Battery Secrets by Peter Lindemann

[Aaron]

battery secrets

Aaron “The chargers based on this knowledge have been publicly available for several years now.”

So if that’s true what’s the point of selling CD’s and tickets to lectures about something that (as you say) is already widely known and has been available for several years? Why aren’t they just selling the damn charger? Where is it? If Peter Lindemann with his sterling “internationally recognized” background has joined forces with the “legendary” John Bedini, it would seem a small matter to raise the needed startup capital for such an obviously profitable improvement of existing technology. I smell a rat....

1. The patents for the chargers have been in public view for years. Many
of the circuits have been available for a long time. Because people can
build circuits based on that information doesn't mean they really understand
what is happening in the battery. Therefore, the point of this downloadable
lecture, which is not a CD, is to show what really
is happening in the battery when conventional or Bedini's methods are used
to charge or rejuvenate them. This is important information for anyone that
has been around long enough to truly appreciate what this is about.
You should actually read what the lecture is about before making such
ridiculous comments.

2. The chargers have been available at Tesla Chargers | World's Most Efficient, Effective & Advanced Battery Chargers for a
few years. But if you have somehow been confused that this lecture is
about teaching someone how to build a charger, you should actually
read what the lecture is about before making such ridiculous comments.

3. Peter worked with Bedini years ago and brought tremendous funding to
be able to have these chargers be a reality, which they are today. You
should give people some respect and actually take some time to research
the facts before making such ridiculous comments.

[Aaron]

battery secrets

Hi Andrew,

There is important info from the battery bible that is in the lecture
but it is not a substitute for this lecture. People cannot get Peter's
experience or perception working with John during the development of these
chargers and how a lot of that information fits in the context of real life
applications.

None of the experience of testing and developing the chargers are in
the battery bible.

The lecture is guaranteed. You could get a copy then decide if it is worth
it or not.

John, Peter and myself are very busy. With the digital products, I usually
put the systems together and make the announcements. Unfortunately,
I have to waste time dealing with timewasters as a result of the one taking
the initiative to post the announcements. Thankfully, you are not one
of them. Your posts are a minority of the ones posted in this thread that
actually communicate to others as human beings. Others are high on their
self-proclaimed altruistic morals while degrading others simultaneously.
I have no time for those hypocrites so forgive me if they are banned while
having no patience for their fake questions that are only here to cause
trouble.

You could always contact John or Peter directly. John isn't involved with
this lecture other than it is an accurate lecture about his technology in
relation to batteries and it was presented at his conference. It was really
Peter's lecture but there really isn't much he could say about it that isn't
in in the video.

Again, anyone is free to buy it and make up their own mind if it was worth
it or not. Many people at the conference said it made a lot of things make
sense to them that they wondered about for years. Maybe some isn't
new but Peter made it make sense to people in a way that they actually
understand. I personally learned a few very important things but that is
irrelevant to anyone else I would imagine.

[Armagdn03]

Hi Andrew,

There is important info from the battery bible that is in the lecture
but it is not a substitute for this lecture. People cannot get Peter's
experience or perception working with John during the development of these
chargers and how a lot of that information fits in the context of real life
applications.

None of the experience of testing and developing the chargers are in
the battery bible.

The lecture is guaranteed. You could get a copy then decide if it is worth
it or not.

John, Peter and myself are very busy. With the digital products, I usually
put the systems together and make the announcements. Unfortunately,
I have to waste time dealing with timewasters as a result of the one taking
the initiative to post the announcements. Thankfully, you are not one
of them. Your posts are a minority of the ones posted in this thread that
actually communicate to others as human beings. Others are high on their
self-proclaimed altruistic morals while degrading others simultaneously.
I have no time for those hypocrites so forgive me if they are banned while
having no patience for their fake questions that are only here to cause
trouble.

You could always contact John or Peter directly. John isn't involved with
this lecture other than it is an accurate lecture about his technology in
relation to batteries and it was presented at his conference. It was really
Peter's lecture but there really isn't much he could say about it that isn't
in in the video.

Again, anyone is free to buy it and make up their own mind if it was worth
it or not. Many people at the conference said it made a lot of things make
sense to them that they wondered about for years. Maybe some isn't
new but Peter made it make sense to people in a way that they actually
understand. I personally learned a few very important things but that is
irrelevant to anyone else I would imagine.

Totally awesome answer. I was just being cautious because resources are limited these days. Thanks for your work.

[John_K]

Thanks Aaron & Peter

Hi Aaron & Peter,

It was great to finally meet you both at John's shop after the conference.

I bought and downloaded Peter's Battery Secrets lecture, mainly because I was too busy running around at the conference to sit down and listen to all of it at the time. I'm glad I did, because now I can sit and watch it whenever I like.

