Ans: No, it cannot be built by a nonprofessional individual. But then you probably cannot build a Swiss watch either, which
is a relatively unsophisticated device. Well, you must not be so naïve.
Nor must you insist that when we protect our hard-won Company
Proprietary technical features, we automatically owe you that
information and must give it to you.
Just go ask Bill Gates or GE for their Company Proprietary
information, or one of your own companies in Israel, freely released
to you, and see what kind of response you get from them.
We did in fact release some very good secrets in that 1993
paper, which had never before been expressed in print.
We (Magnetics Energy Limited, which is the company my own colleagues
and I founded, for our own overunity efforts on the Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator -- which is NOT in the paper you refer to)
are after all a commercial company, and to succeed we have to follow
the patenting actions etc. that are necessary.
After we file a patent with the U.S., we only have a year to
file our Foreign Patent applications, which is very expensive (about
$200,000 U.S., with appreciable maintenance fees thereafter). And if we release too many details before those patents are
filed, we lose all our foreign patent rights. Whether we like it or not, that is the international law.
So what you are arguing is that I owe all basis for any future
income, to you freely.
Well, I ask you, would you like to take all your income for
the last 10 years of your life, and just give it away?
And will you
give me freely all the income you will make for the next 20 years?
We
can never succeed if we do that, because then we have nothing left to
"sell", having already given it away. However, we have released far more details than almost any
other inventor group in this area, so you will just have to be happy
with that. If you can get
the international patent laws changed to accommodate full and instant
release, while we remain protected so we can have an income and
support our families, we would be happy to release it all. Till then, no one can afford to do that, and
your expectation of that is unwarranted and ill-conceived.
Ans: The commercial product will be available when we raise the
necessary capital to do the one to two years of remaining research and
development that is required to go from a successful laboratory
experiment to a "ready for mass production" commercial power
unit.
Also, I flatly
disagree with you about contradictions. You seem to want to take me to task because (a) you and your
professors cannot or have not put in the effort and study and work to
build an overunity device yourself or even to understand one, and so
(b) it is somehow my fault because I have not just given you all the
work and effort I've spent over 30 years of my life in acquiring.
Never mind what I have already freely given you, now you want
the rest of it. The only
accepted business way is to file patents; there is no other way to
protect one's inventions, or have a product to sell.
The patent protection is only for 20 years from the date of
patent application anyway; after that, anyone is free to build it and
sell it as they wish.
Hey, I'm also a songwriter and an author. Now there, my intellectual property rights are good for my
lifetime and 50 years thereafter. So why are inventors so greatly discriminated against???
Are you saying you wish to steal from me and my associates the
last bit of that which we have paid a very dear price for, over the
years?
What entitles you to such a presumption?
What effort have you personally made, and what have you
personally given to the peoples of the world?
If you really want to build an overunity system, then start with the
Kawai U.S. patent.
He
held nothing back, and the figures for the tests in the actual patent
show more energy out than is input by the operator. So build yourself a Kawai magnetic motor.
Start with a highly efficient magnetic motor, of say 0.7 or
0.8 efficiency (such are available, Kawai modified standard Hitachi
high efficiency engines at first). Use very good and efficient switching so there is little
switching losses. The
process will then essentially double the COP of the final motor.
So a 0.4 motor will not wind up overunity.
But a 0.7 or 0.8 motor will wind up at 1.4 or 1.6,
respectively.
The world works this way: If
you want something done, it's up to you to do it, not ping others and
blame them because you have not done it, or because you don't like it
being a bit difficult to do, or because they have not given it to you
on a silver platter.
If
it is a technical thing you wish done, then you will have to learn
some science and technology to do it and to understand it.
In the absence of you possessing the necessary technical knowledge,
all we can do is tell you what we and others have done, and the
principles and concepts we have used.
We have done that in spades, freely released.
You will not follow or understand the technical explanations,
but you can certainly follow the general concepts and what worked and
what didn't. There are
many more systems out there than what my associates and I are working
on, and there are many more inventors as well. Some are good, some are
bad.
Take a look. And
go ask them to just give it all to you, and watch their reaction.
It is our intention (and we've exerted great effort in that respect;
such as 30 years of my adult life) to sketch out the first legitimate
EM theory of overunity electrical systems.
