So if you start with a high efficiency motor, say 0.7 or 0.8, you can expect to get 1.4 or 1.6, as the Hitachi engineers in Japan measured for a Kawai process applied to two of their own high-efficiency Hitachi motors.  Note that the mechanical pattern of the metal that does the flux path switching is a bit complicated.  But that device works right from the patent, if you use very efficient (photon-coupled) switching.  I'm not an electronics technician (two of our guys are and they do that kind of work for us), but that has to be done.

The Magnetic Wankel also can be made to work, or at least self-rotate, if care is used in precision cutting the magnets.  But there are many neodymium iron magnets, so that is quite expensive.

I don't know of any really cheap, easily put together system; if there were one, then all the universities would have been onto this a long time ago -- or at least the sharp young grad students would have been onto it.

The anti-Stokes emission effect is always overunity a priori, since the emitting matter receives excess energy from the dynamic motions of atoms and molecules in the system.  I don't believe anyone has looked at the replenishment of the energy to those atoms and molecules; standard approach is to imply that they "run down" or "slow down", which probably is not true at all, since they all involve charge and charge dynamics, and charge is one thing that can easily be proven to emit EM energy in 3-space without any input energy at all in 3-space.  (The energy is received from the time domain; see my paper on Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole, and also a very strong supporting argument by Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 5).  So in theory if you collect and use the energy freely flowing from a monopolar charge or dipole, and do not use half of it (in a closed current loop circuit containing the source dipole) to destroy the dipole, you can permissibly do overunity, without violation of physics, thermodynamics, or conservation of energy law.  That's because you are using an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and such a system is permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than you yourself have to input in 3-space (the excess energy is freely received from the external environmental exchange) (4) power itself and its external load (all the energy is freely received from the active environmental energy exchange), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

The Bohren experiment also outputs some 18 times as much energy emission as one oneself inputs by the standard Poynting energy flow calculation.  This is because there is a nondiverged, noncollected Heaviside component of energy flow accompanying every Poynting energy flow (Poynting's component is only the intercepted component of flow, hence the diverged component) that is abandoned in electrodynamics since Lorentz arbitrarily discarded it circa 1886.  The Bohren experiment puts a collecting charged particle into particle resonance, so it "sweeps out" a larger reaction cross sectional area, thereby intercepting and catching (diverging) more energy flow.

Bedini's negative resistor process in batteries is absolutely genuine (see my paper on it), but putting it together into a nice operating system is not such a simple matter.
I guess the basic overunity problem (in electrical systems approaches to them) can be stated as follows:  Take any dipole such as a permanent magnet. Energy radiates continuously from it in all directions, without ceasing, at the speed of light.  The problem is to catch some of the energy in an external circuit containing a load, then discharge that energy into the load.  And one must not "kill" the dipole, but leave it alone.  So it's primarily a "intercepting the energy, discharging it in a load, and then going back and dipping up some more energy, etc."  Or in other words, shuttling the energy rather than transmitting its effects around a closed path where the electrons are pushed in such a path.  Tesla's approach was to shuttle back and forth along a single wire connecting two circuits, one at each end.

Anyway, I wish you well in your research.  We have found some complex ways to do it, all needing further research to handle the phenomenology that emerges, but we ourselves are still looking for that "novel and simple" way.

I did propose one simple way but was never able to obtain the material to try it.  If one can have a metallurgical lab make some aluminum wire doped with about 1% iron (has to be done in an inert atmosphere such as argon), then the electron relaxation time can be brought up to about a millisecond. That means that one can potentialize the conductors etc. in the circuit suddenly, in purely static manner (the electrons are still "frozen" for a substantial percentage of that millisecond), then switch away leaving the potential energy and closing the circuit (as with a diode) so that discharge can only occur in one direction around through the load, and watch the energy then discharge through the load.  Then one can "shuttle" some more energy onto the circuit, pull away, watch it discharge in the load, etc. Here one only has to "pay" for switching costs, not at all for the energy itself.  This too is perfectly permissible; one is simply applying the well-known gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory.  From any scalar potential (phi), one can collect any amount of energy W, by the simple formula W = (phi)q.  So for a given phi, to collect a desired W, one only needs to have collecting charges q.  Energy is actually a flow and a cause; work is a dissipation or change to that flow and is an effect.  Further, any dipole --- once made -- produces a scalar potential forever, so long as the dipole remains intact.  So one can pay to make the dipolar source of the potential, and then must figure out a way to collect and switch energy from that potential in a completely separate circuit (use transmission-reception theory, not closed current loop circuit theory where the source dipole is part of the circuit!) to collect the energy in a receiving antenna/collector.  That external receiver/collector can of course be a closed current loop circuit, but SEPARATE circuit not connected at all back to the primary source dipole.  Then by switching, one can convert the received DC to AC, e.g., and let it power something.

That is the kind of experiment that one can do, without destroying the original source.

The beauty of working with permanent magnetic dipoles is that the dipole is "fixed" in the material, and the magnetic charges are not dispersed when flux current is passed back through the dipole.

We have been able to do this with the MEG experiment, and have filed an appropriate additional patent application on the exact process we use as well as several variants.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your experiments.  We too are in this for the long haul; it required more than eight years of hard work to come up with our first MEG.  Lots of things we did and tried, just went right down the tubes and did not work.  When our understanding got more accurate, then gradually we became more aware of what we are doing.  The basic effect we are applying for power is the Aharonov-Bohm effect.  Contrary to popular opinion, the MEG is not a standard transformer functionally.  Indeed, its major operation is not that of a transformer at all, but a transmitter-receiver-converter using the AB effect.

Tom Bearden

Subject: cop>1.0

Dear Tom,
      My name is ********* and I have been reading your papers on energy exraction from the vacuum, overunity principles etc with great interest. Together with my father, we work in a small garage laboratory, as we have done for years, trying to break the COP>1 barrier - mainly to get our prototype electric bike to break the 30km/25km per hour barrier.

      We have built innumerable versions of Takahashi motors, Adams motors, pulsed overunity generators and the like - all without any success, but not through lack of trying, as Dad can clearly remember his Dad playing with magnets many years ago and muttering "there must be some way of making a motor run with these things" and truly, we can conceive of nothing more exciting and promising than some contraption sitting on our bench, powering it's load whilst simultaneously running itself.

      Tom, is there ****ANYTHING**** we can do to help realise this dream - not for us, but for the Earth and it's creatures ? Although we have collected most of our equipment from garbage cleanups and have as our "funding" the few pennies we can obtain from the odd repair job, we have nevertheless been able to do some feats which have left local university professors aghast in amazement (why I will never know!) so we are not completely without ability or enthusiasm, but this overunity business totally eludes us.

Can you help ?

I understand if you cannot answer this email - In any event, our hopes are with you - Love Always, 

Michael and Dad