ON FREE-ENERGY: EMAIL RECEIVED BY INE FROM TOM BEARDEN, SEPT. 8, 1997
From Tom Breaden
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:15:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Website
Thanks for the good words and encouragement. Wish there were something I could do in regards to the acrimony meeting you on your own gauge project, but that is beyond my league. The only thought I have on it is that, whatever gauge one takes (where one assumes symmetry), to increase the energy of system is a certain kind asymmetry, and to dissipate that energy in the system to do work is yet another. So when it comes to power systems, it is the asymmetry that becomes of utmost importance. That's why the presently built EM systems are so innocuously deadly: the darn things provide the load current back through the source dipole, destroying the dipole (which is the real energy source that is extracting the energy flow from the vacuum, not the battery or the generator). Well, if the dipole is a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux (which particle physics assures us is the case) and furnishing the flow of energy from the source dipole down the circuit, then destroying the dipole restores symmetry and it also cuts off the free flow of energy from the vacuum.
Since our present systems try to return electron for electron from load to source, obviously as much work gets done to restore symmetry (kill the source dipole) as can be done in all loads and losses in the external circuit.
Hence the resulting system is automatically underunity in COP, since half the energy freely extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole is used externally to power the loads and losses, while the other half is used to restore symmetry. That means less than half gets to power the load, while half destroys the dipole. To keep replenishing the dipole, one must furnish energy to do continually do work to force the charges back apart and keep restoring the dipole! One must then put in at least as much energy as was done upon the dipole to destroy it. Hence system COP< 1.0. I pointed out in the May conference paper (and in the Journal of New Energy paper) that any system which asymmetrically regauges itself can permissibly provide overunity COP, including powering the load while simultaneously powering itself.
My impression (from the little gauge theory I have read) is that the gauge theorists still are not considering an asymmetrically self-regauging system, which deliberately violates its symmetry (or in other words, its gauge) itself, automatically. (All that is required, e.g., is to switch the scalar potential, as an easy case).
In my own work, I've really been concentrating on having the system automatically break its symmetry (including the Lorentz condition) itself, by freely changing its own potential or potentials in such a way that an excess net force is also produced. That system can then freely do excess work. On the other hand, the present electrodynamics notion of arbitrarily regauging both the scalar potential and the vector potential (Lorentz condition) just precisely such that the two excess forces produced are equal and opposite, is just so much nonsense if one wants to USE the excess energy one can easily extract from the vacuum by merely increasing a dipolarity.
Ironically, I am referring only to something the electrodynamicists already assume when they impose the Lorentz condition anyway! E.g., if you assume that you can freely change at will both potentials A and phi simultaneously, then by simple logic you have assumed that you can freely change each one alone. So why change both, and intricately so, just to make the mathematics simpler by separating the variables, and eliminating any net force that could use the energy changes you assumed in the system? As an example, why not just change freely a single potential (that's what I referred to as "asymmetrical regauging")? That way you get (1) free additional energy into the system (from outside, from the source of the potential that you switched), and (2) an additional associated force created in the system along with that free energy, so that one can EXPEND or DISSIPATE that excess free energy by having the force translate some resisting thing (power the load).
That way you can jolly well have a permissible system with COP>1.0.
I also noted in an earlier paper that, in case of the magnetic vector potential, multivalued potentials do occur naturally. Wonderful! Simply give me a case of a multivalued A at an "anomalous" point, so that just on one side of the anomaly we have one magnitude of A and therefore of B, and just on the other side we have a higher value of A and accordingly of B.
Now put that point having a multivalued A in a rotary process, preferrably by nonlinear permanent magnets only. Bingo! I now do not have a conservative field; the integration around the loop is nonzero. That means that in theory I can indeed extract extra free energy from that contraption, without violating any of the laws of nature, physics, or thermodynamics. As the rotor reaches the multivalued point, the device "jumps" the magnitude of its own A potential freely, which is an asymmetrical self-regauging.
For some years I have worked loosely with inventor Howard Johnson, who is utilizing just this very process using assemblages of highly nonlinear, nonsymmetrical magnets to try to develop a rotary permanent magnet engine.
Now he would be crazy if he were just attempting to use conservative magnetic fields! But since the nonconservative (i.e., multivalued) magnetic vector potential is already well-documented in the literature, it means that Johnson is not crazy after all, but is a wise man who knows that nonlinear permanent magnets can in theory be made to provide him an anomalous point or points where the A is multivalued. So he can indeed, at least in theory, have a self-rotating engine with permanent magnets only, IF one can get the multivalued potential point properly located and just exactly so. He has done this at least once in the past, only to lose his "magic" magnets in a break-in. Just now he is very close again, and I expect him to do it before he quits.
By the way, anyone who thinks that a permanent magnet cannot be made to "change" its own field itself, just needs to go back to school! E.g., a validated example for three decades or more is given by the Wiegand wire, around which there are numerous patents. The Wiegand wire is used in all sorts of things to obtain "free" switching. Coil lots of fine wire around the Wiegand wire, and when the wire spontaneously switches its fields, it will will generate a voltage pulse in the coil. That is used for all sorts of sensors. The Wiegand wire switcher is even used to produce some automotive ignition systems, particularly in Germany. Why university EE and physics departments are not vigorously pursuing this sort of thing for switching the fields in a magnetic motor with the Wiegand effect and assemblies of self-switching magnets is again something inexplicable.
Instead, one gets castigated vigorously with the old perpetual motion conundrum if one points out that certain magnets will not only freely self-reverse their own fields, but they will then be nice and cooperative and switch their reversed fields back to reference position again! If one can't see the possibility in a freely running engine in that, then there is no hope for one at all.
I think you see my point. Why not use the Wiegand wire to emulate the "multivalued" magnetic field, by arranging for the Wiegand wire to switch its field just at the point where you need the multivalued effect?
So when one looks rigorously at the problem of a self-rotating magnetic motor or self-powered circuit, one finds that at least in theory it is possible, in complete accord with physics, and using certain effects already well-known in the literature.
I find it completely inexplicable why the far better theorists than I, who should have at least run across these things and gone on by them, do not realize the impact of these simple effects which have already been established in physics. I also cannot understand why, e.g., the Department of Energy is not going after these types of things like gangbusters.
Particularly when the anti-Stokes process already proves the "White crow" in spades and has for more than 30 years. Cheap clean energy and greater economic freedom for everyone are the implications.
Again, thanks for entertaining these notions and bearing with me. It is my hope that we will see some really good physicists get into this area, review all these things, and put things in a more proper physics exposition. A proper scientific success and exposition in these areas will have profound benefit not only to the scientists involved, but to everyone else also. And then the scientists can be the "good guys" for a change rather than the bad guys.
Return to the INE Main Page
Sept. 10, 1997.