That
we have done, and are doing. It
is now included in the scientific literature, including in some very
rigorous papers by the AIAS. About
100 of those AIAS papers are carried on a Department of Energy website
for their scientists. Many
have been published in the standard scientific journals.
Many more will be published in forthcoming books and papers.
If you just want an overunity experiment, then by all means repeat
(or have your university repeat) Bohren's
experiment, which gives 18
times as much energy out as you put in. Does
it every time, any time, anywhere.
See 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 which replicated the Bohren experiment independently
and validated its results.
Even in the standard literature, every generator
puts out enormously more energy than one inputs to its shaft to
"drive it".
From
the terminals there pours out two components of energy flow; (1) the
Poynting component, which is the tiny little bit of that flow that
skips the surface of the attached circuit, strikes the surface
charges, and gets diverged into the conductors to power up the
electrons. Rather like
sticking your hand out of a moving automobile, to divert some of the
passing air stream into the car. (2)
the enormous Heaviside nondiverged component, which is an enormous
energy flow filling all space around the wires, and missing the
circuit entirely and just wasted. E.g., see John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics,
Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.
Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578 shows a good drawing of
the huge energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with
almost all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into the
circuit to power it, but just "wasted." Kraus' contours are experimental measurements; it shows you how
much power can be intercepted at any point in that space, by a unit
point static charge. If
you place 100 unit point static charges there, you will catch 100
times as much energy as Kraus' number on the contour.
So any average experimenter and any laboratory can
easily show -- experimentally and theoretically -- that there is
enormous energy pouring out of the terminals of every battery and
generator.
Well, why has your university not made you aware
that every EM circuit and every generator and every battery is now and
always has been an overunity energy converter, outputting vastly more
energy from its terminals than we input to its shaft or that the
battery possesses in chemical energy?
Why do they not teach their student that, as energy
transducers, batteries and generators and all dipoles already exhibit
COP>>1.0???
Why are
they not voraciously pursuing this, to develop and build systems
catching and using more of it?
When
do you think they will get around to pursuing it, and quickly
producing and marketing the overunity systems they easily could???
In short, the Bohren experiment is a bona fide,
certified, overunity experiment. So what has been done with it commercially?
Nothing.
You see
my point. Infrared is
heat, e.g., and so one can use that process to get about 18 times more
heat energy than one inputs, under the proper circumstances.
So why is your university not doing it in their technical
departments?
Why have
they not told you about it?
Why
is the electrical power industry not using something modified from
that to reduce the energy input to their heaters under the boilers
making the steam to drive the steam generators that are turning the
shafts of their generators?
Hey,
there's another free one for you. With effort, such a system could in fact be developed.
Now let me introduce you to the scientific method.
I am not a news reporter,
but a scientist. In
science, one must read the literature, and when one writes a paper,
one must give credit to other scientists who have done the work one
mentions, and one must give citations for them. I
do that rigorously. That
is the way that science is conducted. Within
that framework, we release everything we can, while keeping only our
MEL Company Proprietary discoveries secret. Every
scientist and every company on earth does it that way. The
beautiful world where everybody just gives everything away, does not
exist and never has existed. Instead,
one gives away everything he can within one's restraints,
within the constriction of what he is free to give.
I don't notice all the authors and songwriters and
software producers giving everything away!
Nor any of the commercial companies; they would not be
solvent very long if they did that.
So that will have to suffice.
If
you are interested in vacuum energy systems, I urge you to take the
time to search the web and also to read the literature. E.g.,
go and read the Journal of New Energy. You
will find enormous numbers of references on the web alone. And lots of articles, even a few by me, but lots by other
reputable scientists.
It isn't an easy job, and it will not fall on you
out of the sky.
In any
struggling technical field, you will have to read the literature, and
you will have to have some technical competence and knowledge. I have passed on what took me 30 years to discover.
But it will take you more than a few minutes to absorb it and
understand it and be able to start using it.
Meanwhile, I hope you found something of interest
to you on the site, and encourage you to visit other relevant sites as
well.
Be prepared for a lot of hard work and study, if you are
really interested and not just looking for something for nothing. It
is not easy, and you cannot do it like winding a kitchen clock. Remember
also that what may be relatively easy for a well-equipped laboratory
to do, such as at a good technical university, may be impossible for
the ordinary citizen to do. I
cannot build an automobile either, but I do enjoy driving and owning a
good one that somebody else found out how to build, and that other
people built.
Tom Bearden