produces (and in fact constitutes) an electromagnetic force field. “Toward a New Electromagnetics, Part 4”; see page 19, slide 38. Excite the “vacuum”, which in turn excites atoms of the battery. Open the “switch”, the excited atoms give up some electrons that we turn in to conventional energy… > Back EMF. Any basic text book on inductance gives the formula for the how much voltage you will get out. It is what the back EMF is interacting with is what needs to be considered, not the voltage of the conventional back EMF spike.HIGHEST voltage output, with the LOWEST oscillator input current. In other words, you may want a system/oscillator that has a very high Q which will give you very very small current and very very high voltages. High dV/dT? Seems a infinitely high voltage in zero time (no current) would be sure to excite lots of thing. … current travels faster outside the wire then electrons, In the virtual particle flux around the wires. For those who like to get off on theory instead of real hardware … Aharnov-Bohm, and the Galina’s patents probably fit in as well…

Gabriel Kron
We quote: “…the missing concept of “open-paths” (the dual of “closed-paths“) was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously — following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum point, the ‘ground’). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix… which created ‘lamellar’ currents…” “A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author’s years-long search.”

# See also on Bedini’s website:

I have been working in the energy field for over 30 years, I have come to the conclusion that their is no “Free Electricity”. This means no Free Energy or Over Unity. Their is only a potential radiant charge that makes up a dipole.

This energy makes up everything we touch and use in our electrical circuits as we know them. The electrical circuits as we know them are flawed, meaning they burn up the dipole that is free in nature.

If you kill the dipole you loose the energy. The dipole killer is the electron current in the circuit. So therefore the term free electricity only applies to those that have done away with the current or have figured a way to block it from completing it’s path through the circuit. Their are no meters to measure this radiant current, and when you catch it, it has the power of the universe and beyond. Good luck in your research . Their is only energy from the vacuum, known as radiant energy.
To find out more about this you need to read Tom Bearden’s book.

“Today’s scientist have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Nikola Tesla

Here in the Tesla patent once again we see the use of radiant energy. As I have said above their is only a radiant current, and this current is passed through the system by the capacitor and only a capacitor. The next step in the system is the amount of time it takes to charge this capacitor, and then the amount of time it takes to discharge the capacitor for they all have their own time, and each one of these things must be in sync in their own time.

It is so funny to sit here now and think that Benjamin Franklin had it all at his finger tips, if he would have used the capacitor the correct way.

It’s the most simple thing in nature to do, and the hardest for mankind to understand because of the mind blocks. Their is no math for radiant current, for are instruments do not measure it. It’s even sick to see meters all over these machines, because their is no possible way to measure the Aether flow. The people have had it all along and yet a little “meter” has stood in their way from the truth. Meters only measure wasted energy in the system.
(all patents are core technology, now using inverted radiant circuits)

# Some explanations on ‘How it Works’ by John Bedini: extracted from

What Charges The Batteries, From: John34, Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:38:23

The Question was asked on the SG group. My answer:

Yes I have done this experiment, buy doing this you invoke the ‘lamellar’ currents” rule, this is from Kron not me. This means that you break up the currents into branches. Each ‘lamellar’ scalar current” is additive to equal the sum of the total. The Heaviside current surrounds the wire, this is almost like reactive power, the digital meter has a very hard time reading this. The system is a “Unity System”, what you put in you get out, but you are loosing a lot with clip leads and bad wiring. If you want to see what is charging your batteries you need a scope. The output wire positive is run through the center of a solenoid coil of many turns this will couple at 90 degrees with the Heaviside current. What you will see is a ringing wave that is charging the battery, it is not electricity in a true form it is pieces of electricity.

