The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:30:32 -0500

Dear Levi,


Regrettably I'm at a disadvantage in that respect!  I have a nondisclosure agreement with Howard Johnson, and I cannot release any specifics on his magnets, how he cuts and assembles them, etc.  Those are part of his proprietary information, and I never mention those things.


With his personal permission, however, we have released the fact that he uses highly nonlinear assemblies which, when facing an incoming magnet that would normally be repelled, are stimulated to evoke a sudden exchange force which is momentarily far stronger than the magnetic fields. This force is precisely evoked so that the incoming magnet is ATTRACTED on into the assembly (gate) area, against the much weaker repulsion of the like polarities.  Then as the exchange force dies out, the magnetic repulsion force comes to the fore again and dominates, with the result that as the rotor magnet is leaving the gate the rotor magnet now is repelled on out of it.


So the Johnson gate and rotor arrangement is capable of producing two forces that aid each other's propulsion of the rotor (say, clockwise).  In the entry portion of that clockwise rotation, the Johnson exchange force evoked automatically in his magnet assemblies overpowers the repulsion of the like polarities, strongly drawing the rotor magnet into the gate magnet assembly while the magnetic poles are more weakly repelling.  As the rotor passes in the middle of the gate, the exchange force disappears and the repulsion force of like polarities takes over as the dominant force.  This further accelerates the rotor in the same direction it was just accelerated in, by the exchange force.   A series of such gates self-evoking their exchange force components at precisely the correct positions and times, gives a permanent magnet motor with a unilateral, constant direction net propulsion thrust, and a continual series of torques on the rotor, all in the same rotational direction.


So Johnson technically uses a nonconservative self-evoking exchange force from the magnetic materials themselves,  to cause an "attraction force between like poles" situation (he demonstrates this part of it easily, to every visiting Ph.D.).  That novel exchange force subsides at the properly adjusted time so that the rotor magnet that was just accelerated into the magnetic gate in a seemingly impossible "like pole seemingly attracting a like pole" sense, is then further accelerated on out of the gate on the other side, in the same rotational direction.


You can dig into all parts of that and justify each and every part in the hard physics and materials science literature.  Simply search on "exchange force", "magnetic spin flipping", "spintronics", "conservative force", "nonconservative force", etc.


Every aspect of the above explanation, needed to develop your own version, is directly obtainable from the literature with a little hard effort.


What I cannot and will not do, under instructions and my agreement with Howard, is to just give away all his "fine-tuned" work for free. He is after all an inventor, with certain intellectual property rights, and he has worked very long and hard for what he has so painfully discovered.   The final "exact" little methods he finds and uses to "hone" and "tune" the operation of his gate assemblies to a fine point, is what must remain proprietary to Howard.


But if you're really interested, then the above gives all the basic information needed to work in the area.


Be prepared, however, to have to precision machine the magnet assemblies.  Simply cutting with a diamond saw does not achieve sufficient accuracy, and with that rough method you will not be able to tune or adjust to the required degree for certain operation.  If the physical aspects and dimensions are not controlled tightly and are allowed to vary, the resulting spin forces get all out of whack and direction, and one assembly will not duplicate another, because of such inaccuracies.


Please note that just the simple attraction and repulsion of magnetic poles will not, repeat will not, yield a self-powering permanent motor of the Johnson type.  The reason is that the common magnetic fields B and H are conservative, and the line integration of these forces around a closed circle yields a big fat net zero effective drive force.  On the other hand, if an additional nonconservative force is also self-initiated by the assembly materials, at the proper times and places and directions, then the closed line integration will not yield a net zero, but will yield a net force vector that is a drive or "torque" vector.


Contrary to conventional wisdom, the laws of thermodynamics and physics and electrodynamics do permit self-powering permanent magnet motors under the proper conditions.  They do not permit such motors if only conservative forces are used!  They do permit such motors if some nonconservative forces are also self-evoked and freely added by the materials themselves.


