The Tom Bearden Website

 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 12:49:45 -0600 Edited from Private Correspondence Without integrating sampling oscilloscopes, which make “direct in-phase power” sampling measurements many times per second and sum these into a real power measurement, the procedure being set up is at best just a demonstration of something. If the phase angle is pretty big, then apparent power can be quite large as “measured” by hand meters, but real power can be something else completely. And that is particularly simple to miss if only little hand meters are used. Phase voltage amplification, e.g., can wind up looking like – or being interpreted as – a “power measurement”.   So the best you can have out of this one appears to be a “demonstration” of something. And the evaluator will have to be quite sharp to know exactly what he has been demonstrated.   On the other hand, just in case there is a real effect that the inventor is himself not knowledgeable of, please be aware of the following true method for overunity COP:   Suppose the external circuit to which the voltage source is connected, has a self-initiated action whereby its electrons are momentarily “pinned” and – momentarily – its current dq/dt = 0.  In that case, voltage amplification is quite free, and one can easily increase the applied voltage by orders of magnitude. The change in voltage flows onto (or can flow onto) the circuit at nearly light speed. If this “potentialization of the circuit” is accomplished during the dq/dt = 0 pinning period, then asymmetrical regauging of the circuit has been performed and the circuit has taken on orders of magnitude more real potentialization energy (real potential energy caused by potentialization of the pinned charges q). The little equation for the freely stored extra potentialization energy W is given by W = Vq. So long as dq/dt = 0, no current flows and no power is involved as is no work. Potentialization alone is or can be absolutely work-free. Simple flow of excess potential energy onto a “static” circuit involves no power or work at all, and no entropy is produced thermodynamically.   Then if the external source of voltage is SWITCHED AWAY while the pinned circuit is still pinned, and a resistor and diode in series are used to re-complete the gap in that now-separated but potentialized circuit (with the diode oriented properly for normal dissipation current flow), the source will not have been depleted whatsoever. But real “free potential energy” has been transferred to the external circuit, now completely separated from the external source.   If, then, the pinning time expires and the current is again free to move, that freely potentialized (asymmetrically regauged) circuit now will freely discharge that excess free potential energy to power its losses and its loads. Specifically, half the excess freely collected potential energy will be dissipated against the back emf to destroy the source dipolarity of this circuit, and the other half of the freely collected potential energy will be dissipated in the other losses and loads of that circuit. So one will get – quite freely except for a tiny bit of switching energy – appreciable real EM work in the load. The work obtained in the load can be orders of magnitude times the amount of little switching and control work the operator had to do to control the process.  ALL EM ENERGY OCCURS IN FIELDS AND POTENTIALS, AND THESE ARE A PRIORI ONGOING FREE FLOWS OF EM ENERGY (a la Whittaker 1903 and 1904) FROM THEIR ASSOCIATED SOURCE CHARGES AND DIPOLARITIES.   That is, all EM energy occurs in free and continuous real energy flows from the associated source charges. EM energy is always free, once the source charges are assembled. It also lasts forever, if we do not allow the source charges to be scattered or the dipolarity destroyed.   By adroit use of momentary pinning, one statically potentializes the temporarily pinned external circuit and its charges q and then dissipates dynamically after the source of potential energy flow for potentialization has been safely disconnected. So in this case one also DOES NOT deplete the external source of voltage; from one’s finite voltage source. From any finite voltage source, any finite amount of potential energy can flow into external circuits and be stored on the repotentialized charges q, so long as that potentializing and collection process is not allowed to drive spent current back through the back emf of the dipolar voltage source and destroy its dipolarity. If none of the current in the external circuit is ever allowed to have to flow back through the back emf of that external source, then the source can be used to FREELY furnish real usable EM potential energy serially and indefinitely – over and over -- except for a tiny bit of switching energy.   Such a circuit is also easily close looped, by using one part of the load as a little storage for energy that is SEPARATELY returned to power the switching operation.   Note that the circuit and operation we are describing does indeed violate the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry that Lorentz arbitrarily imposed on the Heaviside-Maxwell equations circa 1892, just to get simpler equations that usually could yield a closed algebraic solution, and one would avoid the irksome task of numerical methods.   This circuit now operates as an ASYMMETRICAL system, one of that vast class of asymmetrical Maxwellian systems just arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz (and still arbitrarily discarded by EEs by their inane and arbitrary continued symmetrizing of the equations).   EE’s are taught to build and use only SYMMETRICAL circuits, which a priori self-restrict themselves to COP<1.0. But by alternating between an asymmetrical circuit for potentialization (statically), and a freely potentialized but now symmetrical circuit for powering the load (dynamically), COP>1.0 operation is enabled, while the laws of physics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics are obeyed.   Let’s hope the inventors have inadvertently stumbled onto something like that, and just do not really understand it.   Best wishes,   Tom