Jerry,

I only have time every so many weeks to try to answer such questions.  I'll
take some time to try to give you a complete answer, but do not wish to
enter into protracted discussions etc.  I'm on a very reduced schedule
anyway, because of the illness, and so only have a little time to spare at
infrequent intervals.

You will never have the answer to the true negative resistor problem or
understand it, until you read the physics literature and study something
beside standard classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.  Those
disciplines and models completely forbid any COP>1.0 system, and any true
negative resistor is a COP = infinity system. SO WHAT MUST BE CHANGED OR
MODIFIED IN THOSE EM AND EE MODELS, IF ONE IS TO EVEN HAVE A COP>1.0 SYSTEM
AT ALL?  Anyone who is not struggling with that problem, has no business
calling himself in the "free energy field".  He's not.  He's automatically
in the "Well, it's not in conventional EE, so I can't understand it" field.

EE is based on a very archaic and seriously flawed EM model that does not
permit COP>1.0 circuits and systems.  Much better electrodynamics models
have long been available in particle physics -- for the simple reason that
the standard EE does not adequately describe nature.

The answer to many of your questions and speculations are already there in
particle physics, and have been for a long time.  But one has to read the
physics literature.  Sadly, most of the "free energy" community will not
read the literature, will not go look up and read a cited reference or
quotation, etc. and try to understand it.  So there exists a "mindset" in
the free energy community, which largely regurgitates classical
electrodynamics and standard electrical engineering, BOTH MODELS of which
specifically prohibit COP>1.0 EM systems in the first place!    As an
example, to do COP>1.0 in an EM circuit, that circuit has to violate the
second law of thermodynamics.  Where is the discussion in the "free energy"
community about that, and how to do it?  Further, it has to violate the
standard closed-current-loop circuit, and it has to violate the arbitrary
Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.  Where are
the fruitful discussions of the methods for doing those two things?

Well, most do not LIKE such areas.  Sorry, but those are the areas that one
must grapple with, if one wishes to grapple with overunity processes and
mechanisms.  If the gold is on the right side of the fence and one persists
in looking only on the left side, one should not be surprised that he never
finds the gold.  We have to take physics as it comes on its own terms.  We
simply cannot dictate what the physics "ought to be", but only try to find
out "what it is".

One can point out answers and the exact citations from physics, and we've
done that in spades.  Then if the community still will not deviate from CEM
and EE, and will not discuss the technical requirements for a COP>1.0
system, then all further discussions with the community are useless.  Yet
strangely, those who have never even seen an overunity system or circuit,
much less tested one, seem to assume that they already completely understand
the entire field that is not yet even a field.  Merely because they
understand CEM or electrical engineering!

When I wrote the paper on how Bedini is able to generate a true negative
resistor at the boundary (inner surface of the plates) inside a battery, for
the conference that year in Russia, I specifically asked the Russian
scientists to first subject the paper and its explanation to rigorous
analysis, to find if there were any flaws.  After that refereeing check was
performed by some excellent Russian scientists, the answer came back that
the paper was okay and would stand up, and was recommended for publication.
Whereupon I submitted the paper to them for presentation in absentia, and
for publication in the proceedings.

You are aware, I think, that there is no real contiguous closed electron
current loop in a battery powered circuit, contrary to the standard circuit
diagram. Instead, there are two very different current half-loops: (1) the
ion current between the plates, completely internal to the battery, and (2)
the electron current half loop, from the outside of one plate through the
external circuit to the outside of the other plate. The mass per unit charge
of the lead ions in a battery is enormously greater (several hundred
thousand times greater) than the mass per unit charge of the electrons.  So
the electrons respond very much faster than the sluggish ions.  Ergo, one
can readily dephase the two currents, because of the sluggishness of the
ions compared to the rapidity of the electrons.  Piece of cake, with the
proper timing.

