| Subject: RE: Proof of
overunity Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:32:42 -0500
Dear Dr. C*****,
Thank you for a reasoned and rational approach to the subject of
permissible overunity EM systems. For the benefit of all
concerned, I will
present our viewpoint here at Magnetic Energy Ltd, a private company.
We are, however, extremely limited in time, since we are also working
furiously on a possible solution to treating the mass casualties that
may be expected in the present war. That work takes precedence
for us over any energy discussions. Agreement with our position
is neither necessary nor
solicited.
From a thermodynamic standpoint, obviously one must have an open
system far from equilibrium with its external active environment, else
there cannot be COP>1.0. So the real problem of the overunity
inventor or developer is to explain (1) what the active environment of
the system is, with which the system in question is in an ongoing
energy exchange, (2) how that energy exchange is in net
disequilibrium, not equilibrium, and (3) how the system prevents the
automatic "decay" of the overunity condition (an excited
condition of the system) back into "unity or less"
condition.
That is all that is rigorously required of the overunity researcher or
inventor, scientifically.
In terms of the MEG:
(1) The active environment consists of two components: the local
nonlinear
vacuum and its dynamics, and the local curvatures of spacetime and
their
dynamics. Both components of this active environment are
arbitrarily
assumed away in the classical Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz
symmetrically-regauged electrodynamics model. Assuming that the
local
vacuum is inert, e.g., or in equilibrium with a system containing
charges
and dipoles, has been falsified in physics for more than four decades
(see
the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for the broken symmetry
of
opposite charges, which can be interpreted for a dipole as the broken
symmetry of that dipole). The notion that any system with
dynamic changes in energy and energy flow exists in a flat spacetime
has been falsified by general relativity for nearly a century.
(2) The energy exchange of the MEG with the local vacuum is in
disequilibrium because of the proven Lee-Yang broken symmetry of the
source dipole (opposite charges) with the active vacuum. We do
not have to reprove that, since it is already well-known in physics,
even though still not taught in electrical engineering in any
university. If it had been taught
and not neglected for approaching a half-century, electrical engineers
would already be aware that the generator or battery only expends its
internal energy (transformed from its input shaft energy or available
chemical energy) to force its internal charges apart to make the
dipolarity between its terminals. Once that dipole is made, the
engineers would realize that the broken symmetry of that dipole in its
vacuum exchange then extracts (absorbs) virtual photon energy freely
from the active vacuum, transforms it to observable EM photon energy,
and pours that observable EM energy out of the terminals and filling
space outside the conductors of the connected external circuit.
The source dipole will do that indefinitely, without any further input
from the operator or generator, if the dipole is left intact.
In short, every dipolar power system ever built is and has been
powered by energy from the vacuum, via its source dipole's Lee-Yang
broken symmetry in its vacuum energy exchange. We do not have to
reprove that! In our view, presently no university electrical engineering department in the
Western
world teaches how an electromagnetic circuit is actually
"powered".
(3) How we maintain and stabilize the overunity (excited) condition,
once
obtained, and maintain it in the MEG, is still proprietary until our
foreign
patents are filed. We have not answered that question outside
our own
company, except to our foreign research partner under proper
nondisclosure
and noncompete agreement.Hence, yes, we still have to account to the scientific community and to reasonable scientific skeptics for number (3) above, and we will do so (a colleague and I have already filed a separate provisional patent application on our proven process for the solution, and it is working on the bench, though still proprietary). So we still owe one accounting, as soon as our foreign patent applications are secured. We owe no accounting whatsoever for items (1) and (2), since they are already established in physics (though missing from electrical engineering). They are good physics, but not in EE. Consequently, we will not debate them, but merely refer those questioning items (1) and (2) to the standard literature. Questioning and "debating" items (1) and (2) are counterproductive and constitute either a dogmatic objection to something already widely established and proven in physics, or an objection made from the view of the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz model, which is not applicable to open systems in disequilibrium with the active vacuum due to the Lorentz symmetrical regauging. Questioning (1) and (2) from any other model viewpoint is not scientifically valid either, since (1) and (2) are already proven and established in physics. When the experiments refute the model, scientific model requires that the model be discarded or changed to fit the experiments. One not knowing (1) and (2) are already proven should simply read the appropriate physics literature. Questioning item (3) is indeed a valid scientific objection, and we fully respect that and recognize it. So for that reason we urge seriously interested scientists to continue to be skeptical until we are free to reveal the solution to item (3). We will do that as soon as our formal second patent and foreign patents are filed, and the solution will also be included in my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, to be published by World Scientific next year. But we have neither the time nor inclination to "debate" items (1) and (2), since objections on those grounds has already long since been invalidated in physics, even though electrical engineering has not been modified to include items (1) and (2). Precisely for such reasons in the U.S., we have taken our MEG research to the National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of Sciences of a friendly foreign nation. There we were pleased to meet senior scientists already familiar with broken symmetry, including of a dipole, and who had no difficulty with items (1) and (2). We have made a full proprietary release of our item (3) solution under the proper nondisclosure and noncompete agreement to that laboratory and its scientists. We are about one year away from finishing the research and placing the first commercial unit into production. We point out that we were willing to make such a disclosure to Auburn University scientists under proper nondisclosure and noncompete agreement, but the university's Administration would not sign the noncompete agreement. As inventors we would be fools to just release what took us years to discover, without a proper limiting agreement. We will not do so. We will also not work with a U.S. National Laboratory, because they also file patents etc. DARPA, e.g., has a neat little trick of including a "march-in" clause which means the government seizes your patent whenever they wish, on the grounds that you are not getting it out to market fast enough. So we cannot openly discuss (3) just yet except in very general terms, as the solution (discovered only after many painful years of research) is still proprietary until full patent filing protection has been obtained. Hence we accept scientific skepticism as still reasonable because of open and unanswered item (3). We do not accept skepticism because of items (1) and (2) as being reasonable and scientific, and will not discuss those areas at all. Anyone wishing to discuss those, is simply referred to the literature. Our success or failure is not based on scientific approval but on whether the system works or not. Ultimately that will quite decisively answer it. But the scientific community has a dark history of strongly resisting almost every highly innovative new system or concept; from Mayer's advancing the conservation of energy law to Wegener's continental drift theory to Ovshinsky's amorphous semiconductors to the ultrawideband radar. Any historian of science can easily cite several dozen other notorious examples. I also assure you that the two MEG papers written by the AIAS and published in a leading journal have been vigorously refereed, and they were not lightly accepted. We have been formally notified by the U.S. patent office that our first MEG patent will be issued, recognizing all 30 claims. The second MEG patent application is still processing, as is the PPA and pending patent application on the stabilizing and close-looping process for self-powering systems, either MEG or otherwise. I personally know two other inventors who also have legitimate COP>1.0 systems, and who will be heading to market. The MEG is certainly not the only real COP>1.0 system out there, and in fact both of those two systems will probably be introduced to the market before we finish our year's research we still need on the MEG. I am a private consultant on one of those systems, and have personally tested it, though under rigorous nondisclosure agreement. Dr. C****, thank you again for a reasoned, logical, and scientific response. We also reiterate our obligation to you to report our solution to area (3) as soon as we can do so without endangering our intellectual property rights. I give you my word that I will do so as soon as it is possible. Best wishes, Tom Bearden |