What is this current? It is made up of mostly scalars that couples in the batteries when it meets the next scalar that it can couple with, this is what charges your batteries. You wanted to know so here it is. The next part of the system is more mysterious, I will save this for a later time. I did show Susan today what this wave looks like.The idea here is to charge the secondary batteries as fast as possible from one primary battery. The faster the charge, the more power you can use. This means speed with the motor/energizer. The energizer is a open loop system so it can expand this type of wave. You must have this type of wave with a Radiant type systems, just look at a Tesla Coil output you will see it, in many ringing waves. It takes Quaternion math to see this, along with the magnetic fields of the Motor/energizer.
John Bedini

My answer to them all on that group, From: John34, Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:14:28. To all, I just want to keep the story straight so here is what I said. John

I have stated plainly that I want nothing to do with Newman or his theory or his test results, and the machine is not over unity in any way. How many times must I say this? I will say this in plain English again for you both. Go through My pages. You will see pictures of the wave-forms. You will see every machine I have ever experimented with, including the “bucking field” generator. You will see everything I talk about. I do not just sit here and draw diagrams that do not work. I test everything. I do original work, and patent it. When I “duplicate” someone else’s device, I report it and give credit to the inventor, like my “Adams” replication. I don’t obscure other people’s work, like Stefan’s goofy “Easy Meg”, which has no technical similarities to the monumental work of Tom Bearden.

I did not give Sterling bogus information when he arrived here to see if my devices were real. I sat right here and let his engineer watch batteries charging, hooked up to the scope so he could see the wave-forms. I sat right here and showed him how the circuits work. I sat right here and explained everything I could within reason. But this company has millions of dollars worth of stockholders. Sterling and his group signed “Non-Disclosure Agreements” before the demonstrations. I gave Sterling permission to start his public replication project for the “School Girl Motor.” The idea that I have some nebulous obligation to disclose everything about this technology on the Internet is pure fantasy. When I DO give you “step one” on the path to this discovery, you refuse to take it. This proves you are not even ready to take “step two”, much less a complete disclosure. The fact is, you wouldn’t understand what I am doing now, anyway. So why disclose it?

I have posted the Kron work on my pages , along with the wave-form pictures. You obviously don’t know what it all means. These systems do NOT capture “back EMF”. Back EMF is not capturable. My patents say that my motor captures Back EMF because THAT is the only claim the Patent Office would accept. In reality, Back EMF is a term in electrical science that refers to the effect that reduces the current draw in a traction motor as the motor speeds up and generates a counter voltage that opposes the applied current. THAT is “back EMF.” My systems do NOT use this process.

Koen, you are correct when you say that I am quoting Tesla correctly. But it goes much deeper than that. I actually understand what Tesla was saying and my systems tap the same Radiant Energy that Tesla discovered. Stefan is clueless as to how this works, and has never listened to my suggestions about how this works. There is NO free electricity produced in these systems, or any other system that I know of. I have stated this repeatedly. The only thing these systems produce are a series of “high voltage spikes” that have no current associated with them. Voltage without current is the nature of Radiant Energy. This is what Tesla said. I call this “reactive power” because it does not represent voltage and current simultaneously, that could be measured as WATTS. This Radiant Reactive power WILL charge batteries, light light-bulbs andother things but it DOES NOT meter as REAL POWER. This is why your math is useless! So please, quit quoting your theories and analyses to me. My light-bulbs are on. Are yours? You are welcome to believe in your theory, but I KNOW that Tesla was right about the nature of electricity, and how to successfully tap its useful fractions. If you would just build the motor the way I have said, you could begin to learn about this too.
John Bedini

X123 Sends Message, From: John34, Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:58:17

Sorry can’t seem to append to the thread, however, I believe something to consider is the recent work by NASA and others in the study of lighting. At a conference in 1999 I remember seeing data showing there is a constant return current flowing from all over the earth back into the sky resulting from lightning strikes hitting the earth. This current is very, very, small — around 10-12 amps per square meter and varies slightly depending on temperature and wind conditions. The measured potential was 100 volts per meter as I remember, however, the high resistance of air normally masks us from any felt effects. An example was given saying one of the basketball players has about a 200 volt potential at the top of his head. I would think a 300′ conductive antenna transmission line would make a really big difference. Also, a vertical arrangement would make more sense than a horizontal one.

