Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

My series of questions... Please read.

Expand Messages
  • membarius
    Everyone, I am almost completely ignorant when it comes to electricity and electronics. But I am facinated with the theories of Thomas Bearden and the concept
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Everyone,

      I am almost completely ignorant when it comes to electricity and
      electronics. But I am facinated with the theories of Thomas Bearden
      and the concept the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator presents to
      us all. I am trying to break down this theory to the most simple
      level by asking a series of questions. I hope you will help me.

      According to Thomas Bearden (with detailed documentation) all the
      energy that runs the modern world comes from the vacumm of empty
      space or the "time" domain. The only purpose of fuels such as oil,
      gas, petrolium, nuclear fuel rods, coal, and so fourth is to seperate
      the dipoles of a generator. This breaks apart the boundry that holds
      all this energy in the vacumm and allows it to pour into our three
      dimnentional world.

      One assumption is that once these dipoles are seperated that they
      will continue to send out vacumm/zeropoint/timedomain energy forever
      until energy is used to destroy the seperation of charges or the
      dipole itself.

      This leads to the assumption that the reason we have to keep on
      burning more fuel is because we are continually destroying the
      dipole, so it must be continually restored.

      Lets make this into a simple form. Lets take a battery for instance.
      According to Bearden the reason why the battery loses power is
      because the way modern electricity flows the energy through the load
      and back to the battery itself which destroys the condition inside
      the battery that seperated the dipole.

      Now, let me break it down further.

      We have a common flashlight battery (or cell). We have a wire which
      runs from one side, then around a load (lets say a small lightbulb),
      and then back to the other side of the battery. Basically, the
      battery is a dipole and we are running a wire from one side of the
      dipole to another with a load inbetween. Now, here are my questions.

      Why can you not simply run a wire from one point of the battery to
      the light bulb and have it light up? Why do you have to connect the
      wire back to the other side of the battery?

      What makes the light bulb light up when it touches the other side of
      the battery?

      Is there some kind of "flow" of electricity that only occurs when the
      wire is connected from one side of the dipole and to the other?

      Why will the load not be powered without the wire touching the other
      side of the dipole?

      Okay, now here is another question...

      If the reason why the light bulb is not being powered is because
      electricity cannot "flow" through a wire not connected back to the
      other side of the battery, is there ANOTHER way of making it flow
      without making it touch the other side of the battery? Because
      apparently by making it touch the other side of the battery (is this
      called a closed circuit) you slowly kill off the dipole.

      It seems to me there should be a way to power the light bulb without
      killing the dipole if energy is constantly being released from the
      zero point energy of space.

      What would be another way of making the electricity flow? Also, what
      makes the electricity "flow" to the other side of the dipole anyway?

      Is there a way to mimic whatever is attracting the electricity in the
      other side of the dipole to fool the electricity into flowing only to
      the load?

      Or could there be a way to alter the electricity that is returning to
      the battery in such a way that it does NOT disturb the INTERNAL
      conditions that are creating the dipole in the first place?

      Is this a possibility?

      Basically, according to Bearden's research a common battery is a
      dipole that could be used to power a load forever. It seems like a
      simple concept. Because if you do not KILL THE DIPOLE the power will
      continue being released from the zero point field forever.

      So how do we not KILL THE DIPOLE in this situation. Is there a way to
      simply have the wire NOT connect to the other side of the batter? Or
      is there a way to have it connect but NOT NOT NOT kill the dipole?

      Any ideas? We need to figure this out!

      William
    • Cyril SMITH
      Hi William, ... From: membarius To: Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: [MEG_builders] My
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi William,

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: membarius <ufotruth@...>
        To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:25 PM
        Subject: [MEG_builders] My series of questions... Please read.


        > Everyone,
        >
        > I am almost completely ignorant when it comes to electricity and
        > electronics. But I am facinated with the theories of Thomas Bearden
        > and the concept the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator presents to
        > us all. I am trying to break down this theory to the most simple
        > level by asking a series of questions. I hope you will help me.

        I'll do my best.

        >snip....
        > We have a common flashlight battery (or cell). We have a wire which
        > runs from one side, then around a load (lets say a small lightbulb),
        > and then back to the other side of the battery. Basically, the
        > battery is a dipole and we are running a wire from one side of the
        > dipole to another with a load inbetween. Now, here are my questions.
        >
        > Why can you not simply run a wire from one point of the battery to
        > the light bulb and have it light up? Why do you have to connect the
        > wire back to the other side of the battery?
        >
        > What makes the light bulb light up when it touches the other side of
        > the battery?
        >
        > Is there some kind of "flow" of electricity that only occurs when the
        > wire is connected from one side of the dipole and to the other?

