Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
19:05:35 0600
Dear Guy,
Everyone has different
skills. My skill is in concepts and principles, since I dig into
foundations  which are not many people's cup of tea. In foundations
work, however, one discovers we really do not understand what a great
number of things taken for granted really are. Such as force, energy,
mass, space, time, etc. Even exactly what is meant by "observation" is
still controversial.
First must come the
concepts and principles, tied to good physics but outside the classical
electrical engineering, because the classical electrical engineering
model does not even allow COP>1.0 systems.
Mathematics you can
hire on the street corner from any good university. The Math is indeed
necessary, but there are a great many persons who can do the necessary
mathematics. Most of these persons, however, have heretofore been
lacking the concepts and principles. Certainly they have been lacking
them in the COP>1.0 arena, for there has not been any legitimate COP>1.0
theory of EM systems previously advanced. Just try finding one.
My target is the sharp
young grad students and post docs who are interested in COP>1.0
systems. This target audience already has far better mathematical
skills than I do! One only has to cite "Lorentz symmetrical regauging"
and they already know what it is as well as the mathematics involved.
They may not be aware that Ludwig Lorenz did it in 1867, way before H.
A. Lorentz did it, but got all the credit for it. So I tell them that,
and also cite the beautiful paper by Jackson and Okun that gives the
pertinent history and explains what a bum deal Lorenz (without the t)
got. Then one only has to call to their attention to what Lorentz
regauging really does. Such as change the potential energy of the
system freely and twice, but in an arbitrary weird way so that all the
free and extra potential energy you can have for free, is "locked up"
and cannot be used to translate electrons as current to help power an
external load. Such as a change in the potential energy of the
Maxwellian system represented by the equations assumes a rotation of the
system out of the laboratory frame. Etc.
To understand my work,
one does have to read the literature, and it isn't easy. If it had been
easy and straightforward, it would not have taken 30 years to uncover
it.
Also, to ever have a
legitimate theory of COP>1.0 systems, one has to first have not only the
principles and concepts, but also the hard physics references for each
part. Since no one heretofore has been doing that at all, that is what
I'm doing.
As far as devices:
Simply charge a capacitor and lay it on a permanent magnet, so that the
Efield of the cap is at right angles to the permanent magnet. That
optimizes EXH. So that simple beast  even by standard Poynting
theory  sits there and pours out EM energy from the vacuum,
continuously and unceasingly  and freely. There is no problem at all
in extracting the energy to gush out in a steady continuous flow.
That's all there is to building a COP = infinity EM energy source,
totally violating the second law of thermodynamics because it steadily
produces negentropy, not entropy. (Not to worry, that has now been
proven by some excellent scientists, and we will be covering that on our
website).
The problem is, now
what do you do with that silly capacitor and magnet? You have a
certified, proven free flow of EM energy. The COP>1.0 EM system problem
starts right there.
And that's the point.
Right there, most fellows refuse to do any further thinking on their
own. They get a number 40 glaze across their eyes, and say, "Why,
that's too simple! That's nothing at all." And as long as they don't
get it at that point, they never will  and I have no further time to
discuss things with them. They are slated to do engineering or applied
research, not basic research.
There are no textbooks
or courses on how to go about catching that energy gushing from that
simple thing and using it to power a load. Well, you can do it.
Johnson has done it, but that information is proprietary since he is an
inventor. All I can say about it is that he controls the spinflipping,
and has been working with that long before the present spintronics came
along. If the spintronics fellows get their ducks in order, they will
be doing it also. Johnson has indeed built a selfrotating permanent
magnet motor, and I predict he will do so once again (the last one's
magnets were stolen in a breakin in his lab). The point is, one can
evoke the exchange force in that contraption by various methods (those
are indeed in various books, but widely scattered). The exchange force
is often momentarily several thousand times as strong as the Hfield
force of the magnet. Doesn't take a genius to see that, if you evoke
the exchange force repeatedly and in a controlled direction in an
allpermanent magnet motor arrangement, you can use the exchange force
to violate the line integral around the closed loop summing to zero. If
it sums to a finite number instead, then you have a totally permanent
magnet motor that can turn itself. If it puts out more energy than your
switching costs used to evoke that spin flipping and exchange force, the
system becomes a COP>1.0 system. If you power a generator with the
permanent magnet COP>1.0 motor, and use a part of the output to power
the switching and timing, now you have constructed a COP = infinity
(i.e., selfpowering) system.
That is the type
thought processes we are trying to "feed".
Kawai, e.g., did
develop first a COP>1.0 magnetic motor (described in his U.S. patent)
and then also a selfpowering magnetic motor version. Control of his
motor, his company, and his fate was seized right before my eyes and the
eyes of my colleagues, by the Japanese Yakuza, here in Huntsville,
Alabama in 1996. Otherwise, we would already have placed Kawai motors on
the world market, at Kawai's specific request.
