| Date: Fri, 23 May 2003
17:30:32 -0500
Dear Levi,
Regrettably I'm at a
disadvantage in that respect! I have a nondisclosure agreement with
Howard Johnson, and I cannot release any specifics on his magnets, how
he cuts and assembles them, etc. Those are part of his proprietary
information, and I never mention those things.
With his personal
permission, however, we have released the fact that he uses highly
nonlinear assemblies which, when facing an incoming magnet that would
normally be repelled, are stimulated to evoke a sudden exchange force
which is momentarily far stronger than the magnetic fields. This force
is precisely evoked so that the incoming magnet is ATTRACTED on into the
assembly (gate) area, against the much weaker repulsion of the like
polarities. Then as the exchange force dies out, the magnetic repulsion
force comes to the fore again and dominates, with the result that as the
rotor magnet is leaving the gate the rotor magnet now is repelled on out
of it.
So the Johnson gate
and rotor arrangement is capable of producing two forces that aid each
other's propulsion of the rotor (say, clockwise). In the entry portion
of that clockwise rotation, the Johnson exchange force evoked
automatically in his magnet assemblies overpowers the repulsion of the
like polarities, strongly drawing the rotor magnet into the gate magnet
assembly while the magnetic poles are more weakly repelling. As the
rotor passes in the middle of the gate, the exchange force disappears
and the repulsion force of like polarities takes over as the dominant
force. This further accelerates the rotor in the same direction it was
just accelerated in, by the exchange force. A series of such gates
self-evoking their exchange force components at precisely the correct
positions and times, gives a permanent magnet motor with a unilateral,
constant direction net propulsion thrust, and a continual series of
torques on the rotor, all in the same rotational direction.
So Johnson technically
uses a nonconservative self-evoking exchange force from the magnetic
materials themselves, to cause an "attraction force between like poles"
situation (he demonstrates this part of it easily, to every visiting
Ph.D.). That novel exchange force subsides at the properly adjusted
time so that the rotor magnet that was just accelerated into the
magnetic gate in a seemingly impossible "like pole seemingly attracting
a like pole" sense, is then further accelerated on out of the gate on
the other side, in the same rotational direction.
You can dig into all
parts of that and justify each and every part in the hard physics and
materials science literature. Simply search on "exchange force",
"magnetic spin flipping", "spintronics", "conservative force",
"nonconservative force", etc.
Every aspect of the
above explanation, needed to develop your own version, is directly
obtainable from the literature with a little hard effort.
What I cannot and will
not do, under instructions and my agreement with Howard, is to just give
away all his "fine-tuned" work for free. He is after all an inventor,
with certain intellectual property rights, and he has worked very long
and hard for what he has so painfully discovered. The final "exact"
little methods he finds and uses to "hone" and "tune" the operation of
his gate assemblies to a fine point, is what must remain proprietary to
Howard.
But if you're really
interested, then the above gives all the basic information needed to
work in the area.
Be prepared, however,
to have to precision machine the magnet assemblies. Simply cutting with
a diamond saw does not achieve sufficient accuracy, and with that rough
method you will not be able to tune or adjust to the required degree for
certain operation. If the physical aspects and dimensions are not
controlled tightly and are allowed to vary, the resulting spin forces
get all out of whack and direction, and one assembly will not duplicate
another, because of such inaccuracies.
Please note that just
the simple attraction and repulsion of magnetic poles
will not, repeat
will not, yield a
self-powering permanent motor of the Johnson type. The reason is that
the common magnetic fields B and H are conservative, and the line
integration of these forces around a closed circle yields a big fat
net zero effective
drive force. On the other hand, if an additional nonconservative force
is also self-initiated by the assembly materials, at the proper times
and places and directions, then the closed line integration will not
yield a net zero, but will yield a
net force vector that is a drive or "torque" vector.
Contrary to
conventional wisdom, the laws of thermodynamics and physics and
electrodynamics do permit self-powering permanent magnet motors under
the proper conditions. They do
not permit such motors if
only conservative forces are used!