Now to pause: suppose you set a "scalar" potential upon the middle of a
transmission line.  It doesn't sit there like a "scalar" entity at all!
Instead, it takes off in both directions simultaneously, like two scalded
hogs, nearly at the speed of light.  It potentializes the charges in one
direction almost instantly and it also potentializes the charge in the other
direction almost instantly. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CHARGES TO THE LEFT HAVE A
FORCE TO THE LEFT CREATED ON THEM, AND THE CHARGES TO THE RIGHT HAVE A FORCE
TO THE RIGHT CREATED ON THEM.  If you catch the ions in the charging mode,
you can thus reverse the electron current in the external circuit with
overpotentialized electrons, while simultaneously overpotentializing the
ions in charging mode.  This means that excess energy is delivered to
powering the external circuit, while excess energy is simultaneously
delivered to the ions in charging mode. It's as simple as that.

Microwave switching engineer Bill Nelson and engineer Ron Cole had
absolutely no difficulty in reproducing the Bedini process in the 1980s.
Neither did Jim Watson, who later developed and demonstrated an 8 KW device.

Now suppose you suddenly place a potential on the surface of the plates
(between the two plates) of a battery.  That potential takes off like a
scalded hog in both directions.  It flows across the ions in the battery
between the plates in one direction, and simultaneously it flows out into
the external circuits to "push the charges" in the other direction.

In short, if you time things correctly, you can DEPHASE and DECOUPLE the two
currents in the battery powered system, simultaneously adding potential
energy to both of them, "for free".  You can add potential to BOTH the ions
and the electrons.  The ions can be moving backward in charging mode, while
the electrons will be driven in the opposite direction in the external
circuit --- in powering direction.

Before one gets bent out of shape about the potential being regauging and
all that, and free additional potential energy and all that, one should go
look up what the "gauge freedom" axiom of quantum field theory means.  All
electrodynamicists --- and even the electrical engineers --- assume that the
potential energy of any Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will.
However, they usually assume you will be a gentleman and do it twice
simultaneously, and will also do it just exactly so that the two new free EM
forces produced in the system are equal and opposite.  Well, that assumes
that you take in free excess potential energy to the system, but precisely
lock it up so that it cannot translate electrons and therefore push current
and do work in an external load. However, it continuously performs what is
called "internal work" in the system, in opposing directions but equal
magnitude. That work continually forms and maintains excess "stress energy"
in the system, and that is all.

So the first problem for a COP>1.0 system is how to break up that "stress
energy only" assumption.  John's way is one way.  He actually "splits" the
potential into two directional fields (which it is; see Whittaker 1903,
cited in numerous of my papers), one going in one direction to push the ions
in charging mode, and the other going in the other direction out into the
external circuit to push electrons in powering mode.

That's about as simple as it can be explained. At that point, one either
understands it or one doesn't.

Also, bear in mind that from any nonzero scalar potential phi, regardless of
how small in magnitude, you can collect as much energy as you wish, if you
just have enough charge available to intercept it.  That's the simple
equation W = (phi)q, where W is the amount of energy collected in joules
from potential phi, by charges q in coulombs.  For a given phi and a desired
W, just include the necessary q.  A potential is a set of bidirectional
rivers of flowing energy, as proven by Whittaker in 1903.  We do not have to
REPROVE that at all; it's already well known and accepted by every
electrodynamicist worth his salt.

Any potential is automatically a true negative resistor, since it is a free
harmonic set of bidirectional flows of EM energy (due to its dipolarity and
the broken symmetry of same; it takes the energy right out of the vacuum via
the broken symmetry of the source charge or dipolarity).  Hence you can
collect as much energy from it as you wish, from its "flowing rivers of
energy", if you arrange for enough charges (buckets) to collect it (to
collect the water).  Nothing says you have to use just one kind of charge
(the electron). You can use -- as Bedini does -- both the ions between the
plates and the electrons in the external circuit.  And you can use them
both, and potentialize them both simultaneously with the same potential. HOW
MUCH EXCESS ENERGY YOU CATCH IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE
MAGNITUDE OF THE PHI AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE Q's.

