The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

 

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:59:43 -0600

 
Dear Jason,
 
I do not build anything myself, for I do not do work on the bench. Instead, I work closely with other inventors who do. My contribution is some 30 years of intense study of this area and the phenomenology encountered, so usually I'm able to figure out what a given mechanism is. Fortunately, I've been able to work with real inventors who made real systems that did work and demonstrate the phenomenology, for one to puzzle over and try to find the physics explanation for the effects.
 
And yes, a permanent magnet rotary motor was indeed built by Howard Johnson, and I personally saw it, operated it, played with it for several hours, etc. Further, Howard himself did know the mechanism, and so he introduced me to exchange forces, which I vaguely knew of (Feynman mentions them in his 3 volumes of sophomore physics) but I had never given them much thought.
 
But Howard was working in what today has started being called "spintronics", some 50 years ago!  And he finally did get a set of magnetic assemblies cut just right etc. so that the exchange forces were evoked at the time and direction required. Hence that motor did self-rotate and power a load simultaneously.
 
Not long after that success, there was a "mysterious break-in" at Howard's lab and, amongst about $100 thousand dollars of magnets and magnetic assemblies, the only thing taken was -- you got it! -- that successful model.
 
These days, however, Howard has finally gotten funding for the high precision machining he so desperately needed, and I'm looking forward to his success again, most any day now.
 
The entire secret of an all-permanent-magnet motor is that one must have a net nonconservative magnetic field. The normal field from considering a magnet as a bar with two opposite poles, on on each end, only produces a conservative field. That is, when one integrates the force from that field around a closed path (as in a complete rotation), the overall net force sums to a vector zero. That motor, with a little friction in the bearings and a little air drag, will not sustain its rotation, once you kick it off. It simply runs down and stops.
 
But if you use specialized nonlinear magnet assemblies, carefully crafted (be prepared for much precise measurement and a lot of experimentation and machining!), which precisely evoke the exchange force at the exact time between stator and rotor desired, and in the exact direction desired, then these forces DO NOT integrate as a zero line integral around a closed path. So that magnetic assembly will self-rotate, and power its load simultaneously.
 
It DOES NOT violate the conservation of energy law, when one gets out of the silly and horribly antiquated old electrical engineering, and gets into modern physics. Since 1957, physicists know that any dipole (opposite charges) such as a permanent magnet represents a broken symmetry in the exchanges of those magnetic charges (poles) with the active vacuum. In other words, that permanent magnet continually absorbs virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it (we have specified the exact mechanism in other places), and re-emits the absorbed but integrated energy as real, observable photons in all directions. The emission of these photons at light speed, therefore continuously establishes and replenishes the associated magnetic fields and potentials are light speed.
 
Now all that is PROVEN in particle physics, and was experimentally proven by Wu and her colleagues in February 1957, after Lee and Yang strongly suggested broken symmetry in 1956-57. So profound a change to physics was it, that the Nobel Committee with unprecedented speed awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in Dec. 1957 -- the very same year!
 
In the nearly half century since then, the impact of the broken symmetry of opposite charges -- i.e., of any dipolarity -- has not been able to migrate across the campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department and get the EE professors to change their now totally inadequate and seriously flawed EM and EE model. The model erroneously assumes an inert vacuum (falsified since 1930), a flat spacetime (falsified since 1916), and a  material ether (there are no force fields in space, contrary to classical M-H EM theory and electrical engineering).  The silly model also assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created out of nothing at all, by the associated source charges. In short, every EE professor and textbook unwittingly assumes the total and universal violation of the conservation of energy law, in the assumptions embedded in the conventional model used.
 
Try finding ANY EE text (or paper) that points out the fundamental assumptions in the EE model. I have not been able to find a single one. Yet in modeling, that is the FIRST QUESTION one asks in order to evaluate the worth of the model!
 
Anyway, a permanent magnet already continually absorbs virtual energy from the vacuum, coherently integrates it, and re-emits it as real EM energy. That is already proven in physics since 1957, but it does not yet even exist in electrical engineering.
 
There are no "static" EM fields in nature, electrical engineering notwithstanding. Instead, what is called a "static" field around a charge, an electret, a magnet, or any dipolarity, is rigorously the result of a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system, in thermodynamics terms. As is well known in the thermodynamics of such systems, such a system is permitted to exhibit five "magical" functions. It can (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess is freely received from the active environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (ALL the energy required is freely received from the active environment, and (5) exhibit negative entropy, which is closely related to characteristic (1).
 
Every charge and every dipolarity in the universe freely exhibits all five of those "magic functions" because it is just such a NESS system.
 
Note that none of the present EE texts (and I know of no sophomore physics texts that do it either) discusses the horrible problem of the charge and its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy. That's because they never solved the problem, so they just scrubbed it out of the texts. But read my "Precursor Engineering" paper on my website; and see the quotes dealing with that subject.
 
So good luck in your experimenting. You must (1) have a method of receiving energy freely from the external environment, and permanent magnetics already do that. But you must also create a "nonconservative field" nonzero vector field overall, (the NET field) when the net force is integrated around a closed curve (as in a rotation).
 
And that requires either the Takahashi approach (see my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles) or creation of a nonconservative force, as in the deliberate use and control of evoking exchange forces at various stations around the rotation loop.
 
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden

Hello,
 
Iím not quite sure if this is the right e-mail address to send to but I was curious to know if Mr. Bearden ever created a working model of the Symmetrical Permanent Magnet Motor he discussed in one of his articles. If so, I am also wondering if there are any websites or groups of people who have attempted to build this. I am a very avid researcher in the field of permanent magnet motors and I am interested in replicating the design.
 
Thank you,
Jason