To All, Lets make this much simpler then it is, and no one will get hurt doing the experiment. Just put up your 200 ft of coax 40 feet high supported between two fiber glass poles, this should give 1000 volts potential charge. Next take an SCR 800 volts, leave the high voltage capacitor where it is connected, now face the SCR cathode towards the positive pole of the battery and ground the negative side of the battery with an 8 ft ground. Connect a neon bulb between the anode and the gate, at 90 volts the neon will fire and the battery will get a “real radiant charge” (Conversion is backwards from electrostatic to radiant should see saw tooth wave, much stronger). The faster you fire this bulb the better the battery will charge. It’s important to leave the .00047 uf 5000 volt capacitor between the cable or connected to the anode and ground, it’s important to use a capacitor something like mica or a glass tinfoil capacitor. If looking at it with a scope be careful just look between anode and cathode. Please be very careful with this experiment.
John Bedini

Radiant System, From: John34, Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:45:25

Ken, It looks like to me that your really getting into Tesla’s work, What if, Tesla was dead wrong and all the power we are calling Longitudinal is not that at all. What if I said to you that Radiant energy when transformed is longitudinal and all information can be contained in that wave, and that the next transformation process is nothing more then reactive power?…. Then what if Emmett, in what he told you turns out to be after the transformation process total reactive power looking like a square wave, or more like a PWM wave at very low frequency and that reactive power can charge your storage battery. The next question is what if your cookbook math does not fit the transformation process that takes place, would you add numbers to make the equation balance? What if I told you that the engineers do not understand what a magnetic field is when it is used in the transformation process between radiant and reactive power. I do understand that you must use the math, and I’m not asking for any math here in your answers, simple terms on how you see all this, so those that are having a hard time following us can understand what we are talking about. It could be that we are all saying the same thing which just boil’s down to charge in the end and how we get it. I also understand that you do electromagnetic engineering so you have seen many different things in your work. One more thing, if the process starts at the Radiant level and then proceeds to longitudinal and then moves to reactive and then to a square wave and from that point moves to the sing wave in the end would you agree with this?. That these are the transformations we must go through? I have a reason for asking these questions when I start to add something different to this equation, but I’m going to keep this on a simple level as much as I can. Also this is not any kind of contest in any way to see who knows what, but I want to get down to the basics of a full functioning radiant system that anybody can build with junk parts. I have found that most people do not understand the basics in electronics and want to keep it very simple. As I have stated before I will not use the terms Free Energy or Over Unity because I see none anywhere, even Tesla was going to use the generators to power his reactive power system tuned to certain frequency in a high Q pickup like you said in your post, no free energy here, just a nice transmission of power free for the taking, so Morgan said your not milking my cow for free. By the way, this system is already in use.

Radiant Motor, From: John34, Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:03:34

Brett, You have had this so many times, but your just trying to do this so fast. your answer, it is in the upward spike that contains the Radiant energy, would you like a test tube, or are you going to fly on one of those airplanes for a visit? Expanding this system, Take 100 ft of coax cable RG59U and do the same hookup you will be surprised, watch the frequency it will be high. It will have uniform capacitance and low inductance, just like Tesla said. The problem in coil design, is the current through the coil, the more the magnetic field the more the heat. That means the bigger the coil is the more the waste the lower the frequency, so why do we need Iron in the system at all? This is the problem that Tesla faced at high frequency with iron, Pulsed Radiant Discharge was the answer and no iron. EV Gray had the same problem in his motor, his test stand was an iron-less coil to blow off the magnets under Pulse Radiant Discharge. The answer to the problem was a very sharp spike on the leading edge. This does not take rocket science to get the job done, and then a few little light bulbs for all to read by.

Just a comment sent to me from another researcher, talking about the motor: “The electrons in the coil just get slapped and squeezed by the pulse. The pulse is so strong and the resistance high that a choking effect occurs. But the voltage is highly elevated in the coil from this effect. I think… the radiant energy must happen during coil brake down, between pulses. I cant see it on my meters. All I know, it is very, very powerful. I just don’t understand why this is not being used. Surely other folks have built these designs. I use mine everyday.”

