The Tom Bearden


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

Help support the research



Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:56 PM
RE: Does the MEG really work? are they still building them? Sorry fortaking yourtime

Hi Sam,

Well, the hot fusion fellows have been promising us excess electrical power from hot fusion for 50 years, and after billions of dollars and all that time they have yet to add a free watt to the power line.
Yes, the MEG works, and it uses the well-known Aharonov-Bohm effect.

There are some 20,000 papers in the hard physics literature, dealing with the AB effect, its extension by Berry into the Berry phase, and the further extension by Aharonov and Anandan into the Geometric phase. So what the principle used by the MEG actually does -- that is, freely localizes the B-flux and provides an uncurled A-potential IN SPACE OUTSIDE the localization area -- is well established in physics.

You get the AB effect in a common, good toroidal coil -- and thereby change the spacetime and its energy outside that coil. But there you have to pay for the input energy up front, so you will not get COP>1.0 when you get some energy back from that outside spacetime.

In the MEG, the material furnishes the localization freely, so when some EXCESS energy comes back into the MEG from that outside altered spacetime, then we have an asymmetrical system which has an extra FREE input of excess energy from its environment. Thus the MEG's operation is analogous to that of a common home heat pump, and even though its efficiency is never greater
than 100%, it is permitted to exhibit COP>1.0. The common home heat pump, e.g., has an efficiency of about 50%, but receives so much excess heat energy from its environment that it outputs three to four times as much heat energy as the electrical energy input by the operator and paid by him. So
it's COP = 3.0 to 4.0.

In the MEG, no principles of thermodynamics are violated, and the conservation of energy law is rigorously obeyed. However, it does violate the rather stupid assumption in CEM/EE that the external spacetime is inert and flat. In the AB effect, the external spacetime is active and it is curved. Electrical engineering thus has nothing to say about the basic operation of the MEG.

We found that some of the new nanocrystalline transformer cores, with layered construction, will in fact produce the AB effect "for free", as a characteristic of the materials and construction.

It is already known, e.g., in nonequilibrium thermodynamics that many things allow the direct violation of the hoary old second law of thermodynamics. One of those is simply a sharp or strong gradient. Another is special characteristics of materials. See Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, p. 459 for confirmation. But as they stated, "not much is known about it, either experimentally or theoretically." Even Maxwell -- who was also a thermodynamicist -- knew that the old second law is continually being violated. Quoting:

"The truth of the second law is . a statistical, not a mathematical, truth,
for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions
of molecules. Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being
violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group
of molecules belonging to a real body." [Maxwell, J. C., "Tait's
Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278-280 (7 February 1878)].

If you are seriously interested in legitimate COP>1.0 EM systems and processes, then realize that they are a priori ASYMMETRICAL Maxwellian systems -- and Lorentz ARBITRARILY discarded all such systems when he ARBITRARILY symmetrized the equations in 1892, just to get simpler equations easier to solve. Nature does not discard such systems; But Lorentz did and
all our electrical engineering departments, professors, and texts continue to do so.

So unless you break Lorentz symmetry in your circuit or system, and thus violate the present electrical engineering model, you will not and cannot produce COP>1.0 via excess free EM energy extracted from the vacuum.

Further, the terrible old CEM/EE they teach electrical engineers in all our universities is horribly flawed and riddled with known falsities, pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, etc. But regardless, our scientific community will not change and correct that horrid

Hence our own electrical power engineers know, design, and build only SYMMETRICAL Maxwellian power systems! So none of them will exhibit COP>1.0, using vacuum energy freely obtained from the vacuum. They are therefore part of the problem, not part of the solution, and indeed so are our electrical engineering departments and texts.

To see a listing of the serious falsities in the CEM/EE model, see my paper gathering them together.. Most of these have been pointed out by eminent scientists long ago, but just ignored.

