The Tom Bearden





Energy from the Vacuum

"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



A Possible Approach to a Permanent Magnet Self-Powering Motor


Ó Tom Bearden
1 July 2007




     The energy the operator inputs to a magnetic motor to run it is not what actually powers the motor itself. The motor’s permanent magnets all have symmetrical fields (left and right on the rotary cycle), and so the overall net driving magnetic work WM around the rotational loop is given by WM = ò F · ds = 0 where the integration is around the loop. So, even though the fields of the permanent magnets are actually steady and free EM energy flows extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum, their symmetrical production of forward mmf and back mmf contributes only equal and opposite driving forces. Hence the symmetrical fields of the permanent magnets prevent any “self-powering” – i.e., any powering of the unit by “energy from its active environment,” even though virtual free energy from the environment is continually being received, transformed into observable energy, and output as real magnetic field energy (real photon flows).

      The “paid-for” energy input by the operator is used to go to coils to produce specifically placed additional magnetic fields at specific rotational times, so that an overall or net “asymmetrical” magnetic field exists around the rotational loop. This new broken symmetry then provides sufficient asymmetrical energy flow from the vacuum to produce a net nonzero “driving magnetic field force” and thus WM
ò F · ds > 0. This in turn provides the excess work that powers the motor and its balanced load.

     Nature does not care whether the operator insists on paying for the achieved net asymmetry himself, or his magnets are made asymmetric so that their fundamental magnetic force field around the rotational loop is nonzero. In the latter case, the broken symmetry is freely achieved by the free asymmetry of the net force field, and so WM ò F · ds > 0 and the motor and its load become “self-powered” by the asymmetry freely induced in the interacting force fields provided by the magnets themselves.

     In nonequilibrium thermodynamics it is already well known that one can permissibly violate the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics in several ways (reference cited later). To achieve one of those ways, we ourselves can furnish extra energy to violate the symmetry, or we can trick the magnetic materials and their assembly to do it freely for us.

     In this paper, we propose a way to use anisotropic characteristics of some nanocrystalline materials to assemble these materials in a permanent magnet having a specifically desired left-and-right overall magnetic field asymmetry. In that case, assemblies of such “magnets with asymmetric fields” in a rotary motor can be made so that the overall driving magnetic force around the rotational loop is nonzero, as is the net work accomplished by that assembly. In that case, one can have a permissible self-powering permanent magnetic motor, powering itself and its load with its broken symmetry in its ongoing interaction with the seething virtual state vacuum. The laws of nonequilibrium thermodynamics are obeyed, as is the conservation of energy law when the vacuum energy interaction is included. The system thus becomes a proper nonequilibrium system freely receiving its input energy asymmetrically from the seething virtual state vacuum, transforming it into real asymmetric magnetic fields, which in turn drive the motor to power it and its load. It is no more mysterious than a windmill powered generator system, once a proper asymmetric windmill is used to extract free energy from a free wind and “self-power” itself and its generator “load”.




     First, we point out that normal commercial bar magnets have symmetrical fields left and right. Hence an assembly of such “symmetrical field” permanent magnets around a rotational loop will have its fields exhibit overall symmetry of its forward and back mmf regions, so that ò F · ds = 0 around the rotational loop. Such an assembly (such a magnetic motor) cannot drive itself because it has no necessary overall asymmetry. For self-powering, the magnetic motor must have such overall asymmetry around the loop, so that the overall driving work S around the loop is given by  ò F · ds > 0.


     We have two choices to get that net nonzero driving force (net forward mmf) around the loop. We ourselves can pay to break the loop symmetry, or we can arrange the ongoing vacuum energy input (that creates every magnetic field) to be asymmetric so that the resulting output magnetic field itself is asymmetric.


