The Tom Bearden



From: "Tom Bearden"
To: DoE PhD
Subject: RE: Re: Cheney on Energy - FYI
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:20:14 -0500

Hi Dave, 

Hope you are feeling better after the illness, and sorry the old bug hit you.

Yes, we simply must get the vacuum energy part moving, for when one examines all the options, it is the only option that will work in time.  I point out, e.g., the recent increases in coal, now that the Administration solution is going to have to rely fairly heavily on coal-fired plants to meet those "one a week" new power plant requirements.  Some coal prices have tripled.

Here we have decided to just go overseas with the MEG, since we already have the Department of Commerce release on it.  All I can say right now is that our initial discussions are most interesting and refreshing, and so far they are proceeding much easier than previous similar negotiations in the U.S.

As a very refreshing change, we have found ourselves discussing with foreign scientists who already know that the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, prior to Lorentz regauging, do include such systems (open systems in disequilibrium in their vacuum exchange).  In short, they are electrical scientists who know something past early 1950.  They are also already aware that the present classical EM model completely omits the vacuum interaction (much less any broken symmetry in that interaction!), which they also know is a gross non sequitur since the vacuum interaction (and the dipole's broken symmetry in it) have been well-known in particle physics since the 1950s.

The major problem we have found in the U.S. is that the decision scientists at top positions advising leaders such as Secretary Abraham, Vice-President Cheny, and President Bush, usually do not know anything but U(1) electrodynamics, and the advice they get from additional "expert" scientific consultants or advisers is inferior in that these "expert advisers" also seem to know only U(1) and also only the Lorentz-regauged Maxwell-Heaviside equations.  Many (most) do not even "believe" in the active vacuum, or if they begrudgingly admit it, they think it is of absolutely no consequence.  And they simply do not believe the tremendous energy density of the vacuum, nor will they accept it, even though it is good physics and has been for decades.

Hence the entire scientific energy structure and infrastructure in the United States is fearsomely welded to a small fragment (subset) of Maxwell's theory, and even to just a Lorentz regauged subset of the severe Heaviside truncation of it!  We have a scientific mindset problem of epic proportion.  This is precisely the same thing I ran into more than two decades ago, when trying to draw official attention to the Russian scalar EM weapons.  It required a very long time (and lots of ad hominem attacks, slander, libel, questioning my ancestry, you name it) before we finally had open confirmation by the U.S. Secretary of Defense in these words:

"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts."  Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn.  Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

This is like "living the same thing twice."  In those days, one was considered some kind of nut if he advocated scalar interferometry.

In short, the energy crisis is completely the fault of our own scientific community.  It is NOT the fault of the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Energy!  It is the direct fault of the inferior advice being given them by the NSF, NAS, etc.

The sad thing is that the U.S. scientific community is seemingly no longer capable of even evaluating its own U(1) EM model, as it has become almost an iron dogma.  E.g., in the 1880s Heaviside discovered the enormous energy pouring out of the terminals of any generator -- vastly more energy than we provide as mechanical energy input to the shaft.  Poynting, of course, only dealt from the beginning with the tiny component of that energy outpour that is intercepted by the external circuit and caught and used.  Lorentz understood both the Poynting component and the Heaviside component as well.  But no one could explain what could possibly be the source of such an enormous energy flow from EVERY GENERATOR, BATTERY, AND SOURCE DIPOLE.   That is rigorous.  Simply check Heaviside's original papers, which I cite frequently.

Anyway, Lorentz then took the attitude that this enormous Heaviside energy flow component, missing the circuit entirely and just wasted, had "no physical significance" (his words).  So he arbitrarily discarded it (not from NATURE, but from MATHEMATICAL ACCOUNTING) by a clever little integration trick, still used by all the electrodynamicists and those energy scientists designing and building our electrical power systems, writing our textbooks, teaching in our universities -- and advising Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and Secretaries of Energy.

In short, we most often face scientists who literally will not believe and cannot comprehend that every generator we ever built, already extracts enormous energy from the vacuum.  It is quite easy to prove it, for peanuts.  Any lab, university, or decent experimenter can do it.  Kraus' diagram in his Electromagnetics, Fourth Edition, shows the nondiverged energy flow component in the form of contours, which are MEASURED watts/square meter at each point, where a unit point static charge will catch that much more energy.

Let me now give you a rigorous proof, and very simple, that every system is already vastly overunity by producing far more energy out than we input.  Consider a perfect DC generator, loss free, so that its efficiency is 100%.  Now consider a perfect external circuit attached, which consists of two short lengths of perfect conducting wire, and a pure resistance load.  Let the load be 12 ohms, and the voltage of the generator be 12 Volts D.C.  Now we have a neat little situation: We put in the mechanical power equivalent of 12 watts to the shaft.  Since the generator is loss free, all the 12 watts are perfectly transduced into magnetic field, and the energy in this field is dissipated with 100% efficiency to form the source dipole.  Let us leave the source dipole for a moment.

