The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Slightly Edited

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:13:19 -0600


The spin and spin flipping phenomenon is of course well-known in physics and has been for a long time.  It was just out of the mainstream of electrical engineering, etc.  But they were known and investigated by materials science specialists.  In the last decade or so these spin phenomena have received dramatically increasing attention, e.g., in the newly emerged technology of spintronics.  Lots of gadgets these days are being made, using spins and spin flipping. It's a really up and coming new technology.

The momentarily very powerful exchange forces that also emerge from spin flips have been known for decades, but have just been a little obscure from the mainstream.  E.g., the exchange force (e.g., mentioned in Feynman's three volumes) evoked in a permanent magnet assembly can be momentarily a thousand or more times stronger than the magnetic field forces there. So if one evokes a succession of such spin-flip-generated exchange forces in a rotary permanent magnet device, it is perfectly permitted to self-rotate with power, if there are enough of the exchange force firings and they are at the proper place, time, and in the proper direction.  Then the integration of the linear force on the rotor does not integrate to zero around the closed rotation path, and that is known as a "nonconservative field" situation.

For the purely magnetic force resulting from attraction of unlike poles and repulsion of like poles, the force is conservative; i.e., if you integrate the propulsive effect of (F x distance x cos angle), it integrates to zero NET force, around any closed path.  If there are extra asymmetrical phenomena that occur in the closed path, however, this integration need not result in a net zero, and there can indeed be a net propulsion.  That is called a "non conservative" field in that case.

Actually, nonconservative magnetic fields (such as in the case of multivalued potentials) arise naturally in the standard magnetic theory, but for many decades the exasperated theoreticians have considered this a big nuisance to be avoided at all costs!  That's asymmetrical, and they are taught to love symmetry.  When you integrate the magnetic force around a closed loop containing a multivalued potential, for example, the integration is not zero, and so again one has NET rotation drive and thrust, even from permanent magnet assemblies only, in both rotor and stator.  In short, in real systems one really can get nonconservative forces, and it isn't that difficult for any modern lab.  Yet the theorists have done everything humanly possible to "average out" or "argue away" and get rid of the hated multivalued magnetic potentials, thus reverting to conservative magnetic fields by sheer assumption and slight of hand, and deliberately discarding the nonconservative fields that are quite possible and that do occur in nature anyway.  Anyone today considering just attraction and repulsion of unlike and like magnetic poles only, is decades behind materials science theory and discovery.  Yet that is what the EEs consider and study, and that is what they are still taught to do in their actual build-ups and systems. We actually have a scientific mindset problem, not a scientific problem per se.

Johnson's approach, e.g., for decades has been based on precise control of the spins and their flipping, to freely evoke those exchange forces in the rotation cycle where he wishes and when he wishes and in the direction he wishes.  One of his favorite tricks to confound visiting Ph.D.'s used to be to show them a north pole attracting a north pole, then ask them to explain it.  One gets some interesting responses on that one! One can find out instantly whether the fellow has any knowledge or consideration of exchange forces, or is just following na´ve electrical power engineering.

The other things the engineer was saying are also already developed or well along.  The business of gathering in quantum mechanics and electrodynamics to produce a unified field theory is done, and one of the best examples is Sachs's theory. The advantage of Sachs's approach is that Evans and Vigier's O(3) electrodynamics is a subset, and thus the O(3) electrodynamics can be used to do unified field theory engineering.  The disadvantage is that with such high nonlinearity, most things require numerical methods --- but today that is not a problem, with the excellent training of young graduates and with computers and programs like Mathematica.  In the old days numerical methods were anathema, but that is not true today.  Indeed, Lorentz arbitrarily regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations primarily to escape having to use numerical methods nearly totally, and to be able to get closed solutions by algebraic analysis.

He is correct in visualizing that these areas are subject to direct EM engineering, when one has a higher group symmetry electrodynamics.  I like to express it as the "supersystem", where one has three components: (1) the normal physical system and its interactions, (2) the local active vacuum and its interactions, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics.  All three components of the supersystem actually interact with each other.  Classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory assumes that the other two parts of the supersystem are void; in short, that the local spacetime is always flat (in theory one can't even have an EM wave in space with that assumption!) and the local vacuum is inert.  So the standard EE is out of it, forever, as far as overunity systems are concerned.  It does not allow an active environment that could be furnishing extra energy.  You have to go to quantum theory to even explain the common solar cell, which produces COP = infinity even though its efficiency may be only 17%, in which case it wastes 83% of all the energy the environment freely inputs to it.

All that split between the various disciplines changes when one utilizes a higher group symmetry electrodynamics.  Unfortunately, most of the scientific community continues to insist on using a hoary old classical EM that destroys the very supersystem needed for COP>1.0 and self-powering. That way, the gas meter stays on the gas pump and the power meter stays on the house. And we continue to be dependent on foreign oil, and there's an escalating energy crisis, and the biospheric destruction continues.  But certain very powerful folks continue to rake in enormous profits annually, worldwide.

The eerie thing is that the same tired old Maxwell-Heaviside theory implicitly assumes that every EM field and EM potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe, is and has been freely created from nothing at all by the associated source charge(s)!  In all human history, there have never been so great a number of profound though unwitting advocates of forbidden perpetual working machines, as the conventional scientific establishment in continuing to maintain and teach a model with such an astounding assumption.  To borrow a phrase from Tesla, it's an inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind.

Best wishes,



In writing in some haste earlier on my way out the door, I hope it came through that Mr. Bugh's insight is remarkable, because it is insight into some very advanced physics not usually drawn together.  It is also in areas that are still recognized as some of the toughest problems in physics.  So Bugh's work shows him to be an electrical engineer with remarkable native intuition and insight --- far more than one will see in the usual electrical engineer.  I'm sure you're aware that most EEs simply never bother to even consider such things or to question them.  There are two ways of thinking: (1) IN the model, and (2) OUTSIDE the model, where the "model" is the proverbial "box" everyone uses in the buzz words, "thinking outside the box".  Too many of our engineers and scientists simply accept the model (box) taught to them as being perfect, and then never question things deeply again. In Bugh's case, he is not in that category (1), but is definitely in category (2).

E.g., NOBODY knows what really creates the arrow of time.  Like many others, I have proposed a tentative approach, but that does not mean it's proven or even that it is necessarily correct.  So Bugh's insight has to be very keen, to lead him directly into these forefront areas.  And he is quite correct that ANY progress in these areas is very important indeed.

I've been working, e.g., on the arrow of time for some years, and it's a very strange bear. Seems to involve several things that got "left out" or "dropped along the wayside" accidentally.  I put together a little of that in the Energy from the Vacuum book, but much still needs doing.

Even the spins are still an area with controversy.  When you come right down to it, the nature of spin is still somewhat of a mystery.  Most physicists just apply the equations, and let the concept of spin take care of itself. But to try to put into words what it really is, is very difficult and probably doesn't even come out correct.  Spin is also remarkable because, if we try to view it as real "spin" and just ordinary angular momentum like a physical rotation in 3-space, the charge "spins" 720 degrees --- not 360! --- before returning to where it started!  So right away spin is telling one that one's native 3-dimensional reasoning cannot get at 720 degrees of rotation between beginning state and return to it.  You spin all you can in 3-dimensions, and then you continue the spin "outside" three dimensions by the same amount, and there you are back to the beginning in 3-space again!  So it is not just 3-spatial rotation, but maybe something like "4-spatial" rotation????? Something like spinning 360 degrees while also "turning upside down", and then spinning another 360 degrees while one "turns upside down again, to wind up back where one started."  No one really has a good handle on it, except just with equations.

I was struck that he BEGAN with considering the nature of time, probably quite a few years ago.  That's one of the toughest problems of all.  The very essence of thermodynamics, e.g., is up for grabs if one can manipulate or affect that arrow of time.  "Fluctuations", e.g., are a mental crutch to cover the situation where the arrow of time momentarily "fluctuates" or reverses, and instead of producing positive entropy we momentarily have negative entropy produced.  So then we are faced with, "Why did it "fluctuate" at all, if entropy is a law of nature????"  Some law!  It's true except when it isn't, or decides not to be true for a bit.  And so on.  With the work last year by D. J. Evans et al., it isn't true in some little volumes in liquids for up to 2 seconds in duration and up to a cubic micron in size.  In water, e.g., a cubic micron has some 30 billion water molecules in it.  So a cubic micron of fluid with 30 billion ions and molecules, where the reaction(s) are momentarily (for up to two seconds!) running backwards is NOT a trivial or small effect!  It has tremendous implications for chemistry, e.g., as pointed out by Evans.

Also, to go into spins and spin flipping on his own, shows a native intuition and an instinct that hones in where the action really is.

These are areas that are forefront, and in which some real breakthroughs are occurring and many more should occur in the future.

Just wanted to get that in, to let you know how I viewed the paper and the keen insight of the author. Please encourage Mr. Bugh to continue thinking! Really innovative thinking is a product in remarkably short supply these days!


One last comment: Actually, the setup to evoke the spin flips and exchange forces where and when in the rotation cycle one wishes, and in the direction one wishes, is a strange sort of legitimate "Maxwell's Demon".  Such demons can in fact be made, and that has now been proven experimentally.

E.g., if one places a symmetrical loop of very tiny nanowire conductor into Brownian motion of ions (charges), one gets spurious voltages and currents in the loop that average out to zero.  No power there to be had.  But if one "flattens" one side of the loop a little bit, voila!  The symmetrical side acquires a DC voltage and current, and it "powers" the asymmetric flattened side as an electrical load.  So it TAKES controlled energy (consumes positive entropy to make negative entropy) from the seething random Brownian motion, then changes its form to perform work --- some 10-8 watts --- in the "load" --- with the change in form of the energy being a dissipation (positive entropy) back into the seething Browning motion "sea".  Russian scientists have quite a few papers and experiments now, proving that one conclusively.

See, e.g., Alexey Nikulov, "Quantum Power Source."  It contains the detailed explanation, etc. and also additional references in the published literature. This is really good scientific work.  It appears that some 108 of these could be placed on a surface about 1 cm square, to provide one watt of power for free.  By multilayering the squares, one could build up a little power supply of, say, 100 watts.  It could sit there and power a 100 watt load continuously, with no problem.  The work was supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences, and is part of their program on "Low Dimensional Quantum Structures".