Serious inconsistencies in Beardens MEG and his other theories

Harald Reider1

Get the well-formated pdf here

Abstract:

Tom Bearden announced a device called MEG (``Motionless Electromagnetic Generator'') [1,2,3] which is supposed to draw energy ``from the vacuum''. However, the results of simple experiments reveal that the claimed effect is nothing but a measurement error. This paper is a discussion of the MEG experiment and its theory proposed by Beaden. Other devices found on the Tom Bearden Web page [5] are also examined and misunderstandings or misleading interpretations are explained correctly according to the standard theory of electrodynamics.

The MEG experiment

The MEG experiment [1,2,3] consists of a transformer core made from nanocrystalline material (a material which has the property of normal iron transformer material up to frequencies of about 100kHz, namely a very high \ensuremath{µ}r which allows high power high frequency transformers to be built) with one or more input coils and one or more output coils. The classical setup (as shown in Fig. 1)

\resizebox*{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{megdia4.eps}}

Figure 1: The MEG

has two input coils and two output coils. A permanent magnet is placed in the middle of the core, which should allow energy conversion from the ``active vacuum''. The secondary coils have a much higher number of turns compared to the primary coils, thereby producing a voltage of 1000Veff - 3000Veff with a typical input voltage of 30V which is applied as a pulsed voltage to the primary coils. Under these circumstances, a well known effect takes place. Displacement currents flowing from and to places of charge concentration add up to the normal flow of current. Therefore, a normal measurement of the current also adds up the displacement currents, which however do not power the load. In this case this current takes place between the secondary coil and the oscilloscope ground. Figure 2 shows the classical measurement setup used to measure the MEG output power which produces the documented but wrong results.

\includegraphics{megdia1.eps}

Figure 2: MEG measurement circuit diagram resulting in wrong values for the current

The probe used for current measurement measures the displacement current together with the real current flowing through the load. This produces the results that were interpreted as ``energy from the vacuum''. To show the effect of the displacement currents a simple experimental setup can be used. If only one output of the MEG is connected to the current measurement resistor which is connected to the ground the value of displacement currents can be measured straightforward. Figure 3 shows the diagram of this setup. For low voltages, the probe should not measure any voltage. In this case however, the result is nearly the same as Probe 1 measures in Figure 2. The difference in value between the measurements is the real current flowing through the load.

\includegraphics{megdia2.eps}

Figure 3: Displacement current measurement circuit

If the measurement circuit is now adapted accordingly, as shown in Figure 4, the correct value of the current can be measured. Normally, the results obtained from the circuits shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 differ only by some percent because only the error distribution has changed, but in this case the results are completely different. Using the measurement circuit shown in Fig. 4, it is easily shown that the output power is a typical value for a transformer in this mode of operation. Therefore, no energy from the ``active vacuum'' was tapped or converted.

\includegraphics{megdia3.eps}

Figure 4: MEG measurement circuit diagram with correct results

The MEG theory

The additional power from the MEG is supposed to come from the A potential surrounding a core material having a magnetic flux B flowing flowing inside it [3]. The fundamental relation between the vector potential and the magnetic field is \( B=\nabla \times A=rot\: A \). Bearden follows that the A potential around the core can be used to extract energy from changes of flux in the core. The A potential will then be replenished for free by a curl-free A potential outside the core. Besides a fundamental error in the quantities involved here, the basic field-potential relation given here (also given by Bearden correctly in the same way) shows that the A potential is fully described by the field and is not replenished by anything, because such a term is simply not present in the equation (also in Beardens paper such a term does not exist). All changes in potential are caused by changes in flux and vice versa, with no ``active vacuum'' whatsoever. Also all further explanations (also said to involve quantum mechanics) are therefore simply wrong. In a later paper [4], Bearden argues that the additional energy is drawn as an electric field from the potential around the core. The fundamental relation between the electric field and the A potential is \( E=\frac{dA}{dt} \), again given correctly by Bearden. Also, the electric field is not replenished by the ``active vacuum'', the relation between electric field and potential does not include vacuum interaction, there is a fixed relation between fields and potentials for every moment given by the fundamental equations. In a related matter, Bearden argues that the principle of gauge freedom is not correct. However, it can already be seen from the equations given here (and in Beardens papers) that any fixed vector can be added to the potential without changing the result, because both equations connecting the potential with the field only include differential operators, which is why the principle of gauge freedom holds as predicted by classical electromagnetic theory.

Other ``over-unity devices'' shown on the Bearden page

On Beardens Web page [5] exists a section with a list of ``working over-unity devices''. Some are pure myth, some are technically explained. Two of those ``devices'' are now explained using classic electrodynamics, thereby showing that these devices do not show any surprising results.

The ``Static Poynting Generator''

A classic is the ``Static Poynting Generator'' [6] proposed by Bearden, which is shown in Fig. 5. It is supposed to produce energy by the well-known Poynting theorem \( S=E\times H \). What Bearden forgets is that the Poynting theorem can only be used in form of an integral over a surface or volume. Calculations using the correct integral form of this ``generator'' easily show that every volume integral over the vectors \( S \)results in the value 0 (zero). There value of energy flowing inside and outside a specific volume is always the same in this geometric setup. Therefore, no energy is created by this ``generator''. The nonzero values for single vectors are only a result of the more complex calculation with quadrupole radiation, where those nonzero results are required for consistency. Another claim of Bearden (found in the ``correspondence'' section of [5]) is that the energy travels and ``reaches beyond the solar system within a year of operation''. In this case he does not realize that the Poynting vectors are located only where the fields are, and that they do not travel around ``with the speed of light'' in any way.

