DISCLAIMER: This site is in no way officially connected to Tom
Bearden or Cheniere, but is an information service only.
Permanent Magnet Motors, by Tom Bearden
Excerpt (date unknown) reproduced here for Historic Archive purposes.
The Symmetrical Permanent Magnet Motor
[An Essay]
Let us now turn to a simple and concrete example of a permanent magnet motor.
In figure 1 we show the normal sort of idea the conventional engineer thinks of
when confronted with the question of a self-energized permanent magnet motor.
Figure 1. Permanent magnet motor with linear
magnets and fields.
We show parts of two permanent magnets: A fixed north pole as part of the rotor. We choose
to examine the magnetic force field situation in a 90-degree sector A-A about the stator position
show. We assume that the rotor is mounted in convenient fashion upon a shaft, with a flywheel
to store and release energy.
As can be seen, macrowork from the flywheel through the shaft must be furnished
to drive the rotor during the first half of its travel through sector A-A. During the second
half of the sector, work is accomplished by the rotor on the shaft, and is back through the shaft
and stored in the flywheel as energy.
In figure 2, sector A-A is spread out flat as a horizontal axis.
Figure 2. Macroscopic pseudo-conservation of
energy.
Rotation now appears from left to right along this line. On the vertical axis we show the
magnitude of the repulsive force experienced by the rotor north pole N at each position along sector
A-A.
In the leftmost half of the diagram, the repulsive force between the two magnets
requires that energy be expended from the flywheel through the shaft onto the rotor system.
In the rightmost half, the repulsive force between the two magnets furnishes
energy back to the rotor system, and in turn through the shaft into the flywheel for storage.
In each case, the energy involved is given by the area under that half of the curve.
As can be seen, in the idealized system, as much work is required to be done on
the rotor system to drive it to center (to the stator) as is performed back on the rotor system as
it passes the stator and moves away to the right.
In such a system with absolutely zero frictional losses, the best that one could
do would be to break even, so that work in equals work out. Since any real system has at least
a little friction, additional work (given by the area between the dotted line and the solid line in
the left half of figure 2) is required to be put into the machine. Therefore the work out is
always less than the work that must be put in, and the system is at best a "pump" of high
efficiency, but of efficiency less than unity.
Some hidden assumptions.
Such is the conventional wisdom.
Now what are the hidden assumptions?
First, one assumed symmetrical (we shall say, linear) fields and
magnets. Second, one assumed a "closed macrosystem" with no interaction with teh
vacuum/spacetime. That is, one assumed the electromagnetic model posed by classical
electromagnetics, which is over 100 years old. A lot of physics has been discovered in the
century that has passed since that model was formed!
Third, one assumed that the "static force experienced by the fixed stator
did not work. That is, again one was assuming the classical model. Let us further
examine that assumption.
That is true even when frictional loss is added, as shown by the inner dotted
line in figure 4.
Figure 3. Permanent magnet motor with linear
magnets and fields.
* * * * * * *
Figure 4. Macroscopic non-pseudoconservation of
energy.
As can be seen, now some remaining work is available to be taken out of the rotor/shaft/flywheel
system as shaft horsepower. In other words, this system can now work on another
external system.
Now refer to figures 5 and 6, which further clarify the situation and show the
two microwork fluxes going on in each half of the rotation through sector A-A.
Figure 5. Permanent magnet motor: vacuum
microwork exchange.
* * * * * * *
Figure 6. Pseudoconservation and non-pseudoconservation
of energy.
Note that the true (micro) conservation law is still obeyed -- even though the classical (pseudoconservation)
law is clearly violated.
That is, during each separate half of the situation, the magnitude of the
microwork done on the rotor/vacuum system (and integrated into macrowork). But the work flux
exchanged in the first half, because the fields and magnets are asymmetrical, compared half to half.
Thus the asymmetrical system furnishes more integrated macrowork to the shaft and
flywheel during the second half than it demands back during the first half.
We have a "free energy" motor here after all, and we've just shown that
a true self-energized permanent magnet motor can indeed be built. Indeed, any university or
technical institute -- or researcher -- can fairly readily build a demonstration model, whether or
not it's very practical. That almost non one does so, and almost no one "thinks the
problem through" in modern physics terms rather than the old classical electromagnetism, is a
commentary on how far we've gone at turning science into dogma.
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Credits
This paper by Tom Bearden was scanned in by Douglas
Mann and transcribed by Sterling Allan on
July 15, 2003.
See also
Page created by Sterling D. Allan July
15, 2003
Last updated October 27, 2005
| 
