Dear T**** and B***:

Your note and your interest are very much appreciated, and we are pleased that you have been looking at the basic theory of the MEG (sharply perturbing a localized magnetic B-field so that its surrounding curl-free A-potential is sharply perturbed also, making very large E-fields in space outside the H-field localization, so that extra energy collection and emf can be freely collected by charges q in circuitry exposed to these large E-fields.

I will be happy to donate a copy of Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, to the University of Massachussetts Library.  Please have them send us a request on formal letterhead to Mr. Tony Craddock, the webmaster of my website, www.cheniere.org. and we will send a complimentary copy from all of us involved at Cheniere Press in the book getting printed and available.  That is with compliments from myself, Tony Craddock, Michael Anderson, Marcia Stockton, and Jace Barbour.

Unfortunately, as inventors we at Magnetic Energy Ltd. have a bit of a legal problem when dealing with most universities.  We have found that usually a university will sign a nondisclosure agreement, but will not sign a non-circumvention agreement.  Also, most universities these days place strong pressure on their professors to (1) bring in extra funding for the university, and (2) secure new patents for the university.  Even the U.S. government national laboratories also file patents!

We have finally found a well-known Scottish university which would sign both agreements, so are now working with them on the MEG, with the university researchers retaining complete independence.

Also, all rights to the MEG and all arrangements belong to Magnetic Energy Ltd., whose CEO is Dr. Lee Kenny.  I write about the MEG, but am not the CEO in charge nor do I formulate policy for Magnetic Energy Ltd. Indeed, I'm not the primary inventor!  The other fellows did all the hard work on the bench for all those years.

So I'm forwarding a copy of your E-mail to Dr. Kenny, but he will probably not reply unless formally approached by the University with a verbal statement that both a non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreement are acceptable.  We still have at least two more patents to file, as soon as we have the funding, so he watches the non-circumvention area closely because he does not wish to prejudice our intellectual property rights.

We have in fact released enough information for a university team to replicate a successful version of the MEG, with some experimentation.  So we would encourage you to take that approach, going on information already available, since you are entitled to build a working version for your own use, without any infringement etc.  Exact construction details and why, e.g., are items that no inventor group releases without both non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreements in place.

To make sure you have the principles of the MEG's operation, here is a summary of several published papers etc.

 ------------------------------------------------------

 The basic approach is clear and well-documented in the literature; just not applied to power systems before.  One does not have to re-prove that localization of the magnetic field produces a surrounding nonlocal curl-free potential A, since that has long been known (as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, further generalized to Berry Phase, and further generalized by Aharonov and Anandan as geometric phase).  Thermodynamically, this gives two reservoirs of magnetic energy, not just one.  Inside the core, one still has all the magnetic field flux one has in any normal transformer circuit, plus one has the extra vector potential energy in the uncurled A-potential now separately located.  Simply put, one can still have an efficient "normal" transformer from the localized flux in the core material, while also extracting extra EM energy from the second reservoir, the uncurled A-potential external to the core.

The trick, of course, is to get the two energy collections well-coordinated so that the two augment each other's efforts rather than opposing them.  The other trick is that we do not pay for the initial magnetic field flux in the core or the initial uncurled A-potential; these come freely from the permanent magnet across the core.  And we do not pay for that localization of the B-field and separation of the uncurled A-vector energy, as one has to do with a toroid.

So we start with two steady-state fluxes already established freely.  We then pay for perturbing the energy reservoirs, not for the energy in them. Thus we can input a small magnitude of energy (in a primary coil) in the form of pulses with sharp rise times and decay times.  The size of the perturbation fields (e.g., the E-field created by the perturbed A-potential) depends totally on the time rate of change of the A-potential, induced by that input perturbation energy, and hence to the time rate of changes of the input energy.

So with a little input energy but with sharp perturbations (fast time rate of changes), we can automatically create very powerful E-fields, e.g., in that A-potential region.  How much emf and energy these created E-fields generate depend on the amount of Drude electron gas charge the E-fields impinge upon, by simple F = Eq.  As you can see, we are permitted by this arrangement to "switch" more energy than we ourselves input, since any field or potential and its energy is actually a flow of energy from its source charge(s), with energy input directly from the vacuum.