They do permit
such motors if some
nonconservative forces are also self-evoked and freely added by the
materials themselves.
Also, recall my
published solution to the source charge problem, where every classical
observable charge (as is well-known in quantum field theory, but not in
classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory and electrical engineering), actually
consists of an infinite bare charge in the middle, surrounded by an
outside infinite charge of virtual charges of opposite sign. Let us
call that the "charge ensemble", and we specifically point out that it
is also a dipole of two opposite and
infinite charges!
Simply check Nobelist Steven Weinberg,
Dreams of
a Final Theory,
Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110. In particle physics and
quantum field theory, an "isolated" charge is well-known to be
surrounded by a clustering of virtual charges of opposite sign. Each
"bare" charge without considering the other is recognized to be
infinite, but the difference between the two infinite charges is finite
and it is the normal finite value of the "classical charge" listed in
conventional handbooks.)
If you
are really serious about self-powering permanent magnet motors, you must
get outside the conventional electrical engineering, because that flawed
model does not even model or permit such systems. There are much better
systems of electrodynamics already developed, and they
do permit and model such
systems.
By
magnetic pole one actually refers to "magnetic charge".
Now
realize that the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as that
charge ensemble comprising any classical "isolated" charge --- was
proven and accepted in 1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee
and Yang for strongly predicting broken symmetry.
Broken symmetry of opposite charges
means that the charge ensemble (that dipolarity of opposite charges)
continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum -- actually
changing the mass of that charge a bit, by (delta m) = E/(c^2). The
mass of course is additively integrated as just more mass as more
virtual energy is absorbed, so the absorbed energy is coherently
integrated in its mass-energy
condition. When the amount of integration of that (delta m)
mass-energy is energetically sufficient for an observable photon's
energy, then this excited mass (m + delta m) of the charge decays back
to the normal mass m, emitting the integrated mass (delta m) as a real,
honest-to-goodness observable
photon. The continuous absorption of virtual photon energy from the
seething vacuum, and that energy being continuously re-emitted in
observable photon form,
is what causes the source charge to pour forth real, observable EM
energy in all directions at light speed, thereby establishing and
continuously replenishing its associated fields and magnets.
We are
pointing out that (1) the dipolar magnet (any magnet!) is actually an
infinite source of energy, except the energy is input in normally
unusable form (as virtual photons). However, the dipolarity of the
magnet means that the asymmetry of opposite charges is operating, and
that transposes that virtual photon
input energy into real, observable EM photon energy, and continuously
pours it out from the source charge in all directions, thereby
establishing the associated magnetic fields and potentials and the
energy in them.
So one
must understand that a "permanent magnet" is actually a permanent broken
symmetry in the fierce flux of the vacuum, and it thus continuously
extracts and outpours real, observable magnetic energy, from the very
definition of broken symmetry.
We point
this out because rigorously this process reveals that the permanent
magnet is actually an active dynamics system, or what is called in
thermodynamics a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) dissipative system.
As such, the known thermodynamics of such systems far from equilibrium
with their active environment does permit and allow any of five "magic"
functions. Specifically, such a NESS system can (1) self-order (produce
energy seeming from nowhere), (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3)
output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess energy is freely
received and transduced from the active environment), (4) exhibit
self-powering (all the energy is freely received and transduced from the
active environment), and (5) exhibit negative entropy. Simply things
out on dissipative systems in the recent book, Kondepudi and Prigogine,
Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures,
Wiley, 1998 (published with corrections in 1999).
Further,
the second law of thermodynamics has known violations, one being sharp
gradients (Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid., p. 459. The exchange force
is just such a sharp gradient, and it does violate the received form of
the second law of thermodynamics (which has many other violations as
well, as recently shown). About such sharp gradients, Kondepudi and
Prigogine state dryly that "Not much is known either experimentally or
theoretically".