There's no mystery as to how he makes a negative resistor, because ANY AND
EVERY DIPOLARITY AND POTENTIAL ARE ALREADY TRUE NEGATIVE RESISTORS.  As is
every charge.  The energy flows are coming freely from the vacuum, via the
proven (in particle physics, NOT in EE) broken symmetry of the source charge
and source dipole.  Remember, the first requirement for an overunity system
or true negative resistor is TO GET OUT OF CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS AND
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. If one cannot think outside those boxes, one will
never get or understand overunity, because IT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THOSE
TWO BOXES.

Every charge in the universe is already a true negative resistor of the
purest and most definitive (and easily demonstrated experimentally) kind.
It freely absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces that
into OBSERVABLE (real, detectable, usable) photons, and pours them out in
all directions in 3-space at the speed of light. One doesn't have to reprove
that; it's been proven in physics since 1957.

You want to make a true MACROSCOPIC negative resistor for peanuts?  Just lay
a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the E field of the cap is
at right angles to the H-field of the magnet.  That optimizes EXH, which is
the expression for the Poynting energy flow S = f(EXH).  That silly thing
sits there and steadily pours out real observable usable EM energy EXH at
the speed of light, with no OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input into it.
The fact that it is a continuous flow of energy is usually just "mumbled
away"; e.g., with some version of this quotation: "[Poynting's result]
implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not
parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all
macroscopic phenomena are static."  [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to
Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44.]

Before one falls for that "static" nonsense, one must understand what
"static" really is.  That's expressed beautifully by Van Flandern, as
follows: "To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of
the term 'static'.  One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving
parts.  The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual
replacement of all moving parts.  We can visualize this difference by
thinking of a waterfall.  A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense,
and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense.  Both are essentially
the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of
transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. [Tom Van
Flandern,  "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say," Physics
Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p.8-9. ]

From the Whittaker papers of 1903 and 1904, we have known for just about a
century that all static EM fields and potentials are in fact "static" fields
of Van Flandern's second kind --- analogous to an unfrozen waterfall.  There
is a continuous bidirectional movement of an internal EM structure of
longitudinal waves inside (and comprising) all EM fields and potentials.  So
the "static envelope" of the field exists, but the "inside" components are
in violent change and motion, in BOTH directions. Again, that's been known
and in the literature since 1903.

But that does not appear in the hoary old seriously flawed electrical
engineering, which continues to try to consider the static potential and
static field as a "frozen waterfall" analogy.

Neither does the solution for the source of the input energy to the source
charge, nor the form of that energy input, appear in the CEM and EE models.
The CEM and EE models do not even model the vacuum flux exchange with the
charge, much less a broken symmetry in that exchange.

So they do not even model what powers every electrical circuit.  Period.
Never have.

If one wishes to tangle with true negative resistance, then one should just
try to answer (in classical EM only, such as electrical engineering) the
question of from where and how a given charge gets the EM energy that it
continuously pours out, establishing its fields and potentials and their
energy across the universe at the speed of light.  If one cannot answer that
question in classical EM and electrical engineering, one will then have to
go read some physics, because it's been answered for 45 years in particle
physics, and a Nobel Prize was awarded to Lee and Yang in 1957 for their
having predicted the basis for that solution.  Broken symmetry was such a
tremendous revolution to all of physics that the Nobel Committee moved with
unprecedented speed in awarding that Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.  They
strongly predicted it in 1956-early 1957, and Wu and her colleagues proved
it experimentally in early 1957.  The Nobel Prize was then awarded to Lee
and Yang in that same year, in Dec. 1957 -- a nearly unprecedented action.

It would be nice if the electrical engineering departments would walk across
the campus to the particle physics departments, and find out just what
broken symmetry means for the source charge and the source dipole.  Voila!
Suddenly they would find out what actually powers every EM circuit and
system, and that the energy --- all of it, every joule of it -- comes from
the seething vacuum via the asymmetry of the source charge or dipole.  They
haven't seemed to be able to do that arduous little walk across the campus
task in 45 years now. And they have not changed their model to include the
active vacuum and the broken symmetry in the vacuum exchange with the charge
and the dipole.

