The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Subject: RE: Lifter Research Information
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 23:05:39 -0500


Dear Tim,


Happy to receive your nice letter, and by visiting your website at  I was able to see the remarkable experimental work you have been doing.  I'm particularly impressed when researchers such as yourself also publish detailed information on exactly how to build the devices and the circuits and repeat the experiments.  So researchers wishing to test this area themselves, can in fact built a fairly inexpensive lifter and experiment with it.  They can prove for themselves that it works, and that it really doesn't fit the electrodynamics they were taught in university.  Congratulations also on your videos taken of actual tests.  I feel that this particular research with "lifter" technology is long overdue, and the conventional scientific community has been much remiss for decades in not vigorously funding research in this area. 


What I would wish is that the hard-working and dedicated experimental researchers such as yourself could be funded by the scientific community, DoE, or large nonprofit organizations,  so that a large group of determined researchers keeps digging into the phenomenology.  In any new area where things are not yet understood, it is the phenomenology and its detailed exploration that eventually leads to a breakthrough understanding of the field.  Once that happens, then good theoretical models --- and technology and engineering --- follow apace.  So in my view, what you are doing is of extraordinary importance to the development of science and particularly to the further extension of physics.  It also is the forerunner to developing actual usable technology.  If ever we really wish to explore space, we are certainly going to have to find and develop better propulsion and lifting systems than rockets!  If the nation can afford to spend 50 years and billions of dollars attempting to conquer hot fusion, and still seem to be another 50 years from it, then surely we can afford to spend 20 years and a billion or two dollars on this vital area of research with such great potential.


Also it was good to see so many fine researchers in this field!  Just to mention a few, there is Tim Ventura (yourself), Jeff Cameron, Hal Puthoff, Jean-Louis Naudin (and quite a few other fellows corresponding on his website), Woodward, Rueda, Haisch, Campbell, Ning Li (now returned to China), Podkletnov, Serrano, Kulikov, Corum, Cox, Black, and others too numerous to mention.  Also, an appreciable patenting activity has been occurring, with many patents being issued (perhaps more than 100).  Even NASA has a lifter patent assigned to it that seems to be a variation of the T. T. Brown capacitor effect.


Aside from these researchers, some distinguished theoreticians and academicians are also working in directly related areas. There are many theories or branch theories of gravity, of course.   Sachs's unified field theory -- which is engineerable by higher group symmetry electrodynamics, including SU(2)XSU(2) advocated by Barrett and O(3) advocated by Evans and Vigier -- is a case in point.  The Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS), spearheaded by Evans, has in fact published a paper on antigravity: it is M. W. Evans et al., "Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605.  Many other fine papers struggling with the problem of positive and negative gravity are also being published.


The real problem, I feel, is the hopelessness of conventional classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering with respect to this work.  E.g., the standard EE model erroneously assumes an inert vacuum and a flat local spacetime.  The inane EM model used in every electrical engineering department actually excludes every charge in the universe as an acceptable Maxwellian system.  Instead, it is unable to model or solve the "source charge problem", the fact that the charge sits there and continuously pours out real, measurable EM energy in all directions in 3-space, with absolutely no observable EM energy input.  In short, the classical EM model and electrical engineering assume that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy out of nothing, continuously, and pouring it out.  The solution to that problem has been called the "most difficult problem" in quantal and classical electrodynamics (Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.).   Yet the basis for its solution has been in particle physics for 45 years, with the award of the Nobel prize to Lee and Yang in 1957.  One of the things proved by Wu et al. in early 1957, when they proved Lee and Yang's strong 1957 prediction of broken symmetry, is the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as are on the opposite ends of any dipole.  Take an "isolated charged particle", for example.  As is well-known, it is clustered around by virtual charges of opposite charges in the vacuum -- the well-known polarization of the vacuum.  That effect has to be accounted for, since it shields part of the charge and the magnitude of the charge that is observed is dramatically different from the magnitude of the "bare" charge if there were no such shielding.  Now take a differential piece of the observable charge, and pair it with any of those virtual charges of opposite sign.  Voila!  The "isolated charge" is a set of composite dipoles, so it is a set of broken symmetries.   This means rigorously that it continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transduced it into real observable photons, and pours them out at the speed of light in all directions in 3-space, creating the associated fields and potentials and their energy, eventually reaching across all space.  That is the solution to this "most difficult problem" in electrodynamics.  We published that solution in 2000.  (Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98.  Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  Also carried on DoE restricted website and  Later we uncovered very powerful support of that proposed solution, from quantum field theory and a slight reinterpretation (slight correction) of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential.  The charge is therefore a special kind of system continuously extracting real, usable EM energy from the vacuum.  So is every dipole, including the source dipole formed between the dipoles of a battery or generator.


Now we can understand how every generator and battery already pours out enormously more energy than the shaft energy input to the generator or the chemical energy available to the battery, as Heaviside discovered, Poynting never considered, and Lorentz arbitrarily discarded.


It also means that there is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even teaches what powers and electrical circuit or the power grid. It isn't the tranducing the shaft energy input to the generator or the chemical energy available to the battery.  All that burning of hydrocarbons, use of nuclear fuel cells, building of dams and windmills, of itself does not directly place a single joule of energy on the power line.  Instead, all that mess just makes the dipole --- that the standard closed current loop circuit destroys faster than the circuit can power its external load. So we have to keep destroying and polluting the biosphere, ruining the planet, etc. just to keep restoring the dipoles in our primary power generators etc., while the engineers happily design the systems to keep destroying those dipoles faster than they can use some of the extracted vacuum energy to power their loads.


Also, by assuming a flat local spacetime, the EE model assumes there can be no change in the energy density of the vacuum --- falsified by every EM wave, potential, and field.  If rigorously applied to itself, the model -- with Lorentz symmetrical regauging --- "eats itself" and is an oxymoron.  The easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy  --- enormous amounts in a continuous great flow --- anywhere in the universe.  Just make a little dipole or charge up something.  That's it.  The only problem is to intercept some of the freely flowing energy, collect it in a circuit, and then dissipate it in a load without using half the collected energy to destroy the source dipole that is gushing forth the EM energy extracted from the vacuum.


The electrical engineer's Lorentz-regauged model forbids any open EM system far from equilibrium with an active environment (the local active vacuum and the local curvatures of spacetime).  Consequently, it forbids every electrical charge and magnetic pole.  But it also assumes that all the EM energy processed comes from those very source charges.  I.e., it is therefore an oxymoron.  This is also part of the problem that has prevented practical electrogravitation.  The huge extra Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component is not accounted and not used, but just wasted.


For example, Laithwaite published a paper pointing out the implications of the extra energy flow term in Heaviside's energy flow theory.  As you know, Heaviside and Poynting independently and simultaneously discovered EM energy flow, in the 1880s after Maxwell was deceased.  It is known that, from the terminals of a generator (from the source dipolarity, once created), there pours out a continuous stream of EM energy flow, filling all space around the conductors of the external circuit.  Poynting's theory considered only that component of this external energy flow that is intercepted by the external circuit and diverged into the conductors to power the Drude electrons.  Heaviside, on the other hand, included not only that "caught" component, but also included the remaining component that is not intercepted by the external circuit, but misses it and is wasted.  The wasted energy flow is orders of magnitude greater than the energy flow caught.  However, this meant that from every generator there already pours out far more EM energy than the amount of mechanical shaft energy input to the generator --- and that is indeed true.  Since no one could explain what could possibly be furnishing such a torrent of excess energy, obviously there was a bit of a problem with the law of energy conservation as it was understood at the time.  Since then, the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as the opposite charges on the ends of the source dipole, once formed between the generator terminals --- has been proven in particle physics.  In short, now it is known (in particle physics, not electrical engineering) that the source dipole, once formed, continually absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) it into real observable photons, and pours out that torrent of real, observable photon energy streaming from those generator terminals.  This is the solution to the problem that so puzzled Heaviside and so vexed Lorentz, goading him into creating a neat little trick to get rid of the problem itself.


Unable to solve the problem of the source of that enormous EM energy flow from the terminals of every generator or battery, H.A. Lorentz, who understood the work of both Heaviside and Poynting, reasoned that the excess nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component had "no physical significance" since it did not power anything.  So Lorentz integrated the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around any volume element of interest.  This little trick arbitrarily and neatly disposed of all accountability of the bothersome Heaviside component, while retaining and accounting the Poynting energy flow component. All EM textbooks and electrical engineering to this day repeat Lorentz's integration trick, and dutifully (and arbitrarily) dismiss that Heaviside component.  It is still present in every field/charge reaction and outside every electrical circuit, since the Bohren experiment proves its existence, and is readily replicated at any proper university laboratory.  So the irony is that electrodynamics and electrical engineering -- as they are still being taught in university --- arbitrarily dismiss this very large nondiverged, nonreacting component of EM energy surrounding every field/particle reaction.  Even the EM fields are misdefined in terms of what is diverged or wrenched out of them -- a gross non sequitur.  My point is that every EM interaction involves far greater EM energy than is presently accounted for, since Lorentz discarded that huge Heaviside non-diverged component.


In honor of Heaviside, I have nominated that very large unaccounted Heaviside component as what is responsible for the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together --- as a solution to the "dark matter and then dark energy" problem. (Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.)


Heaviside eventually realized in his latter hermit years --- spent in a little garret apartment -- that his extra energy flow component (which flowed in closed loops, in his theory) had gravitational significance.  After his death, thieves ransacked his little garret apartment.  Later, beneath the floorboards where he had stowed his draft notes, there were found handwritten papers by Heaviside, developing his theory of unified electrogravitation, with that extra component of energy now converted to a gravitational component.  See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside --- establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.  Laithwaite felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of electrogravitational energy combines with the (E´H) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics.


This is interesting and possibly of great significance, because of the tremendous magnitude of that long-neglected excess energy flow component.


In addition to publishing a paper on the potential significance of Heaviside's gravitational work, Laithwaite even suggested that Newton's laws of motion might be in trouble.  A presentation of this work to the Royal Institution in 1973 and a demonstration using a heavy gyroscope to prove it to the assembled Royal Institution members, led to the rather abrupt curtailment of Laithwaite's rising career.  During the lecture he simply showed them that a very heavy gyroscope, difficult to lift when not turning, could be lifted easily with one hand when turning at speed.  Anyone could try it for himself.  For the first time in its 200 year history, the Royal Institution did not publish a proceedings of an invited discourse --- that one by Laithwaite in 1973. Laithwaite's rise toward grander things was ended.   


In 1970 Laithwaite had also completed and delivered a working model of a device that continuously moved itself with "indefinite motion", using a linear motor primary rolled into a cylinder to form the stator of a motor.  Laithwaite showed that, under the proper circumstances, a steel washer (a little over an inch in diameter) could be made to roll continuously in a vertical plane around the inside of the stator.  Somehow, a combination of centrifugal force and magnetic attraction (and the ever-present force of gravity) maintained the washer in contact with the stator at all times.  The little washer would roll indefinitely and continuously.   This working model was delivered by Laithwaite to the Centennial Center of Science & Technology in Ontario.  So far as I am aware, no one ever tried to analyze Laithwaite's successful experiment in terms of a unified field theory.  We know that Laithwaite worked on sophisticated gyroscopic systems for the latter years of his life, finally achieving a mass transfer effect of some kind.  He and William Dawson obtained a patent in 1995, with a U.S. patent following in 1999.  Sadly, Professor Laithwaite died in 1997.  We recall that Laithwaite was for some years a professor at the Imperial College in London, one of the pioneers of the linear electric motor, and also pioneered portions of the MagLev (magnetic levitation) train concept.  I had the pleasure of meeting him once, many years ago, at the Imperial College.


A while back, I also visited Transdimensional Technologies here in Huntsville, where I spoke to the Chief Scientist Jeff Cameron and his team.  One can see their website at Jeff kindly came in from a day of vacation, and he and his team gave Ken Moore and I some very good demonstrations of the lifter technology and their rotor technology as well.  I was able to examine the equipment, etc. and can personally vouch that this experimentation is for real.  Pictures of the rotor device and the simple lifter are posted on the website.  The rotor was tested in vacuum, to prove it is not an ion wind effect.  Jeff made me acquainted with NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Program (BPP), established in 1996, which has had very limited funding for some research in this area and really should be given greater funding and greater priority.  I believe that program, or what is left of it, is still managed by the Glenn Research Center, sponsored by the Advanced Space Transportation Program, with its overall management by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center here in Huntsville, Alabama. The BPP has sponsored some important research, and for example the myth that the lifters could work by ion wind effects has been disproved.  Apparently two or more conferences have been held under the auspices of the BPP each year, with papers given and experimental results presented.  The real problem in the area seems to be that no one yet has a truly viable theory, although several have been advanced, at least tentatively.  Cameron and team are now working on what I would call "second generation" equipment and techniques, have filed several more patents, and expect to be into practical lift vehicles in about five years.


To finish things off, I visited Jean-Louis Naudin's website, where a remarkable collection of photos, videos, information, etc. on lifter technology is given at .   All in all, I spent quite some time on the web, visiting some other sites as well, in "catching up" to what has been going on in this field.


All this and my visit to your website vividly brought back memories of the antigravity experiment I designed and convinced Floyd Sweet to perform back in 1984, following a theory I had had since Georgia Tech in 1971.  That experiment worked beautifully, but it absolutely depended upon access to a COP>>1.0 EM power system.  The COP of Sweet's device was 1,500,000 and it had to be pushed to nearly double that.   But the experiment did reduce the weight of an object (the power device) on the bench by 90%, at a power level of 1,000 watts.  In my view, it proved my theory of antigravity, but of course that still remains to be seen.  Eventually we published a paper on the device that included that experiment, which paper is Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.  I wrote the paper, but placed Sweet's name first, which was appropriate since he invented the VTA (vacuum triode amplifier) being used to perform the experiment with a new output section I convinced him to make.  Unfortunately, much of the secret of how Sweet activated his barium ferrite magnets into such powerful self-oscillation was lost when Sweet later died.


So I was delighted to hear from you and receive the photos.  I'll ask Tony to post this correspondence on the website in the correspondence section, and also post the photos for all to see.  Those persons interested in further information can visit your website, that of Transdimensional Technologies, and Naudin's website and find reams of additional important information, experimental results, ongoing work and investigations, etc.


It is my hope that philanthropic wealthy persons and well-heeled non-profit institutions will recognize the importance of such research, and that funding will be made available to you fellows to continue this vital work.


Very best wishes,


Tom Bearden

Subject: Lifter Research Information


Dear Tom:


I've been involved with Antigravity and Electrogravity research for nearly ten years, and I've recently brought that experience to bear on the Lifter project. My involvement with the Lifter project has been primarily aimed at experimental research and the commercialization of this technology. Although there is a wealth of new physics involved with this technology, so many others are involved with understanding the physics that  my skills are better utilized in building and improving on the existing designs for this technology.


I am the designer and webmaster of the American Antigravity website, at The focus of this site is to conduct experimental research into commercializing lifter technology by improving the size, payload, and performance of the current first-generation Lifter technology. While many others are working on making the Lifter more technologically advanced, I am working primarily on making it bigger utilizing existing technologies.


Lifter technology offers not only a realistic approach to solid-state propulsion-systems design, but also offers an array of associated benefits that are only beginning to reveal themselves. The Lifter is a self-stabilizing device, and tends to resist outside motion from wind and environmental forces-- that is a big advantage when compared to current aerospace vehicles that are at the mercy of prevailing winds and the elements. The Lifter also has a very high specific impulse, which in experimental terms means that it tends to take off very rapidly during operation.


I am one of the most experienced Lifter-builders in the United States at this point, as I built nearly 30 lifters at this time. I have many hours of experiece working with this technology, which I use to help educate others as to how they can successfully replicate these experiments. I also make a point of documenting my work so that video and notes on it may be available to the public through my website.


Please visit my website at for additional information -- and if you like the site, please recommend it to a few friends.




Tim Ventura