The Tom Bearden


Ferroelectric Capacitors and the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier

In a nonlinear ferroelectric capacitor there are three major nonlinear processes involved, so it is possible to carefully choose and arrange conditions so that the current through the capacitor moves against the voltage across its terminals.

With adroit switching and timing, and some consideration for resonance effects, it is in theory possible to use such highly nonlinear effects in a circuit to allow (1) an overpotential at the terminals of the battery as a reaction from the ferroelectric capacitor, (2) consequent recharging of the battery via that back potential on the battery side, while the load is also being powered, (3) consequent driving of the load on the load side of the terminals, and (4) having a bypass ferroelectric capacitor across the terminals of the battery, where the capacitor is in the "current against the voltage" condition.

McLain and Wooten patented a great little MRA (magnetic Resonance Amplifier) system, based on that application.  Dr. Robert Bass, a very fine electrodynamicist of exceptional knowledge, experience, and ability wrote the patent for them, and assisted in their work.  For that he was persecuted, unjustly attacked, and suffered financial difficulties.  The "system" does not forgive highly qualified scientists who take a serious interest in "perpetual motion machines" — as permissible Maxwellian open dissipative systems are erroneously and derogatorily labeled by the orthodox scientific community.

Any scientist violating that inquisition suffers the consequences.

After technical discussions back and forth, the Patent Office even notified Wooten and McLain that the patent had been accepted and the patent would be issued.  Within days, to their consternation the patent was rejected and that was the end of that.

In other words, the fix was in.

Our Own Experience In "Obtaining" Proper Ferroelectric Capacitors

Here's an interesting little tidbit, for what it's worth.  We here at CTEC had included a specific use of ferroelectric capacitors (FECs) in one of our own patent applications.  We attempted to obtain an FEC on the open market, one with the publicized nearly-square S-curve of hysteresis.  No capacitor manufacturer we contacted had one for sale! I went all the way to a Swedish company, was assured they made just what I needed, and purchased several from them to be shipped by airmail.  In due time they arrived.  They did not have the square S-curve at all, but were carefully layered to eliminate that S-curve, into a rather straight slanting curve.  That kind of curve is absolutely useless for overunity applications.

Now why would anyone wish to purchase a supposedly nonlinear capacitor for its very nonlinearity, and instead purchase one that has been altered to behave just as linearly as possible? Why would a company advertise such a nonlinear capacitor, then sell you one that is highly linearized? And considering the rather substantial literature on nonlinear capacitors with square S-curves, why do not the capacitor companies sell such?

We eventually found there is indeed a U.S. manufacturer of ferroelectric capacitors with precisely that S-curve hysteresis loop.  There was just one little problem.  They had an agreement with the U.S. Navy for all their production of those capacitors, and in that agreement they were not to sell any to private persons or companies.

Now why would the U.S. Navy wish to restrict a perfectly unclassified, open component from being sold on the open commercial market? Zounds! If one were a conspiracy buff, one might even try to connect this with the U.S. Navy's long suppression of the Kron negative resistor.  Do you suppose there could actually be some kind of connection between the two? Why of course not! Paranoia and all that, you know.  And still one wonders……

The literature continues to publish tests of just such ferroelectric capacitors, etc. Contacting several of the researchers who author those papers, we found that they (at least the ones contacted) were all making their own ferroelectric capacitors if they wished one with that square S-curve! No one seemed to know where we could just purchase one off the shelf.

Maybe all that is just coincidence.  And maybe not.

A Possible Interpretation

What the square S-curve hysteresis loop means is that, in one region of operation, with only a very tiny voltage change, you can get a rather enormous current change from that capacitor.  In another region of operation, you can get a very large voltage change from the capacitor for a very small current change.  In other words, biased into one region, you have essentially a voltage device.  In the other region, you have essentially a current device.  Neither device will "cost" you very much energy to operate it in its region.  However, if you then nonlinearly mix the two outputs just right, as we filed on methods of doing, then bingo! You had a mixer device whose output now had both large current and large power, but you "paid for" and input not nearly so much "energy dissipation" (remember, engineers calculate energy dissipation flow, never energy transport flow!) to the mixer as what would be output by the mixer.