Bedini pages updated again, an answer, From: John34, Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:03:40

Ken, I want to try to answer you but I do not know where to start. I guess we must start at the basics of my work 35 years ago. As a new engineer out of school, I had the opportunity to work in the semiconductor field, while working in this field I had seen many strange things that semiconductors do, so a little background. I think what I’m trying to explain to everybody is that I have changed my attitude on what is termed “free energy” and “over unity”. It’s not that I do not agree that there is no free energy, because there is, windmill, solar panels, water power, it just takes money to get there. What I have found out is that the energy machines that produce this Radiant Reactive Power are strange indeed, let’s take an example, the G-Field generator. Looking at this machine indicates as if more power is being consumed then is coming out of the machine. When the waveforms are looked at, the power being produced is “Reactive” and of no use as real power goes, but it does light lights and it speeds up under load, when built right. The next thing is that when the machine is hooked to a storage battery it charges the hell out of that battery and speeds up even faster so the input power goes way down. This is the same thing I have noticed with the Mono-Pole motor, I have studied these wave forms until I could not see straight and all the time my mind refusing to see the truth about what it was I was looking at. I noticed that it charged capacitors very good and charged batteries and the power was really there except my meters could not measure it. This led me into studies of the coil that I was winding for these machines. Even if I had the machine working I still was not convinced something was charging the batteries I could not measure, it was not until about 15 years later I knew that I had to do something to find out what it was, just at that time Peter Lindemann’s book, The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity, so I bought three books and called Peter or Peter call me I can’t remember, but so what. Any way Peter and I joined forces to explore what it really was that these machine were doing. So after working with Peter and building every possible machine, these are My conclusions, There is no “Free energy”, there is no “Over Unity” in any of these machines that can be measured with normal scopes and meters and we are just all assuming uncles Joe’s theory to be right. When I put up the new pages I did not want to debate anybody about what I posted. I only wanted to try to explain what I found to be the proof of what everybody is calling Free Energy/ Over Unity, as it turns out to be “Radiant Reactive Power”, so term it as you will, di/dt or whatever it is all the same in the end. If the machine can produce this Radiant spike before the switch turns on and the spike is reactive and if it tapped off at the right time and sent to the battery in the proper polarity, it will charge your battery. I’m not going to by into all these theories about unproven experiments unless the experiment is done in front of me, as I have posted enough experiments to show everyone what it is.

One step further on this is that, I know some of the people did try to build my motor’s and did not get the results expected, but I can say that enough people have been to my shop to see the proof of what I say I have built and have watched these motors and solid state devices charging batteries. So I’m saying that the power you seek is “Radiant Reactive Electricity” , and it takes an input to get it in some amount, that is all there is in these machines and strange devices. The riddle has been solved in my book.
John Bedini

An Answer to a question, From: John34, Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:47:16

Michael, If we start here in the paragraph below by Kron, we can see why this motor must recharge the battery. Kron, Gabriel. “…the missing concept of “open-paths” (the dual of “closed-paths”) was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously & #8212; following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum-point, the ‘ground’); That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix… which created ‘lamellar’ currents…”… “A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author’s years-long search.”

So what is it that Kron is talking about, What is very common to this in nature, and what took so long for Kron to find out. Here is how I see it, Kron is talking about branch currents. Nature has many branch currents but we do not talk about them in electrical terms. Example, a river can not flow if the little streams (branch currents) are not feeding it. A tree can not have a trunk if it had no branches. Nature has given us all the examples, but we must make use of the meaning as we see it before there can be any invention, and then it must follow all physical laws in that universe. For example what is the word ” lamellar” mean, it means the stacking of plates , wires and so on, in a battery the number of plates give rise to many branch currents that make up one high current output in the end result. Flowing between the plates are “lamellar” currents provided by the chemical reaction, only at the speed which nature works best at, this does not mean that the battery needs massive currents to charge it, it’s quit the opposite. What is it that the meters read when we measure something, simple wasted energy that has just been dissipated out of that system. You can only measure that and nothing more, so the only thing that you can measure is the primary circuit, because this is the closed loop in this system. Kron goes on to say that currents were made to flow in branch currents between nodes in the primary circuit, so what is wrong with the coil in this motor, what is missing, and how could it be changed to act like the river?, you already have the second node away from the primary circuit to the battery that will collect it. The meter can not measure the longitudinal wave from these currents to the second battery, for these currents are radiant in nature and can only be translated by the chemical reaction in that second battery, this process does not boil the battery so there is no water loss, for if you loose the water in that battery you will have no electricity at all. But you can use your volt meter to see the charge on that secondary battery. We never got anything but a volt meter after all these years did we. More later on this subject.
John Bedini

# On Feb. 18, 2007, John Bedini wrote:

Dave, Yes we build Radiant Oscillators and they work very well, but I can not give out the details of that system.

