The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Subject: RE: Questions about HJ Motor, degree of precision required?
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:51:21 -0500

Dear Lee,

First, if you have not already done so and been experimenting with exchange forces, I highly recommend you go check out Feynman's three volumes of physics, and read about exchange forces.

Then check out a modern book on magnetic materials, and check the same subject in them, at some length.

You cannot get rotation of a permanent magnet motor by using simple polar attraction and repulsion only.  That produces what is called a "conservative" magnetic force.  When integrated around a closed loop, the NET force sums to zero.

Ergo, forget the polar attraction and repulsion (unless you wish to go much deeper into the subject, and then go check out multivalued potentials that arise naturally in magnetics theory.  Great pains are taken by the theorists to "zero sum out" those pesky multivalued potentials and get rid of them. They regard them as a nuisance -- when in fact that is the second way (other than exchange forces) to get permanent magnet motor rotation.

In passing, there is indeed one other very obscure way to do it, by an extraordinarily clever adaptation of polar forces, but that is a secret shared with me by John Bedini and so I do not write it.

Forget Science and Mechanics.  How many overunity engines did they ever publish how to build?  They simply wrote articles to sell magazines. Serious researchers will read the scientific and engineering literature. E.g., quoting one document chosen at random from a Google search: Exchange forces are very large, equivalent to a field on the order of 1000 Tesla, or approximately a 100 million times the strength of the earth's field.

"Exchange forces are very large, equivalent to a field on the order of 1000 Tesla, or approximately a 100 million times the strength of the earth's field. (He's talking about in the spin particles themselves, down at atomic level. The strength is much less at macroscopic distances, but still far stronger than the usual magnetic force there). The exchange force is a quantum mechanical phenomenon due to the relative orientation of the spins of two electrons."

Johnson was working with exchange forces many years ago, before the advent of the "new" subject of spintronics, which is related. So his work LOOKED simple to those who thought in polar force terms, but its FUNCTIONING was far from simple. Simply do a patent search and look for some of his other patents, such as silencing engines. He once actually placed a silencer on a diesel locomotive!

As with all inventors I work with, I signed a nondisclosure agreement with Howard.  So the EXACT way he cuts his magnets etc., to accent and strongly evoke the exchange force, I'm not at liberty to write. That is his proprietary information.

I can tell you this. It isn't easy, or else a thousand other fellows out there would already have done it. They didn't. But the main reason they didn't is that they persist in considering only the polar forces. And those are conservative.

Johnson for many years was cutting his magnets by hand (diamond saw) and that is insufficient accuracy to overcome the variation in the magnetic materials themselves. But he finally succeeded by sheer number of trials and buildups. And that device did self-rotate quite nicely, once all the tolerances got in line.

If you REALLY want to try to develop a permanent magnet rotary motor, the be prepared to do some very serious and lengthy experimentation with magnetic materials, their variations, and the exchange forces.  FIRST you must explore the spin and spin flipping phenomenology, not just whip up a little kit of polar force parts and zap it together.

What I had the permission to write, was the overall technical secret of what made the rotation (what gives an overall NET propulsion force in a rotary permanent magnetic motor that is not conservative and does NOT sum to zero around a closed path. And that secret is the precise evocation of the exchange forces -- which evolves exchange force phenomenology and materials phenomenology.

Once you learn to build an assembly that evokes the exchange force at the position and in the direction you wish, you can use that assembly and the evoked exchange forces to (1) overcome the back-mmf portions of the polar attractions and repulsions around the closed path, (2) add to the forward-mm portions, or (3) a combination of both.

However, you will have to make several of them, one for each place in the closed path you use.  So these are different materials. Precise measurement of exchange forces is also expensive; little simple field meters will not hack it.  Over the years, Johnson has spent several million dollars in his research effort.

Anyway, that's the TECHNICAL secret.  It is NOT the exact construction details.  From there on it's up to you.  And contrary to popular opinion amongst many researchers, it ISN'T easy, unfortunately!

So the question really becomes, how much experimental work have you done with EXCHANGE forces and magnetic materials phenomenology, as opposed to polar attraction and repulsion?

Anyway, I do wish you well in your experiments, and encourage you to get beyond polar forces. It's the EXTRA exchange forces and/or use of the multivalued potentials that will give self-rotation. Nothing else, that I know of, except for Bedini's extra and clever little trick.

I believe John is planning a patent eventually that will release that trick also, but am not certain.  That's his prerogative and decision.

If you just wish to see or do a real, bonafide COP1.0 experiment, then with some trouble (or with a nonlinear optics specialist who is a friend), just do the Bohren experiment in negative resonance absorption of the medium. That one is in the hard literature, it's full replicated, and it delivers 18 times as much EM radiation out of the material as you input to it by standard calculation. We explained why that one works in our book, Energy from the Vacuum.

And for the skeptics, just hit them with this one. In standard electrical engineering, it is accepted that all EM fields, EM potentials, and their energy come from their associated source charges. E.g., a magnetic dipole (often called a "magnet") must exhibit the asymmetry of opposite charges in the vacuum virtual photon flux. THAT means that virtual photons are absorbed from the seething vacuum by the magnet, coherently integrated to full observable photons, and real photons are emitted at light speed in all directions, forming and continuously replenishing the associated "static" magnetic field at light speed. THAT is not in electrical engineering, but that prediction of broken symmetry is why Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957. It's good physics.

So there is a steady outpouring of real observable EM energy from the vacuum, from every permanent magnet. Yet there is no OBSERVABLE energy input!

The electrical power engineering model accepts that the fields and potentials come from the source charges (in this case, from the opposite magnetic charges called "north and south poles").  But that model ASSUMES an inert vacuum (falsified for 70 or 80 years), and a flat spacetime (falsified since 1916). So it ASSUMES that the environment of that permanent magnet is inert (falsified for decades).  Hence it ASSUMES that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is freely created right out of nothing at all, by the associated source charges and dipoles.

So unwittingly, the greatest advocates of "creation of energy out of nothing" are our electrical power engineers, Maxwellian electrodynamicists, etc. Their model implicitly assumes the total violation of conservation of energy laws by every field, potential, and joule of EM energy.

One has to keep one's sense of humor!

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Many articles I have read from people who have tried to replicate The HJ motor say it's critical to get the exact magnet shapes, very precise spacing, ari gaps, etc.  This seems reasonable on the surface.  But it doesn't jibe with the original article published in Science and Mechanics magazine, Spring 1980.  Specifically, "... this amiable and unpretentious inventor likes to characterize himself as a 'Sticky tape' scientist. He sees no virtue in wasting time building fancy, elaborate equipment when more simple assemblies serve as well to test new ideas. The prototype devices shown in the photographs in this article were assembled with sticky tape and aluminum foil, the later material being used mainly to keep individual, permanent magnets packaged together so that they do not fly apart."  Also,  Jorma Hyypia (the reporter for Scence And Mechanics) wrote about a sample motor:  "...mounted on a transparent plastic sheet supported on a plywood panel pivoted, underneath, on a free turning wheel obtained from a skateboard. As instructed, I eased the 8-ounce focusing magnet into the ring of larger magnets, keeping it at least four inches away from the ring. The 40 pound magnet assembly immediately began to turn and accelerated to a very respectable rotating speed."  This doesn't sound like precision spacing and air gaps to me. Likewise, the photos in the article show definite "home-brew" apparatus, nothing polished and carefully measured.  Can you describe which details require the most precision, and/or present the greatest engineering challenges?