The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:15:12 -0600

Dear ******

For all such matters relating to the MEG, I have to pass you to Dr. Lee Kenny, who is the CEO of Magnetics Energy Ltd., to which the MEG rights are assigned.  He is responsible for all coordinating matters on the MEG, all information released or withheld, all legal agreements, etc. Note that we are still in a patenting process, since we still have additional patents to file on various aspects of the MEG, and so protection of our intellectual property rights is still a rigorous requirement.

As I have pointed out in my technical papers, the nanocrystalline core material must exhibit the function of localizing the B-field and magnetic field flux to within the core material itself, much as a perfect toroid coil does.  In that way, just as in the toroid, nature freely provides an additional energy reservoir, in the form of a curl-free (field-free) magnetic vector potential A, in the external space outside the core.  So instead of having the usual SINGLE energy reservoir  --- the B-field and flux --- from which to intercept and extract or collect energy, this gives TWO available energy reservoirs --- the normal B-field and flux energy reservoir, localized inside the core, and the EXTRA second reservoir, the free A-potential energy in space outside the core material.

So nature has freely provided an entire extra energy reservoir for the MEG, not just the usual reservoir in a standard transformer.  Further, since we use a permanent magnet across the core to provide the B-field and its flux "for free", then we do not have to furnish current and voltage to get that done.  So we start with both the standard energy reservoir and the extra A-potential energy reservoir both provided for free, all by nature and the active environment (the proven asymmetry of the vacuum flux exchange with any and every dipole and dipolarity).

So when we perturb the core flux to perturb the B-field flux in it, we also freely and simultaneously perturb the extra A-potential energy flow outside, producing very large external E-fields per the simple equation dA/dt = - E. Obviously the external E-field energy can be intercepted, as can the perturbed core B-flux energy.

Note that from any given value of an E-field, the amount of electromotive force one intercepts and collects from it depends upon the amount of intercepting charge q, by the simple formula F = Eq.  From any value of E, one can collect as much EMF as desired, if one has made available the necessary amount of intercepting/collecting charges q.  Collection from the B-field and flux is by normal transformer means.

So the total amount of energy COLLECTED from these two reservoirs depends on one's cleverness in creating the perturbations, and one's cleverness in providing sufficient intercepting and collecting q in the circuitry to do the necessary desired interception and collection of extra energy.

We also point out the well-known gauge freedom axiom in quantum field theory.  As is well-known but never stressed overtly in EE, the potential energy of any EM system can in theory be freely changed at will, since the potential can be freely changed (that is simple regauging, which may be either symmetrical as conventionally done, or asymmetrical as by just potentializing a circuit. In the real world, one must pay for a little switching energy, of course, but that can be made very small.

Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the fact that, if I am permitted by standard QFT to freely change the potential energy of a COLLECTOR EM system, then if I will just dump that COLLECTED FREE potential energy into an external load, dissipating it there, I can power the load for free also, except for the necessary switching energy.

The fact that this is NOT done in conventional engineering must therefore be a function of how one conventionally engineers EM circuits!  The closed current loop circuit, so ubiquitously used, enforces SYMMETRICAL regauging and physically creates equal back emf (or mmf in a magnetic circuit).  There is no law of nature requiring a closed current loop circuit!  Forcing an equal back emf (dissipating of half the collected energy in the external circuit, to kill the dipolarity of the power source and therefore its flow of energy from the local vacuum, is NOT a requirement of nature or physics, unless we wish to discard what quantum field theory, gauge field theory, etc. and most of physics already tells us.

Further, NONE of the energy collected in the external circuit connected to a generator's terminals comes from any transduction of the input mechanical shaft energy, in flat contradiction to every EE textbook on the planet.  By definition (even in the archaic old EE model), all EM fields and potentials and their energy come from their associated source charges.  And there is where it really gets interesting, and electrical engineering and Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics procrastinates all over the map.

In EE and Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics, the mathematical model itself implicitly assumes that the source charge has absolutely no EM energy input at all.  (Instrumentally, we can show and prove it has no OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input).  Instead, the charge is implicitly assumed to just freely create all its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, from nothing at all.

EEs and Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamicists therefore assume 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 their associated source charges!!!

So the greatest "perpetual motion working machines with on energy input" advocates are --- guess who!   The conventional electrical engineering departments, professors, texts, and engineers.  To borrow a phrase from Tesla, it is "one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind ever recorded in history."

As we have stated, there is not now and there never has been a single EE department, professor, or text that even knows and teaches what actually powers an EM circuit or EM device.  We have never built any circuit or EM system powered by anything except the active local vacuum, via the asymmetry of the source charges when considered (as in the QFT view) with their associated polarization of the local vacuum, providing dipolarity and thus the broken symmetry of opposite charges.

The first law of thermodynamics as stated in the textbooks also contains an error which requires a small correction.  In thermodynamics it is assumed that any change of external parameter (which, for an EM system, includes the field and the potential) is work, a priori.  That is false.  Work in thermodynamics is misdefined as the change of MAGNITUDE of the potential, e.g.   Work is rigorously defined as the change of form of energy, NOT the change of magnitude per se.  Quite simply, if one inputs the energy in different form, so its form has to be changed to that of the external parameter, then changing the magnitude of the external parameter in that case results in work being done.  But if the input energy is input in the SAME FORM as the external parameter, then no work is done in changing the magnitude of the parameter, since that is purely regauging and covered by gauge freedom (no work required).

So thermodynamics as presently written implicitly excludes the gauge freedom principle, which would exclude much of physics (such as gauge field theory).

The second law of thermodynamics is an oxymoron implicitly assuming that its own contradiction has first occurred, to provide the highly reduced entropy to begin with.  For a very long time now, thermodynamics has had a very agonizing problem: if the second law were valid, and entropy always increases, then how did the entropy ever get so low initially, to begin with???

What they do not know is the beautiful work of Michael Leyton, whose breathtaking new hierarchies of symmetry work is going to make a great new revolution in physics, continuing the giant revolution that began in 1957 with the proof of broken symmetry and the immediate award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for having predicted it strongly in 1956-57.

Oddly, in the ensuing 46 years (nearly half a century), the implications of that that revolutionary work has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

That such erroneous things have been promulgated and taught now for decades and decades, simply boggles the mind.

Anyway, I will pass your request on to Dr. Kenny, and you should directly contact him on any wishes or needs you have.  Only Dr. Kenny as CEO is authorized to make commitments on the MEG, do nondisclosures and noncircumvention agreements, release certain data and information, etc.

Also, please be patient.  Just now is a bad time for Magnetics Energy Ltd., since we are in some very meticulous and detailed negotiations with several potential funding partners, and understandably those have to take priority.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden, Ph.D.