     By common practice, we have all been taught and conditioned to “pay for it” ourselves. We achieve a magnetic motor from such an assembly of symmetrical-field magnets by putting in coils at the proper places. Then we pay to furnish current and power to the proper coils at the proper time to overpower parts of the symmetrized magnetic field, effectively reducing, killing, or reversing the normal back-mmf regions into momentary forward mmf regions, thereby providing net asymmetric force fields around the rotation loop. In that case, the net “desymmetrized” array of symmetrical permanent magnet fields and timed and specifically-placed local coil magnetic fields from the coil(s) has an overall asymmetry around its rotation loop. Thus ò F · ds > 0 and there is a net magnetic force accelerating the rotation around the loop. Hence this motor using “desymmetrization coils” produces a net acceleration of its angular momentum being stored in its flywheel due to shaft rotation, because now that shaft rotation is accelerated).


     So we can now place a “load” (drag) on end of the coil-augmented motor’s shaft to continually absorb that excess angular momentum, thus “powering the load.” By matching the rate of “load drag” to the rate of “production of excess angular momentum” in the flywheel, a stable “steady state” powering of motor and load is achieved. But the energy to provide the broken symmetry net magnetic fields doing the “propulsion” and powering, must be continually paid for and input by the operator. And so that motor self-enforces COP<1.0 when its normal losses (air friction, bearing friction, coil efficiency, etc.) are also considered.


We Do Not Power the Motor; We Power the Production of Net Asymmetry in the Net Magnetic Driving Force Fields


     We now take the startling view that the only reason for our having to pay for and input energy to “power that system” is to provide the overall broken symmetry in the magnetic fields around that rotational loop. The “static field” of a permanent magnet is actually a continual steady-state flow of real photons from the magnetic charges (poles) of the magnet, with the energy of those real photons having been extracted directly from the vacuum-with-pole (vacuum-with-magnetic charge) interaction between the seething virtual state vacuum and the magnetic pole (charge) itself.


     This view reverses the conventional viewpoint. Now we see that we do not “power” the magnetic motor system ourselves nor do we furnish the energy that “powers” the system directly. Instead, we only furnish the energy that converts “symmetrical fields” to “net asymmetrical fields”, with proper timing and location (proper switching). We have all been taught that we must pay for this, since Lorentz’s 1892 symmetrization of the Heaviside equations only retains and permits symmetrized magnetic systems with equal and opposite forward and back mmf. In short, it permits only symmetrized magnetic systems incapable of “self-powering” even though they are continually pouring out real usable photon energy from the active vacuum – the “active medium”, in Tesla’s terminology in the 1890s. [See H. A. Lorentz, "La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants," (The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies), Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. This is the work that Lorentz later cites in H. A. Lorentz, "Versuch einer Theorie der Elecrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in begwegten Körpern,“ Brill, Leiden, 1895. Section 32 quotes the two theorems (equations) for symmetrical regauging, citing his (Lorentz's) 1892 paper as proof].


     It has been rigorously proven in the published physics literature that, if this arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition is broken, the resulting asymmetrical theoretical model now permits and prescribes asymmetrical systems which do have net, usable excess energy currents from the vacuum. Hence these restored asymmetrical systems can substitute these asymmetric energy inputs from the vacuum to provide what we normally have the operator pay to input externally. [See M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517].


     Quoting the abstract from Evans et al:


     “It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations, indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and current.”


     The bottom line is that, if the symmetry of the permanent magnet field assemblies is broken – by whatever means – correctly and at the proper places and times in the rotational cycle, then the net and asymmetric vacuum energy inputs and corresponding asymmetric magnetic force field outputs will drive the system coherently, instead of the operator having to furnish the desymmetrizing energy!


     So to achieve a self-powering permanent magnetic motor, the problem is to freely achieve the net asymmetry of the resulting magnetic fields of motor, by having the fields of the magnets exhibit asymmetry left-and-right around the closed rotational loop.


Achieving a Permanent Magnet with Asymmetrical Magnetic Fields Left and Right


     One way to achieve this desymmetrization of the overall natural magnetic driving field forces of the permanent magnets is to build and use a basic permanent magnet already having a useful asymmetric magnetic field. Then by properly placing such asymmetric-field magnets in the rotary cycle, the overall net driving force will provide net work Wm around a rotation cycle, given by WM = ò F · ds > 0. In that case, one achieves a “self-powering” system whose own asymmetric permanent magnet fields power the motor and its load by means of its broken symmetry.


