Exchange Force and Johnsons Approach

Refer again to our discussion of conservative versus nonconservative fields, above.

If one wishes to build a self-powering rotary permanent magnet motor, obviously one must evoke a condition whereby around a single full rotation of the rotor (and where F is the instantaneous magnetic force between stator and rotor). For permanent magnets without any external switching, etc., that condition can only arise if an excess force is freely triggered by changes occurring freely in the magnetic materials themselves.

Fortunately, magnetic materials are almost always highly nonlinear, and so such self-triggering opportunities abound. They can occur because there are a multiplicity of mechanisms (dozens and dozens) going on simultaneously in the materials of the magnets of both the rotor and the stator, and not just the standard polarity and field repulsion and attraction that electrical engineers use. These materials processes also involve direct and ongoing exchange of energy between the active vacuum and the local materials in the magnet.

The trick is to take one of these automatically ongoing processes that is already there and freely available but just not adroitly used, and deliberately evoke and enhance it to induce excess energy at the appropriate time, with a force in the appropriate direction. In simple terms, if you have eight more horses available to put into the harness to pull the load, and you only have two normal horses but wish to pull more load, then by all means you should hitch up and use at least one more additional horse, and take him from the six that are usually just standing by and not working at all. They may run back and forth a bit, while watching the others work, but that of itself contributes nothing.

0ne such additional force and free regauging mechanism always available is the exchange force, which can be checked in Feynman's three volumes of physics {433} and also in the reference by Cullity {429} previously cited. Good science dictionaries {432} also include helpful information. Reading the literature will add enormously to one' data base of effects and methods.

Howard Johnson's approach is to arrange highly nonlinear assemblies of geometrically asymmetrical magnets into complex configurations. At certain points in a magnetic field, these Johnson assemblies will trigger the sudden brief self-generation (actually a sudden release) of exchange force between stator and rotor. The exchange force is a known phenomenon {432, 433, 434}, though still not completely understood theoretically. It can be evoked asymmetrically by evoking electron-spin flipping, for example, which has led to the development of a new field of technology, spintronics. Microscopically, the exchange energy is much greater than the magnetic field energy, sometimes by a factor of 103 to 10 {435, 436}. Macroscopically, the resulting exchange energy can momentarily still be many times the magnitude of the ordinary magnetic field energy; e.g., by a factor of 200, which Johnson often achieves.

If the stimulated momentary exchange forces are oriented to always add to the thrustupon the rotor in the "powering rotation" direction, then the multivalued potential condition and are met. In that case, self-

powering is permitted, if enough of these exchange force triggerings occur so that the extra potential energy added to the rotor is sufficient to overcome the load and the losses being powered.

The self-triggering of each exchange force appearance produces an excess burst of force and energy186 input into the system from its active supersystem environment. Thus, repeatedly the system is momentarily converted (in each exchange force burst) into an open system in disequilibrium in its energy exchange with its active environment, freely receiving excess energy from it. Because the exchange force "input energy burst" is short, multiple such "input bursts" must be used in a single rotation cycle so that the total energy input by all of them is significant.

In that case, COP>1.0 performance is permitted by the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and nature. Conservation of energy is not violated. Classical equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law does not apply to the Johnson system, since the system is periodically an open system far from equilibrium and receiving excess energy from its active environmental exchange. A priori the Johnson system has increased its negentropy overall, and that negentropy (increased order or increased potential energy) can then be dissipated (disordered) to produce free shaft horsepower if the bursts of exchange force are properly coherent in direction and timing.

We diverge for a moment: As is well known, the equilibrium condition in a system is the condition of maximum entropy in the system; any disequilibrium condition reduces the entropy a priori because it is an excited state of the system containing additional potential energy. It is worth rigorously clarifying the infamous second law of thermodynamics. Quoting Lindsay and Margenau {437}:

"[The]...statement ofthe second law: (a) the entropy... is a variable ofstate, (b) Its value, for a closed system, can never decrease."

... "Non-equilibrium conditions cannot be specified by variables ofstate, and their entropy cannot be computed. ...the condition ofequilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy."

186 Technically speaking, the exchange force is not a magnetic field force, but a force that arises independently due to quantum mechanical considerations. Nonetheless, it is a real force arising in magnetic materials and affecting magnetic materials, as in permanent magnets.

In the first statement, the reader should note the assumption of a closed system in the first subparagraph, and the absolute requirement that the calculated entropy be a variable of state.

