Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?
Date: Thursday, August 19, 2004 @ 22:33:22 GMT
Topic: Testimonials

In the intalek yahoo group Leslie R. Pastor writes:
Subject: Re: Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?

Tom Bearden recently responded to my query regarding marketable OU Energy Systems, specifically, if they are available right now. Tom's response is indicative of my postulate concerning the 'control paradigm,' that these systems will remain difficult at best, if not nearly impossible to provide the entire planet with abundant renewable alternative energy sources.

For several years now I have been researching this phenomenon, and always the attainability of these 'systems' remains elusive. Dr. Bearden, in my opinion, is the foremost expert on these matters. His credentials are above reproach, his character and attitude remain steadfast in support of a truly dynamic energy alternative as demonstrated by his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator.

----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Bearden To: 'Leslie R. Pastor' Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:27 PM
Subject: RE: Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?


No, we are not out of engineering development yet, and we will require a very hard year of funded final research and development work before we are out of it. So the MEG is not going to be ready for production and marketing until we can get the necessary funding to perform that absolutely essential work. Neither is any other such system, unless the inventor has had the greatest stroke of luck of anyone in the universe.

The progress of a technical system through exploratory R&D, advanced engineering R&D, engineering development R&D, production engineering and then into actual production and marketing, is the normal cycle taken by untold thousands of engineering systems. It isn't mystical at all; it's the actual technical development system itself.

So that is the normal progress and procedure for engineering and development of any technical system. Oddly, it is only in the struggling overunity field - which a priori is much more complicated than ordinary electrical engineering - that the actual progress through the various stages of research and development is somehow expected to not be required. Or, the inventor/developer is expected to be able to just go down to Radio Shack, get a kit of gee-whiz parts and whip them together, and that's that. Heck, if it were THAT simple, all those sharp young graduate students and post docs we keep producing in our universities would have done it decades ago. So would all the folks out there who wax so eloquently and confidently on how easy it really is, when most of them have never even seen a true "energy from the vacuum" (EFTV) overunity system, let alone experienced the unusual EM phenomenology exhibited by such systems.

Most other legitimate inventors are also in a similar bind with their overunity EFTV systems. There are two inventors (names will not be furnished) who are at least out of engineering development, and thus ready to go into full production engineering, which would require something like three to six months of intensive work. THEN their systems could actually be produced and made available on the world market.

Just now, it appears that such is not going to be allowed without some strenuous maneuvering and a great deal of sheer luck. We simply point out that something like at least 80 to 100 inventors have achieved successful prototype EFTV systems in the last 100 years, of quite a variety, and as yet not a single one has actually got a system out onto the market.

Anyway, good luck on your quest, and I hope you find it, but I recommend you don't sit up nights counting on it. The very few inventors in this country who have managed to shoehorn their way to "ready for production" have all been suppressed, without exception. And the forces doing the actual suppression are far more numerous, organized, and ruthless today than in the past. That is not going to change in the near future, or even in my lifetime.

But anyway, hang in there and keep searching and trying. Much better to try and fail, than never to have tried.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden


From: Leslie R. Pastor Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:57 PM To: Tom Bearden Subject: Re: Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?

Thank you Tom, for reminding me about the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine and the Kawai engine. I wish however for some form of 'marketable' device that all of us could acquire for immediate use. Obviously, your M.E.G. immediately comes to mind, for it would provide substantial sources of power. Do you have a target date for bringing the M.E.G. into the mainstream market for commercial and 'home-owner' production. When do you foresee a realistic timeframe for eventual 'marketability' of your M.E.G?

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

----- Original Message -----

From: Tom Bearden To: 'Leslie R. Pastor' Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?


So far as I'm aware, the only marketable overunity "energy from the vacuum" systems available are in Japan, and being withheld from the world market by the Japanese Yakuza. The Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine, e.g., is one such, and it can be built by any competent electrical engineering department. It can also be simulated by a standard good quality magnetics computer simulation model. In short, it can be designed etc. right on the computer, using the magnetics simulator, to include the characteristics of the magnets, etc. Yet no one does it or investigates it. The Takahashi magnetic Wankel approach simply wraps a standard, well-known linear magnetic motor (standard) almost in a complete circle, so the back mmf region is across a very short distance between the ends. An inverted "T" section polepiece is used in that region, with a coil around the handle of the T, so that - if the coil were FULLY energized, the field from the bar of the T (across the back mmf region) would override the back mmf field, canceling it or even converting the "net" field to a forward mmf in that region.

