The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: Questions on the nature of collectors.
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:32:06 -0500

Dear RDG, 

Forget all that stuff.  Okay, you are not convinced until you build a successful free energy system that will extract EM energy from the vacuum, freely, and guaranteed. You can do it for $1.

 Get a parallel plate capacitor and a permanent magnet and charge up the capacitor.

 Now lay the capacitor on the magnet so that the E-field of the magnet is at right angles to the H-field of the capacitor.  That's it.  You just made a guaranteed, certified (even by the normal electrical engineering taught in university) free energy machine.  That silly thing will sit there and pour out EM energy flow S = f(E X H) as long as you leave it alone, or until the charge of the capacitor finally leaks off.  Use an electret instead of a capacitor, and 15 years from now it will still be freely pouring out real EM energy.  Even in the first year, the energy flow in all directions will have reached across a volume of space that is a light-year in radius --- out well beyond the solar system.  That first year alone, you changed the ambient energy density of the vacuum in that great volume of space by a little.  The amount of energy that poured out of that magnet and capacitor in one year is mind-boggling, but real.  And it will still be going.  Note that every charge in the universe has a magnetic field due to its spin, and also an E-field.  The two are also at right angles. So every charge is a fine little Poynting generator all its own, even by the standard theory.  They just can't figure out where the energy comes from, because their model excludes the active vacuum and its continuous energetic exchange with every charge and dipole.

 The standard Poynting energy flow theory used by all electrical engineers and electrical engineering departments assures you that this energy flow from E X H  is true.  E.g.:

 Quoting Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44:

"[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.

 You see, there is no problem at all in extracting all the EM energy from the vacuum that you wish.  Anywhere in the universe, anytime, for peanuts.  Never has been, never will be.  Every charge and every dipole in the universe already does that easily and continuously.  Those charges and dipoles in the original matter of the universe have been steadily pouring out EM energy freely and continuously for some 14 billion years.

 The electrical power engineering boys and the classical EM model they use consider the source charge problem (i.e., the problem of every charge steadily pouring out EM energy in 3-space in all directions, without any observable energy being input to it) to be the most difficult unsolved problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics.

 To confirm it, here's a quote from D.K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.  Quoting: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

 At the time Sen wrote that way back in 1968, the basis for the solution to where the input energy comes from, and how it gets absorbed by the charge and changed into real observable EM energy, had already been discovered and proven in particle physics for 9 years, as evidenced by the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for the discovery of broken symmetry.  One of the broken symmetries so proven is the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as on the opposite ends of a common dipole.  Or for a single "isolated" charge, just go to quantum mechanics and consider that any observable isolated charge in space is actually clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign.  Take a differential piece of the observable charge, and one of those virtual charges of opposite sign, and voila!  You have a composite dipole.  So the "single charge" can be considered as just a set of composite dipoles, each of which has a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual particle flux of the vacuum.

 So what does this "broken symmetry" of the opposite charges of a dipole actually mean?

 Rigorously it means that the dipole continually absorbs unusable (virtual) EM energy from the seething vacuum, integrates it coherently into observable photons, and re-emits those observable real photons in all directions.

 I pointed all this out in 2000, citing the necessary references.  Lee and Yang showed the basis for it in 1956-57 (and it was experimentally proven by Wu et al. in 1957).  So revolutionary a change to all of physics was that discovery of broken symmetry, that the Nobel Committee awarded Lee and Yang the Nobel Prize in December of that same year, 1957 in a nearly unprecedented action.

 Now wouldn't it be nice and proper if the staid old electrical engineering departments and professors would simply change their woefully inadequate and highly simplified model to incorporate what has already been proven in particle physics, now 45 years ago?  They haven't, and they have no intention of changing it if they can help it.  Mention EM energy from the vacuum to the average EE department, and you get snickers and snide remarks.  Sadly, they do not even realize what has already been proven in particle physics.

 So the only problem in the energy crisis is how to intercept and catch some of that freely flowing Poynting energy, once you make a silly dipole or simply assemble some charge and get a free ever-lasting gusher of EM energy pouring out in all directions.  You must intercept and collect some of the energy, then dissipate it in a load, WITHOUT using half of the collected energy to destroy that dipole (that free gusher of EM energy).

 Well, here the electrical engineers grab us again and destroy any chance at getting that power meter off your house of that gas meter at the gas pump where you fuel your car.  They use the ubiquitous closed loop circuit as if Moses brought it down from the mountain as the 11th commandment, forcibly passing all the spent electrons from the external circuit back through the source dipole formed in the generator (or battery).  That stupid circuit --- unless interrupted and altered appropriately during the processing of the collected energy --- GUARANTEES that half the EM energy collected by the external circuit is used to do nothing but destroy that dipole and shut off the energy flow.  That's called the "Lorentz symmetrical regauging" condition, and it automatically discards all COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems since the mid 1880s.  Those discarded systems are indeed covered in Maxwell's original 1865 theory. 

 The other half of the collected energy in the external circuit is dissipated in the loads and losses of the external circuit.  So less gets dissipated in the load as useful work, than is used to destroy the source dipole by scattering its charges.

 Well, it takes as much EM energy to RESTORE the source dipole as it took to DESTROY it (standard electrodynamics).  So even in a perfect generator, you have to put back in as much mechanical shaft energy to the generator as was used to destroy the dipole --- so the mechanical input energy can be transduced into magnetic energy inside the generator, and then the magnetic energy can be dissipated upon the internal charges inside the generator and between its terminals to force those opposite charges back apart again and restore the source dipole and the energy flow from the vacuum again.

 Our electrical power engineers are taught to build and use only those circuits that destroy their source dipoles faster than they power their loads.

 So we pay the power company to have a giant wrestling match inside its generators and lose, thanks to the electrical engineering departments and the U.S. scientific community.  With energy friends like that, who needs energy enemies?

 The ONLY energy problem there ever has been is working out how to use that free energy collected in the external circuit in a different fashion from that of the standard closed current loop circuit.  It must be used in such a fashion that more of the collected energy is dissipated in the load than is dissipated in the source dipole in the generator to destroy it.  That's the only energy problem. There are at least three or four dozen ways of going about developing such systems that violate the standard closed current loop circuit only approach.  If the same scientific community would fund it and make it a priority, and if the electrical engineering departments would assign some of their sharp young grad students and post docs to the problem, then in 2 years or less there would never again be an electrical energy problem anywhere on earth.  But to do that, and keep the dinosaurs from destroying the careers of the young fellows interested in the problem, either the mindset of the entire scientific community has to change, or we have to wait until the dinosaurs die off and get out of the way -- to put it straight as pointed out by Max Planck so long ago.

 So obviously no electrical engineering department, professor, or electrodynamicist is working on the only real electrical energy problem.  Neither is the DoE, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, etc.  The present scientific community is the problem, not nature, and not oil, and not dams, and not windmills, and not burning hydrocarbons, and not nuclear power plants.

 If you need an experiment, I suggest you go to the nonlinear optics department of your university and get them to help you reproduce the Bohren experiment I cite in many papers.  It outputs 18 times as much energy as you input, every time.  It's also a validated experiment, having been independently reproduced and published.  It's in the hard literature, and it's doable by any nonlinear optics group at university with access to the lab.

 As far as the use of greatly increased relaxation time of the electrons:  We never were able to do that actual experiment, although the basis for all its parts is already proven and in the literature.  I do know that it was clandestinely done later, but am not at liberty to discuss that aspect of it.  The reason we did not do it that you have to have a metallurgical lab make the special Fe-doped Al alloy.  It has to be made in an inert atmosphere, and it takes a metallurgical lab to make it.  The labs will make you some if you bring lots of money.  We never were able to afford it.  But if you wish to do it, then by all means do not question the experiment, but just go ahead and do it as it is stated and laid out.  But first do some homework on the subject of electron gas relaxation in different materials.    And yes, you need the conductors made of that alloy. 

 All this is in my papers and material on the website and elsewhere.  All the necessary references are cited.  In any of these areas, if there is something that you don't understand --- e.g., Drude electron gas relaxation time in a conductor in a circuit -- then you must read up on that subject.  Or, if you have a knowledgeable an helpful professor who is already knowledgeable in that subject area, simply ask him to explain it to you in detail.  Also, Internet searches using google etc. are increasingly of excellent use in such matters, because the universities etc. worldwide are increasingly putting technical material on the net where it is openly available.

 Another device that will work and can be built from the patent alone is the Kawai motor, if you (1) start with a high efficiency (O.7 or 0.8) magnetic motor to begin with, and (2) use very efficient switching, which means photo-optical coupled, and (3) get the necessary machining done to accurately apply the "gear tooth" alignment flux path switching approach patented by Kawai.  You can then expect to produce a COP that is double the efficiency of the motor.  Remember, the efficiency remains the same and always underunity, but the COP is free to change and go overunity if the environment itself inputs some of the energy.  Kawai effectively captures the back mmf energy and uses it, so therefore doubles the energy available to use.  So you can get a 1.4 or 1.6 system that way, if you can get the high efficiency motor, the machining to install the Kawai flux switching gearing arrangements, and then do the electronic switching.

 Good luck to you and good experimenting.

 Tom Bearden

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:46:14 +0100
Subject: Questions on the nature of collectors.

Hi. I've been reading your website, especially your '93 paper "The
Final Secret Of Free Energy", and - though still skeptical - I'm
convinced enough to invest time and money in reproducing your results.
I just have a few questions regarding construction of the method
described in your paper.

1) Why must the wires connecting the battery to the collector be made
of the same material as the collector? The battery's contacts
will be made of metals with low relaxation time, so surely that's
unnecessary. Is it simply that everything that is switched between the
two circuits must be in a state in which electrons cannot flow whilst
the switching takes place, or must the connections from the battery to
the switches also be DSC material?

2) Where might I find a list of materials and their relaxation times?

3) Where might I acquire aforesaid materials or alloys?

4) Apart from the collector, are there any specialized restrictions on
the circuit? Might the battery be a simple AA battery and the load a
simple light bulb or motor?

I'm an 18-year old student of Computer Science at Bristol University,
in England. I might be able to avail myself of the facilities in other
departments, perhaps by interesting the researchers with access to
these facilities in the idea, but I sincerely doubt it... so I'll have
to get the materials myself.

If I can prove to myself that a violation of thermodynamics under CEM
is possible, I'm willing to dedicate myself to designing, publicizing
and manufacturing overunity devices, simply because of the implications
of the technology.

RDG , Science 01