11th April, 2001

Dear (Scientist correspondent),

I appreciate the courteous and professional manner of your critique, which is in the proper scientific tradition and fully appropriate. It is refreshing, considering the usual either dogmatic or ad hominem responses so often received.

Although I first drafted a more lengthy reply with some very special details, I am informed by our attorneys that I cannot release such details and information just yet. This is not a dodge, as you are aware of the patent laws with respect to foreign patent rights. We have a limited time to get capitalization so we can file those; we have already filed two U.S. patents, and believe we will be awarded one of them very soon. Until the patents are all filed, we are indeed limited on what we can release. At Magnetic Energy Limited, we are after all a private company and in business. I do get irritated at folks who erroneously think one can just reveal everything about an invention early on, and then still file for foreign patents. One must draw a very careful distinction: We do things as scientifically as possible, but we do have proprietary facets and interests which as a company we have to protect.

The MEG can be replicated by any competent laboratory.

So about all I can release is this: We apply the well-known Aharonov-Bohm effect, now in over 2,000 papers and well-proven experimentally in hundreds of experimental replications. It's just that no one thought to apply it to power systems before. We also apply a marvelous material effect we discovered in a special core material. The core made of that material extracts almost all the magnetic field flux from the permanent magnet, similar to how a toroid localizes the entire B-field inside it. An outside field meter right on the pole of the powerful little magnet shows very little magnetic field reading. The AB effect (which does not appear in classical EM but is well-known in particle physics and even in Feynman's sophomore physics 3 volumes) then gives us an uncurled A-potential outside that core, in the surrounding space. Whereas the nonlocalized normal B-field out there without the core action would have dropped off as the inverse distance squared, the uncurled A-potential drops off only as the inverse distance. So there is quite a bit more total A-potential energy in that surrounding space, and changes to that external A-potential can be collected as well as collecting the flux energy changes in the core.

We then perturb both the field flux and the A-potential with rather square pulses in a small primary coil. Since dA/dt constitutes an E-field, by sharp pulse edges we create very large E-fields in the surrounding space. We do the normal transformer thing in the core B-field flux, but with one novel twist that increases the amount of flux switched for a given amount of primary energy input. We do NOT have to input much average energy to the primary; we get high peak power E-field pulses from and in that external uncurled A-potential, by weak energy input with sharp changes. In other words, just as in a pulse radar, our peak power input is high, while our average power input is low. The secondary now gets two interactions, not just one as in the normal transformer. It gets the "normal transformer" interaction with the pulsed magnetic flux though its center. It also get the huge E-field interactions from the impinging E-fields from outside the core. When we look at the total impulse collected in that secondary from the dual interaction, including one of them interactions with very high E-fields, we can easily go overunity.

Classical equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply to the MEG. This is rigorously an open system far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from an external active environment, the active vacuum. So the well-known thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium applies. This is preferable, for such open disequilibrium systems rigorously are permitted to perform five magic functions (this is standard disequilibrium thermodynamics, not Tom Bearden). Such a system is permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess is freely received from the energy exchange with the active environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the energy exchange with the active environment), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

At present, the MEG exhibits all those functions except number (4). We also have the solution to that, but will not discuss it.

So your intuition is indeed correct: There is indeed "something to it" and it works quite well. If you wish a very rigorous theoretical exposition of how the energy is taken from the vacuum, I refer you to M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator in O(3) Electrodynamics, Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94. If you are interested in legitimate processes to extract EM energy from the vacuum, I refer you to M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517. Other relevant group papers by the same 15 authors are: "On the Representation of the Maxwell-Heaviside Equations in Terms of the Barut Field Four-Vector," Optik, 111(6), 2000, p. 246-248; ----- "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum", Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409. There are many others, and some 20 additional papers by 15 authors each are now in the referee process at various leading journals. One of the papers now in final refereeing deals with the MEG with the full general relativity considerations taken into account. Several of the others deal with extracting EM energy from the vacuum.

There are some other things going on in the MEG that I cannot go into, where we actually collect quit a bit more energy than even that dual interaction in the secondary. Hopefully I can release such details in a few months.

It is quite odd that scientists in general are so biased against COP>1.0 EM systems. COP>1 systems are in fact included in the Maxwell-Heaviside theory prior to Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations. Since the Lorentz symmetrical regauging is totally arbitrary and was done merely to simplify the further-reduced equations so that analytical closed solutions could be obtained, it is rather strange that the COP>1.0 systems inclusion in Maxwell's theory before arbitrary tampering is not much more widely realized. In power systems and circuits, the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit is what self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging during a circuit's excitation discharge. We have to break the Lorentz condition just to apply the voltage initially. Also, gauge freedom in gauge field theory assures one that he can freely change the potential energy of an EM system at will. Lorentz did it twice in his symmetrical regauging, but very carefully selected the two to produce equal and opposite free forces, so none of the free regauging potential energy could be used to discharge into external loads and power them. Lorentz regauging in fact discarded that entire vast class of permitted Maxwellian systems that are far from equilibrium in their active vacuum energy exchange -- precisely the Maxwellian systems permitted to exhibit COP>1.0.

It is also ironic that classical electrodynamics still implies that the source charge freely creates energy out of nothing, and pours it out at the speed of light in all directions in 3-space. That has been long considered as the most vexing problem in CEM. We solved that problem in 2000 in "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole", published in the Journal of New Energy. The CEM does not even include the vacuum interaction, much less the broken symmetry in it of any dipole.

Magnetic Energy Limited is in intense negotiations with several large financial enterprises, for the capitalization necessary to get on with it and finish the research for production engineering. We will continue until the capital is successfully raised. A major financial group has spent more than a hundred thousand dollars in verifying us and technically verifying the device and the process. We have passed through three rigorous and independent technical assessments, quite successfully. As a point of wry humor, one of the problems is that this technology is "disruptive" technology, and so any large financial institute with large amounts of committed capital in the normal power field, e.g., has a serious internal struggle and a major problem in considering financing this. I'm understating the problem there! This peculiarity that a large enterprise could "shoot itself in the foot" by investing in this "disruptive technology" ironically has emerged as the single biggest problem in our negotiations. There is no problem in technically proving the system; we have to do that repeatedly in all our negotiations.

Anyway, I hope that helps and gives you further insight into dual energy production and collection in the MEG, as compared to a normal transformer. There are other devices we add to it, which change the operation even further to our advantage, but I cannot release those details at this time.

My forthcoming book, to be published by World Scientific, will indeed cover all those things and more. The book should be published early next year. I believe our extensive exposition of the problem of close-looping for self-powering -- and the solution -- will be a bombshell, as will be the considerations necessary due to the local spacetime curvatures involved.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden