The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:30:03 -0500

  Dear Maxim,

Considering your situation and wishes, I believe the Kawai motor would be best, as it can be built just like the patent.

With optimized photo-coupled switching, it will produce a COP that is about twice the basic motor's efficiency (the motor you start with and modify).

So you should start with a high efficiency (70% or 80%) Hitachi permanent magnet motor, e.g., and then apply the Kawai process, gear toothing, etc. Then with really efficient switching, your COP should wind up at 1.4 or 1.6. Kawai actually did this for Hitachi, modifying two of the Hitachi motors for them, and Hitachi tested the resulting motors themselves -- for 1.4 and 1.6 respectively.

Like everything else, please expect to do some experimenting. It would be rare for anyone to just get everything together absolutely correctly on the first try.  The field IS NOT yet to that situation where it's just "cook-book" procedure. That's where we wish to eventually get to, but certainly we are not there yet.

I would also recommend working quietly. The Yakuza is indeed suppressing COP>1.0 systems now, and they did suppress the Kawai effort entirely.

They also play very hard-nosed football, as you might imagine. So just be very careful -- and quiet.

Best wishes and good luck,

Tom Bearden

Dear Tom Bearden,

It has been my intention to write to you for guidance for some time now, and I didn't do so earlier as I am aware of your personal circumstances and sure you have quite enough going on otherwise. I am however now compelled to write, as I seek your advice regarding an effective path of entry into carrying out useful COP>1 research. I also wish to express my humblest respects and gratitude for the abundance of wisdom you have shared with the community.

I am a relatively young Masters degree student of Industrial design in Finland, and aiming at getting engineering experience under my belt. While interesting and potentially useful in terms of production and manufacture of ideas, I am increasingly aware of the wide discrepancy between what is taught and what I aim to carry out. I am in full agreement with you regarding the slow-moving character of institutions and a conservative mentality. It is proving a slow process to discover who I can say what to without raising suspicious eyebrows, and it took me some time to decide whether to re-enter academia for these reasons.

COP>1 phenomena have interested me for most of the last decade, following my stumbling into the field during research on clean fuel technology at art college. I am also indebted to an account of Tesla I read as a child which left such a vivid impression, that it drew me back to this curious character many years later. Others carrying the flag of knocking down the strained laws of physics, such as Eric Laithewaite, have further added fuel to my fire.

My quandary is how to approach manifesting what is so far only theory and speculation, into something practical and useable. I do not expect quick results by any means, but feel I have a good grounding in and intuition for the subject. My engineering mathematics leaves much to be desired, though I intend to address this over the next few years due to its obvious necessity. My strongest abilities lie in visualizing and constructing, as I have spent much of my time teaching myself practical skills from wood- and metal-work to electronics and building computers. In fact it is in making prototypes that I feel I might be of most use.

'Energy from the Vacuum' has become an invaluable reference tool, and will take many years to fully fathom and digest due to the density of its nuggets, and my lack of scientific background. Though I read scientific literature and am aware of its methods and terms, I do not possess the intimate acquaintance with physics and electrodynamics which you highlight as being key to a full set of tools to approaching overunity. My arsenal is composed more of a close familiarity with the dynamics of growth and energy transformation in natural systems and associated media, and how these processes can be transferred to the electro-mechanical realm. For this reason I also read somewhat less 'scientific' material emanating from the likes of Schauberger, as despite his outlandish language he appears to present genuine insight. I understand why you might avoid reference to his work.

In light of what I feel to be discernable similarities within dynamics of very different devices and approaches, I wonder if you might make further comment on the subject of torsion fields in relation to a statement you made in an earlier correspondence; "I personally consider torsion fields and low-temperature gravitation effects as just such deliberate misdirections away from the real theoretical models of greatest importance." I am aware of the minefield of some of the pitfalls around the whole subject, especially as a young lone lay researcher.

The kawai magnetic motor appeals to me particularly as a model to follow as an initial entry into making a workable unit, as its operation makes sense to me. Any additional material you can suggest as relevant to this approach I warmly welcome. I am also keen to understand what you write regarding relaxation times of alloys necessary in constructing MEG devices, in particular how to measure these properly or at least know how to find materials that are likely to possess the necessary properties.

There are a million and one questions I would love to send you, but obviously I won't. I was intrigued to discover that you are an experienced Aikidoka, as the discipline proves a constant source of inspiration.

I wish you and your wife the all the best, Arigato Gozaimashita, kindest regards,