For me, it solidified what I had already read in the Battery Bible and helped me undertsand more about batteries. After seeing it I now believe I can make better battery chargers based on John's circuits, which I have been replicating for nearly 5 years now.

I think anybody who is working with batteries needs to know this information, otherwise you just won't get the results you are after. I think it was well worth the $27.

And to the naysayers - it comes with a 60 day 100% money back guarantee. Don't worry Aaron, I won't be asking for money back.


John K.

[mklimesh]

I watched Peter's conference lecture twice yesterday. I've been building Johns chargers and charging batterys with them for 11 years and thought I have a good handle on the charging process. Peters lecture opened my eyes on a few things. I have a charger running now with Johns HEI circuit
and, after watching the lecture, have a different view in my mind what its doing to the battery. I feel the $27 was a good investment.

Mike Klimesh

[Aaron]

battery secrets pdf in the making

Nice to meet you too John! And thanks Mike.

Peter is reviewing the vid right now to make sure he
includes all the right charts, etc... for the pdf. Wanted
to get that out yesterday but have been swamped
to the max.

[Aaron]

Battery Secrets PDf available

If you purchased Battery Secrets, please go back to the
download page where you got the video. Directly under
that link is a link to a zip file with a PDF that has large
clear images of all the charts, etc... shown in the lecture.

[SilverToGold]

Great video Aaron and Peter. Some interesting insights.

[Mario]

Hi Aaron,

like others already mentioned, I have a few years of experience in pulse charging but I still found Peter's explanations very important and helpful, well worth the money. The only things I can complain about is the marketing method which I don't like and the fact that the video has been converted with a wrong video size format (narrow on the screen).

At some point Peter mentioned that John let's the battery rest for a certain percentage of the pulse cycle period (which most of us probably already know), but too bad he didn't mention the best pulse frequency in order to maximize the unexplainable effect he talks about when continuously cycling the batteries ?!

regards,
Mario

[Aaron]

@Mario

Hi Aaron,

like others already mentioned, I have a few years of experience in pulse charging but I still found Peter's explanations very important and helpful, well worth the money. The only things I can complain about is the marketing method which I don't like and the fact that the video has been converted with a wrong video size format (narrow on the screen).

At some point Peter mentioned that John let's the battery rest for a certain percentage of the pulse cycle period (which most of us probably already know), but too bad he didn't mention the best pulse frequency in order to maximize the unexplainable effect he talks about when continuously cycling the batteries ?!

regards,
Mario

Hi Mario,

EDIT: If you watch the video in 2.35:1 scale, it makes it normal.

The marketing method is using the same system for all the rest of our
individual or joint digital products. We give 60% commission on every
referred sale and plenty of people are able to earn a decent part time
income from this. I feel really good about that.

I can't say for sure but I believe it is the frequent cycling itself that is
more important than the pulse frequency itself in order to see the
"anomalous" energy gains. I witnessed quite a few of those tests and
watch those charts being produced all the time. I went to John's shop
really often during those days. I experienced the same kind of gains
when I had tests running non-stop. Take a break for a couple days and
it disappeared.

At any particular pulse frequency, you can still test what you're able
to get out of the battery during constant tests versus taking a break
for a couple days and going back to it.

Peter or John can probably clarify if they have time but this particular
effect has been discussed many times over the years. It was always
about frequent charge/discharge cycles.

[Mario]

Hi Aaron, thanks,

it would actually be great having John or Peter clarify a few things that have been confusing people for quite a long time. John has always said that the direct SG coil output charges the batts with negative energy (which couldn't be used on the front end to power the SG once charged), and that the added cap pulser would convert the output to positive energy, so that the charged battery could be used in a conventional manner to power things (SG included), this I take it that if the cap is discharged say 20 or 24V above the battery so that the battery stays in good shape but positive. So far so good.
But what is the difference between direct coil output charging a battery and a cap pulser charging the battery with a cap that discharges at say 50 or 90V? Is the battery considered charged with neg. energy in this case? Can it be used to power the SG, and if yes why? If it's charged with HV voltage pulses from a cap I would think the battery partially self-charges and would have to be considered negatively charged, even if from a cap, correct?

On top of that in the first EFV video John has stated that it turned out that direct charging (direct coil output) was the way to go. So why even bother with HV cap dumps?
It would greatly help if John or Peter could take the time to clear these things up in detail once and for all.

thanks and best regards,
Mario

[Aaron]

John has always said that the direct SG coil output charges the batts with negative energy (which couldn't be used on the front end to power the SG once charged), and that the added cap pulser would convert the output to positive energy, so that the charged battery could be used in a conventional manner to power things (SG included), this I take it that if the cap is discharged say 20 or 24V above the battery so that the battery stays in good shape but positive. So far so good.

