The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:17:28 -0600


Dear Richard,


Yes, skeptism is healthy, as long as it is not overdone to the point of dogma.  There ARE a lot of wild claims in this "field that is not yet a field".  And yes, ruling out the charlatans, many machines touted as being overunity have wound up being bad measurements, etc., and were honest mistakes by their inventors.


Nonetheless, several real COP>1.0 systems exist right now.  All that I know of, however, need at least one more year of intensive research and development -- including the motionless electromagnetic generator of my associates and I.


But there are also legitimate experiments, in the hard physics literature, that any good university physics (or optics) lab can do and that are overunity.  E.g., the Bohren experiment outputs some 18 times as much energy as one puts into it by normal Poynting calculations.  You can see the reference yourself:  Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.  The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.


Another recognized "overunity" experiment is anything that yields anti-Stokes emission.  In that effect, the molecules or atoms add some energy to what is input by the experimenter and absorbed, and so the emission is greater than the input.  Indeed, unless there is some automatic replacement of the extra energy given up by the atoms and molecules, it becomes a "cooling" effect in the materials.  Can't power your house with that, unless you add another effect which replenishes the energy to the atoms and molecules that they gave up.


The simplest and most universal, easiest COP>1.0 system is a simple charge. Every charge (and dipole) in the universe pours out real EM energy, after transducing EM energy it receives from the vacuum.  Now that much particle physics already knows.  We'll add a bit: The negative electrical charge receives virtual photon energy from the vacuum (actually from the time domain) and pours out real EM energy in 3-space.  All the negative charges in the universe are doing that.


So why isn't the universe filling with energy, as you suggested (good insight!)?  Because the positive charge, being a time-reversed negative charge, does exactly the opposite.  It absorbs real energy from 3-space and transduces it back to virtual form (actually into time-energy along the 4th axis), and "puts the energy back".


So what is really going on are incredible "circulations" of energy from the time domain to 3-space to the time domain back to 3-space, and so on.  Remember, every negative charge in the universe forms a dipole with every positive charge in the universe.  In my view, that "vast set of energy circulations and interferences, etc." is precisely what the vacuum "is" and what spacetime itself "is".  Identically. But physics (and mathematicians) aren’t too ready for that yet.  (although in some very modern theories, you start without space and time, and spacetime arises out of the model from asserted more fundamental principles.


And yes, I have seen quite a few real overunity systems.  The best one was the Sweet vacuum triode amplifier (I named it for Sweet).  It had a COP = 1.5 x 10exp(6).  I also designed an antigravity experiment, and convinced Sweet to do it (he had to modify the output of the machine).  It worked beautifully, and -- by sheer fluke -- we even got a paper published.  On the paper, I placed Sweet's name first, because the VTA was his invention, not mine.


Bedini has build numerous COP>1.0 systems.  Golden in the 1970s build a couple, one in particular where the vacuum itself was conditioned.  All provided very puzzling but very interesting phenomenology, which had to be slowly deciphered over the years.


Anyway, the field is such that there are not yet really simple devices where one can get a kit of parts from Radio Shack, put them together, and perform an immediate and successful COP>1.0 experiment.  That is coming, but it is not here yet.


The Kawai patent does indeed work, but it's expensive to build a Kawai COP>1.0 motor.  You have to start with a very high efficiency magnetic motor (such as are available from Hitachi, with efficiencies of 0.7 or 0.8).  Then you have to apply the Kawai process, and use electro-optical coupling in your switching so you minimize the switching costs.  Doing that, you can attain a COP approximately double the efficiency (in the Hitachi labs, Hitachi engineers tested those two motors, modified by the Kawai process, and independently obtained COP = 1.4 and COP = 1.6.


To show you that there really is suppression, Kawai and his party came to the U.S., here to Huntsville, to see me after I placed an explanation of how his device worked, on the internet.  One of our little companies, CTEC, met with him (the Board of Governors).  To our astonishment, after several days with us, Kawai asked us to give him a proposal where we would market the engines for him worldwide, and also build a lab here in Huntsville for R&D.  We did, and he took it back to Japan.  Later he returned again, and we began serious negotiations for four days.  On a Thursday afternoon late, we reached agreement with Kawai.  He would return to Japan, and ship a closed-looped engine, already developed, to us.  We would have it certified by an impeccable scientific team and test lab.  We would then set up marketing for most of the world, save Japan.