Our
proposed solution to the source charge problem also demonstrates a total
violation of the second law, to any macroscopic level and time interval
desired. See also Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 200. Leyton's revolutionary work in extending
the old Klein geometry (1872) and using more advanced group theoretic
methods, has also established the hierarchy of symmetries. In the old
Klein geometry and group theoretic methods, a broken symmetry reduces
the symmetry. In the new and more rigorous approach, a broken symmetry
at one level automatically produces a symmetry at the next higher level,
which is a negative entropy reaction. This next higher level symmetry
also has a layer that contains all the information of the lower level
symmetries and asymmetries. In short, Leyton has revealed a
self-organizing universe, rigorously demonstrated by advanced group
theoretic methods.
Note that
energy is fully conserved in a negative entropy reaction! Positive
entropy just refers to formerly ordered and available energy that has
become disordered and/or unavailable. Negative entropy just refers to
formerly disordered and unavailable energy that has become ordered and
available. Self-ordering of nonequilibrium systems is very rigorously
established today, particularly by Prigogine and others. So the
achievement of negative entropy does not violate conservation of
energy. What it does do is require some reordering to occur. In short,
Leyton's generation of a new symmetry (ordering) at the next higher
level from a broken symmetry at the lower disordered level, is a
perfectly valid negative entropy operation. Further, it represents the
consumption of positive entropy (the consumption of disordered and
unavailable energy) at the lower level to form negative entropy (the
appearance of ordered and available energy) at the next higher level.
In the
source charge, the absorption of the totally disordered virtual photons
by the charge, and their conversion to increasing and coherently
integrated mass-energy, is a perfectly valid and universal negative
energy operation, totally violating the present seriously flawed form of
the second law of thermodynamics. I have proposed a restatement of the
corrected second law, to accord with modern second-law violating
experiments, Leyton's work, and the source charge solution, as follows:
"First a Leyton negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some
controlled order. Then that initial controlled order will either remain
the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent
entropic interactions, unless additional Leyton negative entropy
interactions occur and intervene."
This
together with Leyton's work also solves the greatest and most vexing
problem in thermodynamics: its asymmetry. In short, if the present
hoary old second law were universally correct, then starting with some
ordered energy, its entropy (unavailability) could only remain the same
or increase with time as additional interactions occurred. However, if
that were true, then there is a major problem: How then was the entropy
ever so low in the first place?
As can be
seen, there is an overwhelming need for reordering for our observations
of the universe even to make sense!
But yes,
the correct thermodynamics does allow a self-powering permanent motor,
exhibiting coefficient of performance (COP) of COP = infinity. All that
COP = infinity means is that the machine has an output but does not
require an OPERATOR input. It jolly well gets its necessary input
directly from its external environment, in this case the active vacuum.
Now note
what the "skeptics" believe and advocate, much to their dismay when
confronted with it. In standard EE and classical Maxwell-Heaviside
models, the fields and potentials and their energy are indeed assumed to
be generated by their associated source charges. However, those archaic
models erroneously assume a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum, two
assumptions falsified in physics more than 80 years ago. Thus they
assume that the fields and potentials and their energy are freely
created right out of nothing at all, by those source charges!
The
skeptics unwittingly assume that the permanent magnet dipolarity of
opposite magnetic charges (poles) freely creates and establishes its
external fields and potentials right out of nothing at all, without any
energy input at all.
In short,
the conventional EE model and classical Maxwell-Heaviside model are in
total violation of the conservation of energy law, for every charge and
dipole in the universe, because they implicitly assume that every charge
and dipole freely creates energy from nothing.
For our
purpose, it just suffices that there is a solid (and actually already
known) physics theory and a thermodynamics theory fitted to countless
experiments, that does indeed permit a self-powering permanent magnet
motor, if an additional nonconservative force (such as the very
convenient and well-known reaction force) is periodically evoked to
provide unilateral free thrust.
The
conservation of energy law is NOT violated by a self-powering magnetic
motor under load, once one considers the true and continuous energy
input from the local active vacuum and consequent local curvature of
spacetime, and once one considers the self-evoked exchanged forces which
are produced in a deliberately nonconservative manner.
Best
wishes,
Tom
Bearden
|