Lowrance Theory for Energy Extraction from Matter

Paul Lowrance proposes a solid state method for extracting energy from the motion of atoms in matter, resulting in cooling of the matter, to be regenerated from the ambient surrounding temperature. Says model is based on existing laws of physics.

The following is detailed information on research I've been doing for some time now. IMHO it is a major breakthrough in magnetic material. Yet, it does not break any modern theories and in fact completely uses Classical Physics. I believe it will lead anyone who has a fairly strong grasp of physics and is capable of write computer VC++ code. If you are unable to code, then perhaps you know a coder who is willing to work with you.

I am currently working on research that utilizes classical physics in conjunction with computer simulations that looks promising. I believe with certainty that I've discovered a way to extract energy from matter in a complete safe and cheap method. This research uses well-known classical physics. Computer simulations are not only revealing where the free energy is coming from, but how. The end design will be a device capable of generating kilowatts of power while utilizing very basic electronic parts such as Diodes, Caps, MOSFET's, and highly permeable magnetic material. The cost should be well under $1000 and the size of a shoe.

I think that a great deal of free energy researchers are searching for some kind of radiant or new energy. Surely, there's most likely some sort of energy similar to Tesla's radiant energy. Although I have been using the more classical physics theories, which tell us there is enormous amount of energy around us. E = mc^2. Take nuclear energy for example. As we know, the elements are traveling at incredible speeds. Consider how much energy in heat is in a gallon of water at room temperature versus the same gallon of water at nearly 0 K. That's a lot of energy! So what if a machine could suck energy out of say magnetic material. This would in turn make the material cold, and due to thermal conductivity, the material would get energy from the environment. That is, the material would make the air, ground, or whatever it's touching colder. So then the environment gets colder, but guess what? The device gives the energy to say a TV, or a motor, or a hair dryer, which gives that heat right back to the environment. :-) Long ago while in high school, my physics teacher pointed to a table and said, "What if all the vibrating elements in that table were aligned to the same direction at the same time? The table would shoot through the roof and into orbit at an incredible rate!" My physics teacher was correct in that there is incredible energy in matter, which is constantly being reheated every day by the Sun.

So now the question is, how can we get energy from magnetic material? Consider the following design of mine.

Two Ferrite Rod machine:

  • Take two pieces of ferrite rod material.
  • Wrap copper wire around each rod.
  • Separate the rods.
  • Energize both rods by running current through the copper wire coil.
  • Now the two ferrite rods are attracted toward each other. Allow the rods to collapse together and extract the potential energy from the motion and force, like a motor.
  • Release the current in both coils.
  • Go to step 3 and repeat.

So in step 4, how much energy is required to energize the coil? It depends on the permeability of the ferrite material and the shape/dimensions of the material. Now do the same above experiment except use ferrite material that has a much higher permeability. Guess what? It will take far less energy to energize the rod. Although, in step 5 we get the same amount of energy since the magnetic fields are at the same strength. The end result, we gain more energy with the higher permeable material. Just how much free energy is only limited to how permeable we can make material. Theoretically, it's possible to achieve efficiencies in the billions. This is not OU though. It simply means we're extracting energy from the material.

So then where is the free energy coming from? The above is what started my recent quest for free energy! After a great deal of intensive studies of magnetic materials I've learned a lot. I've written numerous computer VC++ simulation programs trying to simulate magnetic materials, which proved to be very difficult at first. These unsuccessful simulations turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I had a theory on what was happening. I just wanted to see if a computer simulation, using classical physics, would prove that theory. My theory was this. Heat, the vibrating elements in the material, were responsible for collapsing / forcing the magnetic field in highly permeable material to near zero field strength. As we know, it's the intrinsic electron spin that causes the magnetic field in ferromagnetic materials. My initial computer programs simulated tiny magnetic particles. The problem was this. Without heat, all the particles would align with each other like a permanent magnet. The problem was that it took a great deal of energy to demagnetize the material. Once the material was demagnetized, it would then just snap to the opposite magnetic polarity. After numerous simulations I finally introduced heat. Once heat was introduced, the materials would then behave like materials with high permeability. So then, finally, I could test my theory. I simulated my two ferrite rod machine and was thrilled to see the computer reveal that there was free energy and the free energy was coming from the magnetic material. It was the heat that was forcing / knocking the electron spins out of alignment. Without this heat, the electron spins would stay in alignment without any external force. If the magnetic field in both of the rods did not collapse, then it would require energy in step 3--separating the rods. Allow two magnets to pull each other together. Then try to separate the magnets. It takes energy to separate them. But now imagine large balls are bounce all over the place an incredible speeds. Imagine one of the balls hits the magnets a forces them apart. The magnets separate but it took energy away from the moving ball.

