Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 125 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science


Energy Science



Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs


New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.




Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
Alternative Energy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (Status, Operation, etc.)
Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 @ 18:47:08 EST by vlad

Devices From Tom Bearden 's recent correspondence section: (http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030206.htm)

Tony, (Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:27:07 -0600)

We are just beginning again to rebuild another MEG demonstrator, for testing and then funding to complete the program.

We have a very hard year to a year and a half of work on the MEG, before it is out of engineering development and ready for production engineering. At that time, with successful conclusion of ED we will hopefully be in condition to place the system on the market.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden

From a recent correspondence between Tom Bearden and Leslie Pastor (New Energy Congress) on the operation of the MEG and the diference with the Flynn Parallel Path Technology:

From: Leslie R. Pastor
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:05 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Are you familiar with Joseph Flynn's Device?

Good Evening Tom,

I came across http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology It appears to act somewhat like a transistor [excuse the analogy] with a small amount of energy quadrupling the gauss of the magnet...

Can you explain the differences between the MEG v. the Flynn Parallel Path Technology?

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

Reference is made to a MEG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electrical_Generator that claims to be yours.
But there appears to be a significant discrepency. Research: http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/joeflynn.pdf


http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Flynn_Parallel_Path_principle_device http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Flynn_Parallel_Path_proof_sq_95x95.jpg



John Bedini's Website:

----------------Tom Bearden writes:


Yes, I did get the E-mail and appreciate your efforts and information.

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 kurl 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 asymmetry (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 Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in the MEG) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and structure).

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, see 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." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, 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

Source: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030406a.htm


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,




Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Devices
· News by vlad

Most read story about Devices:
Overunity magnet motor released !

Article Rating
Average Score: 3
Votes: 2

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (Status, Operation, etc.)" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (Status, Operation, etc.) (Score: 1)
by ritchie56 on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 @ 10:01:47 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
I'd like to put my 2 cents in after hearing W's plea for alternate ways to power our cars. After reading the patent and reading the articles, I believe that this is a valid, working device. However - the "energy" is not "free".  All alien math aside, the basic premise ofthis device is to take the static flux of a permanent magnet and turn it into an AC field thus driving secondary coils and producing electricity. A portion of this electricity is fed back to keep the electronics working. The source of this excess energy is the magnet. Period. Having said that, how much energy will the inductry have to consume in order to dig up rare ore, refine it, shape it into magnets and then energize them? Sounds like a lot of petrolium and coal to me. It takes energy to make energy. The question is, will these magnets along with the other components hold up long enough such that their net output over time, is greater than all the energy consumed to make them in the first place?  Secondly, to produce 15-20 kw units for household use is going to be very costly considering the size of the magnetics required.  If say such a unit could be sold for $20,000 and had a lifespan of 10 years, that would average about $166 dollars a month, which sounds pretty comperable to convention residential power.  It's not free, but it does reduce our dependance on petrolium and coal.  The point is, lets be real about this. The logistics are mind-staggering as well.  Good luck gentlemen!


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.