That night a jet arrived from Los Angeles, with a Yakuza on board.  The next morning Kawai no longer controlled his company, his invention, or his own fate.  The Kawai party was in fear and trembling.  The Yakuza coldly dissolved the agreement, they packed up the two Kawai engines we had, and left.  And that was that.  Several COP>1.0 power systems, already developed, have been pulled off the market forcibly by the Yakuza, which strongly penetrates the Japanese government and all large Japanese companies, and has taken over the banking in Japan, including the national bank.  The members of the CTEC board of governors directly witnessed all this, so it's not just me telling a nice story.  Kawai's U.S. patent is  Teruo Kawai, "Motive Power Generating Device," U.S. Patent No. 5,436,518.  Jul. 25, 1995.


I believe we have a very good chance to get the R&D finished on our MEG, since we have made arrangements to have the research finished in a friendly foreign country formerly dominated by the Soviet Union.  The work is being done in the National Materials Science Lab, a part of the National Academy of Science of that nation.  Their scientists and laboratories are equal to those in the U.S., and some of the scientists have a better education in electrodynamics, particularly in higher group symmetry electrodynamics.  So we are hopeful that we will be able to start introducing units on the market about a year from now.  Quite simply, we will either succeed or we will fail.  But we will give it our very best effort.


That, I think, answers the gist of your E-mail.  I encourage you to be both a skeptic and also open-minded.  That way one is neither naïve nor dogmatic, which is the ideal scientific frame of mind.


Note that the AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study) successfully published two papers on the MEG in a leading physics journal, Foundations of Physics Letters.  The papers were vigorously refereed, I assured you.  One of the things I did was hang the skeptics on the source charge problem, which is largely avoided in universities.  Every charge and every dipole pours out energy in all directions at the speed of light.  This is easily shown, and is actually quite well known to foundations scientists.   But there has been no solution to "where the energy comes from", until we proposed a solution to it in 2000.  Nonetheless, it hangs the skeptics who advocate there is no such thing as an open EM system and therefore no such thing as COP>1.0 EM systems. 


(1)     Either they have to explain an "outside environmental source" of the energy being fed to the charge or dipole, from the vacuum environment, or they have to assume that every charge and dipole freely and continuously creates energy from nothing, and pours it out.  Experimentally it can be shown that there is no normal detectable EM input, and that is already known.  So if it's not an open system, and performing COP>>1.0, then every charge and dipole is the grossest kind of perpetual motion machine, which destroys all notions of EM energy conservation.  In that case, if energy conservation does not apply, then one need not conserve EM energy in all EM systems.  Ergo, it is possible to build a COP>1.0 system, since all charges and dipoles already are such.

(2)     If the charge (or dipole) is an open system freely receiving extra energy from outside 3-space, then that saves the conservation of energy law.  But it also proves that a great number of EM systems -- every charge and every dipole -- are already COP>1.0 systems.  That proves that it is possible to have COP>1.0 systems.

(3)     If one tries to deny that charges and dipoles are EM systems, one destroys all electrodynamics, because the source charges furnish all the fields and potentials used in electrodynamics, reaching across all space.  Denying the source of the fields and potentials and their energy, thus denies any and all electrodynamics.


A little more sophisticated statement of the above is what overpowered the skeptics (there were some very strong objections, as you might imagine, from defenders of the faith).  Based on that and a couple of other things, the referees overruled all the objections, and the journal published the paper.


The references are:  M.W. Evans et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; ---- "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393.


Another good, solid reference is M.W. Evans et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.


Anyway, I think that addresses the bulk of your letter, though I've also added a few comments below.


