|The Tom Bearden
A Possible Approach to a Permanent Magnet Self-Powering Motor
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 =
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).
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 =
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.
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
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).
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
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:
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!
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,"
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,
Our proposed approach to obtain the necessary broken symmetry (so that
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.
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.
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 (
As Aitchison points out:
As Nobelist Lee pointed out,
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:
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.