|
| |
Bearden's MEG Differs from Flynn's Parallel Path Magnet Technology
Tom Bearden, proponent of the Motionless Electric Generator, responds
to the question: "Can you explain the differences between the MEG v. the
Flynn Parallel Path Technology?"
by Tom Bearden
|
Motionless Electric Generator (MEG) Circuit
|
|
|
The Flynn
device works on a totally different principle, and I wish them every success
with their patent(s) and unit. A solution to the energy crisis is needed
desperately, by anyone who can help contribute to solving it and get overunity
COP units out there on the market and on site.
The MEG, e.g., uses a novel materials effect freely furnished by the
nanocrystalline core and its structure (some of them, not all of them!) wherein
the B-flux curled portion of the magnetic vector potential A is sharply
localized inside the core (recall that the B-field is merely the curl of A,
hence it is the curled component of A). Such localization of the curled or “field”
component of A, of course, is known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, whereby a
curl-free magnetic vector potential then freely appears OUTSIDE the core in
space, where the B-field would normally have appeared had its localization not
occurred.
So the MEG has thus conditioned the IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING SPACE, so that extra
EM energy density has appeared OUTSIDE the core, in space itself but in the form
of the curl-free A potential energy. Since in general relativity the increase in
energy density in spacetime is a curvature of spacetime a priori, then the MEG’s
nanocrystalline core materials have provided an extra EM ENERGY RESERVOIR in
outside curved spacetime.
Please note that this completely violates the standard CEM/EE model, which
arbitrarily assumes a flat local spacetime and an inactive vacuum. In the MEG,
the local spacetime is curved and the local vacuum is now active (the virtual
particle flux of the outside spatial vacuum has been altered). This violates the
standard assumed Lorentz symmetry (more on that later), which is necessary if
one would have a COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum system.
The normal A-potential consists of two components: one curled and the other
uncurled. Usually the uncurled component is rather much “hidden” by the
curled component, and thus not usually considered.
Now note that, in the AB effect, the uncurled A-potential extends from INSIDE
the core on out to the space outside. The AB effect only localizes the CURLED
portion (the B-field) of the total magnetic vector potential A.
But now, when we perturb that B-flux inside the core, an additional effect
occurs. We also perturb the “inside front end” of that curl-free A potential
component extending on out into the outside space, and that perturbation of the
inside end of the uncurled A propagates passes outside the core and on through
the uncurled field-free A potential in outside space. In short, that part of the
perturbation travels outward outside the core and out into the surrounding
uncurled A.
The simple equation dA/dt = - E then tells us what happens outside the core. The
perturbation spreading radially outwards just outside the core, is a dA/dt
perturbation and that perturbation is directed out and away from the MEG core.
In the little formula the resulting E field produced by that spreading
perturbation has a negative sign on it, so the E-field created in outside space
by that outward-traveling uncurled A perturbation is directed FROM THE OUTSIDE
SPACE BACK INTO THE MEG CORE ETC.
Note also that the magnitude of the – E produced, is controlled by the
sharpness of the rise time and decay time on the input pulses the operator feeds
into the MEG’s normal input coil. One can easily produce sufficient return
voltage to destroy the insulation on the windings on the coils. Every coil and
every wire is now an “input coil and input antenna” for the MEG’s
receiving of that returning E-field energy.
Each and every wire or coil in the transformer section receives a part of that
E-field energy radiating back into the transformer from space just outside the
core, and each receiving wire and coil also then re-radiates energy to all the
others. The result is a dense set of E-field signal energies (in pulses form)
but of varying phases.
Then we adjust things (the method is proprietary!) so that a reasonable “phase
addition” condition exists in the dense signal environment of the MEG. Once
that is done, the return energy received from the returning excess free E-fields
is largely coherent in the MEG. We then have the following situation:
(1) the MEG acts in part as a very efficient standard transformer, courtesy
of its modern nanocrystalline core structure. With the normal transformer part
of its operation alone, the MEG would get about 90% efficiency and – without
any other energy input – it would produce something like COP = 0.9.
(2) But there is also a great deal of extra, free EM energy coming into the
MEG from the altered spacetime outside the core, due to dA/dt = - E and the
Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, there is easily more E-field energy coming back
into the MEG from the outside space, than the input energy we ourselves placed
into the “input” coil.