The whole question is this.  We all know about ordinary nonlinear mixing and mixers.   We know that two signals can indeed be mixed nonlinearly.  Can we build a nonlinear mixer and a dual circuit, where we feed a voltage-like signal in and also a current-like signal in to the mixer, get the two combined into a high voltage, high current signal output, and do that without back-field coupling onto the two input "signals" to force equal energy dissipation in the input>

Look at this very carefully.  There is absolutely no conservation of energy law that requires that the energy input circuit dissipate as much energy as does the load circuit that receives the energy to power it.  So why are we taught only those mixing circuits that will indeed force equal input dissipation? We need three things in the input: (1) lots of voltage, (2) lots of current, and (3) small energy dissipation.  That means we need a "voltage-like" input and a "current" like input, which do not interact with each other on the input side of the mixer.  We then need a mixer that will mix the two into a single signal with high voltage and high current, but will not back-couple its fields onto the input circuit to up the input dissipation.

Is all this mystery in trying to obtain square S-curve ferroelectric capacitors really due to the fact that it is possible to use them together with other circuit components to produce such an overunity mixer?  Could something like that be behind what happened to McLain and Wooten, and to Dr. Bass?  Again, at this point we wonder…..

So you think such odd mixing violates the conservation of energy law?  Then think again.  There is no valid law of physics anywhere — in complete contradiction to the assumptions in most electrical texts — that you have to conserve work.  Energy, yes.  Work, no.  The energy that a circuit captures can involve the voltage only.  Remember, W = f q.  To get lots of W (joules) collected for use to power loads, we need lots of V (that is, D f ) and lots of q.  We then need them mixed (interacting together).  That's it.  Anything else is what the circuit we construct is doing to fight us back.  So, it would seem that we should focus on reducing the ability of that circuit to fight us back, while still doing the voltage-amperage mixing and interaction thing.

Even in the flawed old electrodynamics, one volt is one joule collected per coulomb of charge collector.  So if you place one volt on a circuit which has few Drude electrons for collection, you get very little collected energy in that circuit (and note that the energy dissipated in that circuit can only be the energy that it first intercepts and collects).  And if you then input the same voltage to a circuit with lots of Drude electrons, this second circuit will collect (and can then dissipate) lots of joules of collected energy.

When you change the voltage of a circuit, you change the potential energy available for collection and dissipation.  How much it collects and dissipates, then depends upon how many collectors it has to do so, and the dissipaters it has to change the form of the collected energy.

So one trick would appear to be to feed a nonlinear mixing unit from two circuits: one optimized for voltage and starved for current, and the second starved for voltage and optimized for current.  The one remaining trick is to prevent any back-field coupling from the output of the mixer back to the two feed circuits.  If you accomplish that, you have yourself a nice little overunity device, perfectly permissible by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and one which does not violate conservation of energy.  It darn sure violates "conservation of work", however.  For that matter, so does a windmill or a waterwheel, or a solar cell.  You yourself do not have to perform work on something to get it to collect energy (asymmetrically regauge).  It can collect the energy freely, if you arrange it correctly.  Something else — such as a free flow of energy from the environment — is perfectly capable of doing that work on the intercepting collector, so that collection of energy in the circuit occurs.

In my view, McLain and Wooten were accomplishing something very similar to our notion of nonlinearly mixing a low power high voltage input and a low power high current input, but using ferroelectric nonlinear resonance as the "magic" mixer to combine cheap high voltage with cheap high current and obtain the product of the two while only paying for their "sum", so to speak.

Think about it.

But if you wish to pursue that approach to overunity, let me advise you to first do your homework on nonlinear resonance, as opposed to the linear resonance in almost all the normal textbooks. It's not at all just a "capacitance-inductance-resistance" business or just simple LC resonance.  LC resonance alone has never added a single excess joule of energy to the power system.