The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:40:32 -0600


Dear Paul,


Even in ordinary electromagnetics, we are permitted (by the model's representation of the laws of nature) to freely change voltage (potential) at will.  In real life it may cost us a little "switching" energy to run the switching process, but we can get enormous potential energy "for free" whenever we wish.  So getting the energy out of the vacuum and available, is not the problem!  Every circuit already does that in spades.


The problem is then in discharging this "nearly free" potential energy into a load to do work, without simultaneously killing the process that is giving us the free potential.


In a circuit, the source dipole (as in the generator or battery, etc.) usually is what gives us the extra potential energy.  Note the definition of potential phi (or V, as electrical engineers use it).  It is "joules per collecting coulomb".  So from any finite potential (voltage), the only limitation on how much energy you can collect from it, is a matter of how much collecting charge q you allow it to flow onto or around or over.  Each charge diverges a bit of it, to become "excited" or "potentialized" to the intensity of the potential at that point.


But then comes the problem.  We are all taught to use the ubiquitous closed-current loop circuit.  This beast passes all spent current in the external circuit, right back through the source dipole in the generator or battery, against the dipole.  It is easy to show that precisely one-half the entire EM energy intercepted and "caught" in the external circuit from that source dipole's potential, is then dissipated only to destroy the dipole that is providing the potential energy in the first place.


The other half is dissipated in the external circuit in the loads and losses.  Hence less than half the caught energy is used to power the load, while fully half is used to kill that dipole.  We then have to put in some more energy to force the charges in the generator or battery back apart again and form the source dipole.


But the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit requires us to kill the energy source (the source dipole, once made) faster than we power the load.  That kind of circuit can never exhibit COP>1.0, but is always COP<1.0.


So in your arrangement (and thousands of others), we can indeed step up the voltage, nearly for free, to a much higher voltage.  It's called a step-up transformer.  But the "free energy" problem is in what is done with it after that.


Best wishes and good luck in your studies,


Tom Bearden

Subject: Simple senario
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:16:09 -0600

What if I had a coil of wire (air core).  Wrapped around this coil is
another coil of wire.  So I've got two coils of wire with one wrapped around
the other...  a "double-layered" coil of sorts.

Now say I inputted a sharp, square-wave pulse into the inner coil.  This
would be a low-powered pulse, but also an extremely sharp one.  Wouldn't
this create a very high voltage in the outer coil?

After creating this voltage, wouldn't I be able to power as big of a load as
I wanted to off of this coil for a short time?  Then I could just input
another low-powered square-wave pulse into the inner coil, and repeat the

Wouldn't I then be able to achieve overunity?

Such a simple arrangement has surely be thought of before.  My real
question, is why wouldn't it produce overunity?  I'd really appreciate it if
you could explain it to me using your theories and not those of conventional

I'm a first-year college student, so I'm a "clean slate" I guess.  My
understanding doesn't go past basic assumptions.  I've read nearly every
paper of yours that I could find several times, and I've read the referenced
papers that I could acquire.  I'm deeply interested in this field, and I'd
like to research it for real in the future.

Your explanation of the above described process would clear up several
assumptions of mine, and that would knock down several barriers of my
understanding.  Then I'd be able to move on.  Right now, though, I'm just

Thank you for your time, and I anxiously await your book.