Then a very small trickle current is placed on the handle of the T. Intentionally, it is not nearly enough for the weak field of the bar of the T to override the back mmf! However, just as the moving rotor magnet starts to enter that back mmf region, where it will have to payback all the rotational energy it has absorbed during its acceleration phase, the trickle current is very sharply broken (as with magneto type breaking), so that a momentary surge of power in the same direction occurs in the coil around the pole-piece due to the well-known Lenz-law effect. That provides a MOMENTARY overriding of the back mmf. During that MOMENTARY overriding of the back mmf, the rotor passes through there, encountering no back mmf and hence no payback.

For all the skeptical theorists and pundits, please check 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 present thermodynamics - and accepted as such by the thermodynamicists themselves -- are given on p. 459. One of these areas is the use of a sharp gradient, which is precisely what is being used here. And Kondepudi and Prigogine also state that not much is known about it, either theoretically or experimentally.

So we are using a KNOWN violation area for violating the second law of thermodynamics. Don't worry, the Second Law is easily violated; any departure from system equilibrium is a negative entropy operation a priori, hence violates the present imperfect Second Law. The Second Law is actually an oxymoron implicitly that a previous negative entropy operation has occurred but is deliberately not accounted. That "departure from equilibrium (equilibrium is the state of maximum entropy)" is not accounted and is just ignored. Then the PRESENT second law merely accounts the normal entropy decay of this excited system back to equilibrium (the non excited, maximum entropy state).

The second law always did assume a negative entropy operation occurring (its own self-contradiction), but merely ignored any accounting of it. It was never a law of nature, but only a "half law" at best. Even simple statistical fluctuations violate it, and there are accordingly many fluctuation theorems that are applied in thermodynamics itself, for violating the Second Law. A particularly good one is given by D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. That one is further extended by Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.

In short, one pays a LITTLE BIT to obtain a MOMENTARY override of the back mmf in the magnetic Wankel engine, but just long enough for the rotor to pass safely through that former back mmf WITHOUT experiencing any net back mmf because the net back mmf is momentarily zeroed.

So one pays a little bit to eliminate the entire back mmf. In short, that converts the line integral of the net magnetic force field around the circuit to a NON-ZERO net field, or what is known as a "nonconservative" net field. Hence the rotor continuously accelerates, except when "gliding" through the usual back mmf during its momentary change to zero back mmf. And it has no region of back mmf deceleration.

Simply put it on a good magnetics simulation program, and simulate it. In fact, DESIGN the beast entirely, with a good simulator, and save lots of materials cutting and jiggling and wiggling in the process.

The electrical engineer will not have any trouble understanding the principle, since all effects mentioned are already in his textbook. If he gets concerned about the second law of thermodynamics, he is also on strong grounds since he is applying a type of effect known to be capable of violating the Second Law. What he will NOT understand is where the excess EM energy comes from, since that unit will power itself and a small load, if a very small generator is also attached to the shaft to furnish the switching and timing and the weak trickle current. It is easy to explain where the energy comes from and how, but the source of the energy IS NOT MODELED in conventional Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics and electrical engineering.

If anyone wishes to just go build an overunity "energy from the vacuum" system, then by all means replicate the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine. And design it by getting access to a computer and a modern, good magnetics simulation program.

If you wish to be a little more exotic, but still understandable, the Kawai engine works exactly like the U.S. patent states. If one uses (1) a very efficient magnetic motor as the basis (say, one that is 80% efficient, available from several manufacturers), and (2) very efficient (photon-coupled) switching of the electrical aspects, then the COP of the net unit will be about twice its basic efficiency. So the 80% efficient basic motor with the Kawai process applied, will provide a motor with about COP = 1.6. That motor can then be closed-looped for self powering, by several methods, so long as one is very frugal with use of power for switching. The switching must be very efficient, but well within the state of the art. Kawai and his engine were suppressed right here in Huntsville, Alabama in 1996 in the physical presence of my colleagues and I, so there were multiple witnesses. Had the Yakuza not suppressed Kawai, we would have placed self-powering Kawai magnetic motors on the world market before the end of 1997.