Also, the quotation can be falsified. Oddly, the "closed system" in classical thermodynamics is defined (illogically) as a system that does not exchange mass across its boundary, but may and often does exchange energy across it. We negate any absoluteness of that statement by Lindsay and Margenau by citing a counter example of a "closed" system with continuously increasing energy, fed by transfer of energy from the environment, and with no escape of the energy or very little escape of it. A specific example is a photon absorption by a mass particle. This system achieves increasing energy (order) as the process continues, hence achieves negentropy. This may be considered a fluctuation, of course, but it still places severe limitations on this law of thermodynamics and in fact negates any absoluteness of it. For such reasons, in this book we have redefined "closed system" as one that exchanges neither energy nor mass with its environment, and we recognize that there are no such systems in the universe. We have defined an "open system" as a system that exchanges either energy or mass or both across its boundary, so that we do not encounter the problem of the counter example cited. Further, general relativity requires an increase in the mass of any system that increases its potential energy, and a decrease in the mass of any system that decreases its potential energy. Hence energy exchange at all with the system, involves mass exchange since mass and energy are the same thing. The classical thermodynamic definition of a "closed system" has thus been falsified since 1915, with the definition becoming only an approximation rather than a generally valid definition.

In the second subparagraph of that first statement by Lindsay and Margenau, the reader should note that the closed-system assumption must be violated a priori if the entropy does decrease, and vice versa. If the system is broken into a set of subsystems, then the only way the entropy of the overall closed system to decrease is for one or more of the subsystems to be open (new definition!) and energy (order) to pass out of the system. Then an interesting thing emerges: For order (energy) to remain in the system as such, the subsystems taken as a whole must produce as much negentropy as they do entropy. Energy from an ordered subsystem can be emitted in disordered form, but then it has opened that subsystem and has entered the space between parts (subsystems) of the overall system. In other words, in a closed system, any increase in entropy requires the subsystems to become open subsystems. Again, the statement of this law of thermodynamics eats itself. To stay in the overall system, this scattered energy outside the subsystems must then interact totally with another part of the system, and so on. This introduces disorder to the succeeding parts that interact. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics itself internally violates its own "closed system" assumption because, to operate at all, the law requires continuing interaction between the active local vacuum environments and the subsystem components. In short, it requires a very special kind of overall or average equilibrium in an unavoidable energy exchange between the local vacuum and all the parts of the system. The source charge problem already demonstrates the universal violation of the second law and the thermodynamic definition of "open system", but both classical electrodynamics and classical thermodynamics have ignored this source charge problem for more than a century. Our solution to it was published in 2000.

Quite simply, there is no such thing as a truly closed system in the first place. Kondepudi and Prigogine come close to this statement in the following quotation187:

'Anyway, equilibrum thermodynamics covers only a small fraction ofour everyday experience. We now understand that we cannot describe Nature around us without an appeal to nonequilibrium situations. The biosphere is maintained in nonequilibrium through the flow of energy comingfrom the sun, and this flow is itselfthe result of the nonequilibrium situation ofour present state in the universe."

In short, all systems on the planet — and we ourselves — are immersed in a nonequilibrium state a priori. Rigorously there is no such thing as an absolute equilibrium state on the planet, except as an approximation.

Now consider a perfectly insulated system, so that no heat can pass from the system outside it. An interesting constraint then exists on those "open subsystems" producing disorder (entropy). Unless equal reordering occurs in the subsystem-to-subsystem reactions, then disordering (heat) grows a priori. But this is not observed to happen in well-insulated systems approximating our theoretically perfect example! Otherwise, the temperature of a well-insulated system would increase until system rupture and failure. And experimentally that does not happen.

187 Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, 1998, p. xii.

It follows that, to maintain the internal equilibrium between subsystems and a constant internal temperature, a negentropic process is clandestinely involved. We submit that this process is revealed in our discovery of giant negentropy of the negative charge, and what may be said to be the giant entropy of the positive charge — i.e., in the discovery of the common " 4-circulation" of energy surrounding a dipole from the time domain to the negative charge of a point dipole in 3-space (thereby entering 3-space once emitted by the negative charge), thence to the positive charge of the point dipole, and thence back to the time domain. For a single charge, the well-known vacuum polarization provides virtual charges of opposite sign, to convert the "isolated charge" into a set of composite dipoles, as previously explained.

The second law of classical thermodynamics, considered in a more modern light, appears to conceal hidden giant negentropy and hidden giant entropy, in the ongoing 4-circulation of EM energy in the supersystem. It is not possible to eliminate the supersystem or the interchange between its parts; particle physics told us in 1957that there is no equilibrium ofany system without this ongoing exchange. Any thermodynamics attempting to discard the supersystem exchange (which involved both mass and energy) is at best an approximation for special "reasonably well-behaved" situations.

