Most researchers think one just gets a kit of Radio Shack parts and whips them together, and voila!  Anyone can build it  If it were that simple, every sharp young undergraduate in EE and physics would have done it about 1900 or so.  It isn't that simple.

We have had two major publication breakthroughs on the MEG, including one paper published by a prestigious physics journal and a second one approved and in press now.  They are:  M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al. (15 authors), "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1) Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.  Also (by the same authors):  "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(8) (in press).

Below  is a sort of simple little "mini-tutorial" explaining why COP>1.0 EM systems are present in the literature and known and proven.

So the problem is primarily the prevailing 130 year old mindset of the scientific community.   They seem to have completely forgotten that every generator already outputs far more energy than one inputs to the shaft, and this was discovered and proven in the1880s -- then discarded by Lorentz.  It is still easily shown and proven by any qualified experimenter and any university laboratory at will.

Cheers,

Tom Bearden

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To Correspondent: 

Perhaps the best I can do for xxx is to attach an adapted copy of a response I sent to another  correspondent.  I gave him a mini-tutorial on how EM energy gets in a circuit in the first place.  Even in the ordinary textbook, it comes into the conductors from the space surrounding the conductors.  It DOES NOT come into the circuit from the generator itself.

Indeed, generators do not power circuits directly, and the basis for that has been well-known in particle physics for nearly a half century.  Anyway, we gave him a very, very brief discussion on how the EM theory our engineers use was curtailed twice from Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations in some 20 unknowns.  Heaviside reduced it to two vector equations without the variables separated.  This first curtailment by Heaviside DOES contain two kinds of EM systems:  (1) Class I systems, which are in equilibrium with their active environment (the active vacuum) and hence simple systems, and (2) Class II systems, which are in disequilibrium with their active vacuum environment, and hence are more complex systems.  The Class I systems rigorously obey classical thermodynamics, and hence can never exhibit COP>1.0.  The Class II systems do not obey classical thermodynamics, but obey the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium with their active vacuum environment.  Class II systems (the source charge and the source dipole are examples) can exhibit five very important functions:  They can (a) self-order, (b) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (c) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess is freely received from the active vacuum environment), (d) self-power itself and its load (all the energy is freely received from the active vacuum environment), and (e) exhibit negentropy.  Source charges and source dipoles do all the above five functions.

Then to simplify the mathematics for easier solution, Lorentz symmetrically regauged the Heaviside equations, still further restricting the theory.  Actually this arbitrarily discards all Class II systems, and retains only Class I systems.  This process of Lorentz regauging (and thus discarding all permissible Maxwellian COP>1.0 systems) can be seen in Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 219-221.  Jackson also shows there the Heaviside two equations with variables unseparated.

A simple explanation for overunity and how to easily prove it (and where it exists in the textbooks already, if one knows how to look) is given below.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

----------------------------------------------

To a Correspondent:

You see, overunity researchers just do not ask the right questions!  If they did, they would be after the following very vital piece of information for all serious scientists, having nothing to do with the MEG, but everything to do with COP>1.0 EM systems.

Every generator and system ever built, and everyone now built, already outputs vastly more EM energy flow than one inputs to the shaft of the generator (or the chemical energy possessed by a battery, etc.).   That is easily proven.  Let us do a gedanken experiment, where we can do things perfectly.  Take a perfect generator with 100% efficiency (in real life one can have one with 95%, e.g., as is well-known.  Our generator is the "generator in principle" so it can be perfect).  Attach two short perfect conductors to its terminals, and connect a purely resistive load.  Let us assume that the generator is DC, and outputs 12 volts.  The load is 12 ohms, and so a DC current of 1 ampere flows in the circuit.  We get out 12 watts of power from the resistor as heat energy.  We input 12 watts equivalent of mechanical power to the generator.  This system has a COP = 1.0.  Nothing extraordinary so far.  But let us speak precisely.  Any external circuit receives the energy flow FROM THE SURROUNDING SPACE, as is well known in electrodynamics.  For example, quoting Heald {1}:

"The charges on the surface of the wire provide two types of electric field.  The charges provide the field inside the wire that drives the conduction current according to Ohm's law.  Simultaneously the charges provide a field outside the wire that creates a Poynting flux.  By means of this latter field, the charges enable the wire to be a guide (in the sense of a railroad track) for electromagnetic energy flowing in the space around the wire.  Intuitively one might prefer the notion that electromagnetic energy is transported by the current, inside the wires.  It takes some effort to convince oneself (and one's students) that this is not the case and that in fact the energy flows in the space outside the wire."