For a proven COP>1.0 process, but one requiring much more technical understanding, the entire area of "negative resonance absorption of the medium" is already well documented in the hard physics literature since the late 1960s (see work by Bohren, Letokhov, and others in the standard literature). Done in the IR or UV appropriately, the effect produces a thermodynamic COP = 18. Note that the researchers in this field (since the late 1960s) painfully try to avoid using the phrase "excess emission", or any discussion of the thermodynamics, and use the term "increase of reaction cross section", but do show the actual results. The reason one can increase the reaction cross section is that electrical engineers do not, and never have, calculated the E-field in space. Instead, they calculate the EFFECTS of the force-free E-field in space, in its ongoing interaction with a STATIC charge, which gives the standard E force field that only exists in charged matter, with the assumption of "static" charged particles comprising the matter. If instead of static charges one feeds the energy in, in the IR (heat) area, and uses charged particles that self-resonate in that region, then indeed one has changed the "effects of the force free field" in its interacting charged matter. The water flow diverged around a fixed rock in a river is quite different from the water flow diverged around the same rock if it is violently churned to and fro.

Such negative resonance absorption experiments are replicated every year at many universities. Also note that, in the IR, one is talking "heat". In theory at least, a self-resonant charged medium (made of self-resonant charged particles, sized so as to be self-resonant at IR), when fed with IR input, will re-radiate some 18 times as much IR (heat) energy as the accounted POYNTING component of the input IR energy. Hence one could place a layered self-resonant charged particle medium around a boiler, between it and the combustion heating source, then heat the layered medium instead of the boiler, get perhaps a practical COP = 10, and thereby reduce the combustion of the hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) for heating the water in the boiler, by an order of magnitude. We are saying that perhaps an order of magnitude reduction in the actual coal or fuel burned could be realized, while furnishing exactly the same amount of steam to the steam turbines that power the generators, and therefore while furnishing exactly the same amount of electrical power to the transmission lines and distant loads.

If one wishes to be even more exotic but in an area proven to be factual already, then use the Johnson approach to a totally permanent magnet motor, which self-evokes the magnetic exchange force (by spin flipping). This one is very sensitive to very precise machining and precise assembly of the nonlinear magnets in the field pieces. The exchange force - which momentarily may be hundreds of times stronger than the normal magnetic field force in the magnet - must be evoked at precisely the right time and in the right direction, to give a "tremendous short kick" to the passing rotor magnet, in the proper direction.

The exchange force is well known and documented in magnetics materials literature. Johnson was working in what today is called "spintronics", but doing it 50 years ago. Again, if that exchange force is correctly evoked and is in the proper direction and timing, then the line integral of the total magnetic force acting on the rotor around the closed rotation loop is nonzero. That means there exists a NET ACCELERATION FORCE in the overall complete rotation, so that the unit will indeed rotate itself and power a load, given efficient bearings with little friction, and not too much air drag. Here again the PRINCIPLES are totally known and solidly proven in physics. It's just the specific embodiment that is critical and quite meticulous in its machining, timing, and direction requirements. A good place to start with, in looking into exchange forces, is the discussion in Feynman's three volumes of sophomore physics. Follow that up with a good review of the subject from a modern magnetic materials textbook or current magnetics handbook.

Those should be good enough for openers.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden


From: Leslie R. Pastor Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 2:37 PM To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Do we have any marketable OU Energy Systems Available Right Now?

Hello Tom,

This is one question, that you definitely have a significant interest in. Do we have any marketable Over Unity Energy Systems available RIGHT NOW? One such system is the Perendev Motor [that I am aware of, but is it functioning and marketable?] appears to have been demonstrated to the Germans, who have agreed to tool up and mass market in continental Europe and there is a company PerenTech that is in the final process of negotiations in the United States. I'm also aware of the potential reevaluation of cold fusion by the Dept of Energy. But do we have an operating, fully functional, ready to market OU system right now?

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

PS: We have been shown how current 'mathematical formulations' don't necessarily provide an insight into 'novelty of fact' demonstrations. Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla and of course [Bearden] yourself.

Source: Perendev Motor Links:


This article comes from

The URL for this story is: