The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: RE: MEG Device, Some Questions
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:18:03 -0600

Dear Marc,


Thanks for the kind words.


Just now my time is very limited, and I have already written about as much on the MEG as anyone really needs --- IF they can learn to think beyond standard U(1) classical EM theory, which is what your friend has learned.  His model is very incomplete and 137 years old --- Maxwell's seminal paper was published in 1865, before the discovery of the atom, the nucleus, the electron, etc.  There are much better and more modern forms of electrodynamics that have been discovered and are used in particle physics.  We cite many AIAS papers, e.g., in a particularly good form of more modern electrodynamics, the model using O(3) group symmetry.


The current in a circuit is only concerned with the energy that is being dissipated from the circuit.  It has nothing at all to do with the energy that enters the circuit or that is available around the circuit but does not enter it and is not used.  If your friend wishes to understand that statement, he will need to read the papers from the citations I give in several of my papers (some on my website) for both Heaviside's energy flow theory and Poynting's energy flow theory.  He will only have studied the Poynting version.  In short, in this emerging field as in any other, there is no substitution for reading the literature --- not the standard electrical engineering textbooks, which is merely more U(1) electrodynamics.


Enough has already been published on the MEG for a dedicated experimenter to replicate at least a version of it.  We have explained the Aharonov-Bohm effect applied in the unit (an effect which does not even exist in standard EE, but was covered in your sophomore physics text; e.g., in the excellent texts by Feynman).  The AB effect performed by the core material thus withdraws all the B-field flux energy from the permanent magnet into the local core, withdrawing it from the surrounding space.  Yet the surrounding space is still curved (curved spacetime is erroneously ignored in U(1) electrodynamics), so it still is filled with extra energy density.  As is well-known, when the B-field is localized in the AB manner, then the surrounding space outside the B-localization is still filled with energy, but now it is filled with curl-free A-potential.  The curl-free A-potential  might even be regarded as a linearly flowing longitudinal current of EM energy.  All that is already in the literature.


Now regard the A-potential energy we have around the unit.  This is a steady stream of EM energy.  Further, the normal B-field, if out there, would have fallen off in magnitude inversely as the square of the distance.  Now the energy  (in the uncurled A form) falls off in magnitude only as the square of the distance.


Anyway you look at that, I have all the magnetic field  energy I would have had from the magnet, still located there in that flux path in the core.  Didn't lose a bit of it.  In addition, I have even more magnetic energy now in the surrounding space, because the potential does not decay away in magnitude with distance nearly so fast as would have the B-field.


So I have pulled in lots of extra energy from the curved spacetime itself -- something which does not exist in electrical engineering since their model does not even include curved spacetime in the first place.


Let me speak very plainly.  If one wishes to do brain surgery, one cannot apply bone-splinting models!  The standard electrical engineering model -- in its entirety, all the way through the Ph.D. -- clearly prohibits COP>1.0 EM systems.  It also clearly assumes that ubiquitous closed current loop circuit.


Your friends question about "supplying current" in a closed circuit reveals his lack of seeing the basic picture.  To a closed path, you yourself add energy, not current.  The amount of current that then flows depends on the overpotentialization of the electrons in that circuit by the potential energy (the voltage, which is so much joules of potential energy added to each collecting coulomb of charge) and the impedance (simplest case, the resistance) in the circuit itself.


So one can get all the current one wishes in a given impedance (or resistance) circuit, merely by adding enough potential energy.  The current then is automatic, limited by the emf (or in a magnetic circuit, the mmf) and the overpotentialization (the intensity of the dipolarity).


Even so, in an electrical circuit if the source dipole you use to furnish the overpotentialization is itself in the path of all the ground return current, it is simple to show that the circuit will then kill the source dipole faster than you power the load, regardless of how much energy you add to the circuit (catch in the external circuit).  So that circuit is doomed to COP<1.0.


In a magnetic circuit, there is one great advantage.  Return of the magnetic flux back through the source dipole (in this case, the permanent magnet) does not destroy the dipolarity (the source dipole).  That is because the poles (magnetic charges) are fixed firmly in position by the materials themselves.  Hence they resist "moving" and destroying the dipole.  In the electrical circuit, the charges separated between the terminals are actually in a conductive medium, hence will easily move and allow the dipolarity to be destroyed by current forced back through the back emf.  In the magnetic circuit, flux back through the back mmf does not destroy the dipole of a permanent magnet.


Now we are free to switch the flux in the core flux path as in a normal transformer. So in the output section of the transformer, we are free to arrive at a normal transformer's output by flux switching alone --- say, 95% efficiency.  That alone does not give us enough output to provide COP>1.0.


