The Tom Bearden
|Subject: Re: Re: Bearden
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:51:55 -0500
There are many ways to describe electrical and magnetic things, especially when one tries for a patent. There one is usually prohibited from any mention of overunity, can hardly mention any advanced electrodynamics, and is usually dealing with a patent examiner that may be a Bachelor's level electrical engineer, or at best M.S. I once had to copy and send technical papers to prove that such a thing as a nonlinear capacitor existed! Also, I had to copy and send papers to prove that phase conjugate optics existed! The Flynn descriptions seem couched in conventional terminology and concepts, but referring to nuclear action, which is what is what may be required to try to get a patent. Or it may be the level of understanding; the inventor often uses his own "picture" and "model" and lexicon of how he sees things. Yet sometimes he can make them work, whether or not his "model" is correct. E.g., the Moray device certainly worked and was quite substantial (50 kilowatts from a 55 pound device). But there was absolutely no sufficient theory for it, and there is not one today either, and I don't have one that explains it!
In our case we deliberately take a higher level prescription, and we are also trying to establish a legitimate overunity scientific basis, to move science and technology from its deadlock on the Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the 1880s.
So yes, lot's of folks experiment and build things with permanent magnets. A few do get overunity, but not many. The overunity comes from processes which VIOLATE the normal EM; no violation, no overunity.
And it isn't nuclear power. There are no known nuclear reactions in a permanent magnet that will give excess energy. There ARE some little-known electrodynamic reactions that will give excess energy.
What is usually done by most experimenters is to try to reduce the back mmf in the magnetic circuit. That will in fact increase the COP, but alone it will not give overunity unless some very special things are done in addition.
There are, however, other systems that are legitimately overunity, and some are magnetic systems. Johnson has a process using exchange force initiation and control, which is a legitimate overunity process, but very difficult to precisely evoke and control. Look up "exchange force" in the magnetics and physics literature. The problem is that the magnets themselves are not made with sufficient precision, and vary too much, so it's the devil and all to do it that way, without a major laboratory. But he has indeed done it on one occasion, and made a self-rotating permanent magnet demonstrator. The Kawai process will yield overunity if one starts with a high efficiency permanent magnet motor (0.7 or 0.8). The process essentially doubles the COP. The magnetic Wankel can be made overunity if one is very careful. It's tricky though, and it's a very expensive buildup and requires precision machining all the way.
Most folks in the "free energy field" wind up with a lexicon of their own, which is usually not tied back to rigorous physics. They also almost all use ordinary, garden-variety electrodynamics -- which model already excludes overunity. And a great number of folks in this "field which is not a field" already purport to know all about overunity systems and phenomenology -- and have never even seen an overunity circuit, much less worked with it on the bench and explored the phenomenology.
The overunity area has to be approached piece by piece, step by step. Putting it very simply, one has to in effect evoke and obtain a free "EM energy wind", so to speak, or free "energy current", which then can be tapped and energy freely extracted. In short, one has to build the EM equivalent of a windmill. So the first thing is to understand what a free "EM wind" is, and how to evoke one. There are known EM energy winds, but they are very subtle and -- let's put it mildly -- electrical engineers have not the foggiest notion what they are or where they are, much less how to evoke them and use them. They are in the scientific literature, however, if one knows where to look and how to recognize them. But they are not simple.
Anyway, we hope a great number of inventors and researchers do succeed in getting a successful overunity system, and getting it on the world market. It's quite simple: unless this energy crisis is blunted and blunted quickly, none of this will matter because about 2007 or so, the international conflicts will have escalated to where all the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed. That argues for the destruction of civilization itself, as the first phase of WW III -- delivery of the weapons onto the target site -- has already been completed. So I don't care who gets the first and best and most practical overunity system, and gets it out there on the world market. It will have to be done by the individual inventors and researchers, because the scientific community and power community are solidly locked into "business as usual, just more of it".
So I wish all of them well. Those systems have to be rolling off the assembly lines en masse by first quarter 2004, or none of this matters at all. Certainly by first quarter 2005, we will have passed the point of no return, and the destruction of civilization or much of it is then inevitable.