-------------------------------------------

We strongly point out that standard Maxwell-Heaviside theory (e.g., as used by electrical engineering departments), is seriously flawed in several respects, and one of the most flagrant is the long-vexing problem of the source charge and its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy. The conventional EE arbitrarily assumes that the source charge freely creates EM energy out of nothing at all, continuously pouring it out in all directions, to establish and continuously replenish its associated fields and potentials and their energy.

Here is how the source charge does it.

There is no observable EM energy input to the source charge, as is well known and easily demonstrated experimentally.  So this has been considered possibly the most difficult problem in EM theory and modeling for some time, since --- according to the conventional EE model --- every charge in the universe violates the conservation of energy law.

So the problem is this: How can the charge continuously pour out real, observable EM energy at light speed, establishing and continuously replenishing its associated fields and potentials expanding across the universe at light speed, without any OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input?  We accented the usual assumption that output of OBSERVABLE energy demands OBSERVABLE input of energy, which is a false premise. Here is the proposed solution.

In the quantum field theory view, the classical "isolated charge" is immersed in a seething cluster of virtual photons in the vacuum.  So it is continually absorbing and emitting virtual photons in its vacuum energy exchange.  Each of these photons also does the Feynman dance, so it breaks into a positron-electron pair by pair production, then the pair turns back into a photon again by pair annihilation, then pair production, then pair annihilation, etc.

However, now let us examine that set of virtual positron-electron pairs, when the energy exchanging between vacuum and charge is in that form.  For a classical electron as the source charge, the positron half of each positron-electron pair is attracted by the bare electron charge in the center, and the electron half is repelled by it --- during that infinitesimal time that the pair exists.  So the positrons are a little closer to the electron than are the electrons.  This results in a net positive charge clustering around the classical electron.  Hence the classical "isolated charge" is an ensemble that is a net dipolarity, consisting of the bare charge in the middle clustered around by a net opposite virtual charge.

That means that the known asymmetry of opposite charges applies to the ensemble.  Thus, by definition that ensemble is absorbing virtual photon energy from the vacuum, continuously integrating it into quanta, and emitting the resulting observable photons in all directions, establishing and continuously replenishing its associated EM fields and potentials. In short, the source charge falsifies the conventional assumption that observable EM energy output requires observable EM energy input.  

So all EM fields, potentials, and energy comes directly from the vacuum via the asymmetry of their respective source charges, considered as quantum field theory ensembles.

The classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory assumes a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum, so it does not contain any energy input to that source charge from the vacuum.  Hence that model -- so widely used --- assumes that every charge in the universe freely and continuously creates EM energy out of nothing at all, and pours it out to establish and replenish its associated EM fields and potentials.

Ironically, the greatest advocates of forbidden perpetual (continuous) motion machines with no energy input but continuous work output, are the conventional scientists, electrodynamicists, and electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks.

The physicists seem to have missed it, because they considered the cloud of photons around the source charge, and considered pair annihilation and pair production, but seemingly did not consider the opposite virtual charges were drawn closer to the bare charge in the middle while the like virtual charges were repelled further away.  So the physicists apparently missed the stable dipolarity ensemble that formed, hence missed the broken symmetry of opposite charges associated with the "isolated classical charge".

We published the basis of that in 2000, improved it a little in 2001 for my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, and will be doing it just a bit better in a thermodynamics paper I'm working on at present. Now let's speak a little of thermodynamics.  The present form of the second law is an oxymoron, since it implicitly assumes that its own contradiction has first occurred, to provide the controlled order initially available.  In short, it must assume a negentropic operation somewhere, even if one has to go back to the beginning of the universe (where, of course, the formation of the energy in the first place was a negentropic operation).