However, any input to the input section of the transformer section (the MEG itself is not a transformer, though it has a transformer section) also perturbs the surrounding curl-free A-potential.  That makes an E-field perturbation, by the simple and well-known equation E = - dA/dt.  By controlling the rise and decay time of the pulses used to perturb the input coil of the transformer section, we can have a 95% transformer output and also add to it a purely electrical interaction in that secondary coil from the dA/dt interaction.  By experimentation and some tricky timing, etc., we add the extra electrical energy to the secondary.  So the ELECTRICAL output of the secondary goes way over COP>1.0, when both energy components are added up properly.


The current in the secondary circuit takes care of itself.  Given a certain impedance and a certain emf created by the combination of the two interactions in the secondary, the current is given by standard formulas in U(1) electrical engineering.  After all, the secondary circuit is operated in entirely normal fashion, right out of the old EE textbook, once the two interactions have occurred.  And that circuit does destroy the source dipolarity of the secondary coil by ramming the return current back through the coil, and so we have to continue the input of our perturbation energy in the primary coil.


There you have it in a nutshell.  Every individual effect we are applying, already exists in physics.  There is nothing to prove, except that union of the multiple effects and their proper timing for addition rather than interference.


Further, we can hang on separate "interceptor/collector closed current loop circuits" as "separate antenna circuits" out there in the perturbed A-potential space, and collect and use additional EM energy in additional loads.  We call that the "outrigger" concept.  Again, every concept and mechanism we are using is already in physics, and long since proven.  No part of it has to be individually proven.  Only the successful assembly of the whole has to be demonstrated.


Hope that helps your doubting friend.  I urge him to go and read the actual cited papers.  His EE knowledge is commendable, but it alone will never produce COP>1.0, and it alone will not even allow him to understand the physics of the process.  For that, he has to turn to the actual physics papers we cite.


We took the MEG to a foreign country for that very sort of reason.  There we found materials scientists who already knew the non-Abelian electrodynamics of particle physics, and they had no difficulty whatsoever in immediately grasping the scheme of operation of the MEG that provides the COP>1.0.  That is why the National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of Science of that country is the laboratory doing the final development work.


As an interesting aside, their comment on the U(1) and electrical engineering taught in our own universities was enlightening.  They simply smiled and pointed out that they had already been teaching the higher group symmetry electrodynamics in their universities for more than a dozen years, because the other stuff was just too archaic and incomplete.


Hope that helps.


Best wishes,


Tom Bearden

Subject: RE: MEG Device, Some Questions
Date: Sun,  6 Jan 2002 20:46:48 -0800


Hello MR Bearden

        I have been interested in alternative energy ever since I started on the net (7 odd years ago now :) Back then the Keelynet archive was my main source of information ... But over the years I've starting getting quite depressed as it seems that after so long, nothing concrete in this field has been ever been taken to a practical CONCLUSION .... That is UNTIL I came across information concerning your MEG device 6 to 10 months ago. This has re-kindled my interest in this field again (to say the least :) I was extremely happy to see other sites (Jlabs, the yahoo Groups focusing on the MEG ect ect) investigating this idea, along with people actively experimenting with this device and being able to replicate some of the
results. So I made the decision to start actual experiments with the device myself, and here-in lies my problem. As I have limited experience in the physics and electronics necessary to properly experiment with your device, my close friend Ken has been filling in the blanks for me. He himself is an electronical Engineer with more years experience in that field than I myself have been alive ! NOW here is the problem, Ken and myself have been arguing for many weeks, about some concerns he has had about the MEG device . I had noted how people have been corresponding to you via email about the MEG and suggested to Ken if he could articulate a question based on his concerns about the device that I could pass on to you, and
HOPEFULLY you could shed some light on this topic ....  His simple question: Can this device produce enough CURRENT to power normal "of the shelf" appliances ???? and if so HOW ??? (The more verbose the answer the better !) I remember reading somewhere that you stated the
answer to the question will be revealed in your new book that you are about to release...If that is the case, is there anyway I may possibly be able to order a copy of your book in advance ??? as I have the next 6 months off that I really want to use SOLELY on making a Practical MEG device. I would like to make very clear, that I have NO interest whatsoever in
any commercial aspects of this device, I only want to have one ready for when our local electricity prices start following California's trend (In South Australia ATM the price of electricity has rose around 40 per cent so far and from what is being said in 8 months from now there is likely to be another 70-100 % Increase again !!! [ Id love to buy a unit directly from you but I realize they are not available yet :( ]
        There are QUITE a few other things id love to discuss with you but I don't want to take up anymore of your time (you must be spending a LOT of your time answering all the emails from people like myself) Suffice to say any reply to my email would be GREATLY appreciated indeed. Oh and my background is Computer related (I'm 25 now and started using them when I was 12 [Ahh the days of the Vic 20 computers! LOL] so if you EVER need any help in regards to computer issues of ANY kind, please feel free to pick my brains :) LOL
        And thank you for restoring my faith that alternative energy systems are not just fantasy anymore !

Kind Regards