Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002
23:17:28 -0600
Dear Richard,
Yes, skeptism is
healthy, as long as it is not overdone to the point of dogma. There ARE
a lot of wild claims in this "field that is not yet a field". And yes,
ruling out the charlatans, many machines touted as being overunity have
wound up being bad measurements, etc., and were honest mistakes by their
inventors.
Nonetheless, several
real COP>1.0 systems exist right now. All that I know of, however, need
at least one more year of intensive research and development --
including the motionless electromagnetic generator of my associates and
I.
But there are also
legitimate experiments, in the hard physics literature, that any good
university physics (or optics) lab can do and that are overunity. E.g.,
the Bohren experiment outputs some 18 times as much energy as one puts
into it by normal Poynting calculations. You can see the reference
yourself:
Craig F.
Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"
American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under
nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the
light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are
one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared
frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on
“How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},”
Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is
repeatable and produces COP = 18.
Another
recognized "overunity" experiment is anything that yields anti-Stokes
emission. In that effect, the molecules or atoms add some energy to
what is input by the experimenter and absorbed, and so the emission is
greater than the input. Indeed, unless there is some automatic
replacement of the extra energy given up by the atoms and molecules, it
becomes a "cooling" effect in the materials. Can't power your house
with that, unless you add another effect which replenishes the energy to
the atoms and molecules that they gave up.
The
simplest and most universal, easiest COP>1.0 system is a simple charge.
Every charge (and dipole) in the universe pours out real EM energy,
after transducing EM energy it receives from the vacuum. Now that much
particle physics already knows. We'll add a bit: The negative
electrical charge receives virtual photon energy from the vacuum
(actually from the time domain) and pours out real EM energy in
3-space. All the negative charges in the universe are doing that.
So why
isn't the universe filling with energy, as you suggested (good
insight!)? Because the positive charge, being a time-reversed negative
charge, does exactly the opposite. It absorbs real energy from 3-space
and transduces it back to virtual form (actually into time-energy along
the 4th axis), and "puts the energy back".
So what
is really going on are incredible "circulations" of energy from the time
domain to 3-space to the time domain back to 3-space, and so on.
Remember, every negative charge in the universe forms a dipole with
every positive charge in the universe. In my view, that "vast set of
energy circulations and interferences, etc." is precisely what the
vacuum "is" and what spacetime itself "is". Identically. But physics
(and mathematicians) aren’t too ready for that yet. (although in some
very modern theories, you start without space and time, and spacetime
arises out of the model from asserted more fundamental principles.
And yes,
I have seen quite a few real overunity systems. The best one was the
Sweet vacuum triode amplifier (I named it for Sweet). It had a COP =
1.5 x 10exp(6). I also designed an antigravity experiment, and
convinced Sweet to do it (he had to modify the output of the machine).
It worked beautifully, and -- by sheer fluke -- we even got a paper
published. On the paper, I placed Sweet's name first, because the VTA
was his invention, not mine.
Bedini
has build numerous COP>1.0 systems. Golden in the 1970s build a couple,
one in particular where the vacuum itself was conditioned. All provided
very puzzling but very interesting phenomenology, which had to be slowly
deciphered over the years.
Anyway,
the field is such that there are not yet really simple devices where one
can get a kit of parts from Radio Shack, put them together, and perform
an immediate and successful COP>1.0 experiment. That is coming, but it
is not here yet.
The Kawai
patent does indeed work, but it's expensive to build a Kawai COP>1.0
motor. You have to start with a very high efficiency magnetic motor
(such as are available from Hitachi, with efficiencies of 0.7 or 0.8).
Then you have to apply the Kawai process, and use electro-optical
coupling in your switching so you minimize the switching costs. Doing
that, you can attain a COP approximately double the efficiency (in the
Hitachi labs, Hitachi engineers tested those two motors, modified by the
Kawai process, and independently obtained COP = 1.4 and COP = 1.6.
To show
you that there really is suppression, Kawai and his party came to the
U.S., here to Huntsville, to see me after I placed an explanation of how
his device worked, on the internet. One of our little companies, CTEC,
met with him (the Board of Governors). To our astonishment, after
several days with us, Kawai asked us to give him a proposal where we
would market the engines for him worldwide, and also build a lab here in
Huntsville for R&D. We did, and he took it back to Japan. Later he
returned again, and we began serious negotiations for four days. On a
Thursday afternoon late, we reached agreement with Kawai. He would
return to Japan, and ship a closed-looped engine, already developed, to
us. We would have it certified by an impeccable scientific team and
test lab. We would then set up marketing for most of the world, save
Japan.
That
night a jet arrived from Los Angeles, with a Yakuza on board. The next
morning Kawai no longer controlled his company, his invention, or his
own fate. The Kawai party was in fear and trembling. The Yakuza coldly
dissolved the agreement, they packed up the two Kawai engines we had,
and left. And that was that. Several COP>1.0 power systems, already
developed, have been pulled off the market forcibly by the Yakuza, which
strongly penetrates the Japanese government and all large Japanese
companies, and has taken over the banking in Japan, including the
national bank. The members of the CTEC board of governors directly
witnessed all this, so it's not just me telling a nice story. Kawai's
U.S. patent is Teruo Kawai, "Motive Power Generating Device," U.S.
Patent No. 5,436,518. Jul. 25, 1995.
I believe
we have a very good chance to get the R&D finished on our MEG, since we
have made arrangements to have the research finished in a friendly
foreign country formerly dominated by the Soviet Union. The work is
being done in the National Materials Science Lab, a part of the National
Academy of Science of that nation. Their scientists and laboratories
are equal to those in the U.S., and some of the scientists have a better
education in electrodynamics, particularly in higher group symmetry
electrodynamics. So we are hopeful that we will be able to start
introducing units on the market about a year from now. Quite simply, we
will either succeed or we will fail. But we will give it our very best
effort.
That, I think, answers
the gist of your E-mail. I encourage you to be both a skeptic and also
open-minded. That way one is neither naïve nor dogmatic, which is the
ideal scientific frame of mind.
Note that the AIAS
(Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study) successfully published
two papers on the MEG in a leading physics journal, Foundations of
Physics Letters. The papers were vigorously refereed, I assured you.
One of the things I did was hang the skeptics on the source charge
problem, which is largely avoided in universities. Every charge and
every dipole pours out energy in all directions at the speed of light.
This is easily shown, and is actually quite well known to foundations
scientists. But there has been no solution to "where the energy comes
from", until we proposed a solution to it in 2000. Nonetheless, it
hangs the skeptics who advocate there is no such thing as an open EM
system and therefore no such thing as COP>1.0 EM systems.
(1)
Either they have to explain an "outside environmental
source" of the energy being fed to the charge or dipole, from the vacuum
environment, or they have to assume that every charge and dipole freely
and continuously creates energy from nothing, and pours it out.
Experimentally it can be shown that there is no normal detectable EM
input, and that is already known. So if it's not an open system, and
performing COP>>1.0, then every charge and dipole is the grossest kind
of perpetual motion machine, which destroys all notions of EM energy
conservation. In that case, if energy conservation does not apply, then
one need not conserve EM energy in all EM systems. Ergo, it is possible
to build a COP>1.0 system, since all charges and dipoles already are
such.
(2)
If the charge (or dipole) is an open system freely
receiving extra energy from outside 3-space, then that saves the
conservation of energy law. But it also proves that a great number of
EM systems -- every charge and every dipole -- are already COP>1.0
systems. That proves that it is possible to have COP>1.0 systems.
(3)
If one tries to deny that charges and dipoles are EM
systems, one destroys all electrodynamics, because the source charges
furnish all the fields and potentials used in electrodynamics, reaching
across all space. Denying the source of the fields and potentials and
their energy, thus denies any and all electrodynamics.
A little more
sophisticated statement of the above is what overpowered the skeptics
(there were some very strong objections, as you might imagine, from
defenders of the faith). Based on that and a couple of other things,
the referees overruled all the objections, and the journal published the
paper.
The references are:
M.W. Evans 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.
Another good, solid
reference is M.W. Evans et al.,
"Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting
Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p.
513-517.
Anyway, I think that
addresses the bulk of your letter, though I've also added a few comments
below.
Best wishes to you in
your studies, and in your path through life,
Tom Bearden
Comment: We encourage
the friendly skeptic, who is openminded. That way, one is neither naïve
nor dogmatic, but scientific. You have precisely the right attitude.
The Bohren experiment
and building a Kawai motor, as stated above. But unfortunately those
are expensive and difficult, and I doubt that you could do it at a high
school.
Have you
successfully built an overunity device, or seen one working? If not, how
can you be certain that it is possible to build them? I have read about
countless overunity devices that have been 'demonstrated' to work, but
no one ever seems able to reproduce them when it matters. Surely if an
investor saw a working prototype, they would be encouraged to spend? I
cannot believe that there is a conspiracy so far reaching as to prevent
private investors from even seeing them in action, if they exist.
I will have to be very
careful what I say here, because of patent rights etc. still
processing. Let me put it this way: A COP>1.0 system is in an excited
state, a priori, since it is in disequilibrium and therefore the entropy
has been reduced. All such systems tend to decay (else a system would
excite, then excite again, etc. and build up on an exponential basis
until the universe exploded) and have decay mechanisms. One of the most
difficult thing in my life has been to struggle for many years until we
finally uncovered the master decay mechanism for COP>1.0 EM systems.
Bedini and I have filed a patent application on a process which
overcomes that decay mechanism. In short, one can "grab" or
"freeze-frame" a system in its COP>1.0 excited state, and LOCK it
there. Then it will operate steadily and stably at COP>1.0. Otherwise,
unless one has a "locking" and "stabilizing process" (there may be
others which we have not yet discovered), one cannot usually "hold" a
COP>1.0 system in that stable operation. We have at least found how to
do that, by at least one major method. And it works on the bench. But
I cannot release details of that until much later this year, when our
intellectual property rights are secured. I am putting it in my book,
to be published by World Scientific, and you can see it then. I believe
it will be quite a surprise to overunity researchers and physics in
general. It has some very startling applications, e.g., in cosmology,
one of which I will point out in the book.
ANS: I gave one minor
example above. We have encountered many others, of many types including
multiple assassination attempts. I do not discuss these publicly. But
we do have witnesses.
ANS: We addressed
that above, and it is a very deep insight. To see a young student do
that is a great delight and encouragement to an old dog like me. That
is why I'm putting just about everything I know into this forthcoming
book. I really want to pass the baton to younger, more vigorous, and
keener minds coming along. God willing, they will be able to start from
where I'm at or think I'm at, and go forward. If I can save them 30
hard years discovering that part, then they can just advance it much
further and get it done. We'll try to do it, but if we fail, then
hopefully they will get it done anyway.
Ans. A resounding
yes. We have a successful lab experiment, although a bit tricky, but it
does work. The National Materials science lab in that foreign country
had no difficulty in understanding the principle of the MEG's
operation. Note that the major principle, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, is
a now well-known physics effect but is not in classical electrodynamics
or electrical engineering at all. But the AB effect is even in
Feynman's 3 volumes of sophomore physics, from the 1960s. We just found
a way to get it without having to input energy to pay for it. And then
we found out how to use it for power.
Comment: Exactly the
proper attitude. I too am very concerned about the fate of humanity,
and the fate of my own country. I want my children, and my children's
children, and my neighbor's children etc., to have a decent (and better)
world to live in. In my opinion, the fundamental "backbone" and basis
for a modern economy is cheap energy. For the biosphere and health, we
must make it cheap CLEAN energy. Every EM power system already takes
its energy from the vacuum, and we could indeed have cheap clean energy
if the scientific community would just release those sharp young grad
students and postdocs in our universities. Let them study the problem
and work on it, for goodness sakes! It is my job (hopefully) to give
them enough of a framework -- the concepts and principles, the beginning
hard references, etc. -- so that a legitimate theory of permissible
COP>1.0 EM power systems can be developed, scientifically. The AIAS has
already done part of the theoretical modeling job; a lot more still
needs doing.
But it is beginning to
happen, and it is going to happen. If not in my lifetime (I'm 71, and
suffering from moderate to severe hypoxia), then certainly in yours.
With a little luck, we will see the first units on the market in about a
year, from several inventors and their backers.
So I urge you to
continue steadfast in the thinking process you have started, and make
your own decisions and assessments. Remember, no one is perfect. All
my pencils still need erasers. And I have made errors. But I correct
them when I find them, and I admit them freely. Anyone really trying to
do something of value, will make errors. One hopefully learns from
one's mistakes, and continues.
No model, e.g., is
perfect -- Godel proved that long ago. So no physics is perfect, no
electrodynamics is perfect. One errs seriously in proclaiming something
an "immutable law" of nature! All "laws of nature" are based on
symmetries at specific levels; all of which have broken symmetries where
that law is violated at that level, and becomes an enlarged symmetry (or
conservation law) at a higher level.
We have not yet
scratched the surface in science. It has only just begun. In the next
10 years, if we can hold the world together, we will see sciences emerge
that we have not yet dreamed of. That is the real hope of the future,
along with the hope that the younger generation will have that vision
and bring it into fruition.
My pleasure, and
thanks for the kind words. I encourage you not to debate with your
teachers and professors; simply hold your counsel, increase your depth
of knowledge, make your own decisions, and remain skeptical but
openminded --- and therefore scientific.
|