The second law is also based on statistical mechanics, and the statistics is subject to transient fluctuations.  The transient fluctuation theorem by Evans and Searles puts fluctuation results on a rigorous basis.  The second law has always been recognized to be violated by a single atom, charge, or molecule or a small group of one of them, since there is not a sufficient number for viable statistics.  In these fluctuation zones in various kinds of systems (chemical, electrical, etc.), the fluctuation means that for a moment and at a very small level, reactions can run backwards and negative entropy can be produced.  Wang, Evans et al. in 2002 showed experimentally that, contrary to popular opinion, these "reversal zones" can and do form at colloidal level (at the micron level) for up to two seconds.  Since it is experimentally proven, it cannot be refuted by any amount of contradictory theory.

Even in Brownian motion -- the so-called epitome of random motion --- there emerges controlled order automatically by simply placing an asymmetric superconducting loop into the Brownian motion.  E.g., simply download Nikulov's paper, "Quantum Power Source" from the internet.  Against all intuitive statistics, a DC current emerges in the wire loop, with one part of the "circuit" acting as a source and the other as a "load".  Although the loop "outputs" incredibly small amount of power, nonetheless it does directly and continuously transform heat energy into useful dc electrical energy without any "fuel expense".  It is a measurable, observable effect now established experimentally.  It is sufficient to prove the principle. It also shows that, contrary to normal group theoretic approach in geometry, the broken symmetry of the loop required a higher symmetry!  In short, it GENERATED a higher symmetry, instead of collapsing to the lower symmetry. We will return to that in a moment.

Recently Evans and Rondoni also showed something startling: In nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems, a system is permitted (at least in theory) to produce negative Gibbs entropy initially, with the entropy further decreasing toward negative entropy as time passes.  Evans and Rondoni felt that probably no real physical system could exhibit such a startling entropy curve, since they could not come up with an example. Being careful scientists, however, they did point out that the problem persists for deterministic dissipative dynamics.

The source charge in fact exhibits that precise entropy curve that Evans and Rondoni felt was probably impossible.  Further, it is permitted do to it, if we make a dramatic change from the Klein basis of geometry and go to Leyton's basis.

Simply put, Klein's geometry is memoryless, while Leyton's generative geometry exhibits memory storage.

Klein's geometry has symmetric action; Leyton's has asymmetric action.

In Klein's geometry, the levels are not linked. In Leyton's, the levels are linked.

Klein's geometry is non-exhaustive; Leyton's is exhaustive.

In Klein's geometry, the group acts on a set.  In Leyton's, the group acts on a group.

Klein's geometry is observer independent.  Leyton's geometry is observer dependent.

Klein's geometry achieves a "unique" description in each case. Leyton's has multiple descriptions for each case.

If you are interests in this more rigorous area, I highly recommend Leyton's book, Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, 2001. Leyton's work has been applied in robotics, pattern recognition, etc. and it works. He is working now on a new book on symmetry in general, which should be a milestone.

With Leyton's approach, it appears that we can and do have the consumption of entropy at the virtual state vacuum level, generating a higher symmetry level (potentialization of the source charge), which in turn requires a new broken symmetry at that level (emission, which is deterministic dissipative dynamics), resulting in the emitted photons nonetheless conforming to their external parameters, the associated EM fields and potentials which are deterministic.

Hence the source charge is an example of the type system Evans and Rondoni could not find, but admitted could still be viable for producing continuous negative entropy.

Indeed, since all EM fields and potentials and their energy come from their respective source charge(s), then Leyton's profound work is very important to electrodynamics in general.  Further, all EM energy (in the circuit, and in fact in the entire universe) is extracted directly from the vacuum's virtual energy exchange with the source charges.  Every circuit and every EM system is already powered by EM energy from the vacuum.

This should give you some inclination of the tremendous importance of the solution to the source charge problem -- which really should be expressed in more rigorous terms than I have done.  I personally believe that the full impact of Leyton's profound work is yet to be felt in the energy field, but it most definitely will, if sufficient young grad students and post doctoral scientists get onto it.