If one cannot solve the source charge problem and present that solution (as
CEM and EE cannot do), then one is guilty of implicitly assuming that every
charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy
from nothing.  That is precisely the case for every electrical engineering
department, professor, and textbook today, and it always has been.

It is quite humorous -- and downright eerie -- that the very fellows so
critical of the overunity researchers as a "bunch of perpetual motion nuts"
also implicitly assume, albeit unwittingly, that every charge in the
universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely and continuously creating
energy out of nothing.  Poetic justice.

Further, the charge exhibits giant, continuously increasing negentropy,
because the energy it continuously pours out at a steady and unwavering rate
is not disordered but perfectly ordered.  At a given radial distance from
the source charge, the associated field has a specific value and direction,
the associated static potential has a specific value, and the associated
vector potential has a specific value and direction, deterministically and
perfectly ordered.

Well, the very notion of entropy always had a serious flaw anyway.  It
pre-assumes that a negentropic operation at least equal to whatever the
entropy is, must have first occurred. Otherwise there could have been no
order in the first place, to SUBSEQUENTLY disorder.

And the solution to the source charge problem provides the answer of where
all that negentropy first comes from, to continuously produce the negentropy
(order) that is later disordered in entropic processes.

So the mere existence of electrodynamics and its giant negentropy and
increasing order of the fields and potentials being poured out of the source
charges destroys any notion of absoluteness in the second law of
thermodynamics (the law of continual increase in disorder, or continuously
increasing entropy).

It has long been recognized that the second law (which is based on
statistical mechanics) does not apply to the single ion, charged particle,
atom, molecule, or group of molecules.  At the microscopic level, all
reactions are reversible because the equations are reversible.  So things
can run backwards as well as forward at the microscopic level, which is a
form of time-reversal.  In a "running backwards" situation, if macroscopic,
then an ordinary resistor would act as a true negative resistor (and so it
does, if you feed it negative energy which is time-reversed energy).  My new
book, just coming off the presses, uses that fact to explain cold fusion,
and we give the specific reaction equations producing the excess deuterium,
tritium, and alpha particles --- as well as explaining the strange and
anomalous instrumental problems encountered for some years in rigorous
electrolyte experiments at U.S. Naval research facilities at China Lake.

But it has also long been accepted somewhat dogmatically that, well, the
second law does still irrevocably apply to MACROSCOPIC phenomena and size.
Some things recently have happened to upset or "bother" even that standard
answer.

First, Denis Evans et al. of the National Australian University have
rigorously proven that, contrary to previous assumptions, reactions can "run
backwards" at up to micron (colloidal) scale, and for up to TWO SECONDS. Now
that's within easy switching range for modern circuits and processes.  So
all of a sudden it becomes important.  The nanobots being widely developed
just now in nanotechnology a close to molecular size will thus experience
abrupt periods of "running backwards" and so they will not work at all in
the same manner as their much larger robots.  The reference on the Evans
work is G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis
J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett.,
89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.  A good article to read on what it all means,
is Steven K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems,"
Physics Today, 55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21.  There are other comments on the
Evans et al. work; you can take your choice based on the smugness and dogma
used in the comments.

The individual charged particle, being microscopic (including even an ion in
a solution) comes under the reversible criterion and therefore is
appreciably "immune" to the second law.  So one is not too disconcerted to
find it "running backwards" and pouring out real energy, at last for a short
time. In short, one is not surprised that it produces giant negentropy, FOR
A SHORT TIME.  What is surprising (and bewildering to classical EM and to
the classical thermodynamicists) is that the charge produces negentropy
CONTINUOUSLY, for any length of time.  So it produces continuously
increasing NEGENTROPY.

