- •On the Principles of Permissible Overunity em Power Systems
- •28 July 2001 Abstract and Summary:
- •Introduction Beginning with Magnetics Kinetic Magnets: Self-Oscillation in Magnetic Materials
- •The Researcher Must Be Aware Of Numerous Magnetic Effects { [6] }
- •A Caution on the Rare Production of Higher Polarization em Energy
- •A Heat Pump Can In Theory Be Close-Looped
- •Overunity Systems Are Already Known
- •Gabriel Kron's Negative Resistor
- •Chung's Negative Resistor Chung's Negative Resistor
- •Other Overunity Systems Lawandy's Processes and Lasing Without Population Inversion
- •Self-Powering Russian Overunity Parametric Oscillator Power Systems
- •The Seiko Kinetic Wrist Watch
- •Miscellaneous em Overunity Power Systems
- •The Mead-Nachamkin Zero Point Energy Converter
- •Open Systems Far from Thermodynamic Equilibrium
- •Energy Conservation and Its Relation to Work Obtainable
- •A Surprising Thing About Thermodynamics and Reservoirs
- •The "Final Word" On the Conservation of Energy Law
- •Seemingly Random Behavior Can Be Adaptively Controlled
- •The Unresolved Problem of the Source Charge and Its Field Energy
- •The Marvelous "Source Dipole" Overunity Power System
- •Perpetual Motion Debunkers Begrudgingly Recognize Overunity Systems
- •Generators and Batteries Do Not Output Energy to the External Circuit
- •Lorentz Arbitrarily Discarded All Overunity Maxwellian Systems
- •The Effect of Lorentz's closed Surface Integration of the em Energy Flow Vector
- •There Is No Energy Problem, Just an Energy Intercepting and Using Problem
- •How em Power Systems Enforce Symmetrical Self-Regauging
- •We Pay the Power Company for a Sumo-Wrestling Match Inside Its Generators
- •What Lorentz Symmetrical Regauging Technically Is and Does
- •For Overunity Systems, One Must First Undo the Lorentz Condition
- •Hope for the Future: Poor but Growing
- •Some of the Flaws in Foundations of Electrodynamics
- •In Summary
- •Notes and References
- •Help support Tom Bearden's work
For Overunity Systems, One Must First Undo the Lorentz Condition
The Heaviside-Maxwell equations do indeed include vast numbers of systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium, before Lorentz did his "symmetrical regauging" and arbitrarily changed those equations.
To simplify the mathematics and restore beautiful symmetry (which historically mathematicians worship), Lorentz arbitrarily discarded far more Maxwellian systems than he retained. He unwittingly taught electrodynamicists to simply discard and ignore all permissible overunity EM systems.
It follows that the very first thing we must do to an EM power system, to make it possible for the system to produce COP>1.0, is arrange for the system to violate that arbitrary Lorentz condition. Actually, breaking the Lorentz condition is designing the system so that it does not forcibly pass all the "spent electrons" from the loads and losses, in the ground return line back through the primary source dipole converter, destroying it. The ramifications of doing this have been pointed out in a paper by the AIAS { [74] }.
Electrodynamicists already assume one can asymmetrically regauge any EM system—that is, freely change its potential energy, which in electromagnetics is just changing the voltage that is then applied to the charges. However, seemingly one is expected to love mathematics and symmetry so much more than the physics that one will (1) inanely regauge that system again in a peculiarly restrained manner to "thwart" any ability of the system to discharge its excitation energy in the load without destroying its source dipole, and (2) carefully choose and apply a second regauging so that it precisely cancels out all "work-producing capability" of the first one.
Now other than mathematical convenience, why would anyone wish to destroy a perfectly good and already accepted free energy process, or cripple it so that the excess energy could not be utilized to do some free work? From a power system viewpoint, that is total insanity { [75] }.
Meanwhile, true to Lorentz our scientists and engineers have been building electrical power systems precisely so they symmetrically regauge themselves forcibly. And meanwhile the scientific community, environmental community, and governmental community have been decrying that we have a great energy problem in modern society and a great biosphere contamination problem. We do not, except as a secondary result. Instead, we have a formidable scientific mindset problem as the primary cause.
Hope for the Future: Poor but Growing
As the reader can see, there is a quite rigorous basis for overunity EM power systems. The gist of overunity operation—asymmetrical self-regauging—is already accomplished in every power system:. Unfortunately, the engineers have given us power systems (energy converters) that also continually perform a second countering asymmetrical regauging, precisely designed to kill the useful results of first one. We will never produce overunity electrical power systems unless we design and build systems that deliberately violate symmetry (violate Lorentz regauging), and use net asymmetrical regauging.
Frankly, the scientific community still seems almost beyond hope on this, because it rather adamantly insists on upholding equilibrium systems and classical thermodynamics, behaving as if open disequilibrium EM systems do not exist (in the face of extensive published experimental proof that they do).
This may change, however, with continued pressure from the environmentalists and the coming decline of oil supplies in about year 2030 or so. [32] We can only fervently hope that the environmentalists wake up to the nature of the primary problem.
Also, hopefully there is now slowly rising an understanding of what Lorentz symmetrical regauging did to us, and what the real principles of permissible overunity power systems are. Particularly the younger university researchers, still not so brainwashed, are willing to look at the references themselves and see precisely what was done to the earlier Maxwellian EM models, and examine how the theory they have been taught to apply was actually derived.