Anyway, good luck to you and I certainly wish you well in your research.  I hope the above gives you a little broader perspective on the MEG and other "free energy" units (which actually are no more mysterious than a windmill, except that the "free wind from the environment" is more esoteric) and energy from the vacuum and its breathtaking potential, if ever the present inappropriate mindset of the scientific community can be changed.

Finally, the first law of thermodynamics as presently stated also has a flaw with respect to some EM systems. 

E.g., take Q = (delta E) + w      [1]

as the statement of the first law (that is a common, simple statement of it, where Q is the input energy or heat, delta E is the change in internal energy or potential energy of the system, and w is work done externally).  E (the internal energy, or potential energy, or "potential" of the system in EE jargon) is an external parameter, since all EM potentials and fields are, and any change in an external parameter is automatically assumed (in thermal physics) to be work.  That assumption is not necessarily true in electrodynamics, but it  is true in mechanical systems, for example.

The reason it is not necessarily true in EM systems is as follows:

The real reason that changing the internal energy of a system requires work to be done on the system (usually), is because the system is subject to Newton's third law, and the third law opposition to change of state of the system must be forcibly overcome.  Hence the input energy has to be used to perform work in overcoming the third law opposition, if it is to change the potential energy or internal energy of the system.

In electrodynamics, field-to-field and potential-to-potential interactions (in the linear or approximately linear case) does not involve Newton's third law reaction at all.  Hence merely adding or changing the potential energy directly, by changing the potential, does not have to require work if no current is allowed to flow in the circuit during potentialization.  That free potentialization (change of potential and therefore free change of system potential energy) is absolutely required and permitted by the gauge freedom principle in quantum field theory, which is also used widely in regauging (as, e.g., in the symmetrical regauging by Lorenz and then Lorentz of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations). 

Further, regauging (changing the potentials) does not have to be done "symmetrically" as is usually done arbitrarily.  One can change only one potential, not both, and if no current is allowed to flow, the potential energy of the system will change freely and without cost to the operator.  Hence a single source of potential -- since the potential is actually a bidirectional EM energy flow, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 --- can be used to potentialize freely and without work, any number of extra external circuits, if those circuits have all electron currents "pinned" and frozen.  This is simply free asymmetrical regauging, which every electrodynamicist on earth already uses, without thinking of the thermodynamics.

The simple equation is W = (phi)q, where W is the amount of potential (internal) energy change (delta E), phi is the intensity of the potential introduced, and q is the amount of "pinned" charge that cannot move as current of any kind (bulk displacement in a material or individual charge movement).

It is here that thermodynamics has discarded the permitted ability of properly designed EM circuits to achieve COP>1.0, freely taking excess energy from the environment and using it --- and even achieving COP = infinity (which a solar cell already does). 

We just need to do it with the energy from the vacuum, which means we must utilize those "static" potentials and fields associated with a pinned source charge to potentialize other temporarily pinned charges, then separated the "pinned" and potentialized circuits, complete them, and allow the charges to unpin and flow as current, thus delivering free power to an external load except for switching costs.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden, Ph.D.

We are two students at the University of Massachusetts, in  Amherst. 

Dr. Bearden's work recently came to our attention and we are  currently enrolled in an independent study with the University Physics  Dept. focused on  the Electromagnetic model that Magnetic Energy Ltd.  utilizes. 

We intend to construct a Motionless Electromagnetic Generator  as part of our studies, following investigation of the theoretical model  behind it.           Correspondence and guidance from Dr. Bearden would be invaluable  to us. 

We have many questions that he may be able to answer. 

We have  financial backing sufficient to begin construction of a MEG, but the  donation to the UMass Library of whatever texts are applicable  (Extracting Energy from the Vacuum?) would stretch our budget further.          

We will be happy to furnish our result and conclusions as well as  technical data when it is available.  We'd gladly serve as another source  of independent appraisal of your work in the scientific community at large.

What is Magnetic Energy Ltd's policy regarding tours, internships and co-ops?          

Thank you for your time.  We look forward to your reply.                       

Sincerely,