The Tom Bearden


Subject: RE: About switching costs and retroreflection
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:38:49 -0500

Dear Jurgen,

In a typical overunity electromagnetic system (there are more than just one kind!), the energy entering the output section does not come from the input part of the system at all.  Check your electrical circuit theory; all EM energy entering a circuit comes from the space outside each piece of the circuit, NOT in the j(phi) vector flow (which represents the flow of ENERGY DISSIPATION IN THE CIRCUIT, not energy entering it).  Check, E.g., J. D. Jackson, "Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three roles," American Journal of Physics, 64(7), July 1996, p. 855-870.Am. J. Phys. 52(6), June 1984, p. 524.  Quoting: ".  It takes some effort to convince oneself (and one's students) that & in fact the energy flows in the space outside the wire."

 So in the output section of the overunity system (and even in an underunity system), the energy pours in from the surrounding space (actually, from the time-domain; see my Giant Negentropy paper.).  So in an overunity EM system, the increase of the external load need not cause any increase in the input power to the circuit.  In fact, many times it will lead to a DECREASE in the input power.  There is more to this answer, to be complete, that I cannot reveal at present, but will release it in my book to be published next year by World Scientific.  This still-proprietary area has to do with what happens when an overunity system is close-looped or when one attempts to close-loop it.

 The MEG is not a transformer, though it resembles one.  It is a pure transducer, and can only be properly understood that way.  It does not use iterative retroreflection as its mode of operation, so phase conjugation plays no part.  Again, it does a specific action to the surrounding energy field in space around the core material, and the energy appearing in the output coil enters the coil from the immediate space outside the coil, not from the core.  It is quite a different process than what is taught in classical EM circuit theory, but it does appear in physics.

 Best wishes in your research,

 Tom Bearden

Dear Tom,

First, I wish you a swift recovery. But don't overdo it, the world needs you too much.

Second I have a question, which you probably can and wish to give an answer to.
(I've read most of your stuff on the internet. spend my entire holyday
day and night doing so.
And I still am, sometimes rereading stuff. Searching for those little
gems hidden next to the general ideas you are trying to tell. And trying to search for inconsistencies. Since when I can't find one that means we would be on the right track. This all left me however stuck with a serious question about overunity systems in general that is not answered in your papers.)

Does placing a load in the loading circuit of an overunitysystem effect
the current needed in the switching circuit? If not, then why not? If
so, then how much?

Third I have a question you maybe won't answer but I'm trying anyway.
If I understood your papers correctly, then J. Naudin (on his website
examples) isn't using the retroreflection idea the same way you propose.
He switches his input coils differently, thus not creating the pumping
needed for the retroreflection (ping-pong) process at all. Right?

yours truly,