     Howard Johnson has done a very similar thing several times in the past by a very difficult and highly tedious process, using macroscopic permanent magnets laboriously assembled of hand-cut bits and pieces of various different magnetic materials with special shapings and magnitudes of their magnetic fields. In this way, by sheer trial and error he has produced permanent magnet assemblies having the necessary asymmetry. [See Howard R. Johnson, "Permanent Magnet Motor," U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431. Apr. 24, 1979. See also Howard R. Johnson, "Magnetic Force Generating Method and Apparatus," U.S. Patent No. 4,877,983, Oct. 31, 1989; Howard R. Johnson,  "Magnetic Propulsion System," U.S. Patent No. 5,402,021. Mar. 28, 1995].
     But the Johnson patented process is very difficult indeed unless a high precision laboratory is available, and Johnson has never had the funding to get one of his rare and successful hand-achieved fundamental “magnetic gates” into volume production. He also has endured very strong opposition from academia, insisting that such a self-powering permanent magnet system is not possible – usually objecting that it violates the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics and that it violates the hoary old Lorentz-symmetrized CEM/EE model. The only truth that is really contained in such an overextended conventional objection is that one must therefore use nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and achieve a proper nonequilibrium steady state condition where the broken symmetry of the magnet’s field is freely furnished by the magnetic materials themselves and their construction.

     Johnson’s assemblies also evoke a very strong and nonlinear magnetic exchange force at specific time and in specific direction.  Thus, a Johnson rotor magnet and a stator magnet are approaching each other in the attraction phase, he uses the resulting free rotational acceleration of the asymmetric fields. As the rotor passes the stator and enters the back mmf area, Johnson’s magnets suddenly and very sharply evoke the exchange force, which far overpowers (momentarily) the pay-back drag otherwise provided in the back mmf region. The sudden exchange force, which can momentarily be a thousand times the magnitude of the normal magnetic field, gives a violent “kick” to the rotor to overcome that back mmf drag force that otherwise decelerates the rotor. Hence in a successful Johnson demonstrator, a known extra and free very sharp gradient force is deliberately evoked automatically by the materials specifically as required for broken symmetry. And as is well-known in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, such a sharp gradient is one mechanism which permits violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. [See Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law are given on p. 459. For an early discussion of the exchange force, see Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. II, Chapter 37.  Feynman covers magnetic materials including exchange forces, spins, and spin effects. These are the effects used by Johnson in his arduous efforts over so many years.]


     Our proposed approach to obtain the necessary broken symmetry (so that WM = ò F · ds > 0 around the rotary loop) from the materials themselves so that each permanent magnet has the proper asymmetry field already. Even though producing a specific proper production model “basic” magnet with asymmetrical fields may be difficult, once developed and put into production such asymmetric-field magnets would be available at very reasonable costs. And that would usher in the age of self-powering permanent magnet motors, where the motors power themselves and their loads by their own innate broken symmetry, taking the necessary energy for the broken symmetry directly from the active vacuum exchange.


Simplified Illustrations



     Attached is a set of three simplified PPT slides, showing a suggested approach to attempt building a self-powering permanent magnet motor by using nonlinear construction of the nanocrystalline materials of the magnet varied left to right to make the permanent magnet with a deliberately asymmetrical field. At least in theory, by sufficient nonlinearity in the arrangement of the nanocrystalline materials, the final magnet’s field can be made with a deliberate “pattern” of asymmetry left and right.


Use of a Modified Computer Simulation Program


     To determine the exact field asymmetry desired in the basic permanent magnet, a proper magnetic field simulator can be utilized and adapted. That is, the simulation can be modified to allow its simulation of such an asymmetric field, and then the asymmetry can be optimized for the particular rotary motor desired.


     If sufficient nonlinear assembly is developed and used, the bar magnet's field is made stronger on one side of the magnet than on the other, breaking “right-left” symmetry of the magnetic field of the normal bar magnet. We do not expect the asymmetry to be “linear”, but nonlinear. The exact nonlinearity would be determined by investigation using the adapted simulation.


