The Tom Bearden

Help support the research



Subject: RE: Could you dummy-down your theories for me?
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:13:20 -0600

Dear Paul,

 Unfortunately, the only "simple" way to explain an overunity EM system  is still a way that would not make enough sense to you to enable experimentation.  But it may help understand "what is going on" from a less-technical description.

 Basically you have to have a "free energy flow" (consider it an "electrical wind", to be real simple).  Then the system must intercept and "catch" some of that free-flowing energy wind, much like a windmill in the wind.  In that case, the system is free to take the energy it collects and dissipate it in a load, to power it -- much like a windmill can use the energy it captures from the free wind to rotate its blades and power a pump that is pumping water.

 Now at that point the simply analogies break down.  Suppose, e.g., that you had been taught only to build windmills which would take half the energy they do catch, to rotate those blades so they will catch no air.  The other half of the caught energy is used to power the losses and get some also to the load to power it.

 Now that would be an interesting windmill.  You could set it in the freely blowing wind, and the darn thing would immediately turn its own blades so it caught no wind energy and quit turning and pumping the load.  Then you would have to perform some strenuous work on those blades to angle them again to catch some more wind energy -- but the darn thing would still use more energy to turn those blades back to nonrotating condition, than it output to run the pump that was pumping the water.

 Well, you will have to input at least as much energy to re-rotate the blades into "energy-catching" mode, as was used to turn them back in the first place.  And that's more than the energy you got out in the load.  So you would always have to keep inputting more energy, to remake the "blade angle" position, than you can get out in the load.

 That's the way every electrical system out there is built, in terms as simple as possible.

 Obviously you've got to find a way to prevent the part of that crazily designed windmill's operation where it re-rotates the blades so they do not catch any wind energy.  If you can eliminate, e.g., half of that effect, then with an efficient windmill that doesn't lose too much energy in its losses, you can get more energy into that pump to pump water, than you yourself will have to input.  Understand, the wind is inputting the rest of the energy.

 So the "efficiency" of that machine may be, say, 60%.  That is, of the energy you input and the wind inputs, 40% is lost in the losses inside the machinery of the windmill itself.  But the other 60% of the total energy input gets out as direct pump power.  If you only have to input the 40% that was "lost", you get a coefficient of performance of 60/40 = 1.5 COP.  There is no violation of energy conservation, but the system did receive "extra" energy from the wind.

'That's about as simple as it can be explained.

 You cannot understand the MEG's operation unless you understand the Aharonov-Bohm effect.  In that effect, if you hold the magnetic field energy (B-field) from a magnetic source in a restricted local path, then in space around that path nature will produce some magnetic energy in very special form, a "magnetic vector potential" that is not swirling around but "blowing straight".  That is a pure EM energy flow, in a special form of magnetic energy.  By "pulsing" that crazy kind of magnetic vector potential flow, you make very large electrical fields.  Note that you do not furnish the energy in these fields, but nature furnishes that.  So you can "put in a little" but change it rapidly, and nature will "provide a lot" of that electrical field energy.  If you receive those electrical pulses in totally external circuits, you can "catch a lot of excess energy" that you did not have to put in.

 That's it in a nutshell.


Tom Bearden

Subject: Could you dummy-down your theories for me?
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:14:45 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400

Hi.  I just finished high school, and I've started college this last fall.
I've been keeping up on your work since the original discussion of your MEG on the Keelynet list.  I even rushed out and spent a couple hundred dollars on the exact core you used in the original MEG experiment (the AMCC-320 I believe).  That was a mistake, because I really never did understand what was going on, so I never built the darn thing.  :-)

My knowledge of electricity is obviously very limited.  I understand the
REALLY basic stuff about current, resistance, and voltage.  I also
understand how a voltage can be induced in a conductor by introducing a
changing magnetic field.  I'm pretty versed up to intermediate level
Calculus.  That's about the limit of my understanding.

When I first read about your MEG, I tried to visualize and explain things to
myself in terms that I could understand.  I thought that maybe the pulsing
current into the input coils induced a voltage in the output coils while
blocking the flow of flux from the permanent magnet.  Then when the input
coils switched off, the permanent magnet gave it's own "free" pulse across
the output coils.  At that time, one could pull as much current as they
wanted from the output coils...  Enough to continue the operation of the
system and power the load.

I'm sure that completely misses the point, but I wrote it to give you some
insight into how I was/am thinking based on the elementary knowledge I have.

I realize this request may be impossible, but could you attempt to explain
the BASICS of what's happening in terms that I might be able to understand?  The good thing is, I don't have any preconceived notions about how things "should be" like the average Ph.D. on the subject does.  But that's also bad, because your papers are very detailed and they assume knowledge that's just way over my head at this time.  I've tried to check your references and your references' references, but they are also over my head at certain points.

I just want a basic explanation with no formality.  Just enough to get the
fire going.  :-)  No vacuums and 4-D spaces.  I'm not interested in where
the energy's coming from.  I'm still trying to figure out how it's taped!

Thank you.

// pb

PS:  I still have that nano-crystalline core.  It's sitting on my desk right
in front of me.  It's still in its rust-blocking paper, in its box, and
sealed in a Ziplock bag.  Maybe I'll still be able to use it for some
experiment.  :-)