Poynting {2} assumed from the beginning only that component of the energy flow in space around the wire that strikes the circuit (surface charges) and gets diverged into the conductors to power the circuits.  Heaviside {3, 4} discovered that diverged Poynting component also, but also discovered the REMAINING huge nondiverged component that does not strike the circuit at all, but just roars on off into space and is wasted.  Kraus {5} shows a very nice illustration of that nondiverged component, with measurement of the power that can be intercepted from it and collected around a unit point static charge placed at various points in space around the circuit.  We emphasize that Kraus presents actual measurements, so his contours for extra power interception are rigorous and experimentally measured.  This is real electrical power, not fiction, and it can indeed be intercepted and used.

The total amount of energy pouring out of the generator terminals is startling.  Heaviside realized its magnitude, but had no explanation of where on earth such an enormous energy flow could be furnished from; obviously nothing like that was input to the shaft of the generator (the output can be a trillion times more energy flow rate than the input power to the shaft).  So Heaviside guardedly spoke in terms of the angles, to prevent having to directly state such a vast COP>1.0, because otherwise he would have been attacked as a perpetual motion nut and scientifically destroyed.  Here are Heaviside's {6} own words:

"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... .  Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical.  This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current.  The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire.  The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure.  It causes the convergence of energy into the wire."

Lorentz then entered the picture, and he understood both Poynting's work and Heaviside's extension to it.  But even the great Lorentz had no explanation as to where this gigantic and bewildering outpouring of EM energy from the terminals of every generator could possibly be coming from!  In the 1880s the electron, atom, nucleus, etc. had not been discovered.  The source dipole's broken symmetry in its fierce energy exchange with the vacuum was unknown, for the active vacuum was unknown, most of particle physics was yet unborn, and such broken symmetry of a dipole with the active vacuum was not discovered till 1957 {7}.  Hence it is not even included in ordinary EM theory, and neither is the well-known (in particle physics) interaction of that source dipole with the active vacuum, much less a broken symmetry in that interaction of dipole and vacuum.

So Lorentz reasoned that, well, this giant energy flow misses everything and powers nothing in the circuit, so it has "no physical significance" (Lorentz' term).  So he originated the little trick of integrating the EM energy flow vector around a closed surface surrounding any volume of interest {8}.  This arbitrarily discards the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component from all accountability, and retains only the Poynting component that enters the circuit.  Well, what enters the circuit will be dissipated from the circuit, so that matches the energy we will "measure in the circuit", since our instruments actually measure dissipation.  Electrodynamicists have continued to use Lorentz' little trick {9} to get rid of far more energy flow associated with the circuit than is retained by the Poynting extremely limited theory, and than is intercepted, caught and utilized by the circuit.

Now back to our gedanken experiment.  Call the energy input to the shaft of our generator Win.  Call the Poynting diverged energy flow caught by the circuit and used to power the resistor Wr.  Call the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component missing the circuit and wasted Wh.  Then the total energy output Wout from the terminals of the generator is Wout = Wr + Wh.  But Win = Wr.  So Wout = Win + Wh, and that means that Wout > Win.  Further, Wh>> Win, so we may say that approximately Wout = Wh, and since Wh>>Win, then Wout >> Win.

And so it is with every generator-powered system and every battery-powered system.

Back to our gedanken experiment again, which is still only producing COP=1.0, because it is wasting Wh>>Win.  Suppose you now design a receiving antenna (it can be done) and place it in that external nondiverged Heaviside flow component OUTSIDE the primary power system circuit.  Make this receiver-collector circuit completely separate; you are using transmission-reception theory, not single circuit theory.  The terminals of the generator are already transmitting vast amounts of energy through space OUTSIDE the primary system conductors and circuit.  So we wish to RECEIVE some of that energy, and use it to power a separate, second resistive load in an independent circuit.