But what is the difference between direct coil output charging a battery and a cap pulser charging the battery with a cap that discharges at say 50 or 90V? Is the battery considered charged with neg. energy in this case?

Can it be used to power the SG, and if yes why? If it's charged with HV voltage pulses from a cap I would think the battery partially self-charges and would have to be considered negatively charged, even if from a cap, correct?

On top of that in the first EFV video John has stated that it turned out that direct charging (direct coil output) was the way to go. So why even bother with HV cap dumps?
It would greatly help if John or Peter could take the time to clear these things up in detail once and for all.

thanks and best regards,
Mario

Hi Mario,

Yes. Putting spikes to cap makes is positive - is called
"forward conversion". Been on Keeleynet pages for over 10 years. However,
charged with spikes CAN run the SG - just not as good. Batts charged
like that are better for running resistive loads.

The battery is not charged with negative energy if you charge cap to
50-90 volts then discharge to the batt. It is then forward or positive
energy.

Charging batt direct from spikes is charging with negative energy.
According to Bearden's theory, the battery is being filled with "holes."
Whether this is the case or not, which there is a high probability that it
is, is that you can put that battery on a conventional charger and it
will not charge up in normal time. The conventional charger has to
fill in the "holes" and once that is done, then the battery can get charged
with the normal conventional forward energy.

Using caps is to allow the batteries to be compatible with conventional
chargers.

If charged with high voltage from caps, it is still forward energy. However,
you can still get interesting gains from using the positive energy and it
doesn't have to be high voltage either. I've had over 1.0 cop from Bedini
chargers using 2 methods. One was with the inverted trigger on the
negative. But the one that showed me the most was with low voltage
but high capacitance cap dumps. I don't mean over 1.0 cop by accounting
for mechanical, I'm talking about what leaves the input battery compared
to what you can get out of the recovery battery.

I was charging up something like up to 180,000 uf at about 2-3 volts
above the 12v battery voltage. I was using 12v 7ah gels. Discharge was
about couple seconds. When letting the recovery battery take those
discharges (from a mechanical copper switch) for at least an hour, I
could disconnect the secondary battery and it would continue to charge
for another 45 minutes to an hour. Bearden says it is from the momentum
of the lead ions. Whatever the case may be, that continuous charge
was real charge that could really power a load. It wasn't just fluffy
charge. It was so real, it powered my scooter down the road to John's
shop when it was close to my work - that was 10 years ago. When doing
resistive load tests measuring joules that left the input battery compared
to what you could get out of the output battery, it was over 1.0 easily.

Now many people say they get this self charging effect but never got
over 1.0 cop. I can't comment because I have no control over what they're
doing or how they're doing it. Anyway, point is there was some gain here
going on and it had nothing to do with negative energy - at least not
from an inductive spike directly itself.

These things have actually been discussed many times over the years
online but the info is just spread all over the place.

Anyway, one of the main points in using cap dumps is to make the
batteries getting charged compatible with conventional chargers.

"Overunity" is easy with the Bedini motors especially if you are doing
the battery swapping and have several on the back. With just 1 on the
back can still get over 1.0 cop.

Let's say your initial battery expends 1000 units of energy and you
recover only 65% on the back battery, which would not be a well built
circuit. But you get 650 units recovered. Swap batteries.

Run the circuit until that 650 units is used up to bring the battery down
to the capacity it was before it received the 650 units. The backside
battery now recovered 65% of that, which is 422.5.

EDITED FOR CLARITY

650 + 422.5 = 1072.5 + our initial 1000 in work = 2072.5 units of work
for only 1000 worth of work invested to begin with,
which is over 1.0 cop without even counting the
mechanical work of the rotor IF a rotor was even used.

The batteries
will off course keep winding down but the amount of work demonstrated
from only the recovery by initially expending 1000 units is more than
1000 units. This can be done with cap dumps or with the spikes.

I don't know why people miss these facts because it is so simple and
right there in front of everyone. This is the same reason a rubber ball
that is 83% efficient dropped from a meter will demonstrate over 8.0 COP
before it comes to a stand still. X joules lifted it to a meter and when
adding up all the joules in each successive bounce upward, it is 8 times
the initial input. There is no such thing as conservation of energy. Just
dissipation each time while establishing a new dipole over and over that
allows new potential to enter the system. My 2 cents anyway.

[mbrownn]

Thanks for that Aaron, nice explanation.

The other one is that no energy is consumed by the work in a motor, only the losses consume energy. If you put 15 amps into a motor 15 amps come out the other side, only some potential is lost. This can be collected and used to power the next cycle with a small top up equivalent to the loss. So it is the losses we are powering and not the load.

