|Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
subject: RE: Dr. Tom: conditioned magnet ?
No, the magnet used is absolutely ordinary. No special conditioning; buy it
right off the shelf from a good commercial magnet supplier.
The specialty is in the core material. Again, it is off-the-shelf commercially available core material, but it has special magnetic characteristics that normal iron cores do not have. We use it to induce the Aharonov-Bohm effect, without having to input the current and power to induce it (as you have to do in a toroid, e.g.). Those who do not understand the AB effect will most likely fail to replicate the MEG. No AB-effect, no MEG. Then you would have just an ordinary transformer. There are more than 2,000 papers in the physics literature on the proven AB effect; we do not have to "reprove" it as it is well-known. That electrical engineers do not know and use it, is a matter of what is taught and not taught in electrical engineering.
It does require some real good measurements with good multichannel scanning scopes, integrating under the curves, to see what is really happening. Unless one accurately measures and understands the phenomenology, one will likely just design a normal COP<1.0 transformer. There are already two rigorous papers in the hard literature (Foundations of Physics Letters) by some eminent scientists, showing exactly how the energy is taken out of the active vacuum by the MEG. Those are: (1) M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; - "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393.
Most of the fellows attempting to build the MEG continue to apply only
their well-known ordinary EM model, which model itself does not even contain COP>1.0 EM systems since Lorentz discarded them from the Maxwell-Heaviside theory in the 1880s. Most also continue to think of the MEG as a standard transformer. It isn't. We have given the scheme of operation, rather precisely. Most do not choose to believe it. In that case, they will simply chase a rainbow.
We have said it a thousand times: In any overunity system, there must be
some operation, component, or both that violates the standard closed current loop performance and therefore enables overunity. Something must "open the loop" to receive excess energy from the active environment (which consists of two parts: the active local vacuum and the active local curvatures of spacetime). The electrodynamics taught in electrical power engineering already erroneously discards both those components of the active environment. So any COP>1.0 system such as the MEG cannot be understood in terms of electrical power engineering theory and textbooks. One has to turn to physics, and to the much better systems of electrodynamics already developed and used in particle physics. The power engineering theory cannot and does not even model a COP>1.0 system. The better electrodynamics models available can and do model COP>1.0 systems, because the once again retain the active vacuum's interaction and the active local curved spacetime's interaction.
One has to come to grips with electrodynamics outside the normal classical
equilibrium EM model. So one has to deal with physics, not electrical
What we have not released is a "kit of parts" and specific assembly
instructions, which we will not do. After all, this is a commercial
What they seem to be mixing up with this, is the Sweet device, which did use specially conditioned barium ferrite magnets. There is no similarity at all
between the Sweet device and the MEG; totally different. The Sweet device had a COP = 1,500,000. The MEG has a far lower COP than that, though still overunity.
A competent university lab can in fact replicate the MEG, with a little work
on it, and they can understand it --- if and only if the researchers think
outside electrical power engineering. If they stay within electrical power
engineering, they will not succeed, nor will they understand it at all.
This sort of thing is why we went to the National Materials Science
Laboratory of the National Academy of Science of a friendly foreign nation,
formerly under Russian domination. The scientists and engineers there
already understand higher group symmetry electrodynamics -- it has been
taught in their universities now for more than a dozen years, because the
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz stuff is just too archaic.
Our job is to get the final year or so research finished, so that a
commercial unit can be produced and placed on the world market in that
country. That research is underway. If we obtain funding, we will also
establish just such a lab here in the U.S.
We will have some additional and surprising higher group symmetry EM
information in my forthcoming book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, to be published by World Scientific later this year (hopefully
by about September). For that information, interested researchers will just
have to wait for the book. In it they will discover some surprising
information for all COP>1.0 electromagnetic systems, and some novel
time-domain phenomenology they probably never dreamed of. Till then, we can only point out to them the necessity of thinking in terms of the
"supersystem" rather than the system. The supersystem consists of three
parts: (1) the system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its
dynamics, and (3) the local curvature(s) of spacetime and its (their)
dynamics. All three components of the supersystem interact with each other
in a COP>1.0 system, and the other two components of the supersystem cannot be ignored. After all, they are the "active environment" of the system, and they are the sources from which the system must obtain the excess energy needed to give its COP>1.0.
Note that the receipt of excess energy from either or both of the
environmental supersystem components does involve that violation (opening) of the closed current loop circuit, whether the "current" is magnetic flux or electron current.
We also remind researchers that there is no present legitimate theory of
overunity EM systems available. There are not textbooks or handbooks. So one has to construct the elements of such a theory and model oneself. If
one is not doing that, in at least some fashion, one is not doing any
research in COP>1.0 systems, but only in garden-variety, common electrical engineering systems.
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:02 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Dr. Tom: conditioned magnet ?
Dear Dr. Bearden:
An "ugly" rumor has been hitting the discussion group that the MEG must have a specially conditioned permanent-magnet to function, putting such research beyond the reach of the basement experimenter. Are you at liberty to reply ?
Thank-you for your continuing patience in answering so many E-mails. I hope your hypoxia is moving to hyper, or a happy medium between the two.
P.S. I found the current volume of "Modern Nonlinear Optics" fascinating, so many new ideas since I was an undergrad taking a few "advanced" courses.