If the entire system is not in net equilibrium with the external environment (i.e., if there exists disequilibrium between the separated parts of the supersystem), then classical thermodynamics does not absolutely apply to that system. The system is no longer absolutely describable by "variables of state".

Those objecting to COP>1.0 in an EM system on the grounds that it would violate the second law of thermodynamics (which already violates itself), would be well-advised to restudy the very notion of the second law and the thermodynamics definition of open system. Compare relativity's equating mass as energy. Then ponder the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium with their active environment. Every system in the universe is open, and it has an ongoing exchange with its proven active environment (local active vacuum and curved spacetime). This exchange Includes and exchange with every particle in the system. As pointed out by Lee: 188

188 T. D. Lee, Symmetries, Asymmetries, and the World ofParticles, U. Wash. Press, Seattle, 1988, p. 46-47.

"...symmetry implies conservation. Since our entire edifice of interactions is built on symmetry assumptions, there should be as a result a large number ofconservation laws. The only trouble is that almost all ofthese conservation laws have been violated experimentally. "... "...this difficulty could be resolved by introducing a new element, the vacuum. Instead ofsaying that the symmetry of all matter is being violated, we suggest that all conservation laws must take both matter and vacuum into account. Ifwe include matter together with vacuum, then an overall symmetry could be restored. "

The system itselfis always in disequilibrium; only the supersystem can exhibit equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics specifically does not and cannot apply to a system far from equilibrium, because of its implicit assumption of overall equilibrium without the active vacuum exchange. Also, a deeper balance is required between the hidden asymmetries existing between the subsystems and their local vacuum (and local spacetime curvature.

Indeed, one cannot even calculate the entropy for a system that — overall — is far from net equilibrium with its active environment. We quote Lindsay and Margenau even more strongly {438}:

"Equilibrium states are the only ones that are capable of explicit analysis in thermodynamics...

"... variables ofstate have meaning only ifthey define an equilibrium state. Hence the quantity we are seeking will be meaningless unless it refers to equilibrium states.

While we are at it, let us also address a serious flaw in the first law of thermodynamics. We again use Lindsay and Margenau for a succinct statement of the First Law {440}:

"Firstlaw ofthermodynamics. A complete statement of the first law comprises two assertions: (a) heat is aform ofenergy, (b) Energy is conserved.

All that really says is that energy is conserved. It does not state that it is conserved in an object. It states that, whether the system is in equilibrium or not, energy is conserved. If heat is taken as disordered energy, then it merely states that overall the energy is conserved, whether ordered or disordered with respect to some ordering criterion. It does not state that the disordering is conserved, and it does not state that disordering must increase or decrease. But it does implicitly assume that all energy at some most basic level is ordered, else it cannot be energy (order). So it assumes that, at higher levels, energy can be disordered (incoherent). However, at the underlying basic level, it is and remains perfectly ordered — else it could not remain "energy and could not be conserved. As an EM example, in so-called "heat", every scatteredphoton retains its perfect order; it is only the photon ensemble that is "disordered".

In short, each "basic piece" of energy is perfectly ordered, but the ensemble of the pieces may be disordered. Therefore, entropy applies only at a level higher than the basic energy quantum. Contrary to the assumptions of classical (macroscopic) thermodynamics, processes which directly engineer the basic energy quanta189 — more exactly, the action quanta, consisting of energy xtime, since energy cannot be "engineered" or changed in 3-space without also being engineered "in time" as well — are time-reversible. Hence they can be negentropic — simply because every observable system is "open" to, and in continuous energy exchange with, its active time environment (and also its active vacuum environment). Also, no system changes its spatial energy in any fashion, including ordering or disordering, without interacting with spacetime and spacetime curvature dynamics. It also changes its time-energy.

So in our view the notion of "disordering" and "disordering of energy" must be carefully reconsidered, as to exactly what is and is not being disordered, when the assumed "disordering" occurs, at what level it occurs, where and how the compensating reordering occurs, etc. We also point out that the simple discovery of giant negentropy {12} as the solution to the long-vexing source charge problem already removes the "absoluteness" of classical thermodynamics. Giant negentropy already violates the assumptions of classical thermodynamics at the elemental level in every physical system. Indeed, every charge in the universe already falsifies any "absoluteness" of the assumptions of classical thermodynamics.

This problem in the old classical thermodynamics has long been indirectly solved in particle physics, with the discovery of broken symmetry. As Lee states so clearly {441},

189 Actually, energy is discretized, not quantized. Energy x time (i.e., action) is quantized.

"As we expand our observation, we extend our concepts. Thus the simple symmetries that once seemed self-evident are no longer taken for granted. Out ofstudies ofdifferent kinds of interactions we are learning that symmetry in nature is some complex mixture ofchangingplus into minus, running time backward and turning things inside out."

