Bearden on closing the loop
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 @ 21:54:00 GMT
Topic: General


More from Dave's correspondence with Tom Bearden, this time regarding why closing the loop on the COP>1 device to produce a self running machine (the ultimate proof skeptics want to demonstrate the "free" energy concept) is not that easy, but doable (Bedini and Tom filed a patent for the procedure which will be disclosed in Tom's forthcoming book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, to be published in 2002 by World Scientific).



From Bearden re: Closing the loop:

"None of the overunity researchers seem to know that either; that the very EM theory they know and are familiar with, totally excludes any possibility of overunity. Period.
None seem to realize that you CANNOT use just a standard closed current loop circuit, and output overunity. Will not happen. That's standard theory, and overunity has already been discarded in it from the getgo.

So NONE of them ask the very first necessary question: How and where in a circuit does a proposed overunity system VIOLATE the standard Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory? And is there any grounds in the literature for that violation?
Almost all of these fellows have never seen an overunity circuit in their life, have no experience with one, have no understanding of the new and strange phenomenology that occurs in one, etc. Yet most also confidently assume that their knowledge of STANDARD, GARDEN-VARIETY EM is all that is required. I've worked with several legitimate overunity systems, working with various inventors. These were real, and they all demonstrated the conventionally unknown effects I refer to.

Now notice very carefully that we have only shown the MEG in OPEN-LOOP fashion. There's a very good reason for that. In spite of all the "experts" who already know it all, who even think they know magnetics (and never heard of the Aharonov-Bohm effect), close-looping a real overunity machine is the devil to do successfully - else we would have done it with the MEG (and several others I worked with) long ago. I have news for the overunity researchers: If you have a unit that puts out 100 watts, and you only input 10 watts, you CANNOT just use clamped positive feedback of 10 watts from the output. Try it, and watch your circuits blow their solid state components, or drain the external power supply, etc. Not one of those fellows has ever even had an overunity system to try to close-loop and see what happens. So they have ZERO close-looping knowledge and experience.

Anyway, welcome to general relativity. Any overunity system is a priori far from equilibrium in the active vacuum exchange, so it exists in a curved spacetime from the getgo. Well, ordinary EM theory and ordinary circuit theory doesn't tell you anything at all about what happens then, in that circuit. There is a real, but highly sophisticated and unusual reason for the difficulty in close-looping an overunity system. Bedini and I, after years of hard struggle, have FINALLY broken the close-looping mechanism, and we have filed a patent on the process. Bedini did it first on the bench, and after considerable torment and effort I finally broke the technical mechanism involved. Nothing at all can be discussed about that patent application or its technical content, until we secure formal regular patent application and also Foreign patent application filing."

His response to my rather ignorant guess as to why closing the loop is extremely difficult:

"No, the thing that prevents close-looping is not anything superluminal. it turns out there is an astonishing mechanism in the vacuum itself by which nature "decays" any overunity situation. You cannot even see it unless you analyze what I call the "supersystem": That is, the local curvature of spacetime, the physical EM system, and the active nonlinear vacuum. All three of these entities are in interaction together, in any legitimate overunity systems. As you can see, standard circuit theory does not hack it, and neither does the simply "flat spacetime, inactive vacuum" assumption of just clamping some positive feedback from output to input. The actual mechanism by which nature promptly decays from that excited supersystem state that exists in an overunity system, is quite surprising because it is just now, way out there on the absolute forefront of physics, that the basis to comprehend the mechanism has finally appeared electromagnetically at last. In other words, struggling overunity inventors cannot be blamed for not doing it in the past, because much of the physics necessary to do it had not been realized yet, and there was absolutely no model which they could use to even hint at how to do it. A few did it by either pure luck or an incredible series of experiments until they stumbled across it. One that known of hit it right on the head the first time, an incredible stroke of luck comparable to winning the lottery with a single ticket. I was very lucky to eventually be able to find a reference that pointed toward the mechanism, and after lots and lots of wrestling with what on earth it could be pointing to, finally found what it really was. It involves a totally new kind of potential, a new kind of force, and a new kind of current. [There are many kinds of energy currents in higher symmetry electrodynamics, e.g., the curl-free magnetic vector potential is actually a purely longitudinal flow of energy current, of if you will, a flow of what would normally be the electrostatic scalar potential, in space.] That's why it was so difficult to arrive at. But with his incredible intuition, and hordes of determined experiments, John Bedini had found a way to convert this wild beast into usable electromagnetic energy, taming it on the bench. Even after seeing what he did, it was extraordinarily difficult to come up with the actual technical mechanism he was performing.

Anyway, we finally found it, at least to first order and good enough to allow close-looping of many (but not necessarily all!) overunity circuits. But it's a cantankerous beast, and even knowing it, it is very difficult to wrestle to the mat in a given application. I want to be sure, however, that in the future it is well-known that John, not me, discovered how to do it."
My question on the value/necessity of 'closing the loop':
Perhaps you can shed some light on this. It appears that the major problem with OU devices is that inventors invariably try and 'close the loop' to make a device a 'self-runner' (I assume this is because it destroys the source dipole, if I understand you correctly). John has been practically foaming at the mouth with frustration trying to make the point that if you want OU (and you haven't hit upon the method you and he have) you can't close the loop.
Here's the nut of the problem and what I can't comprehend - why does the loop HAVE to be closed?!? From what I've seen there's several designs out there (Gray's was one, unless I am mistaken) that charged one battery while running off another - then simply switched batteries after a while! It's not an elegant solution, but neither was the first gas engine compared to steam! It just had the potential to be BETTER. Even an open loop OU system is better than NO system at all! Eventually the loop will be closed, and it will be cheaper, better, faster, but for right now - so what!
Tom's response:
"Dave,
Sorry for not addressing it directly; just plead terrible fatigue tonight. Well, your intuition is absolutely correct! There is nothing that says an overunity systems has to be close-looped at all, and that's the point. Overunity per se is not close-looping, just COP>1.0. You are quite right on that. What is wrong is so many folks who automatically assume that, if it's overunity, hey, it's a piece of cake to close-loop it. That's totally wrong.

But one continually gets "attacked" by lots of very na357ve folks who assume the role of experts in the free energy community, with some such statement as, "Well, if it's real, you can easily close loop it, by just using some controlled positive feedback. If you are not doing that, it is not legitimate and it is therefore a fraud." After getting hit with that perhaps fifty times, understandably one gets impatient with such a na357ve assumption by a person who never saw an overunity circuit in his life, never experimented with one, never saw what happens when one tries to close loop it, etc.
So it's perfectly legitimate to advertise an open-loop overunity experiment or device. That's precisely the case for every conventional generator anyway, evaluated for energy transduction only. It has a COP>>1.0 for energy transduction, but certainly is not close-looped. As you can see, by using the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit which self-enforces underunity COP, the conventional engineers eliminate the problem entirely, and never even run into it, because they eliminate COP>1.0 anyway. But that results in their wasting enormously more energy than they catch and use, and they have been doing that for more than a century.
We are also working on a (proprietary) method of hopefully allowing close-looping of the MEG by an entirely different mechanism we have postulated. Still too early to tell on that one, but at least on paper it looks good (lots of things look good on paper, and only a few of them really work out!), and it appears it may totally avoid the other major problem. But it requires a very different MEG construction to try to do it. So we will have to laboriously make several more buildups of the new kind before we can tell, and we have to get different cores. But hey, if it fails, we haven't lost much except some time and a little money. It's certainly worth a shot at it.

Anyway, a COP>1.0 open loop system is perfectly okay, and would dramatically reduce pollution, release of hydrocarbon combustion byproducts, and produce more energy. Nothing at all wrong with that, in my book!

But I'm sure you yourself have probably met with the same "Well, if you can't close loop it easily, it isn't real" objection to your insight."





This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=89