Best wishes to you in your studies, and in your path through life,


Tom Bearden

Subject: For the attention of Tom Bearden
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:30:27 -0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600

Dear Dr. Bearden,
I am a 17 year old physics student in the UK, who is currently writing a report that will contribute to my end of year grade. I chose to cover the topic of free energy, and while researching the subject I came across your website. I was initially sceptical of the claims in your paper "The Final Secret Of Free Energy" (the Internet is a haven for people making outrageous claims), but having looked at the website in more depth, I have extremely mixed feelings. You write with such confidence and matter-of-factness that it is obvious you know exactly what you are talking about, but I cannot easily bring myself to accept that the whole world has made such a huge error.
I find that a little scepticism is always healthy, and it works both ways. I am sceptical of the 'establishment' - I am well aware that most of what is now considered mainstream science was at one point considered heresy - but I am also sceptical of anyone who offers something that seems too good to be true. I don't mean to imply that you are wrong, merely that I believe it is good practice to be wary of a claim until one has seen reasonable evidence that it is true. I'm sure that, as a scientist, you agree!

Comment:  We encourage the friendly skeptic, who is openminded.  That way, one is neither naïve nor dogmatic, but scientific.  You have precisely the right attitude.

So, I am writing to you in the hope that you might be able to convince me. I dearly want to believe that you are right, but it would be undisciplined of me to accept your claims at face value. I do not doubt the existence of the quantum foam, but can we really use it as a source of energy? I mean, is there maybe an experiment I could do to see the process for myself, or some observable phenomenon that would demonstrate, to a layperson like myself, what you are saying?

The Bohren experiment and building a Kawai motor, as stated above.  But unfortunately those are expensive and difficult, and I doubt that you could do it at a high school.

Have you successfully built an overunity device, or seen one working? If not, how can you be certain that it is possible to build them? I have read about countless overunity devices that have been 'demonstrated' to work, but no one ever seems able to reproduce them when it matters. Surely if an investor saw a working prototype, they would be encouraged to spend? I cannot believe that there is a conspiracy so far reaching as to prevent private investors from even seeing them in action, if they exist.

I will have to be very careful what I say here, because of patent rights etc. still processing.  Let me put it this way:  A COP>1.0 system is in an excited state, a priori, since it is in disequilibrium and therefore the entropy has been reduced.  All such systems tend to decay (else a system would excite, then excite again, etc. and build up on an exponential basis until the universe exploded) and have decay mechanisms.  One of the most difficult thing in my life has been to struggle for many years until we finally uncovered the master decay mechanism for COP>1.0 EM systems.  Bedini and I have filed a patent application on a process which overcomes that decay mechanism.  In short, one can "grab" or "freeze-frame" a system in its COP>1.0 excited state, and LOCK it there.  Then it will operate steadily and stably at COP>1.0.  Otherwise, unless one has a "locking" and "stabilizing process" (there may be others which we have not yet discovered), one cannot usually "hold" a COP>1.0 system in that stable operation.  We have at least found how to do that, by at least one major method.  And it works on the bench.  But I cannot release details of that until much later this year, when our intellectual property rights are secured.  I am putting it in my book, to be published by World Scientific, and you can see it then.  I believe it will be quite a surprise to overunity researchers and physics in general.  It has some very startling applications, e.g., in cosmology, one of which I will point out in the book.

That said, I am quite willing to believe that there is conspiracy of sorts, even it is just a collection of vested interests rather than a genuine conspiracy. You write about assassination attempts, and suppression of information - have you personally ever encountered anything of this nature? What has been the response of the scientific community to your research?

ANS:  I gave one minor example above.  We have encountered many others, of many types including multiple assassination attempts.  I do not discuss these publicly.  But we do have witnesses.

One aspect of the physics puzzles me. If virtual energy is being collected, converted to real energy, and radiated, what then happens to it? Wouldn't there, over time, be a build up of real energy in the Universe? I realize that, as there is a source of this energy (the quantum foam), the law of conservation is not being broken, but it seems like maybe that energy isn't supposed to be in the 'real' realm (as opposed to the virtual realm). Or, is this how the Universe has grown - the continual addition of energy (and hence matter) to the Universe? (Maybe this is an alternative to the Big Bang?) Is it possible to deplete the Universe of virtual energy (I am speaking hypothetically - I realize that one species alone would never be able to use it all)?

ANS:  We addressed that above, and it is a very deep insight.  To see a young student do that is a great delight and encouragement to an old dog like me.  That is why I'm putting just about everything I know into this forthcoming book.  I really want to pass the baton to younger, more vigorous, and keener minds coming along.  God willing, they will be able to start from where I'm at or think I'm at, and go forward.  If I can save them 30 hard years discovering that part, then they can just advance it much further and get it done.  We'll try to do it, but if we fail, then hopefully they will get it done anyway.

If you do have successful prototypes, then are we close to achieving the golden goal? Realistically, are we on the brink of a free energy revolution?

Ans.  A resounding yes.  We have a successful lab experiment, although a bit tricky, but it does work.  The National Materials science lab in that foreign country had no difficulty in understanding the principle of the MEG's operation.  Note that the major principle, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, is a now well-known physics effect but is not in classical electrodynamics or electrical engineering at all.  But the AB effect is even in Feynman's 3 volumes of sophomore physics, from the 1960s.  We just found a way to get it without having to input energy to pay for it. And then we found out how to use it for power.

I have been thinking a lot lately about the eventual fate of humanity. You have given me cause for hope, and for that I thank you. Incidentally, I am not writing to you for the sake of my project - I am writing to you because I am fascinated by what you have to say and want to learn more. This is much to big for me to dismiss it as wishful thinking - I feel that I have a duty to learn about this stuff (after all, it's my generation that will have to deal with this planet's problems for the next half century).

Comment:  Exactly the proper attitude.  I too am very concerned about the fate of humanity, and the fate of my own country.  I want my children, and my children's children, and my neighbor's children etc., to have a decent (and better) world to live in.  In my opinion, the fundamental "backbone" and basis for a modern economy is cheap energy.  For the biosphere and health, we must make it cheap CLEAN energy.  Every EM power system already takes its energy from the vacuum, and we could indeed have cheap clean energy if the scientific community would just release those sharp young grad students and postdocs in our universities.  Let them study the problem and work on it, for goodness sakes!   It is my job (hopefully) to give them enough of a framework -- the concepts and principles, the beginning hard references, etc. -- so that a legitimate theory of permissible COP>1.0 EM power systems can be developed, scientifically.  The AIAS has already done part of the theoretical modeling job; a lot more still needs doing.

But it is beginning to happen, and it is going to happen.  If not in my lifetime (I'm 71, and suffering from moderate to severe hypoxia), then certainly in yours.  With a little luck, we will see the first units on the market in about a year, from several inventors and their backers.

So I urge you to continue steadfast in the thinking process you have started, and make your own decisions and assessments.  Remember, no one is perfect.  All my pencils still need erasers.  And I have made errors.  But I correct them when I find them, and I admit them freely.  Anyone really trying to do something of value, will make errors.  One hopefully learns from one's mistakes, and continues.

No model, e.g., is perfect -- Godel proved that long ago.  So no physics is perfect, no electrodynamics is perfect.  One errs seriously in proclaiming something an "immutable law" of nature!  All "laws of nature" are based on symmetries at specific levels; all of which have broken symmetries where that law is violated at that level, and becomes an enlarged symmetry (or conservation law) at a higher level.

We have not yet scratched the surface in science.  It has only just begun.  In the next 10 years, if we can hold the world together, we will see sciences emerge that we have not yet dreamed of.  That is the real hope of the future, along with the hope that the younger generation will have that vision and bring it into fruition.

I understand that you must be a very busy man, and I appreciate the importance of your mission. Please don't spend time replying to this letter if it gets in the way of your work. That said, I would be thrilled to hear from you!

My pleasure, and thanks for the kind words.  I encourage you not to debate with your teachers and professors; simply hold your counsel, increase your depth of knowledge, make your own decisions, and remain skeptical but openminded --- and therefore scientific.

Best regards,