The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:18:48 -0500

Dear Petr,

Well, I have mixed emotions about your letter.


We have freely given away all the technical information needed for a technical team familiar with the Aharonov-Bohm effect to reproduce the device.

We have freely given away the technical results of 30 years of very hard research and work, and $300,000 right out of my own back pocket.  That isn't much money in "big research", but it is a helluva lot for a working man.

We have strongly pointed out exactly what is wrong with the present electrical engineering, and why it will always keep the gas pump on your automobile and the power meter on your house.  We did not do this with "arm-waving", but with hard physics references. Anyone can read the references and make up their own mind what the greater areas of physics have to say about the decrepit old classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory taught to our electrical engineers.

So everything you or anyone else needs to know, is already released.  The only thing we have not done is just flat give away our patent.  Since the five of us worked on that for nearly 10 years, let me put it this way:  I'll believe you are sincere when I see that "open community" freely taking their own personal incomes for the last 10 years and giving them to free energy researchers.

Now as to the "overunity community".  There are some good researchers, a few.  There are a whale of a lot of folks who also know only about Bachelor of Science level EE, and nothing else.  Some know ordinary electrical circuits well, thereby thinking they completely understand electronics and electrodynamics.  They don't, as even a casual reading of the physics literature will show.

However, most of these fellows who continually howl about how easy it is to do overunity, etc., have never even seen a working COP>1.0 system.  They have never built one, and most never will.  Heck, if it really were easy, then those sharp young graduate students and post doctoral scientists our universities keep turning out, would have done all this 80 years ago.  They didn't.

The same fellows who so prate about every other inventor or researcher who is seriously struggling with the problem, also will not read a reference cited.  E.g., we did not create or discover the Aharonov-Bohm effect, further generalized to the Berry phase, then later to the geometric phase. Let me ask you this: How much have you yourself read, how many papers, dealing with those three subjects?  There are at least 20,000 papers in those areas, in the hard physics literature.  How many have you read?  If not 100 in a survey, then you have not researched the subject.  How many have the other folks interested in the MEG read?  Most have not read a single one.  For goodness sakes, even in Feynman's old 3-volumes of sophomore physics, he covers the Aharonov-Bohm effect and misspells Aharonov's name!  Yet I've not had a SINGLE ONE of those harping so hard, even point that out.  My conclusion is they have not even bothered to read the literature, even casually.

We have also tried to focus attention on how to think logically in overunity systems areas.  E.g., here are the type questions a serious scientific researcher in this area will ask and address (and research).

1.  Why -- precisely -- is a common closed current loop EM circuit always COP<1.0?

2.  What does "Lorentz symmetrical regauging" of Heaviside's (Maxwell's) equations in the staid old EE actually mean with respect to a physical system?  To a closed current loop system?

3.  What is a "field" and does such exist in empty space?  I warn you that is a very serious and difficult question, but it does have an answer. If you cannot answer it, then homework is needed.

4.  How is a "field" and a "potential" actually defined?  Suppose you make some change in the assumed "standard unit point static charge" that is involved in the "definition".  What does that mean?

5.  What is Heaviside's nondivergent component of energy flow, arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz (and continued to this day) circa 1890s or so?

6.  Why does the EE model assume a flat spacetime (falsified since 1916) and an inert vacuum (falsified for decades in particle physics)?

7.  If both the vacuum and the local spacetime are inert (as modeled in one's model), then one has insisted that the external environment is always inert.  In other words, you cannot build and use a "windmill" if there is never a wind available to furnish the excess energy.  Otherwise, you will have to crank the beast around yourself.  So why do we build every electrical power system that way, so that it always self-destroys all "free electrical winds" that DO arise magnificently in advanced electrodynamics?

8.  What is the effect of using a higher group symmetry EM model, such as in quaternion algebra, Clifford algebra, SU(2)X SU(2), O(3), etc.?  Have you actually read the reference I so frequently cite, where Barrett (one of the pioneers of ultrawideband radar) examined Tesla's patented circuits in a quaternion electrodynamics, and made some very startling and profound discoveries?