Here's an interesting test. In the two ferrite rod machine, replace the ferrite rods with copper air coils that has circuitry inside. We'll call them the CRC (Copper Rod Coils). The idea here is to simulate the magnetic material. In other words, if there's an applied magnetic field in the CRC, then the CRC will generate a lot of current to create a magnetic field. So let's just say that inside the CRC is circuitry that senses an applied magnetic field and then generates current. If the CRC senses 1 oersted, then it generates a 1,000 gauss field. So then we could say that our CRC has a permeability of 1000. Now let's try the two ferrite rod machine with the CRC in place of the magnetic material. So we have a copper coil that's wrapped around our CRC. Classical physics shows that it requires energy in step 4. But most of the energy is taken away from the CRC. In fact, for every Joule taken away from our coil, 1000 joules is taken away from the CRC. After all, it is the CRC that generated most of the magnetic field-- times 1000 more than our coil. Since there is 1000 times as much current in the CRC than our coil (that's wrapped around the CRC), then the induced voltage * 1000 current is 1000 times the power taken away from the CRC. In step 5, we gain a lot of energy from the two rods pulling toward each other, and the coil lose a little energy because of the induced voltage in our coil caused by the two rods coming closer. Although, most of the energy is taken away from the CRC because it's generating the large magnetic field. In step 6, both the coil and the CRC get energy back. The end result, according to classical physics, the CRC lost more energy than it gained and the coil gained more energy than it lost; i.e., we get some energy from the CRC. In order for the CRC to come out even (no loss in energy), it would have to behave like magnetic material that is not affected by heat. In other words, if the CRC had a significant amount of hysteresis (requiring energy to demagnetize it), then the CRC would come out even.

That was just the beginning. Being a perfectionist, I wanted a solid-state device. There were just to many unknowns in the two ferrite rod machine. First, just how permeable did the material need to be to overcome friction losses from ball bearings, electrical resistances, etc? Additionally, materials have hysteresis. The computer simulations I used so far were for perfect material that had no hysteresis. For all I knew it would require permeability of a trillion. I'm not one for playing guessing games. So this all led to Ising, a well-known study of magnetic material simulation. Ising has successfully simulated and allowed scientists to understand such phenomenon in magnetic materials such as avalanches and hysteresis. I've since learned a great deal about magnetic materials, domains, avalanches, hysteresis, etc. I learned that indeed without heat, the magnetic particles would snap in alignment, and would require energy to demagnetize them. That heat was responsible for demagnetizing magnetic materials. For example, energize a coil and then release the current in the coil. The amount of magnetic field that remains is called the Residual Flux. The amount of force required to fully demagnetize the material is called the Coercive Force. Permanent magnets are simply magnetic materials that have high Residual Flux. Materials with high permeability such as Metglas have extremely low Residual Flux and require very little energy to fully demagnetize and also happen to require very little energy to energize them to a specific magnetic field.

So Ising led me so far. With Ising, I was able to include hysteresis. The end results were the same except that the efficiencies were lowered for the same tests. But the design called for extremely high pulsed currents. According to the simulations, the higher the pulsed current, the higher efficiencies obtained. The pulsed currents must saturate the materials to at least 99.97% of saturation. It was a fine line. Anything much lower resulted in nearly no free energy. All previous simulations led me to a solid-state design idea that would extract free energy from magnetic material. But there are still some unknowns with the design and possible gotchas. As far as the two ferrite rod machine, IMHO there are no ifs. I'm nearly 100% certain it can generate free energy if given high enough permeability. To complete my solid state design simulations I needed simulations for inhomogeneous fields, which no Ising simulations are capable of doing. It seems easy, but when it comes to doing the details, it turns out to be very difficult and results in very questionable simulations. This is due to the fact that the simulation must take into consideration of the magnetic fields of every other magnetic particle. This in a sense is like removing the heat from the equation and we end up with permanent magnets again.

At present I am mapping the exact real life characteristics of an Amidon FT-150A-WC magnetic toroid. Once this has been mapped, then I can complete the solid-state design simulation with complete confidence. The design may or may not work. If it does not, then I am certain there are solid-state designs that will work. In fact, I see a good chance of the current design not working, but I'm confident that I'll find the correct solid-state design that will extract free energy. If even that's unsuccessful, then there's always the two ferrite rod machine, which I'm confident will work. I would like to add that this solid-state design is very similar to Tom Bearden's design. If Tom Bearden would just tweak the current pattern slightly, then it would match my design theory. Although isn't Tom Bearden under the impression that a permanent magnet is required? Simulations clearly show this is not required, but makes the design a whole lot easier. The simulations take out all the guesswork.

I would invite people to participate, but I'm not sure if it would accelerate the work at present. It would require too much catching up. Although I do invite everyone to begin their own studies in this field. As for the computer simulation software, I would love to share it after I clean it up and add a GUI interface to it. At present I'm simply using the debuggers watch window to see the values of variables. Also I'd like to clean up the code a whole bunch before releasing it. It's real ugly, LOL! The important factor is that I've provided more than enough information for people to create their own simulation software. Even if I magically disappeared tomorrows, at least the information is out there. If you would be so kind, then please spread this information. Save it on your drives and memory sticks. Print it on paper. If you find a real error, then please let me know. Who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll look like a fool who overlooked a very obvious issue. :-( Who knows.

In closing, all that I ask is that if you use this information to create a free energy machine, that you will only PLEASE offer the machine as Public Domain that everyone can build and sell as they wish in a similar fashion to the Linux open source project. If you use the information to create such a machine, you are encouraged to patent the device for controlling purposes to only prevent other corporations from stealing the technology. As for guarantees, I cannot make any guarantees. Even though the computer simulations are using proven well-tested classical physics math, this may be completely flawed, or it may not. Anything is possible!