The Tom Bearden
|From: "Tom Bearden"
Subject: RE: Congratulations
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:25:57 -0600
We are keeping the charge-blocking patent application current, but where we wound up on it requires some extremely expensive work and material that we cannot afford. In short, pure aluminum doped with 2% pure iron will give the correct type of material for "first cut". It may then be necessary to slightly adjust the 2% iron up or down. However, this material is frightfully difficult to make, and requires a good metallurgy lab. Since the melting points of Al and Fe are so disparate, the thing has to be done in an inert atmosphere, etc. All of this can be done, but the expense is far more than we can afford. So we keep the patent application current, and will return to it whenever we can afford it.
Meanwhile, we have taken a much less expensive approach in a magnetics device using "permanent magnets with an evoked memory" for which we have also filed a patent application. The trick (still proprietary) is how to get the "memory" effect. This we have done, but not yet sufficiently to go overunity, and so we have to get the effect strengthened. So we are plowing along through various buildups, etc. Again, it turns out to be a real struggle with magnetic materials.
I am much encouraged by Professor Chung's paper finally being published in Composites B. She had to use the term "apparent negative resistance" but it is true negative resistance since the manufacturing parameters can be varied to produce either a negative resistor or a positive resistor.
The great Gabriel Kron built a true negative resistor in the 1930s and early 1940s at Stanford University, working on a U.S. Navy contract for General Electric. I use quotes which show he had done this, but he was never permitted to reveal his process etc. We have a good clue, however, and I am publishing that clue and my interpretation of it in a paper just being finished for the IC-2000 conference in St. Petersburg (in absentia).
At least one other device which was a true negative resistor (NOT a differential resistor!) was just bypassed by the industry. The Fogal semiconductor, if ever it can be put into production, can be engineered by Fogal to exhibit true negative resistance. So far quite a few folks have offered to develop it in return for seizing his patents, but nothing legitimate has come forward.
Obviously, any highly efficient EM circuit with a true negative resistor bypass in the external circuit, bypassing the source dipole in the primary power source, can yield overunity. That is because one breaks the presently enforced Lorentz symmetry of the discharge of the excited circuit. Excitation -- which in electrodynamics can be just adding voltage -- is essentially free, although in real life we must pay a little for the switching. Electrodynamicists already assume that the potential energy of any EM circuit can be freely changed at will; it's called "regauging" (changing the potential or potentials).
So they agree we can get the extra energy into the power system for free (and so one can, in real life paying just a bit for the switching). This means that the thing forcing circuits to remain underunity is simply the Lorentz symmetrical regauging enforced upon the discharging of the excited circuit.
And so it is. Lorentz symmetrical regauging requires two equal and opposite asymmetrical regauging (e.g., just changes of the voltage). The closed current loop circuit containing the loads and losses in the circuit in the same loop as the primary source dipole in the battery or generator, guarantees the enforcement of Lorentz symmetrical regauging during the discharging of the excitation energy.
It also turns out that the great cartels (Churchill just called them "the High Cabal) have known this for decades, and have no intention of permitting it to be done if they can help it.
Note that all current from all circuit loads and losses is passed back through the primary source dipole, against the back emf. This destroys the source dipole itself by doing work on the charges and scattering them. Precisely half the excitation energy of the circuit is discharged in this manner, only to kill the source dipole and nothing else. Simply multiply (-V) by the total I in a dc circuit, and you see that -VI gives you the power used to kill the dipole. The same positive V lies across the external losses and load, and the same current I goes through them. So VI is the power dissipated in the external loads and losses. This is a simple example, it works the same for all the rest. Half the energy is used to do nothing but kill the dipole, and half is used to power the external circuit with its loads and losses.
The other half of the excitation energy is discharged through the loads and losses in the external circuit. With a real system, there are losses, so less than half the excitation energy is discharged through the load.
This means that more energy is used to "kill" the source dipole than is used to power the load. Hence any such system is COP<1.0 a priori, regardless of how much excitation energy is freely added by the source dipole.
Now if a negative resistor is placed in the external circuit near the source dipole, and shunts some of the return current back to the high side of the circuit WITHOUT that fraction returning through the source dipole itself, then the work done in killing the source dipole is reduced. If the reduction is sufficient, the entire system exhibits COP>1.0. No laws of nature are violated, thermodynamics is not violated, etc. because one is using an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Once the Lorentz symmetry of the discharging is broken, the system becomes an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium with its active vacuum environment.
Batteries and generators DO NOT power their own external circuits! Never have, never will. Rigorously, here's how it works (this has been known in particle physics for nearly 50 years, but classical electrodynamicists still teach the horribly flawed old 136 year old EM theory, and electrical power engineers continue to apply it.)
The shaft energy one furnishes to a generator is utilized totally inside the generator itself, making the magnetic field and use it in performing work upon the source charges to separate them and make the source dipole. Some of the internal generator energy also escapes through the inevitable losses in the generator, as in any real subsystem. So all the shaft horsepower input to the generator does only one thing: It enables the generator to make a source dipole. That's it.
In a battery, some of the chemical energy is used to separate the charges and make the source dipole. That's it. Since we continually destroy the source dipole, the battery has to continuously furnish energy to rebuild the dipole, until its chemical energy is exhausted. Then we have to recharge the battery or get another one.
All the coal and oil and natural gas ever burned, and all of the nuclear fuel rods ever expended, all to make steam and power the turbines turning the shafts of the generators, has never added a single watt to the power line. None of that combustion or nuclear energy has anything at all to do with how the circuit is actually energized and powered, and how the loads are powered.
For that, we must go to particle physics since the electrodynamicists have not revised their terribly flawed models. In particle physics, it has been known for over 40 years that any dipole is a broken symmetry in its violent virtual flux exchange with the active vacuum. "Broken symmetry" means that something virtual has become observable. What this means is that the dipole continuously receives disordered virtual energy from the vacuum, and radiates some of it back in that same form. However, SOME of the absorbed virtual energy is organized by the charges of the dipole into OBSERVABLE energy, which is then reradiated back in that form (as the so-called "Poynting" energy flow), reaching across the entire universe. If the dipole is connected to the terminals of the generator or battery, then this OBSERVABLE energy flow pours out of the terminals and fills all space surrounding the external circuit in a great flow of EM energy, generally parallel to the circuit conductors.
Be careful at this point. Present electrodynamicists have been taught to totally mangle the very concept of "energy flow", by confusing one tiny component of it as the totally flow. It isn't.
A tiny "sheath" of this huge energy flow -- right down on the surface of the conductors -- strikes the surface charges and is thereby deflected (diverged) into the circuit to power (potentialize) the electrons. This COMPONENT of the overall energy flow is the so-called Poynting flow ExH. Poynting got the direction wrong, and never considered anything but the tiny component that actually enters (gets deflected into) the circuit. He thought that was all there was. He never considered all the huge remainder of the great energy flow, that just misses the circuit and is wasted.
Heaviside, who independently discovered energy flow through space as well as Poynting, corrected Poynting's direction and also was quite aware of the huge "Heaviside" component that misses the circuit and is usually wasted.
The Heaviside component for a simple circuit is on the order of 10exp13 times as much as the minuscule Poynting energy flow component that the circuit intercepts and that actually powers the circuit. All our circuits are miserable "interception and collection" performers.
So every circuit produces some 10exp13 or so more energy flow, extracted right out of the vacuum and poured through all space outside the circuit, than the pitiful circuit catches and uses.
Further, because of the totally erroneous definition of the field and potential as their own reaction cross section with a unit point STATIC charge, more energy or force can be collected from a given potential or field by RESONATING the particle. In that case, it sweeps out a greater geometrical cross section, and it intercepts some of that Heaviside component of the energy flow that misses a STATIC charge. Bohren's experiment proves this, has been replicated, and is well-known. Bohren got 18 times as much energy collected on his resonant charges, as he calculated he had input. It's called "negative resonant absorption" and is a well-known and accepted overunity process, being published in all kinds of journals such as American Journal of Physics, Physical Review, Contemporary Physics, etc. Letokhov was on to this as early as 1958, and strongly by 1967, but not much attention was paid until about 1988 to 1990. Then researchers in intensely scattering optically active media got really going. They have not yet produced overunity, since for convenience they externally excite the medium. However, all the elements for self-excitation (light-trapping, high gain, localization, etc.) have been shown in the latest experiments. The same process probably is responsible for the gamma ray burster, the x-ray burster, and some black holes.
Mills' hydrino process reduces the hydrogen atom below its normal ground state in the vacuum, which causes it to give up rather large energy. Evans has independently derived a mechanism for that reaction, and it will be published in a 3-volume Contemporary Optics and Electrodynamics series in 2001 by Wylie. (I will also have a 50 page article in that publication).
But back to our circuits. Note the enormity of the energy extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole. Certainly we have input nothing like that into the generator shaft, and the battery contains nothing like that in terms of chemical energy. It is exceedingly sad what happened next.
Recall the period after Maxwell's seminal paper in 1864. No computers, no Mathematica or MathCad. All solutions and mathematics done by hand, the hard way. Numerical solutions required enormous labor, and so great a number of calculations that it was difficult to get through them without substantial errors. So the anathema of the theorists and engineers was any theoretical model which could not be openly solved to give specific solutions.
All the interesting Maxwell systems, in the original theory, tend to not have closed solutions and require numerical methods to solve their equations. In other words, they had to be solved or approached with enormous hand labor, which was terrible. Further, there was (to the electrodynamicists at the time) no place in all the universe where mass was absent, because a material ether was all-pervasive. So what happened in matter was what happened in the ether. They did not differentiate between the effect and the cause, and therefore got it hopelessly confused in electrodynamics, just as it had previously been confused in mechanics.
Within 3 years of Maxwell's 1864 paper, Lorenz (without the t) regauged the equations by changing the potentials such that closed solutions could be more readily obtained. To do that, the regauging had to be symmetrical, i.e., the free new forces arising from the regauging had to sum to a vector zero resultant, because in that way the original "fields" would seemingly not be changed. (No one considered all that internal work being done on the material by those "forces that summed to zero").
Things dawdled on a bit, until H.A. Lorentz took up the equations and also symmetrically regauged them. This of course made a subset of Maxwell's theory with new equations where the variables were separated, and so analytical solutions could be found. And everyone thought the potentials were just mathematical figments anyway, having no physical reality, so that change of potential had no consequence so long as the primary force fields were not changed.
The theorists gladly jumped on the new modified Lorentz equations and accepted them. Heaviside had previously reduced the quaternion theory to vector theory, a dramatic reduction in topology of the algebra, and hence a selection of only a limited subset of Maxwell's theory. However, the vector algebra expression of this subset -- the Maxwell-Heaviside theory -- still retained Maxwellian systems which were not in thermodynamic equilibrium with their active environments (the ether in those days; the active vacuum today).
As an aside, the discard of the quaternions was also unfortunate. Tesla's circuits, e.g., cannot be understood in any algebra of lesser topology -- and that includes both tensors and vectors. Terry Barrett, one of the great electrodynamicists of our day, has already shown that fact in an important paper published in a French journal. So forget all the "analyses" of Tesla's work by the pundits; they don't know what they are speaking of, and have not used the proper tools to even see what Tesla actually was able to do.
Now the Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations selected a further subset of them. What happened is that all those Maxwellian systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their environment were just arbitrarily discarded. Well, the only Maxwellian systems permitted to exhibit overunity COP are precisely those systems Lorenz and Lorentz discarded ARBITRARILY, and that the electrodynamicists continue to arbitrarily discard.
So generations of electrodynamicists have been brainwashed into the small subset of Maxwell's theory (and Maxwellian systems) built in accord with Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the already limited Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Lorentz in fact assumed two "magic demons" (each an ASYMMETRICAL regauging and change of the energy of the system freely) carefully selected just so that the new forces were equal and opposite. In short, even though the system acquired excitation energy freely from its environment, it could not be dissipated ASYMMETRICALLY to power a load freely. Instead, all the extra energy was discharged symmetricall, and just went into stressing the system.
Today, all power systems have been built to such theoretical Lorentz-regauged models, and behave precisely in accord with SYMMETRICAL DISCHARGE OF THE EXCITATION ENERGY FREELY ADDED TO THE SYSTEM BY THE INTERCEPTION OF THE ENERGY FLOW AROUND THE CIRCUIT. That vast energy flow is extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipole.
Please read the above paragraph again. There is the long-sought reason why our EM power systems do not exhibit COP>1.0. There is also the key to what we must do to build EM power systems that DO exhibit COP>1.0.
If the source dipole were not destroyed by the circuit design, every circuit would remain self-powering once we paid to make the source dipole initially. It would be an analog to a permanent magnet or an electret; once energized, the circuit would simply collect energy from the vacuum and asymmetrically discharge it in the load.
Instead, the closed current loop circuit is universally used, and it enforces Lorentz's iron symmetrical discharge of the excitation energy.
Obviously, what we free energy researchers must do is seek out circuits which are not completely "closed current loop".