Those who are
uninterested, or who wish all the work done for a complete textbook etc.
up front, are not my interest. First, no one is paying for this except
me  some $300K out of this working man's pocket over the last 30
years. I'm interested in getting the attention of those sharp young
grad students and post docs and interested engineers who are deeply
interested, who wish to get into the "field that is not yet a recognized
field" from a scientific basis, and are going to do a lot of personal
work on the matter. My purpose is to save them lots of looking and
searching. That's all.
So we release what we
can. We cannot release another inventor's exact information if we have
a nondisclosure agreement with him! And inventors do not make the
patent laws; they simply have to try to live with them.
Anyway, that's the
approach, and that's the rationale. To some folks the information is
highly useful. To others it is of no use whatsoever. That's
understandable and expected.
But one cannot be or
do all things for all people. So one simply chooses what one can do,
and does it.
And of course one
keeps a sense of humor. It is amazing how many folks can tell me how to
do it better  but have never done it themselves or even tried it. On
the other hand, there are lots of folks who also do find the information
both interesting and highly useful.
A real researcher in
this field has a database which he works continually. That's collected
and filed hard references, a written database of all of that on his
computer usually, and a growing set of filing cabinets. If he's an
experimenter, he also has equipment, instruments, parts, and various
experiments in process. Those are the persons I'm targeting primarily.
There are also now
some spectacular new developments in thermodynamics that I will be
covering on my website in the immediate future. The second law of
thermodynamics in its present form is as dead as a doornail with respect
to electrodynamics. We'll cite the exact references (including in
Physical Review Letters) and what they mean. Every charge in the
universe violates the present second law, as does every EM field,
potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe. Stay tuned for
the flash. We'll also provide a rigorous restatement of the second
law, that IS consistent with experiment, IS consistent with the gauge
freedom axiom, DOES provide for negentropy, and DOES allow overunity EM
systems. And we'll cite the rigorous physics papers proving the various
aspects of all that.
So it's an exciting
time. The scientific community is at last beginning to arouse a bit
from its long slumber with respect to COP>1.0 systems.
After all, a common
solar cell has a COP = infinity, even though its nominal efficiency may
be only 17%. So the long objection that COP>1.0 EM systems are
perpetual motion machines has always been ludicrous. Nonetheless, such
a charge is still regularly levied at overunity researchers.
Ironically, the real
perpetual motion advocates are the electrical engineering departments,
professors, texts, etc. The standard CEM model used in electrical
engineering implicitly assumes that the source charge freely creates
energy out of nothing, continuously, and pours it out continuously at
light speed in all directions, thereby forming its associated fields and
potentials reaching across the universe at light speed.
Did any of your
professors ever brief you on this longvexing "source charge problem"?
Or encourage you to look for a solution? Or encourage their graduate
students to tackle the problem for a doctoral thesis? Almost certainly
not, since most professors themselves no longer are aware of the
problem, and are adamantly committed to the proposition  falsified by
every source charge in the universe  that COP>1.0 EM systems are
impossible and thus represent "perpetual motion machines". But in
electrical engineering all EM fields and potentials and their energy are
implicitly assumed to be created by their source charges, without any
observable EM energy input to the source charge. It is experimentally
established that there is no observable EM energy input to the source
charge, involved in the process of generating the associated fields and
potentials.
How then does one save
the conservation of energy law itself (the FIRST law of
thermodynamics?)?
There is no solution
to that problem in all of electrical engineering, but the solution (the
broken symmetry of any dipolarity, such as a charge together with its
clustering virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum) has been in
physics since 1957, with a Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang that
year. So it's pretty simple. The EE model cannot even model the
solution to that source charge problem because it does not contain the
active vacuum, its interaction with charge, or a broken symmetry in that
interaction. Yet the solution has already been known for 45 years, but
is outside the range of the EE model itself. Therefore it is the EE
model that is deficient and it should be expanded dramatically.
My work is designed
for persons who will think deeply about that type of problem, and its
implications, and who are interested in trying to find a solution to it,
or recognizing the solution that is available in particle physics. The
work is not designed to produce kits or teach anyone how to build a
specific COP>1.0 EM system. That will come later, way down the line
when we finally have a developed cogent theory and a developed COP>1.0
technology. We have neither at the moment.
For kits and that sort
of thing, we just point out overunity experiments. They can replicate
the Bohrentype experiment at will (it's performed many times each year
by most nonlinear optics departments, under the guise of the "negative
resonance absorption of the medium". That's a euphemism for "excess
emission of the medium"). Bohren's type of experiment is done in the
infrared or UV and outputs 18 times as much energy as the experimenter
inputs, anywhere, anytime. In short, the medium emits more energy than
one inputs (by standard calculations). So how does one save the
conservation of energy law when faced with the proven Bohren
experiment? Again, the answer is there, but not in EE.
I do direct the
interested party to where he or she can indeed find a reproducible
COP>1.0 EM experiment. Then it's up to them what they do with the
information, or whether they wish to do the experiment for themselves.
Meanwhile, by making
available the concepts and principles that do allow COP>1.0, and
explaining exactly why, along with hard references on each part, the
young researcher can just start from where I am and not have to spend 30
hard years of his life getting there.
That is what I'm doing
or trying to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