\resizebox*{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{staticpoy.eps}}

Figure 5: Beardens ``Static Poynting Generator''

Teslas single wire energy transmission

Here, Bearden tells us that Tesla knew properties of fields beyond the classical interpretation and proves that with a Tesla patent about a single wire transmission of energy shown in Fig. 6 [7]. He also argues that quaternion calculus is required to describe the effects, which is why it was not realized by engineers yet. First of all, this has nothing to do with the paper of Barrett cited on the same page as a related paper, which analyses a more general form of charge displacement, and which is calculated in classical algebra. Barrett introduces quaternions in his paper as an equivalent of his equations given in classical calculus, so that there is a choice between complex equations with simple algebra or simple equations with complex algebra. Beardens assumption that ``vector analysis cannot see the effects involved here'' is not true, since Barret first derived the equations in classical vector algebra, and Teslas single wire transmission is also described by classical calculus. The Tesla patent cited on the Bearden page then is now explained easily by the classical TEM wire model. When a high frequency wave passes along a wire, the wave travels along it. Therefore, on a fixed position the wave can be tapped and the voltage used to power a load. All cases shown in Fig. 6 can be derived from the classical wave equation of a wire, which results in a Voltage of \( U=\frac{dUin}{dt} \), for a fixed coordinate, of course delayed by time it takes for the wave to travel there (typically \( v=\frac{2}{3}c \)). It can be followed that this method of energy transport is not secret in any way but it would hardly pass a test for electromagnetic compatibility required for every product on the market, which is why it is not used today.

\resizebox*{13cm}{!}{\includegraphics{tesla.eps}}

Figure 6: Teslas single wire transmission

Conclusion

It has been shown that there are several flaws in Beardens work that suggest that his device which is supposed to convert energy from the ``active vacuum'' does not work as predicted. Other fundamental flaws suggest that Bearden lacks the knowledge and theoretical understanding of the concepts involved in electrodynamics which led him to propose basic errors as perpetual motion devices and revolutionary theories.

Bibliography

1

jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

2

US Patent Nr. 6,362,718

3

www.help4all.de/energy/MEGpaper.pdf or www.aw-verlag.ch/Others/Bearden - MotionlessElectromagneticGenerator.pdf

4

Unpublished paper sent to the board of ``Foundation of Physics letters'' after a submitted paper by Bearden was refused

5

www.cheniere.org

6

www.cheniere.org/misc/static%20poynting%20gen.htm

7

www.cheniere.org/misc/tesla%20single%20wire.htm

 

Footnotes

... Reider1

digi-at-digitoxin-dot-dhs-dot-org

HR 2003-03-09

 

Note that Naudin does not allow this sort of information to be posted to his web site or email list.  The following is new information found by Tim Harwood in May of 2003: Tim found the paper of people purportidly supporting Bearden at:
http://www.cheniere.org/references/megsachs/p01.jpg

One said that he did not give permission for his name to be given on that paper, and that the AIAS he joined did not have Tom Bearden as a member (Evans brought in Bearden), and that he is as appalled as much as everyone else by recent events. Mr Crowell wishes the record to be put straight about certain points:

1) He specifically requested his name NOT be used - Bearden was NOT authorised to publish a paper in Crowell's name.

2) Crowell thinks Bearden's physics is all wrong, and wishes nothing to do with it. He wishes his name to be removed from the Bearden website, as he has NEVER supported Bearden's physics EVER.

The following is Crowell’s letter to Harwood:

Dear Tim Harwood,

As for the MEG thing, I have had a hard time living that one down. Before the disasterous paper on MEG was published I had continual arguments with Tom Bearden over the physics claimed to operate with it. The physics is just completely wrong. I requested that my name not be included in any paper intended for publication on this stuff. I was later informed that I was included in the paper and that it had been published. I probably should have written a retraction of it, but never got around to it.

Myron Evans brought him into the AIAS group and within a short period of time it was clear to me that there were serious problems with his ideas about physics. I will also state that Dr. Evans has also taken things in spurious directions as well. I am no longer active in these areas of research.

The initial idea of the nonabelian electrodynamics is basically phenomenological. It is a useful device for deriving equations for nonlinear optics with photon bunching and solitons. It also has some
connections to squeezed states of the vacuum and other matters. However, in the last few years the trajectory for these ideas has gone into territory that I find at best highly problematic.

I never supported Bearden's physics, and in fact had arguments with  him over his ideas. His idea with the the over unity circuit is an  inverse resistor, which apparently is a device that converts ambient  heat or vacuum energy into an electrical current. This is clearly  wrong. Bearden also claims that vacuum energy is obtained by an  electric dipole, since the field has to propage outward in space.  First off this is clearly wrong since the energy in the field that  defines the dipole is from the energy input to set up the dipole. I  also mentioned to him that the dominant mode of photon production by  excited atoms are dipole transitions. Thus if he were right every   atom in the universe would be spewing out photons endlessly. Bearden has a litany of spuious claims.

I think that I need to set the record straight on a lot of this. It is amazing how much damage somebody like Bearden can cause. I have for  some time distanced myself from the electromagnetic claims by the AIAS.

best,

Lawrence B. Crowell

 

Tom Bearden’s MEG device A rational review of meg claims  and Randi’s info and my info . free energy scams   T Dennis Lee page    Joe Newman? Also, Amin, Tilley, Perendev, Bearden Lutec and Tewari Xogen and GWE