The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



Subject: RE: VS: Editorial on ZPE in  Aviation Week & Space Technology
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:47:05 -0500
(two letters combined)




Thanks very much for your kind comments, and for your interest in seeing the energy crisis solved.


Rather useless to send in anything; AW&ST would never develop the source-charge problem, nor discuss it, nor discuss the present Maxwell-Heaviside model assumption that every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing, by those source charges.

It just is not possible to have any kind of meaningful dialog in such media. Understand, AW&ST does a good job in things like aerospace, etc. But to my knowledge, they have never had a single article pointing out the foundations assumptions in Maxwell-Heaviside classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.

Really cannot blame AW&ST! They turn to the scientific community, and the scientists assure them that everything is already known in that model.

But I still have not found a single textbook which does list the foundations assumptions, and does then point out which ones have been falsified by particle physics since the 1865 paper of James Clerk Maxwell.

Heck, they appear not to realize that no such thing as a force field exists in space, even though the EE and CEM model assumes such. (That, of course, assumes a material ether). They do not recognize that Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion, and that experiments with persistent superconducting currents initiated in shorted superconductor circuits will circulate indefinitely. Statistically, the estimate of the half-life of the current is 10exp23 years -- an incredible period of time nearly unimaginably greater than the entire life of the universe to date.

One can buy a little kit for a few hundred dollars, and do one's own perpetual motion experiment at will.

And the Second Law of thermodynamics as written applies only to equilibrium systems (which is the condition of maximum entropy). Anytime the system is taken into disequilibrium, it automatically reduces its entropy, which is a negative entropy operation, permissibly violating the equilibrium Second Law because equilibrium no longer applies.


The real problem is the seriously flawed nature of the present electrical power engineering model (i.e., classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics, as also symmetrically regauged by Lorentz. This model still assumes the material ether (falsified in 1887), an inert vacuum (falsified at least since 1930), and a flat spacetime (falsified since 1915-16). It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created by the associated source charges, from nothing at all – in total violation of the conservation of energy law. By symmetrizing the equations (just to make them easier to solve), Lorentz also inadvertently discarded all permissible COP>1.0 Maxwell-Heaviside systems.


Then, to compound things to an astonishing degree, the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit, with the “external dipolar potential energy source” wired into the circuit as a back emf load, physically self-enforces Lorentz regauging! It makes the back emf equal to the forward emf, and – with the same total current in each one – that takes half of all the potential energy flow collected in the external circuit and uses it only to destroy the source dipolarity of the “external source”, thereby destroying its free extraction and emission of energy from the vacuum.


Further, flow of EM energy through space was formulated after Maxwell’s death. It was formulated independently and essentially simultaneously by John Poynting and Oliver Heaviside, completely independently. Poynting never considered anything but the energy flow component that gets diverged into the conductors, to power up the electrons. Any component NOT being so diverged, was completely ignored by Poynting, and – as is well-known to good electrodynamicists – the Poynting energy flow is not “the” energy flow along that path through a square perpendicular unit plane at a point.


Heaviside also discovered and allowed for the nondiverged component of energy flow, flowing outside the wire in addition to Poynting’s diverged energy flow. The nondiverged component is in curled field form, hence its divergence (in a flat spacetime) is zero. Consequently, as Lorentz remarked, it “has no physical significance” because (usually) it doesn’t interact with anything or do anything. However, that assumption is only true in a flat spacetime. If the local spacetime is curved a bit, then the vector divergence of the curl is not accurate, because that is for flat spacetime. So in curved spacetime, some of the long-neglected Heaviside component does get diverged and “caught” by the intercepting charges. In that case, the very definitions of “field intensity” (e.g., E = F/q) and potential intensity (e.g.,  phi = energy/q) are violated, since the usual definition assumes a flat spacetime and static intercepting charged mass. Violating either assumption (by having nonnegligible ST curvature or nonnegligible dynamic charged mass intercepting), violates the present electrodynamics. As an example, having the charge on small particles that self-resonate at UV or IR, and feeding in energy at that appropriate frequency to set the receiving charged particles into resonance, produces what is blandly referred to as “negative resonance absorption” of the (resonant particles) medium. In that case, the medium absorbs and re-radiates some 18 times as much EM energy as the Poynting calculation calculates was input.


In short, that branch of optics already outputs more energy than is “calculated” to be input. The energy was indeed input, but not as Poynting’s diverged component. It was input as Heaviside’s neglected curled and usually nondivergent component.


Researchers in the field of nonresonance absorption carefully do not usually address the thermodynamics of the situation, but speak only of increased reaction cross section of the resonant charge. They normally never speak of the “efficiency” thermodynamically or the COP. The efficiency is certainly less than 100% (the Heaviside energy flow component alone is perhaps a trillion times the magnitude of the recognized Poynting component). But the COP is 18.  It’s like a very inefficient heat pump model, where one pays to input the “Poynting” component, and the environment freely inputs the extra Heaviside component. In that case, if the environmentally input component is sufficiently large, COP>1.0 will result.


Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden


Tony Craddock - (
Please pass on the following information to Tom Bearden.
With due respect I wish to inform you about my comments in
AW&ST (March 22, 2004). Unfortunately and for reasons unknown
your name (Thomas E. Bearden) was withdrawn from my original
text. I.e. {... was granted U.S. patent # 6,362,718, on Mar. 26, 2002.}
& { vacuum, and was developed by a team led by Dr. Thomas
E. Bearden.}
The same goes for my next comment in AW&ST (May 17, 2004), where
I suggested reading the well-founded analysis on ZPE, Energy From
The Vacuum
, written by Bearden. Please see my following e-mail.
Kind regards,
Jan Riis-Christensen
Text as printed:
ZPE would zap fossil fuels
Your editorial on "zero point energy" (ZPE) describes the research and
development situation in unduly restrained terms (AW&ST Mar. 1. p. 50).
In fact, this is one field of development in which the U.S. Energy Dept.
has deliberately chosen not to serve the public interest. The fossil fuel
industry, besides nuclear hot-fusion R&D, is the major player behind
this policy. Mainstream R&D communities are, without interference,
securing federal funding.
A breakthrough with the non-polluting ZPE, such as the over-unity
extracting of electrical energy from the active vacuum, would bring a
rapid loss of prominence to fossil fuel production and consumption
of its goods and services. Worthy of note is the motionless
electromagnetic generator (MEG). This over-unity device was
granted a U.S. patent on Mar. 26, 2002. The MEG efficiently derives
useful electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum.
Jan Riis C
Oslo, Norway