(3) The MEG thus has TWO energy input reservoirs/sources: (a) energy input by
the operator and paid for by him, and (b) lots of excess free environmental
E-field energy received from the altered external space and the perturbed AB
effect.
The MEG’s thermodynamic operation is now similar to that of a common home
heat pump. The thermodynamic efficiency of the home heat pump is only
about 50%, and so – if all its input energy were only what the operator pays
for and furnishes – that would allow a COP of only 0.5. But the heat pump ALSO
receives a lot of excess free heat energy from its environment. It in fact
receives so much extra free energy from its environment that it outputs three to
four times as much useful energy and work as the operator himself had to input
and pay for. In short, its COP = 3.0 to 4.0, even though its overall efficiency
is always less than 100% -- which is why we use home heat pumps in the first
place.
So the EFFICIENCY of the MEG is always less than 100%, because it rigorously
obeys the conservation of energy. Total energy input to the MEG from all
sources, minus total energy dissipated in its losses, gives the amount of usable
energy or work output by the MEG. Since – contrary to any ordinary transformer
– the MEG receives an extra, free, and appreciable input of pulsed
E-field energy from its environment, the MEG’s operation is directly analogous
to that heat pump, and its COP is permissibly COP > 1.0.
The MEG completely complies with physics and thermodynamics, but with the
nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamics. That is, with Prigogine’s
thermodynamics of dissipative systems.
We also note that certain areas and effects have long been accepted and
accounted in NESS thermodynamics, which allow violation of the second law of
thermodynamics (i.e., allow the production of negative entropy). Strong
gradients (as used in the MEG in pulsing) and materials memory (as exhibited by
the materials freely initiating the AB effect) are two such recognized and
proven areas. See
You can easily get the AB effect with a good toroidal coil, as is well known.
But there you have to PAY for it in terms of voltage x amperage.
The thing that made the MEG possible was our discovery that certain
nanocrystalline core materials and construction then freely evoked the AB
effect, and we did not have to pay for it. Immediately that tells us that we
have a FREE and extra EM energy reservoir in the MEG’s self-modified external
spacetime environment, and that modified environment is feeding excess
electrical energy right back into the MEG for its use.
Now for the rigor. In 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already-reduced
Heaviside equations (much limited version of Maxwell’s theory) just to get
still-simpler equations that would be easier to solve algebraically (thus
eliminating much of the labor of the numerical methods required so often). In
short, Lorentz thereby arbitrarily excluded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems!
And today’s CEM/EE model taught to and used by all our electrical engineers is
still that horribly crippled old Lorentz symmetrical theory. Further, our
engineers are taught to build only systems that self-enforce that same symmetry
(usually by leaving the source of potentialization connected to its own external
circuit as a load, while current is flowing. Such a SYMMETRICAL system uses half
its freely collected energy to do nothing but destroy its own source dipolarity.
Hence we have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, NOT to power our
external circuits, but to continue to forcibly restore that dipolarity inside
the generator that the inane closed current loop system (with source in the
loop) keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.
In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary
Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from
the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without
the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta,
Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.
Proof that real systems can theoretically produce continuous negative entropy is
given by D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of
Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002,
p. 895-920. With publication in 2000 of our solution of the long-vexing source
charge problem, we have since nominated the lowly charge and the dipole as the
first known physical examples of that permissible operation. Every charge and
every dipole already exhibits a steady and free outpouring of real, usable,
observable EM energy, with only a virtual state fluctuation input of energy from
the vacuum. The source charge continually integrates its absorbed virtual state
energy to the next quantum level, decaying abruptly and emitting a real
observable photon. The operation iterates continually, so the source charge is a
Feynman ratchet freely absorbing and integrating virtual energy into the
observable state, and emitting it.