        Ekectricity is a "flow", usually a flow of electrons. They travel inside a
        copper wire at extremely low average velocities (I say average because they
        actually hop from atom to atom) but there is an awful lot of them moving.
        This flow of electrons can carry energy along a wire, and energy flow is
        power.

        > Why will the load not be powered without the wire touching the other
        > side of the dipole?

        You have to complete the electrical circuit so that the electrons can
        circulate. As you say this is a "closed loop". Note that the MEG does use
        closed loops, there are no wires hanging off and going nowhere! So you
        won't find the answer to the MEG by considering electrical flow in a
        conductor.

        There is another way that energy can be transported along a "wire", and that
        is by magnetism. In this case the "wire" has to be made of permeable
        material, like a transformer core. A transformer core can transport energy
        from a primary winding on one limb to a secondary winding on the other limb.
        It is this transport which is temporally "broken" in the MEG. The MEG
        dipole is a magnetic one, not an electric one.

        >snip...
        > So how do we not KILL THE DIPOLE in this situation. Is there a way to
        > simply have the wire NOT connect to the other side of the batter? Or
        > is there a way to have it connect but NOT NOT NOT kill the dipole?

        I don't think Bearden has figured out how to do this with a battery. But he
        reckons he has figured out how to do it with a magnetic dipole.
        Unfortunately his explanation for it does not hold water. He claims the
        Aharanov-Bohm effect but this is clutching at straws. You need cryogenic
        low temperature for this effect to show up, and Beaden does not use that.
        However I am convinced that the MEG really does work, I just don't believe
        in Bearden's explanation for it.

        I have been in electronics all my life, and I am still learning about simple
        things like transformers. Things that even the most experienced transformer
        engineer would find it hard to believe until explained properly. When a
        magnetic "wire" is transporting energy there is magnetic flux outside the
        wire. This is not leakage flux (which is what a transformer engineer would
        likely call it), this is an essential part of the energy transport
        mechanism. So in the MEG this external flux gets into the magnet. This
        flux being AC, the magnet is alternately giving extra energy to the system
        then taking it back again. What Bearden has managed to do is arrange that
        when the magnet gives up energy it gets into the load, but when the magnet
        is taking back energy it is no longer connected to the load. This is the
        break in the magnetic "closed loop". The magnet has to get back to its
        starting conditions, and not being able to claw back the energy it had given
        up, it gets that energy from the aether. The switching that does this magic
        trick is in the drive coils, and important features are the speed of the
        switching and the impedance of the drive circuit. This is an area which is
        quite highly specialised, and if you are "completely ignorant when it comes
        to electricity and electronics" (your statement) then I think you could get
        out of your depth here.

        Regards
        Cyril
      • membarius
        Cyril, First of all, thanks for responding to my post. I found your response to be very interesting, and it answered many of my questions. I intend to study
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 22, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Cyril,

          First of all, thanks for responding to my post.

          I found your response to be very interesting, and it answered many of
          my questions.

          I intend to study more about electronics and electricity in the
          future. I realize that I am already quite over my head, and I just
          hope that my lack of study in this area will not offend anyone.

          I do have one more question...

          You stated that you did not believe that Bearden's claims hold water.
          Well, let me ask you something. One of his statements is that any
          dipole magnet is constantly pouring energy in every direction from
          the vacumm of space. This makes perfect sense to me because the
          constant magnetic field has to be coming from *somewhere*. Do you
          believe this? If not, what is your thinking?

          Thanks so much! :-)

          William

          PS: It just frustrates me that when there is even a CHANCE that
          something like the MEG exists, something that can be built relatively
          cheaply, that it takes a bunch of individuals scraping up resources
          to try and build it. The government spends billions of dollars in hot
          fusion research. In my opinion they are throwing money down the
          drain...

          For goodness sakes, they spent 67 million dollars throwing food on
          Afghanistan just for the Taliban to burn half of it up... That would
          have been plenty of money for research into things like the MEG!

          The pathetic government throws millions here and millions there. Not
          to mention the billions they waste. I think it is more than
          coincidence that they do not fund free energy research.
        • Cyril SMITH
          Hi William, ... From: membarius To: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 5:00 AM Subject: [MEG_builders] Thanks
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi William,


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: membarius <ufotruth@...>
            To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 5:00 AM
            Subject: [MEG_builders] Thanks Cyril...


            > Cyril,
            >
            > First of all, thanks for responding to my post.
            >
            > I found your response to be very interesting, and it answered many of
            > my questions.
            >
            > I intend to study more about electronics and electricity in the
            > future. I realize that I am already quite over my head, and I just
            > hope that my lack of study in this area will not offend anyone.
            >
            > I do have one more question...
            >
            > You stated that you did not believe that Bearden's claims hold water.
            > Well, let me ask you something. One of his statements is that any
            > dipole magnet is constantly pouring energy in every direction from
            > the vacumm of space. This makes perfect sense to me because the
            > constant magnetic field has to be coming from *somewhere*. Do you
            > believe this? If not, what is your thinking?