As an example, there is no EM force field in space, contrary to CEM/EE. That has been well-known for a long time, and even Feynman's 1964 three volumes of sophomore physics contains that information (obviously, they skip that part!). Instead, EM force fields exist only in charged mass systems. Here's three of Feynman's 1964 statements of that fact:

".in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force
is equal to zero unless some physical body is present. One of the most
important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin."
[Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].

".the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates
a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels
a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric
field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The
Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p.

"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that
would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with
the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or
motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II,
p. 1-3.]

Yet our universities continue to teach and assume that horrendous and blatant falsity that the EM force field exists in empty space! So our EE departments, professors, and texts do not even calculate the EM field in space, though all purport to do so!

At least Jackson admits it; quoting:

"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the
EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically
measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge
and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition,
Wiley, 1975, p. 249].

In other words, the electricians assume that the EM force does exist in mass-free space, but then begrudgingly admit that, well, yeah, EM force requires the product of charged mass and the EM force-free field-in-space in an ongoing interaction.

In the same paper, there is a magnetic Wankel engine that will kill its own back mmf and thus exhibit COP>1.0. Such an engine can be built by any competent university electrical engineering department or physics department, and tested to their heart's content.

The energy crisis and the rape of the consumer by large cartels in energy, oil, etc. is the direct result of the failure of the scientific community to correct CEM/EE, and particularly electrical power engineering.

From the seething vacuum we can have all the energy we wish, freely except for switching and control -- anywhere, anytime. All EM energy and fields and potentials are already generated as steady, free flows of EM energy (real observable photons) from their associated source charges. Unless you read my material, you will not find a solution to the source charge problem: How does a charge just sit there and continuously pour out real EM energy -- real observable photons -- which can easily be measured and shown experimentally, and yet no instrument known to man will measure any
OBSERVABLE energy input to the charge?  We solved that problem in 1999 and published it in 2000 and 2002 -- and recently improved the solution even further. The vexing problem has been scrubbed from most of the textbooks, but here's what some excellent scientists had to say about it:

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still
is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D.
K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968,
p. viii].

"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet
been formulated."
.. "The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge
radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell
equations are invariant under time reversal?" [B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in
electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb.
1992, p. 135, 141].

".it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and
quantal, are in a sad state." [Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176].

Even a static potential or field is a continuous flow of real observable EM energy (real photons). Whittaker showed that in two papers in 1903 and 1904.

Here are some quotes by other scientists, on the fact that a static field or
potential is actually a set of freely flowing EM energy:

"[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic
field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy
flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald,
From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London, 1985, p. 44].

. "To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the
term 'static'. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts.
The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement
of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a
waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing
waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at
every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring
momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. .So are . fields for a
rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated?
Causality seems to require the latter." [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of
gravity - What the experiments say," Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21,
1998, p. 8-9]

So the scientific community has been steadily squelching all attempts or wishes to use some of the ubiquitous free EM energy flows from each and every charge in the universe. It has been doing this by teaching the connection of the source dipole (inside the battery or generator) with its external circuit as a load to be powered and "destroyed", faster than the circuit's actual loads can be powered. In short, they have taught our engineers to always build a circuit and system that self-enforcing Lorentz
symmetry -- thereby preventing any and all building of energy-from-the-vacuum COP>1.0 systems.

So to solve the world energy crisis, and get off dependence of oil and coal and gas and nuclear power, we simply have to relearn how to collect and use the energy from the ubiquitous free streams of EM energy that nature provides for us everywhere!

Hope this helps you to understand legitimate COP>1.0 energy from the vacuum systems. For additional understanding, see my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, 2002.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Subject: Does the MEG really work? are they still building them? Sorry
for taking your time

Hello Thomas E. Bearden,

My name is Samuel L**** and I am a student at San Jose City College.  I
never imagined I would find your email address accidentally, and I couldn't
resist asking you.  Sorry for taking your time.  So this free energy device
really works?! Are they truly building them or was the factory bombed or
something, because the website said they would be selling them by 2004 and I
couldn't find any articles about it written after 2003.  Thank you for
working on this world saving technology.