The Tom Bearden
From: "Tom Bearden"
To: (world renowned vacuum energy scientist)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:07:02 -0500
(Name deleted)One of Bedini's little devices (battery, controller/switcher, little electric motor with about 40% efficiency) once ran for two years straight. I personally saw it run for an entire day at one time without a hand touching it, with the battery almost "discharged" to begin with. It was still running the next day, and the next day, for the duration of my trip time there with John. The motor was the load, of course, and the negative resistor was being created right there in the battery, on the plates interfacing between the confined ion currents in the battery electrolyte and the external electron currents. Several persons (Nelson, Watson, Cole, etc.) did succeed in building similar working COP devices with negative resistors created inside the battery, along those lines or some variant of them, after working with John to see the methodology.
If you do not have the two papers that IC-2000 is publishing on this, I will be happy to send them to you. I'm cutting the first one (which was a letter to Jerry Decker and is posted on his website) into a paper format now, to send quickly to IC-2000 as they wish to publish it also.
Any potential is bidirectional. Simply set it in the middle of a transmission line, and watch it go both ways at once. So you can push currents in opposite directions simultaneously, by a "static" potential placed in the middle of them. But you need to isolate the currents from each other, ideally, and you need to "fix" that potential there at the interface.
The potential is also a multivectorial bidirectional entity (Whittaker 1903), and not a "scalar" entity at all. This has just been ignored (inexplicably!) during the nearly a century after Whittaker showed it magnificently, extending earlier work by Stoney.
Classical EM -- particularly the type used by electrical engineers to design and build EM power systems -- does not even include the vacuum interaction, but still assumes its systems are in equilibrium, sitting there on the bench and running. Heck, for nearly half a century it's been proven in particle physics that there can be no symmetry (i.e., equilibrium) for any mass system unless the vacuum interaction is included. So just look at the thing sitting there complacently and operating, and THAT VERY CONDITION proves its ongoing interaction with and symmetry with the vacuum flux. Else we will have to discard quite a lot of particle physics! So why has modern classical EM theory adamantly refuse to incorporate such knowledge now a half century old, and that has been proven for that long (couple Nobel Prizes awarded for the broken symmetry work etc. also)???
So long as we continue to use a Lorentz regauged classical EM theory (see the rigorous AIAS work on this, primarily by Evans, which is carried on a DOE website), then rigorously we are designing our EM systems to SYMMETRICALLY discharge their excitation energy (free regauging energy provided by a negative resistor dipole!); every electrodynamicist already assumes that the energy of any Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will; that's what regauging the equations MEANS, for goodness sakes, and in electrodynamics regauging is as simply as applying excess voltage alone, electrostatically and without work!).
In particle physics, it is well-known (again for nearly 50 years) that every dipole or dipolarity is a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux. Period. Well, look at the very definition of broken symmetry, while also mentally conceiving the vacuum interaction back into being with that circuit you are hopefully considering. This means that any dipole or potential (actually, it's a potential difference, therefore a dipolarity) in that cottonpicking circuit is a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux exchange with that circuit. It's a BROKEN SYMMETRY, for goodness sakes! It's a DIPOLARITY, for goodness sakes!
Aha! Now that in turn means that ANY "broken symmetry" dipole in the circuit is continuously receiving disordered, virtual energy from the vacuum, but a fraction of the dipole's "collected, absorbed" energy is re-ordered by the dipole and is re-radiated as OBSERVABLE EM energy flow. If that were NOT TRUE, then there could be no broken symmetry in the vacuum flux. And there could be no EM power system in the world that sits there in place and complacently operates. Note that classical EM implicitly ASSUMES the system equilibrium without the vacuum exchange, which is simply false.
And that broken symmetry function is the classic definition of a negative resistor, in ordinary EM jargon. In other words, it is not difficult to extract EM energy from the vacuum or to build a true, guaranteed, bonafide, certified negative resistor at will. Extracting vacuum energy as usable electrical energy is the simplest thing in all the world.
This means that true negative resistors -- gobs and gobs of them -- are and always have been used universally in all EM circuits. In fact, they power all circuits and all parts of them. Period. With energy extracted directly from the vacuum.
The rigorous proof for all that has been there n particle physics, both theoretically and experimentally, for a half century! So where the hell have the electrodynamicists been? Back there 136 years ago with Maxwell's equations (1864 oral delivery, 1865 publication) and after that with Lorenz (1867) and then Lorentz (before 1902, probably well before) reduction of the Maxwell equations to a much-reduced subset. In short, Lorenz and Lorentz ARBITRARILY discarded all overunity EM systems, which ARE included magnificently in Maxwell's work, and also ARE still remaining in the Maxwell-Heaviside equations prior to Lorentz regauging.
We simply got tired of arguing with U.S. scientists who do not even believe the vacuum to be active, but consider it electromagnetically inert (you had some little pains with that mindset also, I believe!). So we went to the Russians, and they are going to publish the basis for the entire thing. Including how to do it in a battery so that any lab that wishes to can replicate it right there on the bench. This latter has already been published in letter form by Jerry Decker on his website.