All EM fields and potentials (and their energy) come from their source charges
and dipolarity. Contrary to CEM/EE, in modern physics the “isolated charge”
polarizes its surrounding vacuum. The charge is actually an infinite bare charge
(having infinite charge and infinite energy) surrounded by an opposing charge in
the virtual state vacuum. This opposing charge is also infinite and has infinite
energy. Our instruments, peering through the external “screen” of the
polarized vacuum, sees only the finite difference between these two infinite
charges – and that is the “classical value of the isolated charge” that
all our textbooks contain in electrical engineering. But one is actually dealing
with a dipolarity – opposite charges – and in 1957 Lee and Yang were awarded
the Nobel Prize for predicting broken symmetry in physics. One of those broken
symmetries is that of opposite charges! In Feb. 1957 Wu and her colleagues
experimentally proved Lee and Yang’s prediction, and the revolution in physics
due to broken symmetry was so great that with unprecedented speed the Royal
Academy of Sweden awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang – in December of the
very same year, 1957!
As Lee puts it, a broken symmetry (such as the common dipolarity) means that “something
virtual has become observable”. Hence their broken symmetry solution actually
includes the ability of the source charge (its dipolarity, considering the
polarized vacuum and the interaction between that vacuum and the charge) to
continually consume positive entropy of the virtual state fluctuations of
vacuum, coherently integrate them to the observable excitation level, and then
re-emit that energy as real, EM energy (real observable photons radiating at
light speed in all directions).
So all EM fields and potentials are actually ongoing flows of real EM energy,
freely extracted for us from the vacuum, by the source charge and dipolarity!
Actually Whittaker in 1903 and 1904 published two papers establishing that any
EM potential and field decomposes into sets of ongoing energy flows. So the
notion of “static” EM fields and potentials must be altered to realize Van
Flandern’s analogy. Quoting:
“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]
EM energy is free, free, free for the taking! Every joule of EM energy
in the universe is and has been extracted from the seething vacuum by its
associated source charges. A charge, once assembled, will freely pour out real,
usable EM energy in all directions, forever, so long as we do not allow the
charge to be dissipated or destroyed. And the charge and its input and output
form an asymmetric system – precisely of the kind so arbitrarily discarded by
Lorentz and still discarded by all our EE departments, professors, and
textbooks.
The problem is that we have all been deeply conditioned to consider, design,
build, and use only those symmetrical systems permitted by Lorentz. Solving the
energy crisis forever is merely a matter of unleashing our sharp young
university grad students on the problem in this area. And in getting that hoary
old CEM/EE model – so long fouled – corrected so that scientific ethics are
again established and scientific truth is being taught as best it is known.
I gathered together a listing of the major terrible falsities in the CEM/EE
model used in electrical engineering, in my paper “Errors
and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model”. Most of these falsities have
previously been pointed out by eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman,
Wheeler, Margenau (a noted foundations scientist), Bunge, and many others. But
to no avail. The scientific community is controlled by those controlling its
funding. And those who control that funding do not wish to see the horrid old
1880s EE model upgraded and corrected.
So the leadership of the organized scientific community has not and will not
upgrade the electrical engineering departments, teachings, and texts.
Nature does not discard those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems! Else Lee
and Yang could not have predicted the asymmetry of opposite charges, and they
would not have been awarded the Nobel Prize. So two opposing charges separated a
bit, already comprise an asymmetrical EM system proving that such do exist in
nature and are permitted in nature, whether or not Lorentz preferred them or
not.
Lorentz discarded these asymmetrical “free energy” systems totally
arbitrarily, and all his followers continue to do so today. Every electrical
engineering department, most EE professors, and every EE textbook continue to do
so.
And in so doing, they arbitrarily exclude the permissible asymmetrical
Maxwellian circuits and systems that could otherwise receive excess free energy
from the seething vacuum environment, and then USE it to produce COP>1.0.
Permitting and reinstituting these discarded asymmetrical circuits and systems,
of course, would quickly resolve the world energy crisis forever.
Meanwhile, for more than a century – starting with Stubblefield’s work and
Tesla’s – the powerful economic cartels who do not wish free energy (no
meter on that, can’t sell it, so it’s gotta go!) have suppressed all the
inventors and inventions that did succeed in developing a prototype asymmetrical
COP>1.0 system. Some were killed, some were jailed, some disappeared, and
some were just “parked” and then died, so that the thing they had discovered
how to do died with them.
