The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: Non Electric Permanent magnet motor
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:53:07 -0600

Dear Tom,
To seriously go after a totally permanent magnet motor, one must think and act in terms other than just that a magnet is a dipole (a separated north and south pole). The reason is that, if you integrate the polar forces around a closed loop (e.g., a rotation), the net force integrates to a zero vector. Ergo, that will never get you a permanent magnet motor.
Instead, one must also turn to magnetic materials theory. Magnetic materials are quite sophisticated structures have a very surprising and wide range of phenomenology. One of these (check out Feynman's three volumes of sophomore physics) is the exchange force.
By using assemblies of magnets put together in certain ways, in a machine with a rotor and a stator, one can arrange it so that, at a certain point in the rotary cycle, the exchange force is suddenly invoked (by spin flipping). In that case, there is a sudden impulsive force or "kick" that may be even a thousand times (momentarily) the strength of the magnetic polar forces. In a practical device, you can get a momentary kick that is a hundred or so times as strong, momentarily.
The trick is to have the magnet assemblies and the geometry arranged just so the sudden "kick" is in the correct place and in the correct direction you need. In that case, the integration of the forces around the closed loop does not integrate to a net zero, but to a net propulsive force. In that case, the rotor will turn and continue to turn, if the rotor is on precision bearings, drag is not too excessive, etc.
However, I warn you that the timing and direction of that evoked exchange force have to be very precise. You will find that you have to do precision measurements of the magnetic field patterns, and also of the evocation of that force. You will also have to have precisely machined structures, and even then may have to "creep in" on the machining and the actual final geometrical assembly of the magnets in order to get the force just right in timing and direction. If not equipped to do such precision and such painful, slow adjustment, it will almost certainly not succeed unless you are tremendously lucky.
Another effect that can be used with magnetic materials to get an overall "nonconservative force" integration is to take advantage of the phenomenon of multiple-valued potentials, which arises naturally in magnetic materials and magnetic phenomena, but which the usual magnetic engineering goes to great lengths to assume away with all sorts of artificial assumptions. In the case of a successful use of multivalued potentials, there is a point between rotor and stator magnets in the motion of the rotor, where there is an abrupt change of the forces between them. On the left it is weaker than it is on the right of that point, etc. Again, by shaping the magnets correctly (and usually with much pain and time), one can get sufficient multivalued potential so that the rotor will turn and continue to turn.
Now either of these two effects, if you get it just right, is sufficient to give you a net propulsive force on a rotor, turning in a closed circle before a stator.
Further, you don't have to take my word for it. Once you know these facts, you can research the two effects on your own. So first, you will need to go through a real "re-education" program, so that you no longer see magnets as just a "bar with a north pole on one end and a south pole on the other".
In magnetic materials, there are some 200 known effects, some extraordinarily unusual. Only about half of them are completely understood. The other 100 are understood anywhere from "pretty well" to "not to well" to "not well at all".
If you are serious about overunity research and self-turning or self-powering engines, you must enlarge your knowledge beyond the standard electrical engineering degree. In the classical EM model, the equations are already symmetrically regauged, and what that means is that the very equations you are using already exclude any overunity or self-powering.
So the first problem is not getting some magnets and having at the experiments, but is re-educating yourself so that there are additional asymmetrical regauging effects in your repertoire.
And by the way, it is not easy, nor is it simple.
There are other magnetic effects that can also be evoked, which probably be engineered to yield a permanent magnet self-turning motor. The newly emerging field of spintronics contains several things of interest eventually in that respect.
And by the way, such a machine does not violate thermodynamics, because any dipole is already proven in physics to be a broken symmetry in the exchange of the vacuum flux energy with the charges of the dipolarity. What that means in simple terms is that the dipole continuously receives energy from the active vacuum in virtual photon form, coherently integrates it into real, observable energy, and re-emits it as real energy. So every dipole in the universe is already a proven "converter" of vacuum energy into real EM energy that is observable and usable. The prediction of that asymmetry was strongly given by Lee and Yang in 1956 and 57, and Wu and her colleagues experimentally proved it in early 1957. So revolutionary a change in physics was this discovery of broken symmetry, that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the very same year, in Dec. 1957.
Sadly, in the nearly half century since then, the impact and implications of dipolar asymmetry has not migrated across the university campus from the particle physics group or department to the electrical engineering department. And so the electrical engineering departments have not changed their classical EM model, which a priori assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime (both assumptions having been falsified many decades ago in physics).
The thing we strongly stress to all who wish to experiment or start research in the overunity field, is that there are some very strong requirements to produce a system that has a COP>1.0.  Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the total useful energy or work output, divided by the operator's energy input only. The efficiency of a system is a different measure, and is defined as the total useful energy or work output, divided by the total energy input from all sources. By the conservation of energy law, the efficiency can never exceed 100%. However, if there is some extra environmental energy that is input, and that is used by the system, then the efficiency can be less than 100%, but the COP can be COP>1.0 or even COP = infinity.
A good example of a COP>1.0 system is the common home heat pump. It's overall efficiency in nominal conditions may be only 50%, but it still exhibits COP = 3.0 to 4.0.  That's because an extra energy input is provided from the local environment (the atmosphere). One pays a little to compress the air, and from it the pump extracts heat energy. So it can put out more heat energy than you, the operator, input via the electrical power line.
Note rigorously that (1) there must be an extra input of energy from the environment, in addition to the operator's input (the input from the power line, that one pays for), and (2) the extra energy input by the environment must make up for both the energy wasted in the system's inefficiencies and the extra energy that is also output.
Rigorously, such a system is a system far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from its environment. Such a system thermodynamically is permitted to exhibit COP>1.0, even though its efficiency is less than 100%.
To show a system that has a low efficiency but an infinite COP, consider the common solar cell. Its efficiency may be only 17% or so, so that it wastes 83% of all its input energy.  But the operator doesn't have to input anything at all. So the finite output energy from the solar cell divided by zero gives a COP = infinity. That's an EM system.  Of course, the windmill, the waterwheel, and the sailboat are other very ancient COP = infinity systems, though their efficiencies may be much lower than 100%.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:23 AM
Subject: Non Electric Permanent magnet motor

Hi Tom,
For many years I have been attempting to construct a very simple non electric permanent magnet motor. I am 63 years old. Tried out many ideas and made many models without success. I wont give up on the idea. Recently I came on a web page ( enclosed jpeg file attachment) with the non electric permanent magnet motor shown. --it really works!  The motor background involves H. Johnson, you,  J. Bedini, and  R. Cole.   Can you show me exactly what I will need and how to construct this simple permanent magnet motor for my own self satisfaction?  I don't plan to patent anything or go into producing them. I work on dirty polluting engines on a daily basis and it has been my life long dream to construct a motor model that will not pollute our environment.  Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks,
Tom F