There are other areas that are also known and recognized to violate
thermodynamics, including in the large macroscopic realm.  Several of these
are listed on p. 459 of Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern
Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, 1998,
corrected printing in 1999.  Quoting p. 459: "Some of these areas are (1)
"... rarefied media, where the idea of local equilibrium fails.  The average
energy at each point depends on the temperature at the boundaries.
Important astrophysical situations belong to this category."  (2) "...strong
gradients, where we expect the failure of linear laws such as the Fourier
law for heat conduction.  Not much is known either experimentally or
theoretically.  Attempts to introduce such nonlinear outcomes ... have led
to 'extended thermodynamics' ."   (3) "...memory effects which appear for
long times (as compared to characteristic relaxation times).
...non-equilibrium processes may have 'long  time-tails'...".

Forefront scientists are attempting to extend thermodynamics at present, to
include (hopefully) some kind of explanation for these areas.

But what is important is that the energy continuously poured out by every
magnetic or electrical charge (as a true negative resistor, extracting
unusable energy from the vacuum and pouring it out in usable EM form) forms
perfect order, perfectly correlated to that charge, to any macroscopic size
one wishes.  Just pick a size and wait long enough for the speed of light to
reach that radial distance, and you will have a volume of that radius that
has been filled with perfectly ordered EM energy from that source charge.
The original charges in original matter in the universe have been doing that
for 14 billion years, and they are still going.  And their perfectly ordered
fields and potentials reach across the entire observable universe.

So every part of electrodynamics --- the source charge, the field, the
potential, and every joule of EM energy in every EM field and potential,
whether in space or in matter --- is in total violation of the second law of
thermodynamics, and TO ANY MACROSCOPIC SIZE LEVEL ONE WISHES, INCLUDING
ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE when one accounts the perfect and continually
increasing order of the fields and potentials and their energy.

So there you have your true negative resistor (not to be confused with the
silly tunnel diode, which "puts some energy back to the circuit power source
in reverse against the voltage" while eating lots more energy from the power
source as work performed to allow it to be done) in every charge in the
universe.  And all EM energy -- in every field, potential, and circuit and
system --- comes directly from the vacuum, via the broken symmetry of the
source charge.

Don't underrate the importance of the source charge problem.  Either one has
to have a solution to that problem, or else one must surrender the
conservation of energy law in its entirety, since it is totally falsified by
every charge in the universe unless the source charge solution from particle
physics is included in one's model.  For the EE model and CEM, that would
require drastic surgery and extension of the models.  Actually, much better
systems of electrodynamics are already created and available in particle
physics.

As we said, classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering do not
include the active vacuum in their model, nor therefore the broken symmetry
in the exchange between the active vacuum and every charge and dipole in the
circuit.  Since those models do not include the actual source of any or all
the EM energy in a circuit or system, then those models do not include what
powers an electrical circuit or system (some of that very energy that is
extracted from the vacuum via the source charge's broken symmetry).

That was all excusable until 1957.  Today it is inexcusable, once one points
out the solution sitting there in particle physics.

And if you really wish to get at this matter of energy flow really well,
then read the original papers of Heaviside and Poynting, who independently
and simultaneously in the 1880s  discovered the propagation of EM energy in
space, after Maxwell was already dead.  Before that, the concept did not
even appear in physics.  The primary energy flow connected with a circuit
actually flows outside the conductors, in the external space.  A tiny bit of
it (the Poynting component) is diverged into the circuit conductors to power
the electrons.  The huge remainder (the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow
component, which is in circulation form) is not diverged into the circuit at
all, but is just wasted and ignored.  Lorentz in the 1890s stated that,
well, it has no physical significance (because it does not do anything), so
he originated a clever little integration trick to get rid of all
accountability of it.  The abandoned and unaccounted Heaviside component may
have a magnitude up to a trillion times or more, of the magnitude of the
Poynting component.