9.  Everyone importantly states that, well, it has to be proven.  Heck, we agree wholeheartedly!  E.g., have you checked the Bohren experiment I frequently cite, which is one of that class of mechanisms that ALWAYS yield more energy output than the operator himself inputs?  Ugh, you say!  Why, that's in the IR and UV.  Well, IR is heating.  Wouldn't a big heater that puts out 18 times as much heat energy as the electrical energy the operator inputs, be quite useful?   The experiment works anywhere, anytime. But to understand it, you will have to understand questions 1-4.  Anyway, since this "negative resonance absorption of the medium" is well known, widely replicated, and has been around since the 1950s (see Letokhov's work), then why in the dickens are not the large national labs developing overunity heating systems, say with COP = 9 or 10, to tremendously augment the boiling of water at our present power plants, thereby resoundingly reducing the burning of hydrocarbons, pollution of the earth, destruction of the biosphere --- and destruction of the taxpayers' pockets for electrical power???  Also, why does the "overunity community" just shrug any such hard physics citation aside, and turn back to sophomore or trade school electricity which has never built an overunity COP system yet?

10.  Then there are those who like to yell "perpetual motion is what you preach, and that is impossible!"  Shucks, last I checked, Newton's first law of motion IS the law of perpetual motion.  An object placed in a state of motion will remain in that state of motion perpetually, until an outside force intervenes and places it in a second state of motion.  Thereafter, it will remain in that SECOND state of motion until another outside force intervenes and changes it state of motion, etc.   So yes, perpetual motion is a characteristic of the universe, thank goodness!  Else there would be no stability in any state of motion, and only wild and erratic fluctuations. In short, the organized macroscopic universe we inhabit could not exist without perpetual motion.  In a state of perpetual motion, e.g., the object maintaining its state of motion and energy does not receive any energy input nor does it do any work.  So "input of energy" and "output of work" have nothing at all to do with perpetual motion.  Now, without repeating myself, please read my simple logical analysis of the standard "knee-jerk" perpetual motion statement by Planck, etc.  That statement and its variants has been around for more than 100 years.  Any sophomore in English can do a logical analysis of it, and find that it contains (1) a false premise, (2) a true statement, and (3) equating of the two as if the true statement proved the false premise.  A total logical non sequitur, in proper logic language.  SO WHY IN THE EVER-LOVING BLUE KITTY KAT HAS NO ONE APPARENTLY EVEN DONE A SIMPLE LOGICAL ANALYSIS ON THE HOARY OLD STATEMENT THAT  THE FALSE PREMISE "PERPETUAL MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE" EQUATES TO A WORKING SYSTEM CONTINUOUSLY DOING EXTERNAL WORK WITH NO ENERGY INPUT AT ALL?  This includes the entire scientific community, apparently, and also the entire "overunity" community. Why such obviously false statements continue to be propagated as "truisms" is an enigma.

11.  In standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics theory and therefore in electrical power engineering, it is assumed that all EM fields and potentials and their energy, come from their associated source charges. Without any input of OBSERVABLE energy at all to any one of those source charges.  That irksome problem has been swept under the rug and hidden from the students for a century.  The basis (broken symmetry of opposite charges) for the solution was discovered in 1957, if one takes the quantum field theory of the charge rather than the sad old obsolete 1865 version of it.  I pointed out in a little published paper in 2000 the solution to that long vexing problem, that Sen and others called "the most difficult problem in classical and quantal electrodynamics".  It is not solvable in the standard electrical engineering theory; the EE model excludes the solution. HENCE EVERY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PROFESSOR, AND TEXTBOOK TEACHES A MODEL THAT IMPLICITLY ASSUMES THAT EVERY EM FIELD, EVERY EM POTENTIAL, AND EVERY JOULE OF EM ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN AND IS FREELY CREATED FROM NOTHING AT ALL, IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION.  So either we have to solve the source charge problem, or we have to discard conservation of energy as being falsified by every charge in the universe.  EITHER WAY, YOU OPEN UP THE VISTA THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUILD AND UTILIZE COP>1.0 AND EVEN COP = INFINITY ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS.

12.  Very few of the overunity researchers -- and very few electrical engineers and even professors -- are clearly aware of the precise difference between coefficient of performance of a system and the efficiency of the system.  E.g., it has been said that no EM system can exhibit COP>1.0. Well, try telling that to a solar cell.  It may be only 17% efficient (which means it wastes 83% of all the energy it receives from the sunlight), but it has a COP = infinity.  So does a windmill (efficiency usually less than 50%), a waterwheel (low efficiency usually), and even a sailboat. The lack of understanding of efficiency versus COP is so bad that I no longer even answer the usual silly questions one gets from folks who have not yet studied even the elementary things to understand that difference.

