| Subject: Re: Re: Bearden
Additions Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:51:55 -0500
Tony,
There are many ways to describe electrical
and magnetic things, especially when one tries for a patent.
There one is usually prohibited from any mention of overunity, can
hardly mention any advanced electrodynamics, and is usually dealing
with a patent examiner that may be a Bachelor's level electrical
engineer, or at best M.S. I once had to copy and send technical
papers to prove that such a thing as a nonlinear capacitor existed!
Also, I had to copy and send papers to prove that phase conjugate
optics existed! The Flynn descriptions seem couched in
conventional terminology and concepts, but referring to nuclear
action, which is what is what may be required to try to get a patent.
Or it may be the level of understanding; the inventor often uses his
own "picture" and "model" and lexicon of how he
sees things. Yet sometimes he can make them work, whether or not
his "model" is correct. E.g., the Moray device
certainly worked and was quite substantial (50 kilowatts from a 55
pound device). But there was absolutely no sufficient theory for
it, and there is not one today either, and I don't have one that
explains it!
In our case we deliberately take a higher
level prescription, and we are also trying to establish a legitimate
overunity scientific basis, to move science and technology from its
deadlock on the Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the 1880s.
So yes, lot's of folks experiment and
build things with permanent magnets. A few do get
overunity, but not many. The overunity comes from processes
which VIOLATE the normal EM; no violation, no overunity.
And it isn't nuclear power. There
are no known nuclear reactions in a permanent magnet that will give
excess energy. There ARE some little-known electrodynamic
reactions that will give excess energy.
What is usually done by most experimenters
is to try to reduce the back mmf in the magnetic circuit. That
will in fact increase the COP, but alone it will not give overunity
unless some very special things are done in addition.
There are, however, other systems that are
legitimately overunity, and some are magnetic systems. Johnson
has a process using exchange force initiation and control, which is a
legitimate overunity process, but very difficult to precisely evoke
and control. Look up "exchange force" in the magnetics
and physics literature. The problem is that the magnets
themselves are not made with sufficient precision, and vary too much,
so it's the devil and all to do it that way, without a major
laboratory. But he has indeed done it on one occasion, and made
a self-rotating permanent magnet demonstrator. The Kawai process
will yield overunity if one starts with a high efficiency permanent
magnet motor (0.7 or 0.8). The process essentially doubles the COP.
The magnetic Wankel can be made overunity if one is very careful.
It's tricky though, and it's a very expensive buildup and requires
precision machining all the way.
Most folks in the "free energy
field" wind up with a lexicon of their own, which is usually not
tied back to rigorous physics. They also almost all use
ordinary, garden-variety electrodynamics -- which model already
excludes overunity. And a great number of folks in this
"field which is not a field" already purport to know all
about overunity systems and phenomenology -- and have never even seen
an overunity circuit, much less worked with it on the bench and
explored the phenomenology.
The overunity area has to be approached
piece by piece, step by step. Putting it very simply, one
has to in effect evoke and obtain a free "EM energy wind",
so to speak, or free "energy current", which then can be
tapped and energy freely extracted. In short, one has to build
the EM equivalent of a windmill. So the first thing is to
understand what a free "EM wind" is, and how to evoke one.
There are known EM energy winds, but they are very subtle and -- let's
put it mildly -- electrical engineers have not the foggiest notion
what they are or where they are, much less how to evoke them and use
them. They are in the scientific literature, however, if one
knows where to look and how to recognize them. But they are not
simple.
Anyway, we hope a great number of inventors
and researchers do succeed in getting a successful overunity
system, and getting it on the world market. It's quite simple:
unless this energy crisis is blunted and blunted quickly, none of this
will matter because about 2007 or so, the international conflicts will
have escalated to where all the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction will be unleashed. That argues for the
destruction of civilization itself, as the first phase of WW III
-- delivery of the weapons onto the target site -- has already been
completed. So I don't care who gets the first and
best and most practical overunity system, and gets it out there on the
world market. It will have to be done by the individual
inventors and researchers, because the scientific community and power
community are solidly locked into "business as usual, just more
of it".
So I wish all of them well. Those
systems have to be rolling off the assembly lines en masse by first
quarter 2004, or none of this matters at all. Certainly by first
quarter 2005, we will have passed the point of no return, and the
destruction of civilization or much of it is then inevitable.
Tom Bearden
Cheers,
Tom Bearden
|