Dear Jim,

 

All electromagnetic devices are powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the dipoles.  Rigorously, that’s because of the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges – therefore, any dipole or dipolarity. See my website material and my book as to why the common EM systems exhibit COP < 1.0, even though they are all powered by energy freely extracted from the vacuum, and not by the mechanical energy one puts into the shaft of a generator, or by the chemical energy one dissipates in a battery.

 

In magnetism, magnetic charge is called a “pole”. So a separated north pole and south pole make a charge dipole. Further, in 1957 it was rigorously shown (both theoretically and experimentally) that opposite charges exhibit broken symmetry. Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize immediately (Dec. 1957) because of their epochal prediction of several broken symmetries, which were proven experimentally by Wu and her colleagues in Feb. 1957. That caused a great revolution in physics, but that revolution has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department and caused them to change their horribly flawed classical EM model and EE model.

 

Broken symmetry means that “something virtual becomes observable”, to quote Nobelist Lee. It means that some virtual energy has been “collated” to form observable energy.

 

Because it exhibits broken symmetry of opposite charges, any dipole (separated opposite charges)  thus absorbs virtual state photons from the seething vacuum, changing the energy of each virtual photon into a differential of mass. It also integrates that virtual energy to form observable energy, and re-emits real, observable EM energy in the form of real photons.

 

Here’s the magic integration secret: mass is unitary, and it doesn’t care from what direction the energy came. So successive differentials to the charge’s mass integrate coherently. Each successive absorption of a virtual photon thus adds another differential to the increasing mass (which physicists refer to as “mass-energy”). In short, the absorbing mass-energy becomes more and more excited by the increasing excess “mass-energy”. The overall differential mass-energy DM of the absorbing mass-energy increases by DM = dm(1) + dm(2) + dm(3) + …. etc.  When DM sums to a large enough value to contain enough integrated energy to make an observable photon, it has just crossed the “quantum level” separation between virtual state and observable state. At that point, the zitterbewegung (constant bombardment of the charged mass-energy by highly energetic virtual particles of the vacuum”) simply “knocks out” the resulting observable photon, causing the excited mass to spontaneously decay back down to ground level by emission of a real, observable photon.

 

Iteration of the coherent integration process results in a continual stream of real photons (real EM energy) emitted by the source dipolarity and radiating in all directions at the speed of light. This steady emission of photons thus establishes the corresponding EM fields and potentials associated with the source dipolarity.

 

Any single “isolated” charge does the same thing, because (check out quantum field theory etc.; it is not in electrical engineering) the charge polarizes its surrounding vacuum, so that virtual charges of opposite sign surround it. This “ensemble” is thus a special dipolarity, and thus the ensemble must also exhibit the same broken symmetry of opposite charges, continually radiating real observable EM energy that has been absorbed in virtual state by the charges from the vacuum, coherently integrated, and spewed out.

 

We do not have to discover how to extract EM energy from the vacuum ourselves! Every charge and dipole in the universe already does that. We just have to relearn how to correctly use the charges and dipoles that we make and employ.  Presently, electrical engineers are taught only to design and produce electrical systems which destroy their own source dipolarities (and therefore destroy their free extraction of copious EM energy from the vacuum) faster than they power their loads.

 

Note also that, thermodynamically, the source charge (ensemble, a dipolarity) or a dipole is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. It “consumes” positive entropy in the virtual state, coherently integrates (orders) it back into observable state, and emits it to form associated observable EM fields and potentials, ordered in their intensity as a function of radial distance.

 

Hence the charge produces continuous negative entropy in the observable domain. As such, it totally violates the present form of the Second Law of thermodynamics, which rigorously applies only to systems in equilibrium or near equilibrium. Specifically, the silly Second Law only describes a system near equilibrium and thus a “little bit” excited, that is decaying by dissipating its control of that excitation energy, until it decays back into equilibrium (which is the condition of maximum entropy). Hence for those kinds of situations, the present Second Law adequately describes the steady production of positive entropy. But that is not a general law at all, it is not universal at all, it is in fact a special case, and its violation occurs every time any system is driven out of equilibrium by any means. Departing from entropy means rigorously that the system’s entropy decreases, which is a negative entropy operation. Every time you flip a light switch and the circuit asymmetrically regauges (is potentialized), you violate the Second Law of thermodynamics. It’s no big deal, and the old guys who got so hung up on it have done a number on everyone for more than 100 years. Check out the new thermodynamics work of the last 10 years, by D. J. Evans, Rondoni, etc. There are many known violations of the second law.

 

But it is novel that there are some operations (such as by every source charge and dipole in the universe) that continuously violate the present form of the second law, because the operations do not decay and do not cease emitting excess “free” ordered energy. The charge or dipole will in fact freely extract and emit real ordered observable EM energy, from the totally disordered vacuum, so long as the charge or dipole exists and is not destroyed. The charges and dipoles in original matter in the universe have been doing that for some 13.7 billion years, and they have not run down or decreased their steady radiation level yet. Sen has called this the most difficult problem in electrodynamics; e.g., D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

 

Kosyakov states it more bluntly: "A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated. …"The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal? " [B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Sov. Phys. Usp. 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.]

 

We solved that problem and published it in 2000, 2002, and later, pointing out where the basis for the solution has been in particle physics since 1957, some 43 years. See T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. See also T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 3. Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the Expanding Universe.  Also see M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.

 

So a magnetic dipole – such as a magnet – continuously produces from the vacuum, and radiates steadily into space, real photons that establish the associated magnetic fields spreading at the speed of light and continually being replenished at the speed of light.

 

Note that none of the above exists in electrical engineering or the classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics. Those very old models are terribly flawed (that is well-known, as pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Lindsay, Bunge, etc.). The silly model assumes a flat spacetime (falsified in 1916), assumes a material ether (falsified in 1887), assumes force fields in empty space (totally false, and well-known to be false for nearly 100 years), etc. It also assumes correctly that the associated EM fields and potentials are indeed produced by their respective source charges, but it also assumes that the energy continuously radiating from those charges and establishing and replenishing these fields is created out of nothing at all, by those same source charges. That of course is in total violation of the conservation of energy law.

 

Sadly, electrical engineers – even the professors – are no longer aware of the terrible flaws in the foundations of their very old model, which model was sharply curtailed twice after being born in Maxwell’s seminal 1865 paper. The knowing and continued promulgation of such a seriously flawed model tells you something about the ethics (or lack thereof) of organized science itself. The source charge problem, e.g., has been scrubbed from all EE texts, and the students are never made aware that their model still incorrectly assumes the old luminiferous material ether. The model does not even calculate an actual E-field, and it never has. Instead, check it out in any good textbook giving rigorous definitions. The model calculates the effect  (the force field intensity that results in matter) of the interaction of the true force-free E-field as it exists in space, with charged static matter (a material ether) arbitrarily and erroneously assumed at each and every point in space where the field exists. The model calculates the “static intensity” of the force field created in charged static matter by the actual E-field interaction; it does not calculate the E-field itself!. Yet every book and every professor purports to do so.

 

Feynman in his three volumes of physics points out that this existence of the force field in mass-free space is not true, and those force fields do not exist in space at all. He states that the potential for having a force field is what exists, SHOULD some charged matter be brought in and introduced for the true “force-free field” to interact with. See Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. I, 1963, p. 2-4. Feynman defines the electric field not in terms of force per se, but in terms of its potentiality for producing a force only when a charge is present for the force to be developed upon. But in the 41 years since Feynman’s publication of his three volumes of sophomore physics, the electrical engineering departments at the universities using his book in their sophomore physics classes have not corrected the serious errors in their EE model. To see how the problem is avoided and disposed, we quote from Jackson, a superb electrodynamicist: "Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 249]. As you can see, the force field F is given by F = Eq, and so it is really the product of the true “force-free field E” and charge q. Simply substitute zero for q, and you easily see that F also goes to zero, even though E does not. To ignore this and continue to erroneously use the force field in empty space is a gross error.

 

Now we turn to the MEG. It is not a conventional transformer at all. Unless one is discussing the Aharonov-Bohm effect, how it is evoked by the MEG, and what it does in the surrounding space outside the core material, one is not discussing the MEG, but is discussing a normal transformer.

 

Now digress a moment, and consider sharp gradients (of energy density, e.g.) introduced into a little region of space. Such sharp gradients are KNOWN and RECOGNIZED by nonequilibrium thermodynamics to violate the hoary old Second Law of thermodynamics (see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, Reprinted with corrections Oct. 1999, p. 459). Further, according to Kondepudi and Prigogine, not much is understood about such gradients, either theoretically or experimentally. But in the MEG, we use sharp gradients to deliberately violate the old Second Law, by taking the system far from equilibrium with its active environment. That violates both the ordinary EE model and classical equilibrium thermodynamics. It does not violate higher group symmetry electrodynamics, and it does not violate physics or nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

 

Any EM system producing COP>1.0 — and thus outputting more energy than the energy that the operator himself inputs and pays for — must receive the extra energy from its active environment. Else it would be creating energy from nothing, in violation of the First Law of thermodynamics. So if the MEG is to produce COP>1.0, it must receive and utilize an extra energy input from its external environment, just as must any other COP>1.0 system.

 

We found a core material that does a nice thing: it localizes (holds in itself) all the magnetic field B. Now that produces a very peculiar thing, which is good physics but not present in electrical power engineering. The best discussion of electromagnetism, as far as physicists are concerned, starts with the magnetic vector potential A and the electrostatic scalar potential phi, which are the basis for everything else. So let us look at the vector potential A for a moment.

 

Magnetic vector potential A actually consists of two components, one that is “swirling” energy in motion and the other that is curl-free A-potential in straight line motion, with no “swirl”. The “swirling” component is what we call the B-field, via the equation (should be an identity) B = dell cross A.  Normally this swirling component B covers and hides the remaining curl-free A-potential, so that we do not see it and seldom use it.

 

However, if we forcibly LOCALIZE or imprison the B-field and its flux in a local area, and do not let it spill out of this “prison” area into space as is its wont, then this localization “peels back” and removes that covering B-field from the underlying uncurled A-potential OUTSIDE that localization zone. This means a peculiar but very useful thing for the MEG: When we localize the B-field flux in the core material of the MEG, then in the space outside the core material there freely appears this EXTRA curl-free A-potential, which is real, extra, usable energy. For free. We do not have to pay for it, but just “uncover” it and reveal it, and make it available for system use.

 

This effect is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and it is well-known and proven in particle physics, though it does not exist in electrical power engineering at all. There are some 20,000 papers in the hard physics literature dealing with the AB effect, or its generalization by Michael Berry to the Berry Phase, or the further generalization by Aharonov and Anandan to the geometric phase. In short, we do not have to reprove the AB effect! We just have to cite the appropriate literature references, and then show experimentally that we are in fact producing the AB effect with the MEG core material.

 

We found a core material and construction that would in fact do that localization. We can easily prove it. That permanent magnet tightly across the core middle, has almost all its magnetism B-field pulled into the core material and held there. The B-field of the magnet does not spill out of it into space! It’s all drawn into the core and held there. This is readily proved. Just place the probe of a good magnetic field meter on the actual face of that permanent magnet, right over one of its poles. If you have very tight contact between the core material and the ends of the magnet (so there are minimal air gaps), then your meter will measure almost zero B-field, right against the magnet pole itself!  If it doesn’t, you do not  have a MEG, but just a regular transformer.

 

Consequently, that localization of the B-field evokes the AB effect a priori, and so the uncurled A-potential freely appears in the space OUTSIDE the MEG core. We now have all the normal B-field flux that a normal transformer uses (confined inside the core), and we have a lot of extra energy outside the transformer core in the form of that new uncurled A-potential.

 

In quantum EM theory, the B-flux localized inside the core and the uncurled A-potential outside the core are globally connected. (That’s proven, we do not have to reprove it). So when we perturb the B-flux inside the core, we are also FREELY perturbing that extra uncurled A-potential outside the core, where perturbation makes an E-field by the little equation dA/dt = - E.  By controlling the rise time and decay time of the near-rectangular pulses we input to the “input” coil of the MEG, we can control the magnitude of those E-fields produced FREELY in space outside the core.

 

Now notice that negative sign on the E-field in that little equation. This means that the energy in those very strong E-fields that we cause outside the core, react back upon everything wound on the core and in fact upon every conductor etc. in that area and the immediate vicinity. Every coil becomes an input coil for that extra E-field energy radiating into the MEG from that space outside the core, and – by adjusting the rise time and decay time of our input pulses, we can easily adjust the E-field to be so powerful that it wipes out the double or triple insulation on the windings, destroying the MEG. The trick is to stop short of that!

 

Anyway, now all the coils on the MEG, regardless of their “normal” function, also become EXTRA input coils for large pulsed inputs of E-field energy. In turn, each coil receiving that excess energy also interacts with every other coil, producing a “dense EM signal environment” of feedforward and feedback signals between the coils etc. on the MEG. If we adjust all that dense signal environment (carefully!) so that in the overall output the results are mostly additive, then the MEG outputs much more energy than just the B-field flux energy that we paid for. We get about 90% to 95% of that B-field flux as electrical energy energy output, plus several times as much extra E-field energy simultaneously, that resulted from the excess E-field inputs from the external environment.