Also, recall my published solution to the source charge problem, where every classical observable charge (as is well-known in quantum field theory, but not in classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory and electrical engineering), actually consists of an infinite bare charge in the middle, surrounded by an outside infinite charge of virtual charges of opposite sign.  Let us call that the "charge ensemble", and we specifically point out that it is also a dipole of two opposite and infinite charges!  Simply check Nobelist Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.  In particle physics and quantum field theory, an "isolated" charge is well-known to be surrounded by a clustering of virtual charges of opposite sign.  Each "bare" charge without considering the other is recognized to be infinite, but the difference between the two infinite charges is finite and it is the normal finite value of the "classical charge" listed in conventional handbooks.)


If you are really serious about self-powering permanent magnet motors, you must get outside the conventional electrical engineering, because that flawed model does not even model or permit such systems.  There are much better systems of electrodynamics already developed, and they do permit and model such systems.


By magnetic pole one actually refers to "magnetic charge".


Now realize that the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as that charge ensemble comprising any classical "isolated" charge  --- was proven and accepted in 1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for strongly predicting broken symmetry.


Broken symmetry of opposite charges means that the charge ensemble (that dipolarity of opposite charges) continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum -- actually changing the mass of that charge a bit, by (delta m) = E/(c^2).  The mass of course is additively integrated as just more mass as more virtual energy is absorbed, so the absorbed energy is coherently integrated in its mass-energy condition.  When the amount of integration of  that (delta m) mass-energy is energetically sufficient for an observable photon's energy, then this excited mass (m + delta m) of the charge decays back to the normal mass m, emitting the integrated mass (delta m) as a real, honest-to-goodness observable photon.  The continuous absorption of virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum, and that energy being continuously re-emitted in observable photon form, is what causes the source charge to pour forth real, observable EM energy in all directions at light speed, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing its associated fields and magnets.


We are pointing out that (1) the dipolar magnet (any magnet!) is actually an infinite source of energy, except the energy is input in normally unusable form (as virtual photons).  However, the dipolarity of the magnet means that the asymmetry of opposite charges is operating, and that transposes that virtual photon input energy into real, observable EM photon energy, and continuously pours it out from the source charge in all directions, thereby establishing the associated magnetic fields and potentials and the energy in them.


So one must understand that a "permanent magnet" is actually a permanent broken symmetry in the fierce flux of the vacuum, and it thus continuously extracts and outpours real, observable magnetic energy, from the very definition of broken symmetry.


We point this out because rigorously this process reveals that the permanent magnet is actually an active dynamics system, or what is called in thermodynamics a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) dissipative system.  As such, the known thermodynamics of such systems far from equilibrium with their active environment does permit and allow any of five "magic" functions.  Specifically, such a NESS system can (1) self-order (produce energy seeming from nowhere), (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess energy is freely received and transduced from the active environment), (4) exhibit self-powering (all the energy is freely received and transduced from the active environment), and (5) exhibit negative entropy.  Simply things out on dissipative systems in the recent book, Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, 1998 (published with corrections in 1999).


Further, the second law of thermodynamics has known violations, one being sharp gradients (Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid., p. 459.  The exchange force is just such a sharp gradient, and it does violate the received form of the second law of thermodynamics (which has many other violations as well, as recently shown).  About such sharp gradients, Kondepudi and Prigogine state dryly that "Not much is known either experimentally or theoretically".


Our proposed solution to the source charge problem also demonstrates a total violation of the second law, to any macroscopic level and time interval desired.  See also Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 200.  Leyton's revolutionary work in extending the old Klein geometry (1872) and using more advanced group theoretic methods, has also established the hierarchy of symmetries.  In the old Klein geometry and group theoretic methods, a broken symmetry reduces the symmetry.  In the new and more rigorous approach, a broken symmetry at one level automatically produces a symmetry at the next higher level, which is a negative entropy reaction.  This next higher level symmetry also has a layer that contains all the information of the lower level symmetries and asymmetries.  In short, Leyton has revealed a self-organizing universe, rigorously demonstrated by advanced group theoretic methods.


Note that energy is fully conserved in a negative entropy reaction!  Positive entropy just refers to formerly ordered and available energy that has become disordered and/or unavailable.  Negative entropy just refers to formerly disordered and unavailable energy that has become ordered and available.  Self-ordering of nonequilibrium systems is very rigorously established today, particularly by Prigogine and others.  So the achievement of negative entropy does not violate conservation of energy.  What it does do is require some reordering to occur.  In short, Leyton's generation of a new symmetry (ordering) at the next higher level from a broken symmetry at the lower disordered level, is a perfectly valid negative entropy operation.  Further, it represents the consumption of positive entropy (the consumption of disordered and unavailable energy) at the lower level to form negative entropy (the appearance of ordered and available energy) at the next higher level.


In the source charge, the absorption of the totally disordered virtual photons by the charge, and their conversion to increasing and coherently integrated mass-energy, is a perfectly valid and universal negative energy operation, totally violating the present seriously flawed form of the second law of thermodynamics.  I have proposed a restatement of the corrected second law, to accord with modern second-law violating experiments, Leyton's work, and the source charge solution, as follows:


"First a Leyton negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order.  Then that initial controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions, unless additional Leyton negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."


This together with Leyton's work also solves the greatest and most vexing problem in thermodynamics: its asymmetry.  In short, if the present hoary old second law were universally correct, then starting with some ordered energy, its entropy (unavailability) could only remain the same or increase with time as additional interactions occurred.  However, if that were true, then there is a major problem: How then was the entropy ever so low in the first place?


As can be seen, there is an overwhelming need for reordering for our observations of the universe even to make sense!


But yes, the correct thermodynamics does allow a self-powering permanent motor, exhibiting coefficient of performance (COP) of COP = infinity.  All that COP = infinity means is that the machine has an output but does not require an OPERATOR input.  It jolly well gets its necessary input directly from its external environment, in this case the active vacuum.


Now note what the "skeptics" believe and advocate, much to their dismay when confronted with it.  In standard EE and classical Maxwell-Heaviside models, the fields and potentials and their energy are indeed assumed to be generated by their associated source charges.  However, those archaic models erroneously assume a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum, two assumptions falsified in physics more than 80 years ago.  Thus they assume that the fields and potentials and their energy are freely created right out of nothing at all, by those source charges!


The skeptics unwittingly assume that the permanent magnet dipolarity of opposite magnetic charges (poles) freely creates and establishes its external fields and potentials right out of nothing at all, without any energy input at all.


In short, the conventional EE model and classical Maxwell-Heaviside model are in total violation of the conservation of energy law, for every charge and dipole in the universe, because they implicitly assume that every charge and dipole freely creates energy from nothing.


For our purpose, it just suffices that there is a solid (and actually already known) physics theory and a thermodynamics theory fitted to countless experiments, that does indeed permit a self-powering permanent magnet motor, if an additional nonconservative force (such as the very convenient and well-known reaction force) is periodically evoked to provide unilateral free thrust.


The conservation of energy law is NOT violated by a self-powering magnetic motor under load, once one considers the true and continuous energy input from the local active vacuum and consequent local curvature of spacetime, and once one considers the self-evoked exchanged forces which are produced in a deliberately nonconservative manner.


Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Hi, I have been reading your info on the HJ Magnet Motor. I have been researching this for a while and I am looking to build my own. I noticed that in an article I read, there was reference made to a CAD model that had all the specifications for the magnets for the motor. Since I have been looking, I have not been able to find any specific specs for them. Is there a way that I could get the specs I need from you? I have been in contact with magnet suppliers but I do not have the exacting details that they want. Rather then try and build the wheel from scratch, I thought I would ask someone who has already built one.

I am looking to go back to school for Electrical Engineering soon, and this kind of motor and device is what I would like to primarily study. I would really appreciate and info you could give me.

Thanks for your time,