I am working on a paper that points out some very startling and completely
unexpected things that are indeed "done" by that long neglected Heaviside
component.  It plays a major role in the appearance of the various ice ages
upon the Earth, and creates the excess gravity that is holding the arms of
the spiral galaxies intact (Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational
implications of his extra component, and dealt with it in his notes, but did
not live to publish it.  The notes were found in 1957 (curious coincidence!)
and published by one of the learned societies.  If applied properly, the
Heaviside component also plays the major role in producing the mysterious
antigravity that is accelerating the expansion of the universe; I explain
that in my forthcoming book, just now coming off the presses.  The
Bohren-type experiment (with the so-called "negative resonance absorption of
the medium") is also an experiment routinely done by nonlinear optical
departments.  It outputs 18 or so times as much energy as one inputs.  There
are some other important contributions of the Heaviside component that I
will include in the paper, which will require another two or three months to
finish.

However, my main point is this: When the long-unaccounted --- ARBITRARILY
excluded! --- Heaviside energy flow component is re-accounted, then every
generator and battery and dipolar power source in the universe already pours
out enormously more EM energy than the mechanical shaft energy input to the
generator, the chemical energy dissipated in the battery, and so on.  All of
them always have.  One can experimentally demonstrate the existence of that
long-neglected component, by a Bohren-type experiment.  See Craig F. Bohren,
"How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American
Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear
conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident
on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such
particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See
also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more
than the light incident on it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.
The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.

Anyway, you have true negative resistors everywhere you turn: in every
charge in the universe, and every power source also if you  re-account for
the long-neglected Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component associated
with every field/charge and potential/charge interaction.

Tom Bearden

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Decker [mailto:jdecker@keelynet.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:16 PM
To: Keelynet
Cc: Gandolf Gwynn
Subject: Re: [Keelynet] Changes at John Bedini's web site


Hi Gandolf et al!

Interesting about the changes at Bedini's site.....I just have a problem
with claims that this battery recharging phenomenon is a true negative
resistance effect.

It has all the earmarks of what many of us, including me, are prone to
pull out as a potential explanation...something interesting, but weird
and unproven to date...

The spook/alt science definition of a negative resistor;

http://www.keelynet.com/zpe/negistor.htm

...True negative resistance just means a "resistor" or other component
that outputs more energy than it inputs. Let's look at one attribute: In
forward time, a positive resistor is an element that diverges and
scatters energy from a flow of energy passing through it.

From the negistor article;

...It is known that some transistors, when connected into a circuit in
reveres, have a negative resistance similar to that of a tunnel diode.
That is, the current through and the voltage across the transistor both
increase until the voltage reaches a certain point.  Then the transistor
breaks down and any further increase in current results in a decrease in
voltage.

...The behavior of the 'negistor' is caused by avalanche multiplication
as a result of impact ionization produced by mobile charge carriers.

...When used in tunnel diode application is, the output of a negistor is
much greater than that of the diode (tunnel diode).   As a UJT, the
reverse transistor dissipates power only during breakdown and therefore
its use is limited only by the peak current.

From Lambda diode notes;

...the Lambda diode is a superior quantum device.  Contrary to
pedestrian understanding super-conducitivity is an aspect of charge
(Cooper pairing of electrons) NOT the condutor.  Thus the tunnel diode,
Negistor and Lambda diode are room temperature super-conductors (zero
ohms IS super-conductivity!).
-----------------------
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213519,00.html

When an analog signal passes through a diode operating at or near its
forward breakover point, the signal waveform is distorted. This
nonlinearity allows for modulation, demodulation, and signal mixing. In
addition, signals are generated at harmonics, or integral multiples of
the input frequency.

Some diodes also have a characteristic that is imprecisely termed
negative resistance. Diodes of this type, with the application of a
voltage at the correct level and the polarity, generate analog signals
at microwave radio frequencies.
-----------------------
About Tunnel Diodes;

http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/tunneldiode.htm

A tunnel diode is a semiconductor with a negative resistance region that
results in very fast switching speeds , up to 5 GHz. The operation
depends upon a quantum mechanic principle known as "tunneling" wherein
the intrinsic voltage barrier (0.3 Volt for Germanium junctions) is
reduced due to doping levels which enhance tunneling.

