A
Possible Approach to a Permanent Magnet Self-Powering Motor
Ó
Tom Bearden
1 July 2007
Abstract
The energy the operator inputs to a magnetic motor to run it is not
what actually powers the motor itself. The motor’s permanent magnets
all have symmetrical fields (left and right on the rotary cycle), and
so the overall net driving magnetic work WM around the
rotational loop is given by WM =
ò
F
·
ds = 0 where the integration is around the loop. So, even though the
fields of the permanent magnets are actually steady and free EM energy
flows extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum, their
symmetrical production of forward mmf and back mmf contributes only
equal and opposite driving forces. Hence the symmetrical fields of the
permanent magnets prevent any “self-powering” – i.e., any powering of
the unit by “energy from its active environment,” even though virtual
free energy from the environment is continually being received,
transformed into observable energy, and output as real magnetic field
energy (real photon flows).
The “paid-for” energy input by the operator is used to go to
coils to produce specifically placed additional magnetic fields at
specific rotational times, so that an overall or net “asymmetrical”
magnetic field exists around the rotational loop. This new broken
symmetry then provides sufficient asymmetrical energy flow from the
vacuum to produce a net nonzero “driving magnetic field force” and
thus WM =
ò
F
·
ds > 0. This in turn provides the excess work that powers the motor
and its balanced load.
Nature does not care whether the operator insists on paying for the
achieved net asymmetry himself, or his magnets are made asymmetric so
that their fundamental magnetic force field around the rotational loop
is nonzero. In the latter case, the broken symmetry is freely achieved
by the free asymmetry of the net force field, and so WM =
ò
F
·
ds > 0 and the motor and its load become “self-powered” by the
asymmetry freely induced in the interacting force fields provided by
the magnets themselves.
In
nonequilibrium thermodynamics it is already well known that one can
permissibly violate the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics
in several ways (reference cited later). To achieve one of those ways,
we ourselves can furnish extra energy to violate the symmetry, or we
can trick the magnetic materials and their assembly to do it freely
for us.
In this paper, we propose a way to use anisotropic
characteristics of some nanocrystalline materials to assemble these
materials in a permanent magnet having a specifically desired
left-and-right overall magnetic field asymmetry. In that case,
assemblies of such “magnets with asymmetric fields” in a rotary motor
can be made so that the overall driving magnetic force around the
rotational loop is nonzero, as is the net work accomplished by that
assembly. In that case, one can have a permissible self-powering
permanent magnetic motor, powering itself and its load with its broken
symmetry in its ongoing interaction with the seething virtual state
vacuum. The laws of nonequilibrium thermodynamics are obeyed, as is
the conservation of energy law when the vacuum energy interaction is
included. The system thus becomes a proper nonequilibrium system
freely receiving its input energy asymmetrically from the seething
virtual state vacuum, transforming it into real asymmetric magnetic
fields, which in turn drive the motor to power it and its load. It is
no more mysterious than a windmill powered generator system, once a
proper asymmetric windmill is used to extract free energy from a free
wind and “self-power” itself and its generator “load”.
Introduction
First, we point out that normal commercial bar magnets have
symmetrical fields
left and right. Hence an assembly of such “symmetrical field”
permanent magnets around a rotational loop will have its fields
exhibit overall symmetry of its forward and back mmf regions, so that
ò
F
·
ds = 0 around the rotational loop. Such an assembly (such a magnetic
motor) cannot drive itself because it has no necessary overall
asymmetry. For self-powering, the magnetic motor must have such
overall asymmetry around the loop, so that the overall driving work S
around the loop is given by
ò
F
·
ds > 0.
We
have two choices to get that net nonzero driving force (net forward
mmf) around the loop. We ourselves can pay to break the loop symmetry,
or we can arrange the ongoing vacuum energy input (that creates every
magnetic field) to be asymmetric so that the resulting output magnetic
field itself is asymmetric.
By
common practice, we have all been taught and conditioned to “pay for
it” ourselves. We achieve a magnetic motor from such an assembly of
symmetrical-field magnets by putting in coils at the proper places.
Then we pay to furnish current and power to the proper coils at the
proper time to overpower parts of the symmetrized magnetic field,
effectively reducing, killing, or reversing the normal back-mmf
regions into momentary forward mmf regions, thereby providing net
asymmetric force fields around the rotation loop. In that case, the
net “desymmetrized”
array of symmetrical permanent magnet fields and timed and
specifically-placed local coil magnetic fields from the coil(s) has an
overall asymmetry around its rotation loop. Thus
ò
F
·
ds > 0 and there is a net magnetic force accelerating the rotation
around the loop. Hence this motor using “desymmetrization coils”
produces a net acceleration of its angular momentum being stored in
its flywheel due to shaft rotation, because now that shaft rotation is
accelerated).
So
we can now place a “load” (drag) on end of the coil-augmented motor’s
shaft to continually absorb that excess angular momentum, thus
“powering the load.” By matching the rate of “load drag” to the rate
of “production of excess angular momentum” in the flywheel, a stable
“steady state” powering of motor and load is achieved. But the energy
to provide the broken symmetry net magnetic fields doing the
“propulsion” and powering, must be continually paid for and input by
the operator. And so that motor self-enforces COP<1.0 when its normal
losses (air friction, bearing friction, coil efficiency, etc.) are
also considered.
We Do
Not Power the Motor; We Power the Production of Net Asymmetry in the
Net Magnetic Driving Force Fields
We
now take the startling view that
the only reason for our having to pay
for and input energy to “power that system” is to provide the overall
broken symmetry in the magnetic fields around that rotational loop.
The “static field” of a permanent magnet is actually a continual
steady-state flow of real photons from the magnetic charges (poles) of
the magnet, with the energy of those real photons having been
extracted directly from the vacuum-with-pole (vacuum-with-magnetic
charge) interaction between the seething virtual state vacuum and the
magnetic pole (charge) itself.
This view reverses the conventional viewpoint. Now we see that we do
not “power” the magnetic motor system ourselves nor do we furnish the
energy that “powers” the system directly. Instead, we only furnish the
energy that converts “symmetrical fields” to “net asymmetrical
fields”, with proper timing and location (proper switching). We have
all been taught that we must pay for this, since Lorentz’s 1892
symmetrization of the Heaviside equations only retains and permits
symmetrized magnetic systems with equal and opposite forward and back
mmf. In short, it permits only symmetrized magnetic systems incapable
of “self-powering” even though they are continually pouring out real
usable photon energy from the active vacuum – the “active medium”, in
Tesla’s terminology in the 1890s. [See H. A. Lorentz, "La Théorie
électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,"
(The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving
bodies), Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552.
This is the work that Lorentz later cites in H. A. Lorentz, "Versuch
einer Theorie der Elecrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in begwegten
Körpern,“ Brill, Leiden, 1895.
Section
32 quotes the two theorems (equations) for symmetrical regauging,
citing his (Lorentz's) 1892 paper as proof].
It
has been rigorously proven in the published physics literature that,
if this arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition is broken, the resulting
asymmetrical theoretical model now permits and prescribes asymmetrical
systems which do have net,
usable excess energy currents from the vacuum. Hence
these restored asymmetrical systems can substitute these asymmetric
energy inputs from the vacuum to provide what we normally have the
operator pay to input externally. [See M. W. Evans et al., “Classical
Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from
the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517].
Quoting the abstract from Evans et al:
“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the
Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations,
indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the
vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills
field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined
straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar
potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement
current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is
made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum
polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded.
Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert
equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical
electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the
existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and
topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations
are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to
describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can
be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and
current.”
The bottom line is that, if the symmetry of the permanent magnet field
assemblies is broken – by whatever means – correctly and at the proper
places and times in the rotational cycle,
then the net and asymmetric vacuum
energy inputs and corresponding asymmetric magnetic force field
outputs will drive the system coherently, instead of the operator
having to furnish the desymmetrizing energy!
So
to achieve a self-powering permanent magnetic motor, the problem is to
freely achieve the net asymmetry of the resulting magnetic fields of
motor, by having the fields of the magnets exhibit asymmetry
left-and-right around the closed rotational loop.
Achieving a Permanent Magnet with Asymmetrical Magnetic Fields Left
and Right
One way to achieve this desymmetrization of the overall natural
magnetic driving field forces of the permanent magnets is to build and
use a basic permanent magnet already having a useful asymmetric
magnetic field. Then by properly placing such asymmetric-field magnets
in the rotary cycle, the overall net driving force will provide net
work Wm around a rotation cycle, given by WM =
ò
F
·
ds > 0. In that case, one achieves a “self-powering” system whose own
asymmetric permanent magnet fields power the motor and its load by
means of its broken symmetry.
Howard Johnson has done a very similar thing several times in the past
by a very difficult and highly tedious process, using macroscopic
permanent magnets laboriously assembled of hand-cut bits and pieces of
various different magnetic materials with special shapings and
magnitudes of their magnetic fields. In this way, by sheer trial and
error he has produced permanent magnet assemblies having the necessary
asymmetry. [See Howard R. Johnson, "Permanent Magnet Motor,"
U.S.
Patent No. 4,151,431. Apr. 24, 1979. See also Howard R. Johnson,
"Magnetic Force Generating Method and Apparatus," U.S. Patent No.
4,877,983, Oct. 31, 1989; Howard R. Johnson, "Magnetic Propulsion
System," U.S. Patent No. 5,402,021. Mar. 28, 1995].
But the Johnson patented process is very difficult indeed unless
a high precision laboratory is available, and Johnson has never had
the funding to get one of his rare and successful hand-achieved
fundamental “magnetic gates” into volume production. He also has
endured very strong opposition from academia, insisting that such a
self-powering permanent magnet system is not possible – usually
objecting that it violates the hoary old second law of equilibrium
thermodynamics and that it violates the hoary old Lorentz-symmetrized
CEM/EE model. The only truth that is really contained in such an
overextended conventional objection is that one must therefore use
nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, and achieve a proper nonequilibrium steady state
condition where the broken symmetry of the magnet’s field is freely
furnished by the magnetic materials themselves and their construction.
Johnson’s assemblies also evoke a very strong and nonlinear magnetic
exchange force at specific time and in specific direction. Thus, a
Johnson rotor magnet and a stator magnet are approaching each other in
the attraction phase, he uses the resulting free rotational
acceleration of the asymmetric fields. As the rotor passes the stator
and enters the back mmf area, Johnson’s magnets suddenly and very
sharply evoke the exchange force, which far overpowers (momentarily)
the pay-back drag otherwise provided in the back mmf region. The
sudden exchange force, which can momentarily be a thousand times the
magnitude of the normal magnetic field, gives a violent “kick” to the
rotor to overcome that back mmf drag force that otherwise decelerates
the rotor. Hence in a successful Johnson demonstrator, a known extra
and free very sharp gradient force is deliberately evoked
automatically by the materials specifically as required for broken
symmetry. And as is well-known in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, such
a sharp gradient is one mechanism which permits violation of the old
second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. [See Dilip Kondepudi and
Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to
Dissipative Structures, Wiley,
New York, 1998, reprinted
with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate
the old second law are given on p. 459. For an early discussion of the
exchange force, see Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew
Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics,
Addison-Wesley,
New York, Vol. II,
Chapter 37. Feynman covers magnetic materials including exchange
forces, spins, and spin effects. These are the effects used by Johnson
in his arduous efforts over so many years.]
Our proposed approach to obtain the necessary broken symmetry (so that
WM =
ò
F
·
ds > 0 around the rotary loop) from the materials themselves so that
each permanent magnet has the proper asymmetry field already. Even
though producing a specific proper production model “basic” magnet
with asymmetrical fields may be difficult, once developed and put into
production such asymmetric-field magnets would be available at very
reasonable costs. And that would usher in the age of self-powering
permanent magnet motors, where the motors power themselves and their
loads by their own innate broken symmetry, taking the necessary energy
for the broken symmetry directly from the active vacuum exchange.
Simplified Illustrations
Attached is a set of three simplified PPT slides, showing a suggested
approach to attempt building a self-powering permanent magnet motor by
using nonlinear construction of the nanocrystalline materials of the
magnet varied left to right to make the permanent magnet with a
deliberately asymmetrical field. At least in theory, by sufficient nonlinearity in the arrangement of the nanocrystalline materials, the
final magnet’s field can be made with a deliberate “pattern” of
asymmetry left and right.
Use of
a Modified Computer Simulation Program
To
determine the exact field asymmetry desired in the basic permanent
magnet, a proper magnetic field simulator can be utilized and adapted.
That is, the simulation can be modified to allow its simulation of
such an asymmetric field, and then the asymmetry can be optimized for
the particular rotary motor desired.
If
sufficient nonlinear assembly is developed and used, the bar magnet's
field is made stronger on one side of the magnet than on the other,
breaking “right-left” symmetry of the magnetic field of the normal bar
magnet. We do not expect the asymmetry to be “linear”, but nonlinear.
The exact nonlinearity would be determined by investigation using the
adapted simulation.
Given the proper nonlinear asymmetry achieved in the overall left vs.
right magnetic field pattern, it is then easy to show that a very
simple experimental motor demonstrator with the magnets arranged as
shown should drive itself and its fitted load (in this case, a
generator). Again, this could be done on a modified magnetic
simulator, to dramatically decrease the number of experimental
buildups required.