     Given the proper nonlinear asymmetry achieved in the overall left vs. right magnetic field pattern, it is then easy to show that a very simple experimental motor demonstrator with the magnets arranged as shown should drive itself and its fitted load (in this case, a generator). Again, this could be done on a modified magnetic simulator, to dramatically decrease the number of experimental buildups required.


Additional Remarks


     The final self-powering motor does not violate nonequilibrium thermodynamics, once one understands that – contrary to standard electrical engineering interpretation – the “static” magnetic field is actually a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) thermodynamic system. It is a continuous flow of real EM energy (real photons) from one pole (magnetic charge) to the opposite (the opposite magnetic charge). The fundamental input virtual energy of course comes from the virtual state vacuum.


     As Aitchison points out:


     "...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored."  … “Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...” [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. Quotes are from p. 357 and p. 372.]


     As Nobelist Lee pointed out,


     “…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].


     So when we have a broken symmetry then something previously virtual has become observable. Violation in the symmetry of the EM energy means that some previous virtual energy absorbed from the seething virtual state vacuum by the magnetic dipole has become observable energy. The known and proven asymmetry of the source dipole (whether magnetic or electric) is a very simple and universal mechanism that already freely extracts real EM energy output from its seething virtual state vacuum energy input. It converts virtual state energy to its continual observable (quantum photon) energy outflow of real, usable EM energy.


     Thus, when we develop asymmetry in the output fields (steady state EM energy flows) of that permanent magnet, a rotary engine using such asymmetric-field permanent magnets can indeed be powered by the asymmetry of the observable output energy, being taken directly from the active virtual state vacuum itself. This is perhaps the simplest "vacuum energy powered" asymmetrical system that can be built to power itself and a load.


     In the normal permanent magnet motor we ourselves have to "pay" to break the field symmetry. Once the symmetry is broken, it is the broken symmetry of the fields of the motor itself that powers the system. The necessary energy input is there, but it is a virtual state energy input from the vacuum itself.


     In recommended case, instead of the operator paying to input extra observable energy asymmetrically and thus obtain the broken field symmetry left and right of the permanent magnet, we have the specially assembled nanocrystalline materials do it for us.


     The steady “input” energy is virtual state EM energy freely received from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of the magnetic dipole (opposite magnetic charges). Again we point out that quantum field theory requires a continuing interaction between the seething vacuum and the charge (including magnetic charge, which we is loosely called "magnetic pole"). And quantum field theory also requires that all real, observable forces be due to the exchange of virtual particles.


     The steady "output" energy of a magnetic dipole is real, observable EM energy (a steady outflow of real observable photons) that produces the so-called “static” EM fields of the magnetic dipole.


     So we must correct our present understanding of the “static” EM field. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:

     “To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9]




     The resulting “asymmetric-field permanent magnet” is an asymmetric Maxwellian system of the type that was deliberately discarded by Lorentz when he arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations in 1892. Since then, all our electrical power engineers have been trained to only build symmetrical Maxwellian systems, and electrical power engineering as presently taught in our universities still prescribes only symmetrized power systems that destroy their own source’s broken symmetry (the source dipole inside the generator or motor) faster than they power the loads.


     Since the Lorentz-symmetric systems built by electrical engineers in accord with the standard crippled electrical engineering theory self-enforce symmetry and thus COP<1.0, the first requirement for building asymmetric EM systems permitted to exhibit COP>1.0 is that something primary in the system must violate standard electrical engineering. One way to violate it is to produce and use permanent magnets each of which already has an asymmetric field.


     In certain nanocrystals, the term “anisotropy” is often utilized. Such a crystal has a preferred direction of magnetization; if one magnetizes it along that direction, then one obtains the strongest possible magnetization for that magnetization “shot”. If one orients the crystal “off direction” from its preferred direction of magnetization, the same “shot” will produce a weaker magnetization. Thus if properly patterned anisotropy is used and rigidly controlled and varied in the orientation of the crystals in their assembly to make the permanent magnet material, it may be possible to assemble the anisotropic nanocrystalline materials (as on an assembly line procedure) with highly nonlinear anisotropy overall so that, when the magnetizing shot is made, the overall “static” magnetic field of the magnet has the desired asymmetry left and right in the proper nonlinear manner.