The reverse breakdown for tunnel diodes is very low, typically 200mV,
and the TD conducts very heavily at the reverse breakdown voltage.
Referring to the BD curve the back diode conducts to a lesser degree in
a forward direction . It is the operation between these two points that
makes the back diode important. Forward conduction begins at 300 mV (for
germanium) and a voltage swing of only 500mV is required for full range
operation.
-----------------------
I prefer to lean towards desulphation as the true reason for what is
occurring which in fact might be a slowly degrading, possibly cold
fusion dissolution of the electrodes over time as they convert to the
extra energy used in the system.

Keep in mind cold fusion uses pure components in combination which react
to produce high temperatures which tend to degrade to lower temperatures
over time as the components 'corrode' due to transmutations, eventually
the anomalous heat effects stop when the components become too degraded
to function.

This is very similar to a battery in that you can restore the function
by replacing the components or possibly cleaning off the surface
corrosion (sulphate in batteries) and replacing the electrolyte.

-----------------------

Consider, what is a lead acid battery?

http://www.tpub.com/doeleadacid/leadacid5.htm

...The active materials in a battery are those that participate in the
electrochemical charge/discharge reaction. These materials include the
electrolyte and the positive and negative electrodes. As mentioned
earlier, the electrolyte in a lead-acid battery is a dilute solution of
sulfuric acid (HZSO,). The negative electrode of a fully charged battery
is composed of sponge lead (Pb) and the positive electrode is composed
of lead dioxide (PbO,).

...As the battery discharges, the active materials in the electrodes
(lead dioxide in the positive electrode and sponge lead in the negative
electrode) react with sulfuric acid in the electrolyte to form lead
sulfate and water. On recharge, the lead sulfate on both electrodes
converts back to lead dioxide (positive) and sponge lead (negative), and
the sulfate ions (SO,'-)are driven back into the electrolyte solution to
form sulfuric acid.
------------------------
http://www.nwes.com/using_batteries.htm

...Storage batteries do not store electrical energy, but convert
electrical energy into chemical energy which is slowly accumulated as
the charge progresses. A battery in use is said to be on discharge.
During discharge, the chemical energy stored in the battery is converted
into usable electrical energy.

...The reaction that occurs in discharging the cell can be reversed, and
it can be restored to its former charged condition by sending direct
current through it in an opposite direction to the current flow on
discharge.

...The active materials are restored to their respective conditions, and
the electrolyte again becomes a more concentrated sulfuric acid
solution. Cell voltage rises as the two plates become increasingly
different in composition and the specific gravity of the electrolyte
increases. As an operating guide, to obtain the best performance and
life from an R-E storage battery, the depth of discharge must not exceed
80% of the battery's rated capacity in ampere hours. It should be
charged after each cycle or whenever the specific gravity of the
electrolyte falls below 1.230. It is very important that proper
ventilation be provided during charging to make certain that (1) the
hydrogen gas given off toward the end of the charging process is
dissipated, and (2) that individual cell electrolyte temperatures during
normal operations do not exceed 115° F.

...The term specific gravity describes the ratio of the density of
electrolyte to the density of water. Electrolyte weighing 1.2 times as
much as the same volume of water has a specific gravity of 1.200. The
full charge gravity of a cell is a matter of design and depends on
several factors. The specific gravity must be high enough to contain the
amount of sulfuric acid necessary to meet the chemical needs of a cell.
If the sulfuric acid content is too high, damage may result to the cell.
The standard full charge gravity for lead acid batteries used in an R-E
system is 1.250 to 1.285 depending on which type of battery you are
using. Since the acid content of the electrolyte decreases linearly as
the cell is discharged, the decrease in gravity is directly
proportionate to the amount in ampere-hours taken out. The specific
gravity at any point in the discharge indicates the depth of discharge,
and can be translated into amp hours taken out. A cell having a full
charge specific gravity of 1.280 and a final specific gravity of 1.130
has a gravity drop of 150 points.
-----------------------
http://www.geocities.com/bioelectrochemistry/plante.htm

...Note that BOTH ELECTRODES DISSOLVE into the electrolyte during the
discharge reaction. When charged the reverse reactions occur, although
overcharge will lead to the electrolysis of water and consequent
production of (hazardous) H2 (g) at the cathode.