One must maintain a sense of humor. Electrodynamic theory is so badly flawed, that electrodynamicists do not even compute the field or the potential! Instead, they compute and use the reaction cross section of each, interacting with a unit point static charge at every point, and erroneously call what is collected FROM the field or potential -- upon that assumed unit point static charge -- "the field" or "the potential".
That is a non sequitur of first magnitude, and one of the greatest ironies in all of scientific history. There is not a single classical EM text in the Western world that calculates an EM potential or a field, though all purport to do so. So why are not the hundreds of thousands of physicists and electrodynamicists correcting such blatant foundations errors?
Without dwelling on it (we are preparing a separate paper on this), they also dramatically confuse the effect and the cause, and leave out half the energy, the wave, etc., by hiding it as "Newton's third law reaction" occurring without an EM cause. This is so simple and inexplicable that it has to be nominated as the greatest scientific faux pas of all time.
E.g., Newton's third law actually involves the reaction of the effect back upon the cause. It's usually demonstrated by two colliding balls. Each ball interacts upon the other. The reaction force IS NOT evidenced upon the initial ball struck by the incoming ball. Instead, it is evidenced upon the incoming ball, which is the "causative" ball with the causative energy, momentum, etc. This reaction (which is always present in nature) is missing from the causative modeling of mechanics and electrodynamics, but is present in general relativity. Indeed, in mechanics and electrodynamics, Newton's third law is evoked "mystically from on high" without any "cause" whatsoever! This of course violates the entire purview of the causal physics itself.
In every EM experiment where an incoming EM wave from space interacts with a receiving wire antenna, our instruments measure the action effect occurring in the Drude electron gas. Drude electrons cannot move lengthwise with any velocity of note, usually only at a drift velocity of a few inches per hour. But having spin, they act as gyros and precess laterally. Hence the spend most of their time and movement in lateral movement to the surface and back into the interior of the wire.
Our instruments measure that and assume that this energy in the Drude electrons was all the energy that came in, in the wave. It isn't.
At the same time, the positively charged nuclei recoil with equal energy, though with great damping because of the much greater mass per charge ratio than the Drude electrons. But with equal energy, in opposite sense.
Well, the incoming disturbance CAUSED both reactions. Any field will cause a positive charge to move in opposite direction to a negative charge, and with equal energy.
Yet every experimenter measures the electron precession, says that matches the wave, then invokes a mystical Newton demon that stands in the wire and observes the electron recoils, and kicks the nuclei precisely in the equal energy opposite direction! In short, hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers continue to ignore half the energy and half the experiment, every day. Maxwell can be excused for omitting it, because the electron, atom, and nucleus had not been discovered when he wrote his "material fluid flow" theory. In those days electric charge was just a "piece of the electric fluid" and did not at all have the connotation it does today.
So Maxwell was unaware of the actual nature of the wire's materials.
Today every experimenter will admit that the nuclei do recoil equal and oppositely -- and eerily will piously raise his eyes to heaven and evoke that mystical Newtonian demon!
Well, we can beat the demon. In a pumped phase conjugate material, the material does not recoil, no matter how powerfully pumped and no matter how powerful the emitted phase conjugate wave. That is because we tricked those "missing halves" of the EM wave in the vacuum, in the pump waves, to interact (wave to wave interaction) with the incoming wave (both halves). We prevented that missing half of the incoming "signal wave" from being split off and going to the nucleus to cause Newton's third law recoil. Instead, it was turned around and amplified, and sent back along the path taken by the signal wave, and recognized as the emitted amplified phase conjugate replica wave.
So half of electrodynamics is still missing in all our text books, half the wave in the vacuum (which actually is a pseudo-longitudinal EM wave, easily shown) is still missing, etc. We have a lot of non sequiturs in EM theory to sort out, if we are to ever develop overunity machines and a theory thereof.
Not a single EM text has ever illustrated the EM wave as it exists in spacetime before interaction with mass. Instead, the E-H 2-dimensional slice at each spatial point along the z axis is shown and "integrated". That resulting "picture" has nothing to do with what is in LLLT, since it is totally LLL. It is what occurs after observation (usually in the Drude electron gas) and thus is the effect. Further, it only exists as a frozen spatial slice of spacetime, and has absolutely no existence in time. Observation is in fact a d/dt operator, reducing LLLT to an LLL slice of it, a FROZEN slice. No 3-d object exists in time, including mass. Mass is continually changing from mass to masstime to mass to masstime, etc. in the photon interaction, but the time part of the reaction is completely ignored.