Additional Remarks
The final self-powering motor does not violate nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, once one understands that – contrary to standard
electrical engineering interpretation – the “static” magnetic field is
actually a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS)
thermodynamic system. It is a continuous flow of real EM energy (real
photons) from one pole (magnetic charge) to the opposite (the opposite
magnetic charge). The fundamental input virtual energy of course comes
from the virtual state vacuum.
As
Aitchison points out:
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in
relativistic
quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions
between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations
(or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored."
… “Forces, in quantum field
theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual
quanta...” [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty:
The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics,
26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. Quotes are from p. 357 and p. 372.]
As
Nobelist Lee pointed out,
“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to
be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.”
[T. D.
Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood
Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].
So
when we have a broken symmetry then
something previously virtual has
become observable. Violation in the symmetry of the EM
energy means that some previous virtual energy absorbed from the
seething virtual state vacuum by the magnetic dipole has become
observable energy. The known and proven asymmetry of the source dipole
(whether magnetic or electric) is a very simple and universal
mechanism that already freely extracts real EM energy output from its
seething virtual state vacuum energy input. It converts virtual state
energy to its continual observable (quantum photon) energy outflow of
real, usable EM energy.
Thus, when we develop asymmetry in the output fields (steady state EM
energy flows) of that permanent magnet, a rotary engine using such
asymmetric-field permanent magnets can indeed be powered by the
asymmetry of the observable output energy, being taken directly from
the active virtual state vacuum itself. This is perhaps the simplest
"vacuum energy powered" asymmetrical system that can be built to power
itself and a load.
In
the normal permanent magnet motor we ourselves have to "pay" to break
the field symmetry. Once the symmetry is broken, it is the broken
symmetry of the fields of the motor itself that powers the system. The
necessary energy input is there, but it is a virtual state energy
input from the vacuum itself.
In
recommended case, instead of the operator paying to input extra
observable energy asymmetrically and thus obtain the broken field
symmetry left and right of the permanent magnet, we have the specially
assembled nanocrystalline materials do it for us.
The steady “input” energy is virtual state EM energy freely received
from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of the magnetic dipole
(opposite magnetic charges). Again we point out that quantum field
theory requires a continuing interaction between the seething vacuum
and the charge (including magnetic charge, which we is loosely called
"magnetic pole"). And quantum field theory also requires that
all real, observable
forces be due to the exchange of virtual particles.
The steady "output" energy of a magnetic dipole is real, observable EM
energy (a steady outflow of real observable photons) that produces the
so-called “static” EM fields of the magnetic dipole.
So
we must correct our present understanding of the “static” EM field.
Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being
made of finer parts in continuous motion:
“To retain causality, we must
distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is
unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is
sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving
parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A
frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall
is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every
moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring
momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for
a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually
regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom
Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What
the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21,
1998, p. 8-9]
Conclusion
The resulting “asymmetric-field permanent magnet” is an asymmetric
Maxwellian system of the type that was deliberately discarded by
Lorentz when he arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations in
1892. Since then, all our electrical power engineers have been trained
to only build symmetrical
Maxwellian systems, and electrical power engineering as presently
taught in our universities still prescribes only symmetrized power
systems that destroy their own source’s broken symmetry (the source
dipole inside the generator or motor) faster than they power the
loads.
Since the Lorentz-symmetric systems built by electrical engineers in
accord with the standard crippled electrical engineering theory
self-enforce symmetry and thus
COP<1.0, the first requirement for building asymmetric
EM systems permitted to exhibit COP>1.0 is that something primary in
the system must violate standard electrical engineering. One way to
violate it is to produce and use permanent magnets each of which
already has an asymmetric field.
In
certain nanocrystals, the term “anisotropy” is often utilized. Such a
crystal has a preferred direction of magnetization; if one magnetizes
it along that direction, then one obtains the strongest possible
magnetization for that magnetization “shot”. If one orients the
crystal “off direction” from its preferred direction of magnetization,
the same “shot” will produce a weaker magnetization. Thus if properly
patterned anisotropy is used and rigidly controlled and varied in the
orientation of the crystals in their assembly to make the permanent
magnet material, it may be possible to assemble the anisotropic
nanocrystalline materials (as on an assembly line procedure) with
highly nonlinear anisotropy overall so that, when the magnetizing shot
is made, the overall “static” magnetic field of the magnet has the
desired asymmetry left and right in the proper nonlinear manner.
