The Tom Bearden



From: Correspondent in Israel
To: <>
Subject: Please forward to Tom Bearden (A Few Questions)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:55:19 +0200

Good day!
I just stumbled upon your article on Free Energy that's located at and dated 1993.

This puzzles me as I haven't heard a thing about this technology before, even though I am quite interested in such developments. (as long as these are genuine developments)

My name is *****.  I'm a student. not a journalist, not a scientist. not even an exact science student.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the technology, which I hope you may clarify:
1) As I understand it, what you do is "simply" insert a kind of capacitor in between the power source (i.e. Battery, or DC) and the engine, or energy consuming device or appliance, which acts as a generator of sorts. that "generator" picks only the potential from the battery, and creates bursts of energy. electrical energy.  I'm probably inaccurate to say the least.  But, if this is so, and this technology is not so far fetched as cold fusion, why haven't there been any publication of such discovery?

Ans:  It is not that simple, nowhere near as simple!  There is indeed a vast literature on energy from the vacuum systems, some of the literature being good and some being junk.  To see something of extraordinary quality, you will have to go to the technical literature and read it.  

E.g., M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al. (15 authors), "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.   Also by the same authors: "The Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296.  Also: "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409.  

To catch up on many processes (used or attempted in various overunity devices), see (by the same authors): "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum.", Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517. This   is actually a great new technology still struggling to get born.  But it is a technology, and it is technical.  It will require a technical background to understand it.

2) Is this kind of device be built by a non professional individual?  you claimed on quite a few occasions, in your writings, and lectures, that you would and do give this technology to be developed freely.  yet, on your site, you explain the progress that's been made, and refuse to divulge some of the most important details concerning the advancement. this contradicts your previous claims.  

Ans:  No, it cannot be built by a nonprofessional individual.  But then you probably cannot build a Swiss watch either, which is a relatively unsophisticated device.  Well, you must not be so naïve.  Nor must you insist that when we protect our hard-won Company Proprietary technical features, we automatically owe you that information and must give it to you.   Just go ask Bill Gates or GE for their Company Proprietary information, or one of your own companies in Israel, freely released to you, and see what kind of response you get from them.   We did in fact release some very good secrets in that 1993 paper, which had never before been expressed in print.  

We (Magnetics Energy Limited, which is the company my own colleagues and I founded, for our own overunity efforts on the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator -- which is NOT in the paper you refer to) are after all a commercial company, and to succeed we have to follow the patenting actions etc. that are necessary.  

After we file a patent with the U.S., we only have a year to file our Foreign Patent applications, which is very expensive (about $200,000 U.S., with appreciable maintenance fees thereafter).  And if we release too many details before those patents are filed, we lose all our foreign patent rights.  Whether we like it or not, that is the international law.  So what you are arguing is that I owe all basis for any future income, to you freely.   

Well, I ask you, would you like to take all your income for the last 10 years of your life, and just give it away? 

And will you give me freely all the income you will make for the next 20 years?  

We can never succeed if we do that, because then we have nothing left to "sell", having already given it away.  However, we have released far more details than almost any other inventor group in this area, so you will just have to be happy with that.  If you can get the international patent laws changed to accommodate full and instant release, while we remain protected so we can have an income and support our families, we would be happy to release it all.  Till then, no one can afford to do that, and  your expectation of that is unwarranted and ill-conceived.  

3) You express your concern that the Japanese are very advanced in the field, and that they plan to insert the technology gradually, in order to take over the world market instead of bringing it down.  Have you been in contact with Japanese scientists?  

Ans:  After considerable negotiation, my board members and I reached an agreement with Kawai, the inventor of a legitimate overunity engine, right here in Huntsville, Alabama after two trips here by the Kawai group.   That was one Thursday afternoon in 1996.  That night a jet arrived, with a most arrogant Japanese aboard, apparently something like a lieutenant in the Yakuza (Japanese mafia).  The next morning, the Kawai party was in fear and trembling.   Kawai no longer controlled his own invention, or his own company, or his own fate.  We shipped back out the two Kawai engines we had received, and the Japanese party departed.  

So in our physical presence the Yakuza stopped the Kawai system.   Kawai has filed many patents, and his machines were independently tested by Hitachi at COP = 1.4 and 1.6.   Several other Japanese overunity systems have been seized by the Yakuza.  

4) the most important question of all:  When will a commercial product be available? and will the full technology be available to anyone who wants it?  it seems that by registering patents on the subject, you seek to make revenue from the invention which, again, contradict your previous claims.  

Ans:  The commercial product will be available when we raise the necessary capital to do the one to two years of remaining research and development that is required to go from a successful laboratory experiment to a "ready for mass production" commercial power unit.  

Also, I flatly disagree with you about contradictions.  You seem to want to take me to task because (a) you and your professors cannot or have not put in the effort and study and work to build an overunity device yourself or even to understand one, and so (b) it is somehow my fault because I have not just given you all the work and effort I've spent over 30 years of my life in acquiring.  

Never mind what I have already freely given you, now you want the rest of it.  The only accepted business way is to file patents; there is no other way to protect one's inventions, or have a product to sell.  

The patent protection is only for 20 years from the date of patent application anyway; after that, anyone is free to build it and sell it as they wish.   

Hey, I'm also a songwriter and an author.  Now there, my intellectual property rights are good for my lifetime and 50 years thereafter.  So why are inventors so greatly discriminated against???  

Are you saying you wish to steal from me and my associates the last bit of that which we have paid a very dear price for, over the years?   

What entitles you to such a presumption?  

What effort have you personally made, and what have you personally given to the peoples of the world?  

If you really want to build an overunity system, then start with the Kawai U.S. patent. 