So we were all trained into believing that the so-called E-H wave actually exists in space before the interaction with mass (which actually just means before applying a d/dt operator to the LLLT form of the wave that exists in the vacuum). The E-H wave does not exist in time, hence cannot exist in spacetime Instead, what exists is the impulse wave, simplest form being Et-Ht. Plus, the usual diagram will give only half of the wave, even though you transform the axes to xt, yt, and zt and show Et-Ht.
So our problem is that electrodynamics itself is horribly fouled. After the Michelson-Morley experiments destroyed the material ether, not a single equation -- all of which assume that material ether! -- was ever changed. Instead, one day they simply announced, "Well, there is no ether, so we are not using one!" Of course it cannot be made that simple. If it has been assumed in the original model, it's still in there in those equations, regardless of what one says or what holy water one sprinkles over the equations.
The irony of all this is that almost all physicists and electrodynamicist still feel that extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum is frightfully difficult -- when in fact it is the easiest thing in the world and every electrical load is already powered by precisely such useful electromagnetic energy extracted from the vacuum!
Batteries and generators do not power loads; they just make source dipoles -- which we then design the circuits to continuously kill. The source dipole powers the loads, freely extracting energy from the vacuum by its broken symmetry in its exchange with the active vacuum. It pours out enormous energy extracted from the vacuum, pours it through the battery or generator terminals, and fills all space surrounding the external circuit with a flow of energy generally parallel to the circuit conductors. The circuit catches JUST A LITTLE BIT of the available energy flow, and uses that tiny bit and wastes all the rest.
Further, we design the power circuits and systems so that they kill their own source dipole faster than they power the load, hence exhibit COP<1.0 a priori.
It takes just as much work to MAKE a source dipole as it does to KILL one. So if the dipole is killed faster than the load is powered, we have COP <1.0 automatically.
It is indeed ironical to contemplate all that coal burned, those dams built, that oil burned, the natural gas burned, the nuclear fuel cells used, the terrible pollution of the biosphere and strangling of the living species, etc. None of that ever added a single watt to the power line, or powered a single load.
All of it was used to continuously rebuild the source dipoles that we diabolically design our circuits to destroy faster than they power their loads.
The actual "power system" portion is really the vacuum energy feeding the broken symmetry of the source dipole feeding the vast energy flow from the terminals and out through all space surrounding the circuit, with a tiny bit intercepted and used to power the loads and losses and KILL THE SOURCE DIPOLE so that the extraction of energy from the vacuum is destroyed.
Because we diabolically build that true power system to continually self-destruct, the purpose of the battery or generator is to continuously rebuild the source dipole. It serves as a transducer from the input energy (we input it to the battery in advance) to work done on the source dipole. It does nothing else. And all that combustion and nuclear reactions and hydroturbines at dams do nothing else either. None of all that mess powers the load, or is even in the actual power system itself.
As you can see, we can have overunity EM power systems, fairly quickly, whenever the scientific community will turn its head back around straight and allow the funding of all those young Ph.D.s and post-grads who would gladly revise the EM theory, the building of EM devices, etc. But sadly, today if one of them tries that, he is crucified and his career is destroyed -- by the old fogies who run the system, determine what research shall be allowed and funded, and insist that everything is flawless and perfect, and that we have a perfectly good electrodynamics theory. We don't.
And it has always been thus, as pointed out by Max Planck long ago. Basically he pointed out that the only way one gets a new physics is when the old physicists who so adamantly oppose it die off and get out of the way.
So it appears that we shall probably be forced to continuing to destroy the biosphere, while actually waiting for the old dogs in control to die off and get out of the way of the young tigers who will then solve the problem in short order.
As the French say, Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!
Very best wishes,
Dans un courrier daté du 18/03/00 00:54:58 Paris, Madrid, Tom Bearden
a écrit :
> Congratulations on publishing the successful results of the
Thank you very much for your encouragements, this give me the Force to
explore further this fascinating way. I hope that I shall soon succeed
building of a such device...
Anything news about your Charge blocking device patent ?
Dans un courrier daté du 18/03/00 00:54:58 Paris, Madrid, Tom Bearden a écrit :
> Congratulations on publishing the successful results of the
Thank you very much for your encouragements, this give me the Force to explore further this fascinating way. I hope that I shall soon succeed in the building of a such device...
Anything news about your Charge blocking device patent ?