We point out that a symmetry involves a conservation law, such as are stated in classical thermodynamics, and a broken symmetry involves a broken conservation law. So the discovery of broken symmetry in physics was a profound change affecting all physics, including the staid old classical thermodynamics. Lee further points out the new complexity of concepts {442} such as symmetry (which is behind every conservation law, including the first law of thermodynamics):

"Atpresent, it appears thatphysical laws are not symmetrical with respect to C, P, T, CP, PTandC. Nevertheless, all indications are that thejoint action of CPT(i. e., particle<-> antiparticle, right<-> leftandpast <->future)remainsagoodsymmetry."

So unless the first law is stated in terms of modern CPT symmetry, it does not absolutely apply! Further, every charge is changing time-energy into spatial energy or vice versa. Yet there is nothing about time-energy and its transduction into spatial energy, or vice versa, in the present textbook statements of the thermodynamics. The term "heat" does not refer to the presence of energy at all, but to the scattering (disordering) and escape of energy.190

Considering heat as "energy of the system", or "heat energy" of the system, is a grand non sequitur. Rigorously, "heat" refers to the reduction of higher levels of ordering of energy, and since the gist of energy is ordering, reduction of ordering is the very antithesis of energy! "Heat energy" thus is an oxymoron. Before the "escape", there is no "heat energy" (ugh!) in

190 Think closely: We never take the temperature of a "system"! We take the temperature of the disordered energy (heat) leaving that system or its subsystems. We do measure the effect of the emitted disordered energy. But that has already left the system and is in the local vacuum (a second component of the supersystem). Thermodynamics might be usefully redone more exactly in terms of the supersystem. We leave that task to some budding young future thermodynamicists for a recommended doctoral thesis.

the system at all. The energy is present in the system not as disordering, but as ordering, a priori. If it were in the system, it would not have escaped nor would it be escaping from the system. More energetic molecular motion, e.g., is actually more energetic ordering, simply at an excited state (of greater energy!).

We stress again (and strongly advise the researcher to read) Romer's strong objection to the use of heat as a noun {443}, and we suggest that the entire subject of classical thermodynamics needs a thorough revision to tighten up its terminology, correct its definition of closed system, eliminate its conflict between the first and second laws, and remove its inappropriate consideration of heat as "energy". Otherwise, the presentation and general interpretation of thermodynamics itself will continue to be one of the great confusion factors one encounters in trying to think clearly about extracting EM energy from the active vacuum environment to produce and utilize COP> 1.0 systems.

Effectively a phase conjugation (time reversal) occurs on the leading edge The rotor Is attracted in regauging occurs The rotor is accelerated on out Regauging injects free potential energy into the system from the vacuum The laws of physics are not violated since the system is an open system freely receiving excess energy from its environment

Direction of rotation

Direction of rotation

Nonlinear Sign Gate


Figure 6-21 Concept of operation of Johnson's patented magnetic gate.


Figure 6-21 Concept of operation of Johnson's patented magnetic gate.

The stator gate magnets are highly nonlinear and produce a multivalued magnetic potential The rotor pole enters and experiences a sharp "jump" in the stator's magnetic potential and reversal of its sign The rotor pole is accelerated on through the gate and out of it.

Johnson's approach produces a peculiar kind of multivalued potential. One part is conservative and of magnetic energy in nature, and the other part is nonmagnetic, being direct exchange force and energy effects on the participating atomic nuclei arising from quantum mechanical considerations. Nonetheless, the net hybrid potential can be multivalued at various points around the stator, and that is all that is required for broken symmetry. If \F di t- 0 around a closed path, regardless of which set of forces F represents, then that overall composite force field acting upon the rotor or object moving around the closed path is nonconservative. In that case, self-powering is permitted.

Figure 6-21 diagrammatically illustrates the operation of a nonconservative force-producing magnetic gate in Johnson's approach to a permanent magnet motor. As Johnson has shown, by using a multivalued hybrid potential (MVP) in his gates so that the resulting excess exchange force is properly oriented in direction and timing, a rotor magnet is attracted into a highly nonlinear stator gate region where the MVP is located. When it enters the MVP region where the exchange force is initiated, the rotor encounters a dramatic jump in the net potential with a change of polarity as the exchange force suddenly fires automatically. In turn, this produces a sudden accelerating tangential force in the region, usually against the prevailing magnetic force in the normal back mmf region!