Now we look at the external circuit.  There is one ampere of current (12V divided by 12 Ohms) flowing in the external circuit.  So we are inputting 12 watts of power  to the generator shaft, and we are getting 12 watts of power output in the resistor.  All this is clearly measurable and normal so far.

Now we check out John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.   Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578 shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with almost all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just "wasted."

Hey!  We have 12 watts of power in.  We have 12 watts of power output of the resistor as heat.  By conventional Poynting considerations, we are getting out precisely what we are inputting.  That is a blatant lie.  We are getting output from the resistor precisely as much as we are inputting to the shaft of the generator.  Yet we also are getting out a measurable vast amount of energy flow from those generator terminals, filling all space around that circuit.  Those Kraus contours are experimental measurements.  Anyone can do them, or similar.  Anyone can build a little system very similar to this one, and approximating it.

So where the devil is all that VAST EXTRA MEASURABLE ENERGY FLOW pouring from the generator terminals, and missing the circuit entirely, COMING FROM?

Experimentally we can easily prove that this Heaviside nondiverged energy flow is (1) real, and (2) very large.

Let us now add in an extra set of "receiving antenna/collectors" whose circuitry is completely separate from the DC generator circuit with its load.  Suppose we add enough of these "little antenna/interceptor/detector" circuits, each containing a little purely resistive load, to obtain 3 watts total in all those extra and independent circuits.

Well, now we are inputting 12 watts.  We are getting out 12 watts in the external resistor attached to the generator.  We are also getting 3 watts out of the "extra receiver circuits" separately, in separate loads.

So our total input is 12 watts.  Our total output is 15 watts.  Our demonstrated COP = 1.25.

So how do the "experts" explain that simple experiment????"  They don't.  But any lab worth a tinker's dam -- and that includes any lab in DOE and in any university -- can do a similar experiment, catching enough of the extra "usually nondivergent EM energy flow" to bring the COP to COP>1.0.

This is a very simple experiment. So is the Bohren experiment which produces COP=18, is published in the hard literature, and is independently replicated by two additional scientists and published in the same issue of Am. J. Phys. that published the Bohren experiment paper.

Anyway, Lorentz's "physically insignificant" vast Heaviside nondiverged EM energy flow component is indeed "physically insignificant" to that single external circuit powered by that DC generator.  But it is certainly not "physically insignificant" to those extra "receiver/collector circuits" and their independent loads.

We use two viewgraphs where in the first one Lorentz is shown in a sailboat on an ocean, in a very nice large ocean wind.  Puffing his pipe, Lorentz is smiling and saying, "Only the wind in my sails is of any physical significance".  In the second slide, Lorentz is looking aside at a whole fleet of additional sailboats, calmly sailing along and powered by that "insignificant remaining component of the wind".  And Lorentz is saying, "How can they be using that physically insignificant wind?"

This is an exact analogy to the state of thinking that now exists in the U.S. power industry and the U.S. scientific community concerned with power systems.  We don't have an energy crisis, we have a collection and usage crisis—and a vast scientific mindset crisis.

Hopefully this will change in the future.  But for now, I recommend to any struggling inventor or group in overunity system research, to "go foreign" and just quit discussing and arguing with at best very naïve fellows and at worst dogmatists.  Overseas, one finds it most refreshing to find oneself in discussions with highly capable scientists who know quaternion electrodynamics, Maxwell's original complete theory, etc.

Very best wishes and a speedy continued recovery,

Tom Bearden

Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:23:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Cheney on Energy

This is correct 100 MW/month!!! 

Even though we have made things more efficient this is not enough and the "not in my back yard" mentality is a major culprit and rolling black-outs a result.  So to meet both of these we need to distributed power units that are not polluting or intrusive on the local esthetics.  And if it can be found that covert programs have such technologies, that's why we need CSETI!

I would also like to apologize for missing Steve and Emily this week.  Although I was able to catch the Web cast on Wednesday, I took a bit ill on Thursday and Friday.  Although I was much better Saturday morning, I felt it best to stay home.

However,  I would like to share with you a publishing ad on one of my T-shirts.

The ad has an elderly Einstein on the right breast and a hand written Lagrangian reduction with mc^2=E.  The caption reads what if he kept it in his head?

The point is that documentation is critical to the advancement of anything and although the focus on the T-shirt is business, this concept is especially true
in Science!  Many times throughout history Humanity has had to relearn concepts because communications were poor, unintelligible or ignored.  I have observed
that the greatest disservice that classification of technology has perpetrated is delaying commercial development 30 years or more.  This is especially true in materials technology.  Therefore, I submit that classification of technology is detrimental to the greater National interest economically and logistically.

Further, I would argue that the justification and legality is often on shaky ground.