13.  And finally, there is the question of what powers a circuit or an electrical power system.  It isn't cranking the shaft of the generator. Even the classical EE model itself assumes that all the EM field energy and EM potential energy -- i.e., every joule of EM energy in that circuit and on that power line --- comes freely from the associated source charges.  So "what powers a circuit" depends directly and only on "what furnishes the NONOBSERVABLE (i.e., virtual and therefore subquantal) electromagnetic energy TO THOSE SOURCE CHARGES.  Please note that the answer to that problem does not appear in any electrical engineering book, in any university curriculum, in the National Academy of Sciences, in the National Science Foundation, etc.  Yet it is THE FUNDAMENTAL overunity question.

Anyway, from the above 13 questions and criteria you can see my point.

If we do want to ever see free electrical energy from the vacuum, powering our homes and automobiles, etc., then we are going to have to "crack through" this iron scientific mindset that has been built up since 1865 and get back into modern physics.

It isn't going to be available on a silver platter.  Starting even before Tesla, inventors --- thinking in their own terminology and often not tied into physics -- have tried to "give it away".  They haven't succeeded yet. We have examples of it every day. I recently had a conversation with an engineer in a battery company, that makes large batteries, and I mean BIG batteries.  He simply read some of the stuff, particularly Bedini's work, and went into the lab and tried it out.  Since switching was no problem to him and to that group, he got results immediately.  He ran a small load while continuously keeping the battery charged.  We had a great conversation about the actual mechanism, but he had done his homework and read the necessary references, so he got it very quickly.

So those who wish to get free energy out there, should get after it that way.  There is still no substitute for the hard scientific method.  And that includes reading the literature, understanding the phenomenology, understanding the limitation of the present engineering EM model, learning to at least think in terms of a higher model, etc.

When I hear something from folks in the overunity community dealing with the Bohren experiment, anti-Stokes emission, negative resonance absorption of the medium, etc., then I perk up my ears because now you are connected with that small part of the community that IS DOING SCIENTIFIC WORK IN THIS AREA.

We will get free energy when we get the scientific mindset changed, and that will only come about when the young grad students and young post doctoral scientists get the word and start researching this are SCIENTIFICALLY and by the hardnosed scientific method.  You cannot change the scientific mindset from the top down, but only from the bottom up. It will only change when the old dogs who control it and who so adamantly resist change die off and get out of the way.

Being an old dog, with serious physical condition etc., I do not expect to personally see it done.  Just now, the powerful financial interests are not going to allow it, regardless of what has to be done to stop it.  But when enough of the young just-starting out scientists are aware of it, and then go and do it, they simply cannot kill or otherwise stop everyone.

So that is what I personally am trying my best to do --- to get out all the information I can, and make it available. My intent is to try to help those coming young fellows not have to spend 30 years of their lives digging this mess out of the scattered bits and pieces all over physics.  Let them start here, correct any errors I may have inadvertently made (all my pencils still need erasers, and so does everyone else's pencils!) and go from there.

It will be done, rest assured.  I don't expect to see it, but it will be done.

Best wishes in your own research, and try to focus some attention on those 13 areas.  The more you learn in each one of them, the better equipped you will be to do your own invention.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Dear Mr. Bearden

I appreciate Your effort to bring MEG to production stage. As You explain repeatedly at Your correspondence page, You need to collect huge funding to climb up a "cliff", on which all other inventors failed. There is one interesting phenomena in today's world, namely "open source" movement. There are lots of experts scattered all over the world, who share their abilities to develop new pieces of software. And, what is more interesting, they give it to the world for free.

Open source movement utilizes internet's communication capability to join in various project. It is not defeatable, for it is not standard company. It has no office, no bank account, for the participants work in their homes worldwide.

Anyway, open source movement presents serious challenge to normal software houses. As You are complaining about funding, I suggest to You: give the MEG to the world NOW. Make it "free"!

Form a group of experts, who will do the necessary research on the open, world-spread-community basis. They will accomplish it for free. The trade-off would be little financial gain for You.

Or - You can continue on the standard way: producing patents, collect funds, and... perhaps to join the crowd of inventors, who posses patented prototypes but - that is all. What is better? Decide Yourself.

Best regards

Petr H

Czech republic