 He held nothing back, and the figures for the tests in the actual patent show more energy out than is input by the operator.  So build yourself a Kawai magnetic motor.   

Start with a highly efficient magnetic motor, of say 0.7 or 0.8 efficiency (such are available, Kawai modified standard Hitachi high efficiency engines at first).  Use very good and efficient switching so there is little switching losses.  The process will then essentially double the COP of the final motor.  So a 0.4 motor will not wind up overunity.   But a 0.7 or 0.8 motor will wind up at 1.4 or 1.6, respectively.  

The world works this way:  If you want something done, it's up to you to do it, not ping others and blame them because you have not done it, or because you don't like it being a bit difficult to do, or because they have not given it to you on a silver platter.  

If it is a technical thing you wish done, then you will have to learn some science and technology to do it and to understand it.  

In the absence of you possessing the necessary technical knowledge, all we can do is tell you what we and others have done, and the principles and concepts we have used.  

We have done that in spades, freely released.  

You will not follow or understand the technical explanations, but you can certainly follow the general concepts and what worked and what didn't.  There are many more systems out there than what my associates and I are working on, and there are many more inventors as well. Some are good, some are bad.   Take a look.  And go ask them to just give it all to you, and watch their reaction.  

It is our intention (and we've exerted great effort in that respect; such as 30 years of my adult life) to sketch out the first legitimate EM theory of overunity electrical systems.  

That we have done, and are doing.  It is now included in the scientific literature, including in some very rigorous papers by the AIAS.  About 100 of those AIAS papers are carried on a Department of Energy website for their scientists.  Many have been published in the standard scientific journals.   Many more will be published in forthcoming books and papers.  

If you just want an overunity experiment, then by all means repeat (or have your university repeat) Bohren's experiment, which gives 18 times as much energy out as you put in.  Does it every time, any time, anywhere.  

See Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327 which replicated the Bohren experiment independently and validated its results.  

Even in the standard literature, every generator puts out enormously more energy than one inputs to its shaft to "drive it".  

From the terminals there pours out two components of energy flow; (1) the Poynting component, which is the tiny little bit of that flow that skips the surface of the attached circuit, strikes the surface charges, and gets diverged into the conductors to power up the electrons.  Rather like sticking your hand out of a moving automobile, to divert some of the passing air stream into the car.  (2) the enormous Heaviside nondiverged component, which is an enormous energy flow filling all space around the wires, and missing the circuit entirely and just wasted.  E.g., see 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."  Kraus' contours are experimental measurements; it shows you how much power can be intercepted at any point in that space, by a unit point static charge.  If you place 100 unit point static charges there, you will catch 100 times as much energy as Kraus' number on the contour.  

So any average experimenter and any laboratory can easily show -- experimentally and theoretically -- that there is enormous energy pouring out of the terminals of every battery and generator. Well, why has your university not made you aware that every EM circuit and every generator and every battery is now and always has been an overunity energy converter, outputting vastly more energy from its terminals than we input to its shaft or that the battery possesses in chemical energy?  

Why do they not teach their student that, as energy transducers, batteries and generators and all dipoles already exhibit COP>>1.0???  

Why are they not voraciously pursuing this, to develop and build systems catching and using more of it?  

When do you think they will get around to pursuing it, and quickly producing and marketing the overunity systems they easily could???  

In short, the Bohren experiment is a bona fide, certified, overunity experiment.  So what has been done with it commercially?   


You see my point.  Infrared is heat, e.g., and so one can use that process to get about 18 times more heat energy than one inputs, under the proper circumstances.   So why is your university not doing it in their technical departments?  

Why have they not told you about it?  

Why is the electrical power industry not using something modified from that to reduce the energy input to their heaters under the boilers making the steam to drive the steam generators that are turning the shafts of their generators?  

Hey, there's another free one for you.  With effort, such a system could in fact be developed.   

Now let me introduce you to the scientific method.  

I am not a news reporter, but a scientist.  In science, one must read the literature, and when one writes a paper, one must give credit to other scientists who have done the work one mentions, and one must give citations for them.  I do that rigorously.  That is the way that science is conducted.  Within that framework, we release everything we can, while keeping only our MEL Company Proprietary discoveries secret.  Every scientist and every company on earth does it that way.  The beautiful world where everybody just gives everything away, does not exist and never has existed.  Instead, one gives away everything he can within one's restraints, within the constriction of what he is free to give.  

I don't notice all the authors and songwriters and software producers giving everything away!   Nor any of the commercial companies; they would not be solvent very long if they did that. So that will have to suffice.  

If you are interested in vacuum energy systems, I urge you to take the time to search the web and also to read the literature.  E.g., go and read the Journal of New Energy.  You will find enormous numbers of references on the web alone.  And lots of articles, even a few by me, but lots by other reputable scientists.  

It isn't an easy job, and it will not fall on you out of the sky.  

In any struggling technical field, you will have to read the literature, and you will have to have some technical competence and knowledge.  I have passed on what took me 30 years to discover.  But it will take you more than a few minutes to absorb it and understand it and be able to start using it.  

Meanwhile, I hope you found something of interest to you on the site, and encourage you to visit other relevant sites as well.    

Be prepared for a lot of hard work and study, if you are really interested and not just looking for something for nothing.  It is not easy, and you cannot do it like winding a kitchen clock.  Remember also that what may be relatively easy for a well-equipped laboratory to do, such as at a good technical university, may be impossible for the ordinary citizen to do.  I cannot build an automobile either, but I do enjoy driving and owning a good one that somebody else found out how to build, and that other people built.  

Tom Bearden    

I hope you can answer my queries.
Correspondent in Israel