If we pulse a 70% efficient motor with 100w we can recover 70w, now we top up the 30w and pulse the motor again and so on. We are running a motor at 100w for a 30w input and getting 70w of work. COP is 70/30=2.33

[Mario]

Hi Aaron,

thanks for your reply. Of course I know what has been on the books and many sites for years, and I also have 5 years of experimenting with all kinds of circuits, be it rotored SG 's or solid state, direct output or cap pulsers who's dump went from the Mhz down to a dump every few seconds, from 300/400V down to a couple volts over the battery, from very big capacities down to very small caps.
I know that the cap converts negative to positive, still a few doubts are there.
For instance, what is the difference of what is happening in the battery if it is pulsed by the coil output spikes as opposed to being pulsed by a small HV cap? I mean I know that the cap discharges positive energy, but as per JB we are supposed to get more energy out of the battery, so isn't this also creating holes in the battery?
Frankly, from experience, I don't know what the point is in discharging a cap say at 90V over the battery, it is extremely inefficient and this gets worse the higher you go in voltage.

The SG circuit is essentially a buck-boost converter and this is why the direct coil output is so much more efficient in terms of conventional electronics as opposed to cap discharges, plus we get the spikes which are supposed to gather additional radiant energy, OR maybe the spikes are not even radiant and only move the ions in the battery and the surplus shows up in the battery if continuously cycled.
I guess the main question is, what is the point of HV cap discharges to a battery if it is so inefficient?

Your battery swap example doesn't sound right to me as in the end (if like you said you don't take into account the mechanical) you're left with less total energy.
Let's say you initially have a battery 1 that contains 3000 units on the front and a batt 2 on the back which is at 1500 units. In the first run you take 1000 from batt one which after the 65% loss go to batt 2 adding 650 units.
Now batt 1 sits at 2000 and batt 2 at 2150.
Now you swap and run the circuit until you have taken 650 units from the now run battery 2 which goes back to 1500. After losses 422.5 go to output batt 1 and add to the 2000 that were in it, resulting in 2422.5 units.

Results: in the beginning we had a total of 3000+1500=4500 units. At the end we have 1500+2422.5=3922.5 units. I wouldn't call this OU as we end up with less energy than we started with, do you agree?

regards,
Mario

[Peter Lindemann]

My Speculations

Hi Mario, et al,

Thank you all for a considered discussion on these topics. The most important thing to keep in mind, is that we have all been learning as we go.

The terminology of "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" was Tom Bearden's first attempt to inform us all that there was a QUALITY DIFFERENCE between these two manifestations of electricity that the meters were saying were identical. This was a gigantic philosophical leap for most people, at the time, but as usual, Tom was right! Whether "Negative Energy" and "Positive Energy" are the best ways to characterize these differences is not the point.

If we simply observe the "facts on the ground" we can come to a reasonable understanding. In the case of the various chargers that John has been testing over the last 10 years, let us say that "Negative Energy" is that quality of electricity that comes from AN INDUCTIVE COLLAPSE. It is produced by a MAGNETIC FIELD in natural free-fall after the current that produced it has been discontinued (open circuit).

Its effect on a battery is unique. In response to the impedance (resistance) in the cells, the inductive collapse will produce an ever rising voltage to overcome it. Once this potential hurdle has been overcome, then it will produce current to complete the discharge. The higher the impedance, the higher the voltage will rise and the less current will be supplied. The lower the impedance, the lower the voltage will rise and the higher the current will be supplied. The response is completely self regulating, and the battery always gets as much energy transferred into it as it can receive, in the shortest period of time.

Let us also say that "Positive Energy" is that quality of electricity that comes from A CAPACITOR DISCHARGE. It is produced by a DIELECTRIC FIELD in natural free-fall after the voltage that produced it has been discontinued (short circuit).

Its effect on the battery is quite different. In response to the impedance in the cells, the capacitive discharge will produce a TIME VARIANT discharge rate, since the voltage cannot rise above its initial value. It is characterized by a current surge with a dropping voltage component. By contrast, the inductive collapse is characterized by a voltage surge with a dropping current component.

What John found, after exhaustive testing, is that both of these methods charge the battery quite well. Personally, I believe, from what I have seen, that the Inductive Collapse methods work a little better for restoring lost capacity in a battery and Capacitor Discharge works a little better for maintaining a battery. In other words, there are trade-offs.

The other thing John found is that the Capacitor Discharge method of charging a battery was universally compatible with other commercial methods, while the Inductive Collapse method was not. Batteries were just fine if they were ALWAYS charged with Inductive Collapse, but their performance was extremely poor if the charging method varied between Inductive Collapse and other commercial methods.

This is the reason why John eventually changed all of his commercial designs over to these universally compatible methods......so people would not blame him for ruining their batteries when they didn't use his chargers.

I hope this discussion of these issues of helpful.

Peter