The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: question on OU devices exhibiting spatial localization

Hi Marcia,

Yes, that’s a vast, unexplored area, deeply connected with both precursor engineering, Whittaker internal structuring of a field or potential, and “engines” in general. Frank and I had neither the time nor the ability to pursue it – and at the time, we also did not have the necessary understanding and knowledge.

Professor Bill Tiller, former head of the materials science department of Stanford University, was working with us at the time. Bill was the one who recognized the effect; he had had to “grow” one of his special detectors for several years at Stanford! He called it “building the archetype”, using a concept borrowed from Jungian psychology. In other words, not only events but thoughts and emotions – and intents -- influence one’s surroundings. Of course it is the nature of that word “influence” that is at issue.

I tend to just consider spacetime, and so both the mental dynamics (on the time axis) and physical dynamics (in 3-space) are gathered together. Any change on the time axis has at least virtual projections in 3-space, and any change in 3-space obviously has change on the time axis as well.

One rapidly collides with Aristotelian logic and the unsolved problems of philosophy! The nature of “change” has never been solved, and probably cannot be solved within Aristotelian logic. One of the old philosophers (I think it was Heraclitus) spoke of the puzzle this way: “For a thing to change, it must change into something else, something different. But how can a thing also be something different?” No philosopher ever solved the problem (actually, nor any other fundamental problem in philosophy, such as nature of time, nature of being, nature of one, nature of zero, and on and on). The philosophers’ response to this sort of enigma was to form “schools of thought”, each usually with a very smooth “statement” of their position on the question.

Such things were what drove me originally to examine and question Aristotelian logic. To solve the issue, I added the perception principle, since “observation” or “perception” is just implicitly assumed in each of Aristotle’s laws. In short, then one has the situation that there is no such thing as an “absolute A”, but only a “perceived A”. And perception is an operation of some sort, because it is at least dynamic along the time axis.

Well, then the question became sorta “relativistic”. This mean that “perceived A” at time one could be “perceived not-A” at time two, if the operation of perception itself changed. Thus dark red and black are “different colors” to the perceiver capable of distinguishing color, but the “same thing” to a color-blind perceiver.

So it was the absolute A and the absolute not-A that suddenly were not absolute at all, but conditionally dependent on the observer’s characteristics.

So one could have a negation of, e.g., the third law that (A is not identical to not-A). Instead, one could have A(1) is not identical to A(2), and is indeed identical to not-A(2) –- but only as “determined” by the perceiver in time (3).

So the negations of all three Aristotelian laws were also perfectly possible, depending on the state of the perceiver. We wound up expressing it by four laws and an applications rule, but finally realized that the applications rule is also a law. So it wound up being a 5-law logic.


Then much later we came back at the problem of conditioning the environment when one does repetitive experiments.  I later conceptualize the “engine” and the process for creating precursor engines, which in precursor theory (before interaction with matter to make force field engines) allowed the pure nominal potential or pure nominal background field of the environment to have engines – and to gradually have changes created and amplified in those hidden engines.

Hence one can express the precursor ability to change the precursor “engine” constituents, hence gradually change the fundamental precursor engine itself, over a period of time, by repetitive similar or like experiments. So suddenly we had a lexicon and process for implementing Tiller’s “growing the archetype” in one location, gradually over a period of time. Note that the precursor (force-free) engines interacting with charged matter is what creates the normal “force engines” of the environment anyway. So one can and does gradually change one’s physical environment, with intense repetition of the same experiments etc. over time.

When one then “moves” the experimental site hundreds of miles away, then that arduously created precursor engine in the original environment slowly “decays” or dilutes by the interactions of all sorts of processes having “normal” engines.

So – too late to help that particular overunity device – we realized that, if one does develop a “grown” system by long application of experiment, then one should keep the experiment going at the original site, and at distant “outrigger” stations around it one should set up the same experiments and keep running them. Thus one can “spread” the new precursor engine wider into the environment. By repeating the outrigger extension, eventually one can spread the engine around the entire earth –- and suddenly one has now changed the entire earth’s local precursor engine environment. From then on, the machine will work anywhere on earth, anytime it’s turned on.

Anyway, that was sort of what the ultimate result turned out to be. Oddly, the decades-long Soviet radiation of the U.S. Embassy, to induce various specific diseases and health disorders, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. Ambassadors, showed that the Soviets knew this from their new superweapons science of energetics. In fact, the diseases and disorders were only induced in personnel in FIELD-FREE areas of the Embassy. But a field-free area is just an area where the POTENTIALS ARE CONSTANT AND UNCHANGING. To me, this meant that when they changed a precursor engine (changed the Whittaker structuring of the standing steady potentials, then those areas with personnel continually immersed in that potential, with that hidden precursor engine interacting, gradually had altered force engines emerge in their bodies. These physical force engines then directly affected them (DNA, cells, etc.) to generate the disease or disorder condition consistent with the persisting new precursor engine.

And yes, it has enormous significance, both for weapons and for healing etc., if we but developed our own science beyond the old physical force-engine approach to the precursor engine approach.

Anyway, that’s the gist of it. It also became a part of Soviet “energetics” and was so noted by the exceptional theorists and experimentalists working in that program for decades. Meanwhile, the radiation of the U.S. Embassy, using precursor engines to selectively alter the average environment of persons in field free zones, continued to probe and stimulate the U.S., and our puerile responses (adding Faraday shields to the Embassy windows, declaring the area a hostile area and paying bonus to serving personnel, etc.) showed that we knew absolutely nothing about energetics, hence had no defenses against it. The conditioning of weak environmental engines also was what was responsible for the Gulf War Disease/Syndrome developed by many of our soldiers in the first Gulf War. Again, our entire scientific community still has not the foggiest notion how it was done, or that it was even man-made. Instead, our folks continue to try to apply our very archaic notions of what causes diseases and disorders, and so we continue to completely miss such occurrences.

Hope this helps shed some light on the area.

And yes, our scientific community should wake up from its long sleep since the 1880s, eliminate the false assumption of force in massless space, and get on with development of precursor engine science.

Best wishes,


Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:51 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: question on OU devices exhibiting spatial localization


Hi!  Hope you and Doris are doing well. 

Have been so swamped with various things lately that my own questions sort of drop off the radar screen, but this one refuses to die! 

Frank Golden's device exhibited spatial localization ... overunity operation ceased when it was taken to a new place.  Your hypothesis is that it conditioned spacetime.

Tom, that's pretty much a loose end left hanging, that could be further explored to probe the nature of the system!  There are a couple of Ph.D. theses here for someone with the time and interest!

Do other overunity devices also exhibit spatial localization?  If not, why not -- in what significant way do they differ?

If they do, has anybody ever tried to systematically measure or characterize the nature and extent of the localization?  How big is the area conditioned?  What shape is it?  What is the magnitude of the effect?  Does it decay temporally?  Is it polarized?  Do other O/U devices operate differently within that region?  Do other O/U devices operate differently when in proximity to an operating Golden device?  What other physical properties of that locale are measurably different than other places?

It seems to me that a little exploration along these lines might help greatly in fitting the observations to the mathematical model.  If there is a change in the background energy of spacetime at that locale, how is the energy change best modelled -- torsion?  Is it just a topological change for the fabric of spacetime itself, or is there some physical medium associated?

Is this the sort of thing that Dave Clements with his modelling ability would find worthwhile exploring mathematically?