Sadly, if the NSF, NAS, NAE, DoE, and our universities would fund and release
some sharp young doctoral candidates and young postdocs to work in this energy
from the vacuum (EFTV) via broken symmetry and asymmetric Maxwellian systems
area, then in two years there would never again be an energy crisis anywhere in
the world, in deep space, or wherever. But as you can see, that is apparently
not going to happen. Presently any young student who tries to address COP>1.0
EFTV electrical systems for his doctoral thesis or postdoctoral work, is warned
severely and then his career is simply destroyed if he does not heed the
warning. By a sheer miracle, I did get a decent review of my paper, “Errors
and Omissions …”, by the NSF, but instead of taking my recommendation that
they pick up the asymmetric CEM/EE baton and run with it, they merely suggested
I might wish to submit a proposal. I’m long since out of the proposal
business; I can stand only about two minutes, walk only about 150 feet, etc. and
I also care for my beloved wife 24/7, since her stroke in 2003 and her
congenital heart failure a few months back. If it is going to be done and the
energy crisis is to be solved without wars and massive national economic
collapses in the Western World, it will have to be done by folks like the young
fellows coming along and by folks such as the Congress members. My own race is
already run; I just have to laboriously add a few things to it in one more book
or a few papers and that will be that. I do wish to spell out how to obtain and
use negative EM energy (dark energy) and Dirac sea hole currents (dark matter),
and will do so if I have sufficient time to finish that book. Bedini has been
using both of these in his circuits for some years. The characteristics of
negative EM energy are particularly of interest; using that, eventually one will
be able to power New York City from a single flashlight battery, PLUS the
triggered extra huge inputs of free negative energy from the environment. Bedini
and I have also filed a provisional patent application (PPA) on the processes
and techniques for evoking and using such energy flows in real circuits.
Moore and I have filed a PPA (provisional patent application) on an asymmetrical
process which, once developed, could be applied to most presently existing
electrical power plants to reduce their consumption of fuel or fuel cells by
about 75%, while continuing to maintain the full electric power output of the
generators. The follow-on development about ten years from now would allow any
power plant with the process already installed, to cease all further burning of
fuel or consumption of nuclear fuel rods once the plant was up and running and
on line stably. The plant could continue to power its grid in its fuel-free
stance until necessary to shut the plant down for maintenance, for an emergency,
etc. But absolutely no one is interested, even though the fundamental
asymmetrical physics process it uses has been in the hard physics literature
since 1967, and has been validated experimentally many, many times as published
in the hard literature. I also know a few other inventors who have working
overunity COP processes and systems, who could be heading for market given
funding and scientific support. Instead, every kind of suppression known to man
falls upon them.
Let me urge the Congress to please, please look into the breadth of physics and
not just the very hoary old CEM/EE!!! Please look into higher group symmetry
electrodynamics (Yang-Mills theory, SU2 X SU2, O(3), etc.) that have been
developed in physics because the hoary old Heaviside-Lorentz-Maxwell theory
cannot and will not adequately describe nature. As an example, there are no
force fields in space – which is completely contrary to standard CEM/EE theory
in university and the teaching of every EE department. Instead, force and force
fields only exist in matter (and so EM force only exists in charged
matter). The real force-free (precursor) EM field in space is just a condition
of space itself, as pointed out by Nobelist Feynman in his three volumes of
sophomore physics, 1964. Quoting:
"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that
the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the
most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin…"
[Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or
creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative
charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is
called an electric field." [ibid, p. 2-4].
"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces
that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y,
z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb
the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields."
[ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]
Jackson – who is a hero of mine because of his clarity – at least has the
courage to point out that EM force requires interaction of field and charge,
although he joins his colleagues in not correcting it. Quoting:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion
that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that
physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of
charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics,
Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 249].
The truth is that the EM force-free field exists in the vacuum, and
physically measurable EM quantities such as force involve the ongoing
interaction between the precursor force-free EM field and the charges.
In short, CEM/EE has never rid itself of the hoary old material ether, falsified
in 1887. To this day, not a single Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equation was ever
changed to eliminate the assumption of that material ether, and both Faraday and
Maxwell assumed one.)
The force field is created in and on charged matter by the ongoing interaction
of the precursor “condition of space” field as was spelled out by Feynman.