Note Single regaugmg per notation shown Johnson uses multiple regaugings per rotation

Figure 6-22 Johnson's"refueling" a permanent magnet engine by asymmetrical selfregauging. Amultivalued potential is momentarily created by precisely evoking an exchange force reaction.

Note Single regaugmg per notation shown Johnson uses multiple regaugings per rotation

Figure 6-22 Johnson's"refueling" a permanent magnet engine by asymmetrical selfregauging. Amultivalued potential is momentarily created by precisely evoking an exchange force reaction.

Johnson often confounds professors of electromagnetics by showing them that his special gate can produce attraction between like poles, with a north rotor pole being drawn into a north stator pole in that exchange force region. This can be understood by tracing the spin field flow patterns, but cannot be understood by simple "like poles repel and unlike poles attract". In short, Johnson knows he is adding a force completely different from the magnetic force the professors have in mind as the sole acting force. It is rather like pushing two like poles of two little magnets together. You can do it because an additional force — your mechanical force pushing them together — is acting and overcomes the normal repulsive force between the two poles.

The sudden exchange force burst produces a sudden accelerating tangential force in the normal deceleration (back mmf) region of the stator-rotor arrangement. In short, Johnson utilizes a deliberately evoked burst of exchange force to freely overcome most or much of the back mmf (backdrag) region. This in turn produces a net driving force around the rotor's complete rotation, because the overall field combination is nonconservative.

Rigorous force meter measurements taken at 0.01-second intervals prove that this occurs as the rotor enters and passes through Johnson's gate. The results of one such experiment are given in Figure 6-22.

Johnson thus uses highly nonlinear magnet assemblies of novel design to create a special kind of multivalued potential in his magnetic gate by adroitly evoking exchange forces — extra quantum mechanicalforces in addition to the usual magnetic field forces. The MVP produces a sudden extra rotational force, backwards to the back-drag (back mmf) region of the stator-rotor magnet arrangement where the rotor magnet assembly is entering and passing through the conventionally repelling like-polarity situation. The result is that a net north rotor pole is seemingly attracted in191 to the otherwise repelling stator north pole region, then accelerated out the other side by the normal magnetic repulsion.192 Net drive force results, instead of a net zero force. Engineer Ken Moore, a close colleague of the present author, independently tested a Johnson gate and verified the net driving force effect {444} within the limits of our little laboratory.

191 In reality it is "forced in" against the repulsive magnetic force, by a superior force of a different nature, suddenly evoked.

192 I.e., as the exchange force dies, the forces now acting are the normal repulsive magnetic forces, but the rotor has moved to a position where now this repelling force accelerates the rotor in the "load powering" rotational direction. In other words, the observer sees a like pole suddenly "attracted" into a like polarity region, move partially through it, and then suddenly be accelerated out the other side. But the "attracting in" force and the "accelerating out" force accelerate the rotor in the load-powering rotational direction.

Technically, Johnson's apparatus asymmetrically and suddenly regauges its exchange forces in such a manner as to momentarily overpower the back mmf region of the engine's rotation, thus producing a net multivalued potential and a net accelerating force around the overall rotation loop. However, correlated distant effects in magnetic materials are known. If distant compensation does occur, then the closed-loop capability might conceivably be defeated, if the total compensation is sufficient to provide an i F • dl = 0 overall condition. Hence the research probably demands attention to maintaining both local asymmetry and distant asymmetry. If the distant correlation effects occur, only in that manner can an overall nonconservative field represented by |F • dl * 0 be maintained around a completely closed magnetic loop.

This may be the problem with which Johnson appears to have been struggling for so long. He did solve the problem once, and produced a self-rotating permanent magnet motor that the present author personally tested over a period of about 2 hours. During a two-hour test period, the motor apparatus was allowed to self-rotate for up to 15 minutes at a time. Shortly after it became known that Johnson had successfully produced such a prototype, his laboratory was mysteriously broken into. The only thing taken was the magnet assemblies on that specific little successful demonstrator — in a laboratory with more than a hundred thousand dollars worth of magnets and magnetic assemblies of many kinds present.

As a personal aside, I have been associated with Johnson, off and on, for many years. He is a man of the highest integrity and an indefatigable researcher. It is my fervent hope that Johnson will succeed in his permanent magnet rotary motor project. All I can say as this goes to press, is that he is getting very close again, now that he has help and good machining accuracy, etc. for higher precision buildups. In the near future, I hope to be among the first to drink a good glass of champagne to celebrate his success.

Solar Power

Solar Power

Start Saving On Your Electricity Bills Using The Power of the Sun And Other Natural Resources!

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment