The Tom Bearden Website Help support the research

 Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:45:16 -0500   v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Dear Malcolm,   The assumption that an object or physical system cannot start moving through space from an internal force produced inside the system is based on Newton's third law; that for every action there is a reaction.   What is usually assumed is that the reaction force is equal and opposite to the action force, but this is rigorously true only in a flat spacetime.  In Newton's time, general relativity and curved spacetime were not yet conceived or known.  The Newtonian flat spacetime assumption is usually good for the vast majority of ordinary applications and situations.   However, more rigorously the production of an internal force involves producing a curvature of spacetime acting upon a mass.  The production of its opposite and equal reaction force (internal) also involves producing a curvature of spacetime acting upon that mass.   If the overall spacetime where these two forces exist has a net curvature, i.e., if the two spacetime curvatures that produce the action force and its reaction force are not equal in magnitude, then the internal force and its reaction force are not equal and opposite. That is a general relativistic situation in a net curved spacetime, so then there does exist a net unilateral force on the vehicle.   This is more easily seen when one envisions the time flowing at a different rate for the internal action force than for the internal reaction force.  The two impulses then (force x time) are unequal.  This results in a net force (thrust) of the vehicle vis a vis the local curved spacetime.   In that case, the object can indeed move unilaterally to a generated internal force, in such a curved spacetime, by creating unbalanced internal forces judiciously.   It is also true that all 3-space energy enters 3-space at a given point, from the time dimension, and then exits back to the time dimension. What we call "propagation of energy through 3-space" does not and cannot exist.  3-space along is totally static; without a time dimension, everything is frozen and is a single frozen snapshot (observation) of something ongoing in 4-space, by introducing the operator d/dt(LLLT) = LLL.  No observable exists in time a priori, since time is not observable, even in theory.   What we call "propagation of energy through 3-space" is actually the propagation of that 4-circulation in 4-space, with us seeing iterative 3-space "frozen snapshots" called "observations" of the object.  Precisely like a "motion picture" where we think we see motion, but actually see only an iterative series of changes of frozen 3-space snapshots.   Except for extraordinarily powerful EM fields, the normal EM fields do not produce sufficient gravity or antigravity (curvatures of spacetime) to be practical at all. To be practical, enormously more energy density in spacetime is required than in normal EM fields alone.  However, that can be achieved when one realizes that the present EM field theory has been grossly distorted.  Specifically, a field from a source charge is actually a flow of EM energy from that charge, and since fields are actually misdefined as what gets diverged from them by a unit point static charge, what is usually called the "field" of the source charge is only the Poynting diverged component that flows from the source charge.  I.e., it is the component of the energy flow that is in a linear form and can be diverged by intercepting/diverging charges.  In addition to that linear Poynting component of flow, there is an enormously larger circuital (non-diverging) Heaviside component of the flow that usually does not interact with anything, and thus was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz on the grounds that "it has no physical significance" because it doesn't do anything.   However, there are ways to intercept that circuital flow; the Bohren experiment (negative resonance absorption of the medium) is one.  That type experiment is done in all nonlinear optic labs routinely, and results in the emission of some 18 times as much EM energy from the medium as one inputs to the medium in one's Poynting component.  One actually also inputs a very large Heaviside unaccounted component as well, of course --- energy is conserved in the Bohren experiment, but only if one accounts the Heaviside circuital flow component (which can be a trillion times as great in magnitude as the Poynting component's magnitude).   Discarding the Heaviside component freed the electrodynamicists from having to face the awful truth that every generator or battery (or other power source) actually outputs about a trillion times as much energy as we input to the silly shaft of the generator or dissipate as chemical energy in the battery.  But almost all that output is in the Heaviside circuital form, and usually does not interact with much of anything.  Good thing!  Else just to take a flashlight battery into New York City would fry the entire city (if all that Heaviside energy flow component interacted).   Practical antigravity is achieved by using the Dirac sea 4-hole (the negative energy 4-electron) in the vacuum (in spacetime itself) as a "source charge" BEFORE it interacts with mass to form a positron.  The positron has positive mass-energy and positive energy fields.  The 4-hole has negative mass-energy and negative energy fields. When one adds the Heaviside component to the fields (the component discarded by Lorentz circa 1890s), then the negative energy EM fields with their enormous extra negative energy component can and do accomplish curvature of the local spacetime in the negative sense, resulting in antigravity rather than gravity.   To use such practical antigravity, one must first produce Dirac Sea holes that do not quickly interact, but that persist for awhile.  That way its negative energy fields and their giant Heaviside components persist for awhile, accomplishing powerful antigravitational curvature of local spacetime.  That locally curved spacetime acts upon the vehicle or power system producing the source 4-holes, thereby producing force that is opposite in direction from the normal gravitational force.  When the AG-force equals the G-force, hovering exists.  When the AG-force exceeds the G-force, levitation occurs.   By "inclining" the levitation force, a forward thrust component can be achieved in any direction, much like a Helicopter produces forward thrust.   The Sweet experiment  is  mentioned in my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, 2002.  One chapter of the book goes into practical antigravity and the Sweet experiment and its results.   Best wishes, Tom Bearden   Subject: Forward Propulsion Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:48:52 +0200 Hi Tom, This interview appeared on a TV show CarteBlanche on a pay channel called MNET. I am a layman that has always been interested in science and have found your work fascinating and quite controversial. Your comments on the interview will be greatly appreciated. Malcolm R Cape Town South Africa  For more than three centuries Newton's laws of motion and gravity have been accepted by scientists and taught in our schools to this very day, with good reason. But here in a workshop in Klerksdorp a local inventor claims to have turned Newton's laws upside down and is threatening to revolutionize earthly and space travel as we know it. Hannes du Preez: "I know that this thing is going to change your life, definitely. Eventually, it's going to change the life of every person on this planet. Hannes du Preez has devoted most of his life to inventing gadgets of all shapes and sizes. As a mechanical technician working for Armscor and later Denel, his innovative streak found ample expression. It all seemed to start at an early age. Derek Watts, Carte Blanche reporter: "Hannes, were you a very creative little boy inventing alternative catapults and things?" Hannes: "Most definitely. All my life I knew I had a knack for creating things." Derek: "So the mind's always ticking over there?" Hannes: "Always. My wife calls it tinkering." Derek: "Tinkering over..." Hannes: "What gives me a great kick in life is to make something and design something ... making it and at the end of the day it works." But all of this tinkering was just preparation for Hannes' big dream - achieving the impossible: a propulsion system for cars and even aeroplanes that defies the laws of nature as we know them. Hannes: "I set an objective to build a mechanical device with which I can generate an internal force to propel a body or a motor or an aeroplane in a predetermined direction without using any external forces." But this is impossible because according to Newton's First Law, an object cannot start moving by way of its internal force. For example, this matchbox will only move if an external force is applied to it. Even a small engine inside it wouldn't help. However, Hannes challenged this scientific cornerstone. He surmised that, with the right propulsion system inside an object, he could get it to move forward and even upwards. This is the stuff that science-fiction movies are made of and which no serious scientist would even contemplate. For nearly two decades Hannes kept his dream alive and finally in 1999 he was able to devote himself full-time to its practical pursuit in the hope that it would one day revolutionise our entire transport system. Hannes: "You're going to have a vehicle with a much smaller engine. You're going to have aircraft with much smaller engines. You're going to have the possibility for space travel." With this vision and a selection of his prototypes, Hannes then approached a number of physicists. Their responses to his outlandish ideas invariably ranged from incredulous to downright rude. Derek: "How many people did you go to who ridiculed you?" Hannes: "[laughing] You know, a lot. Some said to me, 'No man, if you want to do that, you must rewrite the laws of nature'. Certain people told me, 'Man look, do not waste my time with work that belongs in a Grade 10 class." It was here at the University of Potchefstroom's Department of Physics that Hannes finally found somebody willing to listen. At first a Doubting Thomas, Prof Ockie de Jager started thinking twice about some of these seemingly crazy inventions. Prof Ockie de Jager: "He told me that other people were sceptical about it, and when I saw the kind of stuff that he was working on, I understood why." Sympathetic to Hannes' plight, Ockie investigated his inventions but each time he was able to [show] , by means of computer simulations and mathematical equations that his prototypes could not possibly work. But Hannes just wouldn't give up. Ockie: "He's got a tenacity to go on with things." Ockie spent nearly three years testing model after model that came out of Hannes' workshop. There was a basic problem: they were largely static, they did not produce enough forward motion. But in August last year, with prototype no. 42, there was a breakthrough. Hannes revealed this - the 'Dup Drive' - which he claimed was finally proving Newton wrong. He again went to Ockie. Hannes: "I begged Prof De Jager - Ockie - 'asseblief man, please do us a simulation on this thing'. And he agreed to get rid of me and to his surprise the thing worked." Ockie: "That was quite a moment because you do not have jet-like action like a rocket and that is the confusing part." Ockie was puzzled because model no. 42 seemed to transgress Newton's Laws. Hannes had somehow managed to create a small propulsion system that seemed to use an internal force to move forward and kept on accelerating of its own accord and with surprising efficiency. A piston-like action propels Hannes' device forward. According to Newton's Laws, an opposite and equal reaction should occur that would ultimately stop this device dead in its tracks. But somehow Hannes had eliminated this reactionary force and his "Dup Drive" managed to keep on moving forward. Hannes: "You just see the action, as far as the complete unit. You just see the action, no reaction." Ockie: "It appeared to be transgressing 'action and reaction' to a large extent and when I saw that the machine was accelerating in a forward direction, I was puzzled. I mean, I was puzzled for a long time." Ockie's astonishment grew when his computer simulations and algebraic analysis also confirmed that Hannes' device was functioning. Ockie then organised for independent testing to be done at Kentron, part of the Aerospace Group of Denel, that also appeared to confirm the forward motion and acceleration of Hannes' internal force generator. Hannes' critics had deemed this impossible. Hannes: "I'm absolutely delighted with the findings. The physicists of this world are going to drive around in vehicles powered by this propulsion system and they're still going to wonder what the hell is going on." The "Dup Drive" is not in fact an engine but a propulsion system. For its piston to function, one would need to attach a very small power source, like an electric or petrol engine. Hannes: "I have connected it to an external air supply, but even this air supply ... the pipe is slack enough not to cause any push effect on the unit." This is a motorcar engine, as we know it: it provides the power to turn the wheels through a series of gearboxes and transmission. If Hannes' theories work in practice, all of this could be replaced by a box this size [indicates] containing the engine and the means of propulsion. Hannes: "What we managed with this technology is to change power (Watts) to push (thrust; Newtons) extremely effectively. We can get as low as one Watt for one Newton. Compare that to certain aircraft - you sit with a situation of 103 Watt for one Newton. Motorcars - we can use an engine 30 times smaller than is used at the moment." When we visited Hannes to film his brainchild, we took along Winstone Jordaan, physicist and engineer, whom we met last year in our story on the Sky Car. Winstone Jordaan: "I was very sceptical and I wanted to see where the errors were in the reasoning of the whole thing. What I've seen over these last two days is that there really is something interesting here. The reactive forces seem to have been suppressed. But as a scientist I must still say that Newton's Laws apply and therefore there's just something that we're missing." Derek: "Are you saying that our viewers tonight are seeing something that has never been done in the world before?" Hannes: "Yes, most definitely. I am creating an internal unbalanced force. That's not supposed to happen. I'm contradicting what Newton's Third Law says." Winstone: "Everybody assumes the laws and tries to adhere to the laws. They don't try to breach the laws. I think most of the great inventions have actually come out of very simple ideas and people with backyard ideas." There is no doubt that Hannes still has to face many obstacles in his quest to cheat Newton, but the potential applications of the "Dup Drive" could benefit our lives in ways that we can only imagine. Hannes: "In future with this thing I believe you're going to have a vertical take-off, out of the atmosphere, away from gravity. If you want to go to Heathrow from South Africa, you'll put yourself into orbit to Heathrow, accelerating halfway and decelerating the other half and then just have a slow descent. "A trip to Mars shouldn't take longer than a week there and back. A trip to the moon shouldn't take longer than one o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, go up there, have tea at three and be back by five o'clock." Derek: "But some people must regard you as a crank?" Hannes: "There's nobody on earth that will prove me wrong. Nobody." Derek: "Are you willing to take on all the scientists?" Hannes: "Anybody. Anybody ... the devil himself."