| Subject: RE: Field-free A
potential in MEG Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:48:57 -0600
Paul,
Just how we do it is
one of the things I'm not yet at liberty to release. But any good
electrodynamicist these days, can calculate the normal A-potential and
also the field-free A-potential. The field-free A-potential is still a
vector potential, hence it has direction and motion as well as
magnitude. The B-field is made from the A-potential, which is more
primary (the B-field, contrary to electrical engineering, does not and
cannot even exist as such in mass-free space, since it is defined in
terms of magnetically charged mass --- mass with magnetic poles). So
when you reverse the magnet in the normal polarity sense, yes you have
reversed the A-potential, or the "made-from-it" B-field would not have
reversed. That's just B = del cross A. And for the E-field, E is just
E = - dA/dt.
I will admit that the
chief scientist of an important experimental group in a large company
was rather stunned at the type of output we were able to obtain. The
MEG may look like just a transformer, but it is not. It is a completely
different breed of cat.
To find how a
force-free A-potential actually behaves, one does lots of little
experiments with it. Thereby one discovers some little "tricks" and
novel effects that allow one to use it. As I said, I'm not at liberty
yet to reveal those little tricks; for one thing, they are not my
personal discovery, but that of the bench guys on the MEG project.
From any nonzero
potential, no matter how small, you can collect as much energy as you
have intercepting charges available to collect. This is easily seen
with the electrostatic scalar potential (voltage) V. the amount of
energy W in joules, collected from a single potential V, is just W = Vq,
where q is the amount of charges (in coulombs) that are present to
intercept and diverge the energy flows comprising the V. The trick is
to make a little dipole (this is true either magnetically or
electrically) which has a static potential between its ends.
Electrically that is V, magnetically that is magnetostatic scalar
potential. This dipole, once made, then must not be destroyed. In
short, one must figure out how to collect lots of energy from the
potential so freely furnished by that dipole, then dissipate that
collected energy in the load and circuit losses, without using half the
collected energy to destroy the dipole. That's about as plainly as I
can say it.
We moved into
magnetics experiments about a decade ago because of a compelling
feature: Running the return flux back through the source dipole of a
permanent magnet does not destroy the dipole, as contrasted to the
return current in an electrical circuit which is forcibly rammed back
through the source dipole in the generator and does destroy that dipole
(hence the potential that is potentializing the external circuit). In
the magnet, the materials "lock in" the charges (the poles) so that they
cannot physically disperse.
Notice that what I
said is NOT adequately covered in conventional circuit theory, no matter
at what level applied. The standard circuit theory prohibits and
excludes all COP>1.0, because it prescribes circuits which always use
half their collected energy to kill that source dipole furnishing the
potentialization (the potential energy) to the external circuit for it
to intercept, catch, and use. Unless this "use half the collected
energy to destroy the source dipole" function of the standard
closed-current-loop circuit can be violated, all one's efforts will fail
and his circuits will never produce overunity performance, no matter how
much energy he collects in his external circuit.
That's about as
straightforward as I can say it. As inventors and in a --- hopefully
--- commercial enterprise
eventually, we cannot release the "kit of parts" and actual "kit
assembly and tuning instructions" ahead of securing patent rights, if
we wish to retain our patent rights. I do get a few tirades from
misunderstanding folks who insist we should just "give it away". My
response to them is simple: They ask that the five of us who invented
the MEG just "give away" the results of about 10 years very hard work of
the group. I ask them to show me that they practice what they preach;
we will be happy to receive their own wages for the last 10 to 50
manyears, as a "gift" to the project to show they do what they
prescribe.
Haven't had a single
taker on that suggestion yet! Apparently lots of folks advocate one
thing, while actually practicing another.
So one must keep one's
sense of humor. In the patenting etc. business, there is a prescribed
procedure which any person or group has to comply with. We have already
released far more information -- real, hard, technical information --
than most other inventors have ever released on their overunity
systems. There are two very rigorous papers in Foundations of Physics
Letters, e.g., showing exactly how the energy is received from the
active vacuum. And the rigorous theory for it is there in those two
papers.
Hang in there and best
wishes,
Tom Bearden
|