Thanks for the kind
words, and keep thinking! During all my university courses, no
professor made me aware that the foundations of physics (and
electrodynamics) have some serious problems, and that there exists a
literature on it. One just had to discover that oneself, much later.
The EM theory taught
to electrical engineers does have many flaws. Many excellent scientists
(such as Feynman and Wheeler) have pointed out some of these flaws.
Slowly there are some corrections being made, and of course better EM
models have long been developed for particle physics. These models seem
now to be entering a new time of interest and development, as scientists
such as Barrett are doing with SU(2) and Evans is doing with O(3).
These are non-Abelian electrodynamics, which are higher group symmetry
EM models. In these models, many electrodynamic things are permitted
that are not permitted in the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz model used in
The reason a
transformer is not a COP>1.0 system is because the field generated from
the secondary by pumping the secondary circuit's total current back up
through the secondary's back emf, back-couples to the primary and forces
the same back emf and energy dissipation in the primary. In theory, if
that back-field coupling from secondary to primary were eliminated or
reduced, the transformer itself would perform at COP>1.0. The MEG does
that in one manner; there are other methods also. E.g., if one builds a
true negative resistor and uses it plus a diode in series, to "shunt"
some of the return current to the secondary back to the high side
without passing through the secondary, this reduces the back-coupling
and can enable COP>1.0. Years ago I filed a patent on that, but let it
lapse. But a differential negative resistor will not do it. It
requires a true negative resistor. The old point contact transistor,
e.g., was capable of being adjusted and built so as to produce true
negative resistance. But making them was always rather an art than a
science, and that type of transistor is not well understood even today.
We really should be experimenting with it and re-developing it,
optimizing its negative resistance capability to enable COP>1.0 EM
We hope to see some
major changes in the way they teach the EM model to students in
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:09:06 GMT
Subject: Positive energy, negative energy and classical EM
Dear Mr. Tom Bearden
Your last paper: « Utilising Scalar Electromagnetics To Tap Vacuum
Energy » is very interesting like all the other papers on your site.
Thank you to you for the work and to light the way to follow.
I remember when i was a student, learning electronic and classical EM at
i was sceptical about the EM theory. I have never understand where it is
possible at a transformer (or a motor or a generator) is heating up just
for the losses on it and the explication in the theory was not of great
help to understand that.
What say the classical EM theory? First. -Definition: The active power
is doing the work ( heating, mechanical, ..). It's easy to measure it
with the right equipment.
Second. In the case of a transformer (or motor, generator), that is not
the case. It's just the losses that heat the device an do work on it.
The active power is doing external work.
Why is it possible at, in the case of a resistance, a condensator or an
inductor, the first case is right and false with a transformer. A
transformer is just like 2 inductors with a magnetism interaction and in
one case the active power is doing intern work and in the other it's
doing extern work. That have no sense.
I can measure the powers on it and i found to the power on the primary
is equal to the power on the secondary plus the losses.
If i apply the first case, i found to the transformer must heat up for
the primary power plus the secondary power plus the losses. It must heat
for more power as the extern power we apply on the primary. If i take in
consideration the power on the last coupled to the output, the output
power of the system (the power on the secondary plus the power on the
last) is nearly two times the power on the input (the power in the
secondary) and i must have a great overunity device.
In the reality, the transformer is heating up just for it's losses but
that phenomena (the losses) is not explain and don't justify why it's
the second case that seams right.
My conclusion was as it's something wrong in the theory. When i spoke
with my teacher, he said at i must read my theory one more time. That
was not « my » theory but that is another problem. A few days later we
was tested on the transformer and i haft the best result in the class.
The teacher said to me: I see at you are understanding the theory now. I
said: You know, at i can the math and can do the calculation it's one
thing but that don't means at i agree with the theory. I think at he was
afraid of my point.
With the vacuum triode of Mr. Floyd Sweet the fact is at it's cooling
down when working, We have negative energy. Another fact is at the input
power is negligible. We have an remarkable overunity device.
If i look back my transformer the solution to understand the classical
theory, for me with my limited understanding of the reality, is at the
primary power is acting like positive energy heating up the transformer
and at the same time, the secondary power is acting like negative energy
cooling down the transformer. As the primary power is greater as the
secondary power, the difference are the losses, they are positive and
the transformer is heating up just for the lost.
I'm not sure at my analyse is correct and it is certainly incomplete.
This is just something i am thinking and in the better case just a
little point, at the first level, on what is going on.
I hope your health vill continue to improve.
Good bless you and your colleagues.