Comparison

Since my invention "looks like" Prof. Searl's device, I thought I should point out the similarities and differences between Searl's device and my magnetic bubble electrical generator.

First of all, as I mentioned on the previous page, my invention does not pertain to a specific magnet configuration. And since Prof. Searl does not have a patent on the configuration shown, we are free to use this configuration (if we can find a way to make it work!) Prof. Searl has done a wonderful job at describing the configuration of his devices, and he has attempted to describe what makes them work, but never in complete detail so that others can reproduce his results. We are therefore free to devise our own way to make this magnet configuration work.

So, the comparison between Prof. Searl's device and my magnetic bubble device will be between what Searl claims causes his device to work and what I claim causes my magnetic bubble device to work.

Note that Prof. Searl's center magnet is to be a ring and not a solid cylinder as illustrated above. His more recent arrangement has this center ring consisting of cylindrical layers of different material. (For example, Neodymium, Nylon, a magnetic layer of unknown composition ("unknown" to me anyway), and copper.) So the illustration here is not accurate to Prof. Searl's devices.

Differences

1. Prof. Searl claims that BOTH the disk shaped magnets (red) AND the center magnet (orange) need to be specially magnetized (according to his "Law of Squares".) This is NOT the case for my magnetic bubble devices. The center "magnet" need not even be a magnet. In my devices, it is to be a magnetic field gradient source. This could even be an electro-magnet.
   
   
2. Searl claims that you must use his "Law of Squares" to make his device work. This is not the case for my magnetic bubble devices. In Searl's device, the "Law of Squares" governs all aspects of the device including what frequency to use during the magnetization process as well as the amount of each of the various materials used to construct Searl's device. My magnetic bubble devices are to be constructed based on what is known about the generation/creation of magnetic bubbles and the materials which support magnetic bubbles. Of course, more research needs to be done in this area of science to learn what the best magnetization process is and what the best material would be. We look to the experimental sciences to guide us, not to Prof. Searl's "Law of Squares."
   
   
3. Searl claims that after the magnetization of both the center ring and the disk shaped "segments", (at different frequencies) there is a detectable magnetic pattern in the magnets. (From what I gather, if you use iron filings to see the pattern, a bicycle-spoke-like pattern should be visible. That is, an alternating "light-dark" pattern should appear around the magnets. However, I may have misunderstood what specific pattern should emerge in Searl's magnets.) For my magnetic bubble magnets, I do not expect any special "pattern" to appear, using iron filings, because the magnetic bubbles are too small and should be evenly distributed throughout the material. However, since the magnetic disks will have a "north" face and a "south" face (as do normal disk magnets) and since iron filings sprinkled over one face of a normal disk shaped magnet can look like radial spokes (from the edge of the magnet outward) it is not clear to me what the difference is between Searl's magnet "pattern" and a normal magnetic pattern is suppose to be. Since, in my device, the magnetic bubbles are too small to be detected by the iron filing method, any spoke-like pattern may simply be a normal pattern for magnets. In short, no special magnetic pattern is expected in the magnetic bubble magnets when iron filings are used. (Magnetic bubbles are detectable using other methods.)
   
   
4. For Searl's devices, it is the interaction and difference between the pattern printed on the center magnet and the pattern on the disk shaped segment magnets which causes the segments to roll around the center magnet. Apparently, the interaction of the two patterns always causes an imbalance in the segments which causes them to move around the center magnet. In my magnetic bubble device, there is no special magnetic pattern on the center magnet (which might not even be a magnet as mentioned above). The cause for the motion in my magnetic bubble device is the force which develops on a magnet bubble when it moves through the magnetic material in a magnetic field gradient. This is well known in the literature on magnetic bubbles. (However, no one in the literature seems to have mentioned the possibility of using this force to move the material in which the magnetic bubbles exist, which is why I have apply for a patent.)
   
   
5. For Searl's device, the magnetization frequency for the disk segment magnets is determined by the "level of the square" used to create the segments. Likewise for Searl's center magnetic ring; the frequency of magnetization is determined by the "level of the square" used to create the ring. These two frequencies (between the segments and the center ring magnet) are not the same. For my magnetic bubble devices the pulse shape of magnetization of the disk segment magnets is determined by consulting the scientific literature on the creation of magnetic bubbles.
   
   
6. Searl claims that there is a lot more going on in his devices than what I have mentioned here about his devices, both in its construction and cause of operation. For example, when the segments are constructed by layering the material, there is an electrical charge developed between the center of the segment and the outer edge of the segment. There is no comparison I can make between this (and other aspects of Searl's device) and my device because my construction details are different than Searl's.

Because of these differences between what Prof. Searl claims causes his device to work and what I claim causes my magnetic bubble device to work, I concluded that my device is different than Prof. Searl's device. As mentioned above, the configuration of the magnets appears to be similar (except in the case of the center magnet being an electromagnetic in one of my configurations) but the explanation for the motion of the magnets is very different.

Similarities

I am sure you can see several similarities between my magnetic bubble device and Searl's device, but I'll list some of them anyway. Note that these are "similarities", not exact matches as I point out above.

• Configuration of the magnets: I am using Prof. Searl's general configuration of stacks of disk shaped magnets self-rotating around a center magnet.
• Magnetization process: Searl uses an AC magnetic field on top of a DC magnetic field. This is similar to the magnetic process I will use to generate magnetic bubbles. I will use magnetic pulses on top of a DC magnetic field.
• Energy Extraction: Searl uses "C" shaped coil cores positioned so that the rotating stack of magnets passes through the "C". If I ever get this far along in realizing my device, I will be using "C" coil cores as well.

I look at these similarities in the same way that a gasoline engine is similar to a diesel engine. They are similar but not exactly the same.

After learning about my patent application for my magnetic bubble motor, Prof. Searl wrote on his web page that his "legal department" was going to look into my patent application and that it was doubtful that I would be granted a patent, presumably because he felt that I had discovered nothing new or because I was attempting to patent his device. I have ask both Prof. Searl and his USA associate (John Thomas) to provide my lawyers or myself with copies of any documents which might indicate that Prof. Searl has a prior claim to using magnetic bubbles to move the material in which they exist. This request was made over 8 months ago. So far no documents have been provided.

I have also asked them to provide me with documentation which would resolve the differences I have listed above between Prof. Searl's devices and my magnet bubble device in enough detail so it becomes obvious that my device works in the same way as Prof. Searl's device. No documents have been provided.

Until such time as these documents are provided, I will continue to work under the assumption that my device is different than that of Prof. Searl's. However, I well continue to acknowledge my use of Prof. Searl's general configuration of stacks of disks moving around a center source, as I have done on several other web pages.

One day, I hope that Prof. Searl will make a FULL disclosure of his inventions. After 15+ books, he has yet to do so. We would then be able to make a more accurate comparison between his method and explanation and mine.

The information provided here is subject to patent protection. USA patent pending, June, 1998

Usage Note: My work is copyrighted. You may use my work but you may not include my work, or parts of it, in any for-profit project without my consent.