In the MEG, we stumbled our way into a bit of precursor engineering, via the
free Aharonov-Bohm effect that can be evoked by certain nanocrystalline cores in
layered form.
The MEG group has started rebuilding another MEG demonstrator (the three we had
have all been destroyed now). We will continue to try to get the MEG finished in
its Engineering Development (another year of very hard work, once we get the
required funding), and then get it into production and onto the world market.
In all fairness, several other inventors also have legitimate COP>1.0
devices, in one stage of development or another, and so if funding and
scientific attention were focused on these areas and on those inventors, the
energy crisis could indeed be resolved forever – and cleanly and rather
cheaply, once the sunk development costs are eliminated.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie,
One additional point. As you can see from the various participants in
discussions and comments (even in the wikipedia comments etc.), most of them
still do not know the difference between COP and efficiency. Nor do they
understand what “energy from the vacuum (EFTV)” or “energy from curved
spacetime” actually means.
Most refer to overunity system EFFICIENCY, which of course is a mistake. The
thermodynamic efficiency of a system is never more than 100%, else one really
would be creating energy from nothing and violating the first law of
thermodynamics.
But if sufficient, extra, free environmental input of useful energy is also
involved in the overall energy input to the machine, then that machine’s COP
is permitted to be greater than 1.0, even though the overall efficiency of the
machine is still less than 100%. In our previous write-up to you we gave
specific examples such as the common home heat pump, with its efficiency of only
about 50%, but its COP = 3.0 to 4.0.
This is why Ken and I are working on the paper now, to straighten out such
misconceptions and misunderstandings of basic thermodynamics. We hope to have
the paper finished in a few days (more like two weeks), and then we will place
it on my website, etc. and get you a copy also. It will have the simplified but
very clear diagrams needed for understanding of the precise difference between
COP and efficiency, with concrete and well-known system examples in ordinary
systems (windmill driven power system, solar cell array power system,
waterwheel-driven power system, home heat pump, sailboat, etc.).
Because of the thermodynamics involved, an EFTV researcher with a COP>1.0
system has to wrack his brains OUTSIDE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, going much
farther and deeper into physics itself to find mechanisms that do allow excess
energy input from the active vacuum environment. Since we are interested in EFTV
systems, the researcher must (1) find known mechanisms that do violate EE and
particularly violate Lorentz symmetry; i.e., they must be asymmetric EM
systems, of the kind arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in 1892, and (2) insure
that his instrumental measurements and experiments with his COP>1.0 device do
strongly indicate or show that the asymmetric EFTV mechanism he has found as a
candidate, is indeed occurring in his system’s reaction with its local active
vacuum/curved spacetime environment.
The very best thing I can do for a contribution to the overunity EFTV community
is (1) help Ken finish that paper we are struggling with, and get it out there
and available, and (2) then I must go into writing and completing the “Bare
Bones Vacuum Energy” book I’ve outlined and will be working on.
Meanwhile, the old bod is slowly cranking down more and more, and it’s getting
increasingly harder to do things and get about physically. But we will continue
as best we can until that book gets born. It is desperately needed and I will
try to get it done even if all else fails.
The confusion of efficiency and COP is of course one of the errors that was
often in my own thinking in the early years, until back there some time ago Gene
Mallove set me on the correct course. Gene knew thermodynamics and understood
what it took for overunity systems taking their excess energy freely from the
vacuum environment. After his prompting, it took me two years of reading into
fundamental thermo (particularly of nonequilibrium systems) before Gene’s
guidance set in for good, and I finally understood the exact difference between
efficiency and COP, just as Gene had informed me.
So we want to get the information out there as simply as possible, with lots of
diagrams etc., so the present young researchers will not have to spend so many
years of their lives getting to that information. Hopefully we can lay it out
for them very exactly and simply, and they can then understand and go get EFTV
systems developed and born and on the world market.
We also have to lay out (in that same book) both positive energy and negative
energy, the difference between using them for power, etc. Again, we will do that
as part of our highest priority.
So it isn’t going to be easy and I will be very slow, but I’ll do my very
best to get it done.
Very best wishes,
Tom
# # #
SOURCE:
See also
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan March 4, 2006
Last updated March 05, 2006
| |
|
Feed