The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:12:06 -0500

Dear Eric,


Absolutely correct.  For the MEG (or for any other overunity power system; there are several other legitimate candidates struggling with the development funding problem also), one does not foresee any sudden and drastic upset of the regular power grid!  Why should there be?  The market is so vast, and it will take so long to even dent it, that we will still be using much of that power grid 20 years after the overunity systems come on the market.  First task is probably emergency use, where things like powerline failure in storms (or war) are addressed.  Once robust and dependable units capable of powering individual homes are developed, then one will see a gradual interweaving and incorporating of such into the power companies and power systems themselves.


After all, who better knows the electrical needs of the cities, the communities, and the states and areas than the power companies?   They have learned it over a great number of years and with great effort. One doesn't just "tinker" and knock that all down.  Further, there's a great deal of difference between a power source and a power distribution system for a large area or a large city.  Decentralization does not and will not progress "all at once".  It will be a very gradual thing, and the eventual power systems will be mixtures of hopefully the best that has been so painfully learned over the years.


At least some of the power companies are turned so that they would be willing to accommodate such developments today, were they already finished to the "robust power source" level.  The power company cannot gamble on something not yet proven in actual long term usage and experience!  They would be breaking their trust to the American people if they did.  So they will move cautiously and determinedly, once things are shown over time and verified solidly.


The real problem is in getting the funding to get to that "robust demonstrator and proven performance period under actual working loads and minor grids" that is the problem.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the scientific community so bitterly opposes it.  You have the example of scientists stating flatly (and erroneously) that COP>1.0 means dirty old perpetual motion and that it is totally impossible.  That's sad, since a common solar cell has a COP = infinity, even though its overall efficiency may be only 17% and it wastes 83% of the solar energy input to it.  It's also sad that "perpetual motion" has become a catch phrase generating a knee-jerk reaction without thought.  Actually, Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion state.  Once an object is placed in a state of motion it will remain perpetually in that state of motion until and unless an external force intervenes to change it into another motion state.  And then it will stay in that second state perpetually until another external force intervenes, and so on.


So one certainly hopes that perpetual motion is alive and well, and that Newton's first law is okay and still working!  Otherwise, all would be violent fluctuation and the organized macroscopic world we live in and observe could not even exist.


Further, that has nothing at all to do with proposing a machine that continuously performs work without any input.  Such a proposal is ridiculous on simple logical grounds.  Work is rigorously defined as the change of form of energy (NOT the change of magnitude of the energy in an external parameter, as presently used in classical thermodynamics).  So to change the form of some energy in a process, the energy has to be input to it in the first place, so there is some available energy to change the form of!  It's as simple as that, and it has nothing to do with perpetual motion.  Perpetual just means "continuously without cessation".  And that is exactly what an object moving in space does, until something intervenes.  An object in a state of constant motion also does not require any input of energy to remain in that state of motion, and it does not do any work either.  As we showed elsewhere, the pundits from a hundred years back to the present day make a grave logical non sequitur in equating perpetual motion (Newton's first law) with the forbidden notion that a machine can continuously work without any energy input available to it.


Anyway, caught up in such dogma, the scientific community does use its knee-jerk reaction and objects to any notion of producing practical COP>1.0 EM systems that extract their energy from the vacuum.  This of course flies in the face of decades of particle physics, where the asymmetry of opposite charges proves to us that every dipolar circuit or system already continuously extracts and transduces usable EM energy from the vacuum.


But since the organized scientific community opposes all mention of development of vacuum-energy-powered EM generators, that torpedoes all the normal funding channels. It also subjects the persistent researcher to ad hominem attacks, etc.


Nonetheless, some progress is slowly being made, by several groups in addition to our own.  Further, at least we now have sufficient good science behind what we are doing, that the young grad students and post doctoral scientists are beginning to understand the area.  Once enough of those young tigers get unleashed, then in two years flat there will never again be an electrical energy problem on the planet, save to build the power units and get them to the areas where the power is needed.


Meanwhile, of course, there are also some very powerful interests that do not wish that done.  So we will just have to see how it all plays out.  In my view, the real hope is the young future scientists and engineers who get into the area.  With enough of them taking it up, it will be done in spite of all the opposition.


But as its done, it will be a slow "growth" or "transformation", not an explosive thing changing everything at once.  And the power companies and their expertise are going to continue to be needed, and they are going to continue to be the companies that arrange for or bring the power to where it is needed.


Best wishes,

Tom Bearden


Jim (May 20) seems concerned about whether or not the MEG can adequately address the extreme dynamics of daily electrical energy demand in a typical home or business. Jim seems to be asking if multiple MEGs can be networked into a "grid" in order to buffer peak demands and low demands across many varied users.

Jim needs to know that there are a number of cost-effective uninterruptable power supply (UPS) systems currently on the market that protect generators from widely varying loads. UPS systems provide peak power delivery capability of 3 or 4 times the rated peak output of the generator. They also protect (for a limited time) against generator outages. They can accept AC or DC input energy, too, and from multiple non-synchronized sources. Thus, synchronization of the MEGs is not absolutely essential. The efficiency of the UPS is an important factor in deciding which UPS to use. At best, one might hope for a UPS with a COP of 10:9. As such, synchronizing the MEGs would be nice in that it might do away with the need for a UPS for most users (but not all).

Jim also needs to know that extreme changes in power can be managed at the load side. Large users of electrical energy can now purchase systems that prevent high power peaks. These networked systems monitor and protect heavy electrical loads from internal faults, multiple coincidental start-ups, and source faults (such as phase imbalances and harmonic distortion). These systems also provide forward-looking load trends so that users can predict and prevent major load and/or source faults. Such power trend management systems (PTM) are too expensive and impractical for home use.

The systems described above may improve the marketability of the MEG, when it is ready. Keep in mind that many commercial electrical energy users will have UPS and PTM systems regardless of where and how they get their electrical energy.

Of course, it would also be swell if MEGs became an integral part of the existing electrical energy grids. Philosophically speaking, I cannot imagine why the power companies wouldn't buy excess electrical energy wherever they might find it in significant supply, especially during energy rush-hours. That's just one more reason to buy an MEG when they become available. Eventually, however, electrical energy transmission and distributions systems won't be worth the copper of which they are made.

Kindest regards,

- Eric