 

As a result, the MEG is analogous to a heat pump. The MEG always has an overall efficiency less than 100%, as do all electrical machines. But by having an excess energy input freely from the external active environment, the MEG actually receives far more energy input than what we pay to input ourselves. Hence it can lose some energy in its internal system losses, and then still output several times as much useful EM energy as the component of the input energy that we ourselves paid for.

 

The common home heat pump, e.g., is only about 50% efficient, and it wastes half of all the energy input to it. But it extracts so much extra energy freely (or nearly freely) from its external environment, that even after all its losses it can output three to four times as much energy as the electrical energy we pay to input from the power grid.

 

One has to have a clear understanding of the difference between COP and efficiency. The efficiency is total useful energy output, divided by total energy input. In any system having losses, that is always less than 100%. A perfect, lossless system would have an efficiency of 100%.

 

The COP is the total useful energy output, divided by the input energy input by the operator only.  So even in a lossy system, if the environment will input lots of energy freely or nearly freely, then the system can still output more useful energy than the operator alone has to input and pay for.

 

Sadly, most of the “free energy” community still does not understand the clear difference between COP and efficiency. Neither do most electrical engineers and even many of the physicists (at least half).

 

So the major COP>1.0 “energy from the vacuum” secret in any overunity EM device is this: What is the mechanism by which the environment inputs significant extra energy freely or nearly freely? If there is no such input, then the experimenter is fooling himself, perhaps by inappropriate measurement procedures and techniques. If the unit does indeed show COP>1.0 clearly, by good measurements, then there has to be that extra energy input from space (from the vacuum) somewhere.

 

Hope this helps you understand the operation of the MEG, and the principles that allow it to be COP>1.0, while obeying the conservation of energy law, the laws of physics, and the laws of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. It does, of course, permissibly violate the inapplicable “near equilibrium” Second Law of thermodynamics, but then so do many other things as is already well-known in modern thermodynamics.

 

In nonequilibrium thermodynamics, a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system is permitted to exhibit five magic functions. Such a system can exhibit (1) self-ordering (i.e., a form of negative entropy), (2) self-oscillation or self-rotation, (3) output of more energy than the operator himself inputs (the excess energy is freely input from the active environment), (4) self-powering of itself and its load (all the energy is freely input by the active environment, and the operator need input none of it), and (5) negative entropy (closely allied to function number one).

 

Best wishes,

 

Tom Bearden

 

 
Tom:
 
1)  In my initial efforts to build a MEG I used Neo PM's, 1" x 2" x 1 3/8", and was unable to achieve a COP>1.  (The circuit I used was that shown by Naudin.)  In the belief that my "control" was too puny to switch the Neo PM flux, or that the Neo PM was saturating the core being used, I've just ordered a ceramic PM that is about 1/4th as powerful as the Neo PM's.
 
For reasons given below I've (tentatively) concluded that the MEG is not being directly powered by the aether (the "seething vacuum") but, instead, the aether is powerig the PM and the MEG is simply a control that allows a portion of that power to be extracted and used.  I see the orbiting electrons in the PM atoms as being in a super-conductive state.  When, in the MEG, the flux is switched from one core leg to the other the flux increase/decrease in the cores induces current flow in the windings, and produces a voltage across these windings which is used to power our external load.  This power must necessarily come via the agency of the PM, and, in that the PM retains its strength indefinitely, must indirectly come from the force that powers the PM.  If this is so, then there is a limit on the amount of power available from a given PM/core combination which is the saturation point of the core.  ???
 
2)  The Sweet VTM would seem to be another method of switching the flux of a pair of PM's, only in this system an external core is not being used.  Instead, the flux is made to pass in alternative directions through a coil suspended in the air (and the flux) between the two PM's.  In your description of the VTA your make two points, a) As the load was increased the available power seemed to increase proportionately to a point of apparent instability, and, b) the wires from the VTA became frost covered, indicating a drastic drop in their temperature.  This suggests that the VTA output coil was being driven super-conductive, thus reducing the source impedance which, in turn, would permit very large curents to be drawn by the external load.  Of course, at some point the strength of the oscillating magnetic field of the output coil will approach the strength of the PM's and this may impose an output limit on any given design.
 
3)  In any of these machines that allow us to access the aethereal energy a block diagram could be drawn which shows the energy ocean as a vast reservoir which can be tapped at any point to allow a bit of that energy to be transformed into electrical power, in a controlled fashion, and then fed to our various appliances.  The obvious limit to any such device is in the robustness of its design, however, a natural limit may be in the amount of energy in the space that we couple into, and the rate of energy inflow from surrounding space, in the event that we learn to pull extremely large amounts with our devices.  ???
 
Jim W.