Even a casual competent reflection reveals that the shaft energy we input to the generator and the chemical energy dissipated in the battery do NOTHING to power the external circuit! Just look at where the work has to be done, and you have where the input or available internal energy is expended. It's expended right there on the internal charges, to force the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other, and thereby make that dipole/negative resistor.
But here CEM abandons us. It implicitly would have us believe that the charges in that dipole freely CREATE FROM NOTHING all that energy in the fields and potentials from those charges. That's the grossest advocacy of perpetual motion machines I've every heard of; regarding the charged mass as a system in equilibrium, but also creating energy out of nothing. And it completely ignores what particle physics found out about it a half century ago. They just adamantly refused to change the terribly flawed decrepit old U(1) electrodynamics, and they are still refusing to do so and castigating those highly competent scientists who try.
So all the coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear fuel rods are consumed just to do work inside the generator to form that dipole. If the environmentalists REALLY wish to comprehend why the environment is being destroyed, let them examine why the old CEM errors are so stoutly defended, and what is funding all that to be the prevailing dogma of science. Unfortunately in my limited experience the environmentalists are very na´ve in science, and believe that MIT and UCLA etc. scientists already know all the answers. They don't. In fact they play the major roles in suppressing the modernization of that crazy, decrepit old EM theory that keeps all those coal trains and oil tanker fleets and nuclear power stations going, to furnish electricity -- every watt of which is extracted freely from the vacuum by the source dipole anyway, not from all that coal and oil and nuclear fuel rods producing energy.
Well, the conventional closed current loop design -- so long as the current remains overall unitary between external circuit and internal battery ion currents or back emf generator currents, as it is treated universally -- guarantees that the "free" excitation energy (regauging energy) in the external circuit is discharged SYMMETRICALLY so that Lorenz and Lorentz will remain happy in their graves (and the High Cabal remains happy with its giant destruction of the biosphere and enormous profits). In short, it guarantees that half the free energy (extracted from the vacuum by that dipole, once formed, and poured out by the dipole extending its fields and potentials and energies through the generator or battery terminals) captured by the circuit will be dissipated in destroying the source dipole itself by scattering its charges. That's why electron for electron from the external circuit is pumped back through the back emf of the source dipole. The other half of the free regauging energy of the circuit is dissipated in the external loads and losses. Automatically that means less than half the free energy is dissipated in the load, and half is dissipated to kill the source dipole and shut off any further extraction of energy from the vacuum by that said dipole.
So the idiots keep designing systems that kill their extraction and collection of vacuum energy faster than they power their loads.
It is absolutely inexplicable why highly educated and knowledgeable scientists keep perpetuating such a century-old monstrosity, and not further examining the exact mechanisms going on, in light of knowledge gained during that 100 years. Tesla called it the most inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind ever recorded in a history, and I think he may have understated the case! Else how can one explain hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.'s continuing to study, perpetuate, and teach this terrible mess all their lives?
Anyway, now we have at least made them aware (at least a few of them, the few who are not immediately up in arms with ad hominem arguments and character assassination, while absolutely disregarding the specific premises advanced) that every dipole, dipolarity, and potential difference is a true negative resistor, and that electrical energy extracted from the vacuum is the easiest thing in all the world to get, and that all electrical circuits have been powered by vacuum energy since the beginning and still are.
All one has to do to get to that conclusion is simply put back in the active vacuum exchange with a circuit. That's it. All the rest falls right out of there, if you insist that what is proven true in electrodynamics in particle physics must also hold true in classical electrodynamics itself.
It seems that we have built up a vast, incredible hierarchy and bureaucracy completely incapable of dealing with such a simple notion as the fact that nature does not make something true in particle physics but turn around and falsify it in CEM. It isn't nature, but our own "heads screwed on backwards" that is the problem.
Anyway, thanks for the kind offer. This is totally Bedini's invention, and not mine. I've just tried as best I can to explain it in the proper physics terms and concepts, so that real theorists can now take it from there. But they cannot just apply the old tired CEM; they will have to add in the vacuum interaction with Maxwellian circuits, and all this entails.
Hence that's why we went to the Russians. For one thing, they've been the world's greatest nonlinear scientists from the beginning, and still are. Also, they are not "hung up" quite as much on dogma, but are capable of dealing with any kind of novel suggestion or notion.
So I requested from Klyushin a rigorous examination of the premises by qualified Russian scientists. I have just received the first reply, that he personally finds it valid, and their analysis supports it. I expect further more detailed comments from them soon.
Meanwhile, I'm recutting the letter into the semblance of a paper, and they also will be publishing that one in IC-2000.
We also are greatly proclaiming that an instrumentation system, designed by proper electrochemists, is needed so that one can measure inside the battery the ion currents, overpotentials, etc. That way one can observe both currents, see exactly when one dephases them by the bidirectionally of the negative resistor overpotential formed on the plates, and thereby simply watch the load be powered by electrons while the battery is being recharged, and in both functions excess energy from the vacuum has been collected on the ions and on the electrons, resulting in a COP>1.0 open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium in its energetic exchange with the active vacuum.
<g> And I would hope that's right down ol' Hal Puthoff's alley! That cat already knows about all that asymmetry of the dipoles and knows that the enormous vacuum energy is there.
Cheers and best wishes,