|From "Tom Bearden" <email@example.com>
Subject RE Overunity Devices
Date Tue, 16 May 2000 105303 -0500
Excepted from private communication
......Somebody also forgot to tell windmills, watermills, and sailboats that overunity COP is impossible. No mention of difference between classical equilibrium thermodynamics and thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium, for example. Anyone not aware of that, obviously knows nothing at all about the pros and cons of overunity EM power systems.
Even a casual review of the arch skeptics who rail about "perpetual motion machines" shows they always use classical thermo, which a priori excludes overunity EM systems, and have no knowledge of what a dipole really is (apply the Whittaker 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential between the poles), etc. Or of the vast real EM energy flow (the Heaviside component) that Lorentz discarded, but which is there, around every EM circuit. Amusing, when there are so many easy ways to show an overunity EM process.
E.g., run up a 200 meter tower. At the top, place a huge wire mesh grid, parallel to the Earth's surface. Now you've got, say, a voltage difference between the grid and the Earth, of say 150 volts per meter, times 200 meters, or nominally some 30,000 volts. How much amperage you can draw continuously (from the Poynting energy flow sweeping around the earth, generally parallel to the equator), depends on the amount of surface charges in your grid, and a good ground plane in the earth, as is standard communication antenna practice for large transmitting antennas. So make your grid out of Litz wire, so that it has lots of surface charges. Use a good ground plane about three feet beneath the earth.
Bingo! You can draw a steady current at high voltage from that thing. Regulate it and transform it if you wish to. The supply voltage from the grid mesh will vary as the potential between Earth and electrosphere vary with time of day, etc. Further, when a big thundercloud comes in, its bottom is usually charged differently from the electrosphere far above it, so your voltage first declines, then reverses!
It only takes one small white crow to prove that not all crows are black. This silly thing alone is a gedankenexperiment showing that you can easily make an open EM power system of sorts, far from thermodynamic equilibrium with its active environment (in this case, the Earth's Poynting energy flow), and extract energy from it.
Nobody said this was a practical home power system, but then today no one is actually working on such open EM systems directly extracting EM energy from vast EM energy flows, to make them practical. (E.g., at the top, put in a great big coil on one side and a big capacitor on the other. Put in a switching control unit which switches the mesh grid voltage back and forth across the one-wire (Tesla's circuit!) series oscillator you have just set up. Get the thing into entrained (forced) resonance with your "tickler" switching wave controlling it. Now you can entrain current as well as voltage.
Or if one really wishes a startling fact, the tiniest of dipoles are the strongest! For a given charge at each end, the closer the charges are drawn together, the more intense the energy flow extracted from the vacuum exchange asymmetry and radiated out as the EM energy flow (erroneously called the Poynting flow, which is actually only the small amount intercepted by our circuit).
All the rest that misses the intercepting circuit, is the Heaviside flow and was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz.
Something similar happens on towered long power lines. Just go watch one being constructed. Have to ground the wire at every pole, while installing it, and sometimes in between. Otherwise, lethal voltage (and sufficient surface charge or capacitance to have a lethal current) builds up at in the wire, enough to fry a worker who inadvertently grounds himself and touches the wire.
Again, that wire intercepts the Earth's Poynting energy flow continuously, and that energy has to be grounded out every little way. So even there you do get "free energy".
Again, a small white crow -- only takes one.
And there are many. No mention of the continuing problems and controversies in energy flow theory, rather thoroughly twisted up after Lorentz threw out the Heaviside component.
Frankly, ***** never heard of the difference between Heaviside's energy flow work and Poynting's energy flow work. Or what Lorentz did with it. If he were so great at checking my references, and meticulous in interpreting them, why did he not check those?
I recently requested an informal but good look at my latest overunity work (for a coming 50 pages in a prestigious scientific book) by a renowned scientist with over 600 monographs in the hard literature.
His review found no flaws in the premises or in the underlying principles supporting them. I also requested the Russians at IC-2000 to give a through review, by very competent scientists, of my submitted papers for IC-2000. The reviewing scientists came back with a statement that the premises were true and a strong recommendation that the papers be published as soon as possible.
Now those fellows know all about the references ***** referred to, and the Russian work he referred to, and even had known some of the actual Russian scientists who did that work.
If it were terribly distorted, they would have pounced on that immediately.
So the question is, how did ***** get to know the "true facts" when the fellows acquainted with the work and with the scientists who did the work, have no such conception of it?
No mention of faults with present theoretical models, such as electrodynamics -- even though Nobelists such as Feynman and others have openly pointed out such faults.
Feynman and Wheeler even tried to correct electrodynamics themselves, in a series of papers in prestigious journals.
No mention of any of the other foundations physicists who I regularly cite.
If the work of Nobelists such as Feynman and Prigogine are "distortions", then I believe I prefer those "distortions" to the material they were objecting to!
Interestingly, the personal smear My "background that you ought to check" is an open book, military service, clearances, academic credentials (MS, Nuclear Engineering, Ga Tech, various Army schools, etc.).
So are my years of work in aerospace for several leading companies. One thing about all that is that one has a certified pedigree and history guaranteed by the FBI and a dozen other background investigation agencies!
Anything bad back there, and one would be out of there (the classified job) immediately. Heck, they did not even hold it against me that I was once a half-baked country guitar picker and singer!
No discussion of actual hard experiments completely independent of any acquaintances of Tom Bearden; e.g., the Bohren experiments, Letokhov's work, Mills work, etc.
A proper critique, e.g., would be that "he is wrong on the Bohren experiment because ---[detailed explanation that refutes my own explanation.]. That would be a legitimate scientific critique, because it is not ad hominem but a specific scientific statement, which can then itself be examined and confirmed or refuted.
Simple character assassination is purely ad hominem and has no science in it, and the ***** note (and such epistles) is ad hominem from beginning to end. Anyway, that is the way I look at it in about three seconds.
Such junk mail (and sometimes hate mail) is part of the problem, and nothing new. I suspect you and *** also get some REAL diatribes, foaming at the mouth!
Same reason most Internet Chat Rooms are a total waste, as far as getting anything real being accomplished.
Like one at Scientific American some years ago I scanned through, and which had just thoroughly trashed a little high school kid for daring to ask about a certain device for a science project, a widget that he did not know the name of (it was the Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube) but tried to describe it and its vortex.
I sent the kid a set of citations and abstracts of them, to help on his science project, and posted them on the bulletin board so that he could find lots of details about the device these other learned fellows swore was nonexistent and could not work (somebody forgot to tell the IEEE that it didn't work).
What they did to him was not at all a nice thing to do to a young impressionable teenager, just entering science and eagerly seeking help, who may someday make an excellent scientist if he isn't just stomped down along the way by such vultures.
Anyway, one takes a quick glance with such criteria in the back of one's mind, and just immediately discards the ad hominem note. As you and *** know better than I do, the oil crisis is real, as is the fact that the availability peaked this year, and declines from now on. At the same time, the world demand curve for "electricity from oil combustion" is rising, as is the demand for heating oil. Increasing diesel trucks, etc. also add more demand, etc.
With the other factors thrown in, it doesn't take a genius to see that we're "in a heap of economic trouble" right down the road a ways. So trying to do something -- anything I can -- that will help avoid the economic monster that is looming ever closer, is what must be given priority above all else.
If ***** really had his head on straight and had the "straight information", he would be into that arena with both barrels, trying to help solve the problem that is threatening to shortly destroy us all. But instead of being part of the solution, such folks are always part of the problem, and always have been, as so wryly pointed out by Max Planck long ago.
Cheers and best wishes,