Voila!   Suppose you now catch 6 extra watts of power out there in a receiving circuit or set of them, and you power a second little resistor with it, to output another 6 watts.  Your total system now has the following interesting characteristics: you still input only 12 watts, the primary circuit outputs 12 watts, and the secondary receiver circuit outputs 6 watts independently of the generator and its primary circuit physically connected to its terminals.   Your total output is 18 watts, and your total input is 12 watts, so you have a COP = 1.5.

Any experimenter worth his salt, and any laboratory can easily build a version of that.

Every generator and every battery is already a gigantic overunity transducer, freely extracting and outputting enormous EM energy from the vacuum, via the broken symmetry of the source dipole once made. It is the broken symmetry of the source dipole, once formed in the generator, that furnishes the energy flowing out of the terminals and into space outside the external circuit.  That energy is extracted directly from the active vacuum exchange, by the source dipole's broken symmetry in that exchange.  That broken symmetry with the vacuum flux has been in particle physics for nearly a half century.  It is not even added into classical electrodynamics yet, even though proven so long.

So why has this fact of the vast Heaviside nondiverged energy flow surrounding every circuit and power line   -- which has been in the literature since the 1880s, and in fact is known (as shown in Kraus), yet no university teaches it clearly, and no electrical engineers know it clearly?  Even the learned science journals are still nonplussed when this absolutely known and easily proven fact (Kraus' contours are EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED numbers!) is pointed out to them explicitly.

Why is it that the entire bewildered scientific community and the electrical engineering community and the power engineering community are so adamant that COP>1.0 electrical power systems are impossible, when the Maxwell-Heaviside equations (prior to Lorentz' regauging) do include such systems, and when it has been shown since the 1880s that every generator already pours out of its terminals enormously more energy  than one inputs to its shaft?  Why do they not teach the vacuum interaction, and the broken symmetry of the source dipole once formed, which is what ACTUALLY powers every circuit and power system we ever built?  Isn't it inexplicable that all our modern universities are so thoroughly fouled up, and seemingly cannot even read and understand the literature?

And why is it that researchers purportedly interested in overunity systems, will still use only classical Lorentz-regauged theory, which absolutely prohibits COP>1.0 systems?   The first requirement for overunity is to VIOLATE the very theory they insist on using and applying!  Why do they not build a little test version of what we describe above, test it, have 10 more researchers duplicate it and test it, and thus prove it themselves?  

Or if they prefer another proven overunity reaction, simply replicate the Bohren {10} experiment, which any university lab can readily duplicate.  It provides COP = 18, every time, anytime, anywhere if properly done.  It's experimentally proven, and independently replicated and published {11} in the same journal issue where Bohren published his experiment.

We can only subscribe to one of the sayings of Nikola Tesla:  It is simply the most inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind ever recorded in history.  We have never built anything BUT overunity systems, when both the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component and the usual Poynting energy flow component are accounted.

Best wishes for an excellent conference,

Tom Bearden

------------------------------------

References

1.                   Mark A. Heald, "Electric fields and charges in elementary circuits," Am. J. Phys. 52(6), June 1984, p. 524.

2.                   J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, Part II, 1885, p. 343-361.

3.                   Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887.

4.                   Oliver Heaviside, "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480.

5.                   John D. Kraus, ., Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992, p. 578.  Figure 12-60, a and b shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with almost all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just "wasted."

6.                   Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.

7.                   C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413-TBD.  Reports the discovery that the weak interaction violates parity (spatial reflection).  This also established the broken C symmetry of a dipole.

8.                   H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186.  Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element.  This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component striking the surface charges and being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow.  Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the nondiverged vast Heaviside energy transport component which does not strike the circuit at all, and is just wasted.

9.                   W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1962, 2nd edition, p. 181 shows this Lorentz exercise.  See also W. Gough and J.P.G. Richards,  Eur. J. Phys., Vol. 7, 1986, p. 195.

10.               Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.

11.               H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.