As for the Monopole it works the same way, under unity in the front end with all normal EM devices. The energy shows up in the extended run time in the secondary battery if done right. You all forget to calculate the spinning mass, you all also forget to calculate what the two batteries do. Notice what happens, the front battery goes downward while the secondary battery goes upward, then you must add in the energy to turn that mass in mechanical energy you got for free, total COP over 100%. the motor part of the energizer does the switching while the mechanical energy is free. It is not a Motor as in conventional thinking, just acts like a motor. We call this a motor because it turns, but the real term is energizer. As for you that wish to call it a simple oscillator have at it.

The Monopole Motor/Energizer is just the basics your working with. The thing to study here is the waveform it generates’ and what it does with the massless current you can’t see with your scopes. Everybody knows that it takes real current to charge batteries, then explain to me how it is possible to charge lead acid batteries with no current. Again you are generating a signal to tell the battery to charge, no EM circuit in the world will do this with no current, The store bought chargers use real EM (wasted product) to charge batteries. each time you charge a battery with EM you start to kill the battery, notice the amount of cycles you get out of this, not much before you can’t charge it anymore, in that condition the Monopole will charge your useless battery , do the experiment. It’s all about Potential Charge.

# 2007/02/18 19:26: To All,

The term Back EMF is not what the energizer is catching, back EMF only applies to DC motor’s. The DC motor depending on the applied voltage, when this happens there is a counter force known as Back EMF and the motor keeps the same rpm until the voltage drops down. Back EMF in a pulsed DC system is very different as the current does not have time to catch up. Back EMF is always below the potential’s input. Example if you put 10 volts in you will get about 8.5 back in back EMF. There is a misconception about what back EMF is.

Now we must move on to what the Patent office will except, they will not except the term Radiant Spike, so we are stuck with Back EMF. If you Study what a coil of wire really does you will find that when the switching device turns on, the Radiant spike is the first to show itself as you see in Mikes pictures. Tesla also said that when the switch was thrown in the DC power house the wire was surrounded with a blue needle type sparks being emitted from the wire, a stinging feeling, it killed people. This is the energy you’re working with, it is not Back EMF.

The Meters of today have trouble catching this pulse as it is something very different. In the Quantum end this is what happens. The potential of the coil expands outward in a type of magnetic bottle, the space that surrounds this is pushing inward like tiny little arrows all around it, but they have no polarity they are natural particles. You must punch this little hole for some of this to get through, and only then do you get extra energy into the system, that is free, remember it is additive to the system. So you have the total EMF of the system plus what is being added under a sharp gradient of high potential. Some would like to say it is di/dt but it is something very different. What do engineers do, they try to short this extra energy out, in my case I want to catch it and use it to charge my batteries. So if you look at this there is very little current in the sharp spike, the less current the better, input power controls this . Here is another way to look at this Tesla was going to give everybody free energy, wrong, Tesla was going to use water power to supply the trigger signal to his transmitter, The benefits from this is he would punch the hole in the aether and cause standing waves to light your lights, Morgan knew this and that was the end of Tesla.

Remember Nature is in total balance this is why you feel no pressure, but put the system out of balance and you can tap the energy. Think about it, do the experiments to find out. The Monopole is a system that is nonlinear. When you through the magnetic fields out of balance this is what you get an energy that is additive. The sharper the DC pulse gradient the more energy you can add to the system, “if you can catch it”. A closed loop system will catch none of this and you will have normal back EMF under unity, Normal transformer, normal DC motor. it’s only when you through something out of balance the you see this effect.

Scroll to Top