            You are right to say that the magnetic field has to be coming from
            *somewhere* and it obvously comes from the magnet. It is even known at what
            speed a magnetic *effect* travels, it travels at the speed of light. But
            the magnetic field from a magnet is static, it is constant in value. It has
            energy density, and we can calculate the total energy in the field around
            the magnet to get a value for this. This value is constant. That is not a
            pouring of energy, it's as though the *pouring* is a one time effect, the
            energy has been put there like an artist putting paint onto canvas. So much
            for the classic electromagnetic view.

            What is interesting is what happens if we measure the *static* magnetic
            field over ever smaller time increments. We would find that eventually,
            instead of being a constant value, it actually comes in jerks. The magnet
            is spewing out *magnetic field quanta* (whatever they are), travelling at
            the speed of light; these quanta interact with our measuring instruments to
            give a reading, and the instrument smooths out the jerks to a constant
            value. So here is Bearden's constant pouring of energy (in the form of
            quanta) from the vacuum of space. If each quanta carries energy then the
            magnet has to be replenished from space (else it would quickly lose its
            magnetism). The probem is we now have two definitions for energy, (a) the
            classical one for a static magnetic field (energy density=0.5*B*H, implying
            no movement) and (b) the energy density of the moving quanta. Although
            these might be related we can't say that they are the same because the
            quanta have energy not related to magnetism.

            The way I look at it, what we call a magnetic field (or electric field or
            gravitational field) is really an effect that the fabric of space has on our
            measuring device. Space is filled with vast numbers of *quanta* travelling
            in all directions. Most of these quanta don't interact with matter, they
            pass right through the enormous gaps between the atomic particles, and it is
            these which give space its characteristics, such as permeability and
            permittivity (and of course the speed of light). A few of these quanta do
            interact with matter, they get absorbed and re-emitted, and in doing so gain
            something from the matter particle. These quanta have imposed on them a
            pattern, a characteristic, call it what you will. The pattern created
            around a moving electron can show up on our measuring instruments as either
            an electric field and (if the electron is moving) a magnetic field. If we
            have a lump of electrically neutral matter (the same number of positive
            charges as negative charges) then the electric field effects outside of the
            lump cancel out. But if some of the electrons are moving in controled orbits
            inside the lump then the
            magnetic effect doesn't cancel out, and we call the lump a permanent magnet.

            So yes I do have some empathy with much of Bearden's philosiphy, but not
            all. He makes many claims that his interpretation is backed by
            other references, but when you delve back into them you find that this is
            not so. For instance he quotes John D. Kraus' "Electromagnetics" Fourth
            Edition as showing (quote) *a good drawing of the huge Poynting energy flow
            filling all space around the conductors, with almost all of it not
            intercepted, not diverged into the circuit, but just "wasted"*. When you
            look at the drawing it shows the classical Poynting energy flow which is NOT
            huge, which has a total energy value consistent with the energy flow that IS
            intercepted (delivered to the load). So my advice is don't waste time
            searching for Bearden's longitudinal A field, you won't find it. But do
            spend time studying the MEG because it can reveal much that we don't know
            about how to get energy from Mother Nature, and if you can find that secret
            then the door is open for other devices that use the same principle (and not
            surrounded by secrecy due to patent litigation).

            > Thanks so much! :-)
            >
            > William
            >
            > PS: It just frustrates me that when there is even a CHANCE that
            > something like the MEG exists, something that can be built relatively
            > cheaply, that it takes a bunch of individuals scraping up resources
            > to try and build it. The government spends billions of dollars in hot
            > fusion research. In my opinion they are throwing money down the
            > drain...
            >
            > For goodness sakes, they spent 67 million dollars throwing food on
            > Afghanistan just for the Taliban to burn half of it up... That would
            > have been plenty of money for research into things like the MEG!
            >
            > The pathetic government throws millions here and millions there. Not
            > to mention the billions they waste. I think it is more than
            > coincidence that they do not fund free energy research.

            It is down to scientific dogma, the government's scientific advisers will
            not accept the validity of these new energy sources. I have recently
            returned from the Berlin Conference into New Energy Techniques (I will
            shortly post a precis of my views on this). Hal Fox did a presentation, he
            is supporting Charge Cluster technology which shows promise for the making
            of a low-cost low-energy proton accelerator which could be used to clean up
            radioactive nuclear waste. He and his colleagues lobbied the committee
            which allocates the money for the DOE; they were so impressed they allocated
            an extra $9 million. So what did the DOE do? They passed on the $9 million
            to the National Labs for more of their same dirty work.

            Regards
            Cyril
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.