Dear
Gavin,
Like
the way you are beginning to think about the problem; it reminds me of
my own early struggles, so I can certainly appreciate it.
Here's
a little "thought experiment" which may be helpful.
In
the lab at a given point, we are going to instantly produce a dipole.
Little positive charge separated a bit from a little negative
charge. We'll pay for
that, by doing work to force those little charges apart.
But we will "fix" the dipole solidly once the charges
are separated, and never let them separate again.
(Hey, like forcing the magnetic poles apart, so that there's a
north pole (plus mag charge) at one end of a bar, and a south pole
(negative mag charge) at the other end.
Then the metal's characteristic holds these charges in place,
so they do not vanish by floating back together to become "zero
charge" effectively.
Since
we can play God in a thought experiment, we also have perfect
instruments. We put a
straight line from that point in the lab, radially out into the
universe, and in fact all the way to the "end" of the
universe, wherever that may be.
Along
that line we also place a "perfect instrument", at lengths
separated by one second of travel by light.
That's nearly 3x10exp8 meters apart.
Then
we instantly produce our dipole, paying for separating the charges.
It cost us a little bit of energy expended on the charges.
One
second later, the first instrument reads (whatever level the field
will be at that point), and it REMAINS at that level from then on,
which means a steady flow is passing, and the initial reading was
because the moving front of that flow reached that instrument.
At
the end of the second second, the second instrument reads and REMAINS
at that level.
And
so on.
One
year later, we have filled a volume of space a light year in radius,
with additional energy, and the energy is still flowing out of that
dipole in our laboratory, as every second the next farther instrument
reads and holds that reading.
The
dipoles in matter have been radiating free energy in that manner for
some 14 billion years.
We
have other instruments set up in our lab which prove there is no EM
energy being furnished to that dipole in 3-space.
Well, either we must throw away the conservation of energy law,
or that dipole is receiving the energy from the time domain, since the
fourth Minkowski axis is all that is left if we stay in a Minkowski
model.
Be
sure to read my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common
Dipole" to see how that also solves the same problem for a single
"isolated charge". And
be sure to read my reference on particle physics and the broken
symmetry of the dipole to realize that particle physics is consistent
with my solution. Also
read Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chap. 5 to realize that
quantum field theory is also strongly supportive and validative of my
solution.
Every
charge and dipole in an EM system constantly pours out energy that
way, and that is proven already in physics, just not in EE.
So
every charge and dipole already prove that energy can be extracted
from the vacuum and/or curved spacetime.
It happens in every charge and dipole in every electrical
system.
That
we have not learned to use that to actually arrange our systems so
they in turn furnish us free energy, is the fault of the scientific
community in not applying into electrical engineering what is already
proven and known in physics.
Cheers,
Tom
Bearden
Dear Tom Bearden (or his associates)
I am an Australian living in Denmark, with an interest in alternative
energy / overunity devices. I have a background in Computer
Engineering, and Languages (of late - working as a translator in my
own small business). I have dabbled in Thermodynamics in my spare time
(studied it) in the hope of finding an exploitable loophole or flaw in
the 2nd Law which would enable me to construct a heat engine that did
not require a cold sink (and hence would allow energy to be harvested
from the air or sea, etc.). When I became aware of the potential for
COP > 1 electrical devices, I shelved my former project as being no
longer relevant.
I would be very interested in somehow helping with the distribution of
the MEG in Denmark/Scandinavia and/or Australia when it becomes
available, either by helping to organise a distribution channel, or
even trying to set one up myself. I am a good writer and might also be
able to help in getting a "grass roots" movement going,
educating the masses, translating some of the technical background
into a more digestible form (for non-Engineers), etc.
I would love to receive any information which you are willing to
release regarding the state of the project, the expected path to be
followed from here, the applications for the device that you will
intially target, and in which countries, potential barriers to be
overcome (e.g. safety regulations, licensing etc.). I don't suppose I
could buy a working (small) MEG device yet, or get hold of a copy of
the patent?
end of original message
I did a search under "Thomas Bearden" on the IBM patent
database, and got no responses, which is why I
wanted to know if I can get an electronic copy of the patent
application direct from you guys (assuming it is securely in place).
I have thought of a very simple experiment/argument that may show the
potential of zero point energy, based on classical physics, which I
sent to members of my family. I include the message below:
(you are welcome to publish it / edit it on the cheniere website if
you think its useful).
Last
night I thought of what I think might be a simple proof of the free
energy available in the "vacuum" (zero point energy).
First some physics background.
Work is said to be done on an object if you apply a force that moves
the object over a certain distance.
Work = force x distance.
If I push with all my weight against a railway carriage (which won't
budge), I haven't done any work on the carriage, even if I do it for 5
minutes (but I will feel like I've done some work!).
If I push a 20kg box 5 metres accross the floor, and I have to push
with a force of 50 Newtons to do so, I will have done 50 x 5 = 250
joules of work (not much really). Most likely the box will be
stationary when I'm finished (unless it's on a skateboard), so it will
have in turn passed all the energy into the floor as friction.
If, however, I throw a 200g cricket ball, applying say the same 50
Newtons of force over a 1 metre arc, I will have done work of 50 x 1 =
50 joules on the ball, and the ball will now possess that energy as
kinetic energy, and this will incidently be equal to 1/2 mass x
velocity squared as well. The ball will lose some of this energy
during it's flight (friction), but it will still possess more than
enough kinetic energy at the end of it's flight to smash a window.
Now, back to my proof.
Lie a bar magnet on a table top in front of you. Hold a paper clip in
your left hand, 5-10 mm away from the bar magnet. Release the paper
clip. It will skate accross to the magnet and stick to it. Now the
magnet has done work on the paper clip, it exercised a force over a
certain (very small, but real) distance. This requires energy. Where
did that energy come from? We are not talking about much energy of
course, a tiny fraction of 1 joule. But we can find something a bit
heavier than the paper clip, and that will mean a greater force is
exerted, and we can repeat the experiment 1,000,000 times, without the
magnet getting "used up" as far as I am aware.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced it must be possible
to develop some kind of "perpetual motion" device involving
simple magnets (and no electrical input) - a so-called permanent
magnet motor. It may never produce enough torque to be particularly
useful, but it would illustrate the point that it is possible to
harvest energy from the vacuum - in other larger scale ways.
For example, take a look at this device:
http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/2439/smot.htm
you could conceivably find a way for the ball to run down a slope
somewhere and return to it's starting point.
I am currently trying to think of simple ways to make a permanent
magnet "motor" (just something that will
cycle indefinitely, albeit very weakly). I think such a device could
work as a bridge to help overcome public skepticism and resistance,
and could be used, for example, in discussions with potential
distributors, etc.
I realise of course that one must generally avoid the term
"perpetual motion", as everyone knows that such devices are
not possible in a closed system. The "windmill" analogy is
much better.
I would appreciate a very quick acknowledgement of the fact that you
have received my message, even if you just write A, B or C from the
list below.
We have received your message:
A. but we are too busy to even think about it or read it properly at
the moment, perhaps we will get time to later.
B. but cannot at present see that there is any useful role you could
play in this project. Thanks anyway.
C. and your offer is vaguely interesting, we may get back to you about
it in the next 3 weeks / 3 months / 3 years.
One more thing, I don't have vast sums of money to invest myself (if
that is still an issue), but I know an investment funds manager (of a
small fund, about $US 60 million) in Australia, whom I might be able
convince to risk, say 5-10% of the fund on the MEG (with your help).
I'm sure I could convince him to at least come and see what you have
got to show (he is not your traditional funds manager, he's very much
a lateral thinker).
Anyway, I will be in Australia in December, so I would need to be able
to start organising things a bit before then.
Regards,
Gavin