The electrodes in a standard automotive battery are built as sets of
interleaved plates to provide the maximum surface area for the
electrochemical reaction. As the vast majority of lead-acid batteries
have multiple cells in series, the battery casing contains divider walls
to isolate the cells.

Each cell in a lead-acid battery provides about two volts. Lead-acid
batteries usually have large capacities, though they tend to run down
quickly, and can be recharged hundreds of times until their electrodes
are too eroded to allow the battery to hold a charge.

They have indefinite shelf lives if stored without electrolyte. Their
active materials are environmentally hazardous and require recycling as
a reasonable environmental safety measure, a characteristic suffered to
a greater or lesser degree by most batteries, which often incorporate
heavy-metal electrodes and toxic electrolytes.
-----------------------
crystallographics of what happens to a battery in different phases of
operation;

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/alumni/April1998/steele.html

It was his background in crystallography and materials science and
analysis that led the lead-acid battery producers to seek him out as a
consultant. In the course of this he conceived a method whereby a
lead-acid battery could be inserted into a neutron diffraction
instrument to follow the crystallographic changes that take place in all
phases of battery operation over its life. What lead compounds form,
their degrees of crystallinity and their crystal sizes are the major
factors in how long a battery can perform and how many recharge cycles
it can undergo before failure.

-----------------------

Now considering all of the above, PARTICULARLY the notice that the lead
plates partially DISSOLVE into solution during the discharge...and to
some extent REBUILD during recharge

and when you buy a new battery, you do not CHARGE IT...it is two
dissimilar metals electrically connected on addition of the sulphuric
acid as electrolye and allowed to CHARGE on their own, getting the power
from the electrochemical reaction....

it seems to me, the same effect is happening here....with the end result
being the eventual destruction of the electrodes as they dissolve away
like alka-seltzer...

This was the point I was trying to make with John Bedini regarding
desulphation as a more probable cause of the 'additional' energy in a
closed self-running system.  I could be wrong, but it makes more sense
to me than time reversed negative resistance....

John said in one email that he believed the sulphuric acid molecular
structure possibly changed when subjected to his cold boiling type
desulphation via recharging system....he said tests were being done to
verify this, but I never heard and he never communicated what the
results of the analysis were...

I'm not trying to muddy the water but I simply have no confidence in the
negative resistance claim....in Tilley's building power system, IF it
works as claimed, the output from his mystery spinner goes into an off
the shelf converter to recharge the batteries and I don't think the
manufacturer (TRACE systems as I recall) is claiming any kind of
negative resistance effect or for that matter any anomalous effect.  It
is an off the shelf windmill/solar cell type recharger module.

The key, pure and simple, is what Tilley says is a COP of 3:1....three
times more OUT than IN from the mystery spinner....

Now Bedini's system is quite different to my view and so could well use
something novel and unique, though I still think its desulphation as
above...<g>....but Tilleys claim is just more out than in...which is why
he can use any battery, even the off-the-shelf WalMart Fleet
batteries....

The less spookiness we can discard from these things, the sooner we can
pin these butterflies down to dissect and reverse engineer into
hardware.....geez, all I want is that tabletop demo....just make it run
a load without being a pendulum effect that will eventually die over
time....

Thats what bothers me with the use of batteries....too many additional
considerations with chemistry....why can a similar system not be applied
to capacitors or some other method that minimizes the possible
conversion of mass to energy?


Gandolf Gwynn wrote:
>
> It seems that John Bedini has revamp his web site, please take a look at;
>
> http://www.icehouse.net/john1/
>
> If i understand,
> it only takes a 100 Volts DC pulse into a 12V dc battery to get
momentarily a negative resistor?
> If so, then we need to know :
>
> 1- How much current must be pulsed into this battery?
> 2- How long the pulse is
>
> Take care.

--
        Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com
      from an Art to a Science - order out of Chaos
discussion list - http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet