# Imagine a day where

*Benitez, an influence in Free Energy Technology.*

It is rather remarkable that Carlos F. Benitez gets so little credit for his patents filed 100 years ago when the processes he shared in them have been built on by such people as Ed Gray, Bedini and many others. While thousands know the later names and have attempted to replicate their secondary work, I find

*no one*attempting to replicate Benitez work even though his patents are the easiest to understand. This is a mystery to me.

*There are fundamental misunderstandings of batteries in the free energy research world*, as well as the general alternative energy world, and this misunderstanding has caused people like Patrick Kelly in his

*Free Energy Info*book to completely disregard one or more of the Benetiz Energy Generation Systems. After recommending the Benitez System as a worthy pursuit we find amid some useful interjections several seriously mistaken statements about batteries, starting with the following:

“According to Carlos, there is a slight overall drain on the battery system and so, after about an hour, the switches are operated, changing the series-connected batteries to become parallel-connected and the parallel-connected batteries to become series-connected. This timing seems odd as switching the batteries over much more frequently only requires batteries with a much lower capacity.”

Here Kelly recommends frequent battery rotation, which is consistent with his very detailed focus on the popular “Tesla Switch” which rapidly rotates batteries. However,

*those familiar with batteries and all the types of battery environments, will know that frequently rotating batteries is what ruins them*more than any other type of abuse beyond overheating them. This is the problem with batteries used with solar systems. The lead acid batteries in such systems, for example, experience too much stress in this way, and thus the plates become ruined. Batteries need time to rest between being charged and loaded and being loaded and charged. To force them back and forth is the equivalent to work-hardening metals. I have carefully studied this and observed this for many years as my work is in battery rejuvenation technology and I daily converse with people all over the world about their battery systems. These

*Tesla Switches are actually battery killers*worse than solar chargers. While they may produce some apparent benefit for a

*short*demonstration,

*no one shows one in continual use*for the obvious reason that

*it is a fast battery killer*. So it is ironic that Kelly actually gets this completely and fundamentally wrong in thinking it is “odd” for Benitez to opt for a slower battery rotation rate, as well as with the mistake that batteries have a limited and relatively short life:

“The patent continues with a description of how a modified clock can be made to move the commutator once every hour. This is a brilliant 2 kilowatt, self-powered, free-energy design. However, operating the design as described would not be realistic. Batteries nowadays have limited operational lives offering, typically, between 400 and 1000 charge/discharge cycles within the C20 discharge current limits. Exceeding the C20 discharge rate will reduce the battery life by a major amount, that amount being determined by the degree of abuse which the battery suffers. If we ignore that factor and say that our batteries will manage 1000 cycles, at the proposed rate of say, one hour discharge and one hour charging time, then battery replacement is liable to be required in just 500 hours of operation. That is, within three weeks of continuous operation. The essential, rapid switching of this circuit is performed by the spark-gap but in contrast to that, the commutator switching of the batteries does not require high speed operation. It is feasible then, to replace the commutator with simple solid-state switching and swap the batteries over every second or two. That way, the batteries are never discharged and long battery life can be expected.”

It makes no sense to call this system brilliant if it is a battery killer. But the fact is that it isn't one.

*Kelly is stuck on the popular myth in free energy circles that batteries need to be discharged at a C20 rate to be safe*when there is no support for such a claim. It may be true that starter batteries should not be deep-cycled or discharged regularly faster than a C20 rate, but the entire golf-cart industry will testify that their batteries are discharged much faster. In fact, with the Renaissance battery charging technology I discharged my 144V pack of golf-cart batteries at the C1 rate of discharge almost daily with my electric Porsche conversion with a steady gain in capacity over three years. We, and thousands of our customers all over the world, have also brought back countless batteries from a state of uselessness, which can show signs of gaining in capacity after even 10 years after they were formerly discarded. While it is true that with conventional charging practices batteries can become damaged and/or sulfated over many cycles, it is now widely known that with proper battery charging this limit of cycles does not exist. Further, Benitez was not using lead acid batteries so these comments of Kelly's were unwisely interjected in this Benitez patent. The Edison batteries he was using were far better than the lead-acid Kelly is referring to. Yet Kelly is fundamentally wrong about even lead-acid batteries. And what is ironic is that he complains that the Benitez system would kill batteries in 500 hours, when they wouldn't, but suggests rapidly rotating batteries around which actually would kill such batteries in much less time. I know this because I deal with all the experimenters who have so killed their batteries with this battery killer Tesla Switch system. I also know how

*people jump to conclusions about the benefits of something before they test out the long-term benefits and even the biological dangers such systems can cause to the users*. So it is remarkable that one of the best systems that Kelly presents in his book he mistakes, disregards, and dogmatically insists Benitez is wrong about while recommending that which actually ruins batteries. We see this in the following quote from the patent followed by Kelly's comments in brackets:

“Suppose that both of the batteries are accumulators with a voltage of 60 volts each and a capacity of 40 AHr. Under such conditions, if battery 1-2 discharges at the rate of 40 amperes, it will be fully discharged in one hour. [Please note that this is not so and is only being stated here for discussion purposes. A lead-acid battery will be damaged if discharged at a rate greater than the “C20” rate which is the rated AHr value over a period of 20 hours, and so, a lead-acid battery of 40 AHr should not be discharged at more than 40 / 20 = 2 amps. Also, batteries are highly non-linear and discharging a 40 AHr battery at 40 amps will result in a fully discharged battery in a lot less than one hour.]”

But it actually is so. And Benitez did not mention this for discussion purposes. Nonsense. If a lead-acid battery is damaged when discharged faster than the 20 hour rate then every battery manufacturer would state this. But in fact deep cycle batteries are rated at C5, C8, C20, C100, etc., rates which are daily used for years at C5 and lower rates.

*It is not the C rate of discharge that damages a battery but the way it is charged that does most of the damage*. Again, it is true that if you treat a starter battery as a deep cycle battery then you can so damage it, but this is common knowledge and not recommended by any manufacturer. Furthermore, batteries rated at 40AH can give out 40 amps over 1 hour. We have seen batteries gain in capacity to do more than this.

*While it is true that Peukert's law does reveal that the faster a battery is discharged the less power you get to use, this does not mean that a 40AH Edison battery will give you 40 amps in “a lot less than one hour.*” Benitez showed he was fully justified to make this claim as it would be approximately an hour. Kelly suggests a lot less without knowing about batteries really. Kelly again continues on with these same mistaken ideas which amount to turning off the reader from considering the Benitez system to be practical:

“Carlos also produced another design, this time working with batteries (although he tended to think in terms of 60- volt battery banks rather than 12-volt batteries) and his patent includes what we tend to call “the Tesla Switch” nowadays. However, instead of switching it rapidly, Carlos uses a switching time interval of one hour. The lower voltage overcomes the need for the switching contacts to be submerged in oil. The problem with lead-acid batteries is that they are only 50% efficient. In practical terms, you only get out of a charged battery half of the current fed into it when it is being charged. So, if you just switch four batteries and power a load that way, the batteries will definitely discharge.”

Kelly needlessly interjects that Benitez thinks about batteries as 60 volts when nothing in his wording suggests this.

*What is also ironic in all this is that the Tesla Switch comes from Benitez*, but it is not done the right way. If it had been beneficial to switch batteries rapidly

*as he did with capacitors in these same patents*, then he would have suggested the idea. But

*this actually abuses batteries as all who actually do the experiments find out*. Furthermore, lead-acid batteries are not only 50% efficient. Who says this? The battery charger can be very inefficient and a machine using batteries can also be inefficient. While conventionally charging a battery is obviously not 100% efficient, it is well above 50%. Again, another problem is conventional charging contributes to sulfating such batteries and over time the batteries that are more and more sulfated take longer and longer to charge. But such comments are greatly mistaken and only serve to distract the reader from considering this remarkable Benitez system as practical. It may be that

*Kelly confuses batteries with capacitors*. Even Benitez shares the commonly know fact that unlike batteries, when two equal capacitors, one being fully charged, and the other being fully discharged, are connected in parallel, after they have equalized the total available power or charge between the two will be half of what was in before they were put in parallel. And yet

*Benitez system of doing this with capacitors still manages to restore the primary capacitor's charge every cycle, and which his battery systems manage to fully charge, or more than fully charge, the charging battery each cycle*, while it is admitted that under normal conditions the losses in doing that (that is not in the

*transfer*of supposed energy, but rather from the

*internal discharges of the source battery*) would be some 409W typically from a 2000W (40A x 60V) rate of charge.

*Benitez Patents Foundational Free Energy Systems*

The answer is found with Gabriel Kron in Electric circuit Models of the schrodinger Equation. We have made all of our motors into self-runners with this information and demonstrated such at our conventions.

"PREFACE. Maxwell’s equations are foundational to electromagnetic theory. They
are the cornerstone of a myriad of technologies and are basic to the
understanding of innumerable effects. Yet there are a few effects or
phenomena that cannot be explained by the conventional Maxwell
theory. This book examines those anomalous effects and shows that
they can be interpreted by a Maxwell theory that is subsumed under
gauge theory. Moreover, in the case of these few anomalous effects,
and when Maxwell’s theory finds its place in gauge theory, the conventional
Maxwell theory must be extended, or generalized, to a nonAbelian
form.
The tried-and-tested conventional Maxwell theory is of Abelian
form. It is correctly and appropriately applied to, and explains, the
great majority of cases in electromagnetism. What, then, distinguishes
these cases from the aforementioned anomalous phenomena? It is
the thesis of this book that it is the topology of the spatiotemporal
situation that distinguishes the two classes of effects or phenomena,
and the topology that is the final arbiter of the correct choice of group
algebra — Abelian or non-Abelian — to use in describing an effect.
Therefore, the most basic explanation of electromagnetic phenomena
and their physical models lies not in differential calculus or group
theory, useful as they are, but in the topological description of the
(spatiotemporal) situation. Thus, this book shows that only after the
topological description is provided can understanding move to an
appropriate and now-justified application of differential calculus or
group theory.
Terence W. Barrett"

Electromagnetic Phenomena Not
Explained by Maxwell’s
Equations [Based on Barrett, T.W., “Electromagnetic phenomena not explained
by Maxwell’s equations,” in A. Lakhtakia (ed.), Essays on the Formal
Aspects of Maxwell Theory (World Scientific, 1993), pp. 8–86.]

"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in which
the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by
boundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom
in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical,
significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in
which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there
are a number of physical phenomena — both classical and quantum-mechanical
— which indicate that the Aµ fields, µ = 0, 1, 2, 3, do possess
physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields,
in precisely constrained topologies....

Although the term “classical Maxwell theory” has a conventional
meaning, this meaning actually refers to the interpretations
of Maxwell’s original writings by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and
Hertz. These later interpretations of Maxwell actually depart in
a number of significant ways from Maxwell’s original intention.
In Maxwell’s original formulation, Faraday’s electrotonic state, the
A field, was central, making this prior-to-interpretation, original
Maxwell formulation compatible with Yang–Mills theory, and naturally
extendable...

This recent extension of soliton theory to linear equations of
motion, together with the recent demonstration that the nonlinear
Schrödinger equation and the Korteweg–de-Vries equation — equations
of motion with soliton solutions — are reductions of the self-dual
Yang–Mills equation (SDYM),5 are pivotal in understanding the
extension of Maxwell’s U(1) theory to higher order symmetry forms such as SU(2). Instantons are solutions to SDYM equations which
have minimum action. The use of Ward’s SDYM twistor correspondence
for universal integrable systems means that instantons, twistor
forms, magnetic monopole constructs and soliton forms all have a
pseudoparticle SU(2) correspondence."The Assumptions people have about Free Energy are not new in the History of Intellectual Prejudice.