The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Dear Professor H*****,
Yes, I know John Hutchison, though not really well, having met him several times at various conferences etc., and once having  been involved in trying to get a project going around his work (effort was aborted).  Also am aware of some of the folks who gravitated (pun intended) to him.  Unfortunately none of them are of sufficient scientific horsepower, in my opinion, to get at the real physics mechanisms that Hutchison evokes. It isn't simply zero-point energy.
John is the last of the true free-spirited hippies!  Beautiful guy, but that is his ansatz.  But he is a tinkerer par excellence.  He assembles this stuff, blasts away sharply, gets anomalous levitations and real anomalous materials effects, etc. (Note that in sufficiently curved spacetime one can get magnetic monopoles also, and so depositing of monopoles in materials also gives very strange fractures, liftings, etc. intermingled with the gravitational effects as well).
Presently none of those associates understands what really is happening., since they are not sufficiently well-versed scientists.
As best I understand the processes, two things are necessary for antigravity the way that John Hutchison gets it to happen. (1) one must make persistent Dirac Sea holes, which before they interact with matter are truly negative energy, negative mass electrons --- NOT positrons.  We "see" or observe them as positrons because we first interact them with matter to observe them.  In matter interaction, the hole eats an electron, which leaves behind an excess lattice positive charge.  Hence it is accounted as the "lattice positron" considered and dealt with in semiconductors. That is NOT a Dirac sea hole.
A positive mass, positive energy source charge outputs positive energy extracted from the vacuum (see the source charge solution), so its associated EM fields and potentials are positive energy fields and potentials.  Positrons make positive gravity, NOT antigravity, and they also have positive mass.  Positive EM energy density change in spacetime makes a little positive gravity. No big thing there.
But a negative energy, negative mass source "Dirac hole" in 4-space, persisting awhile before interaction with mass, also serves as a source "negative energy" charge.  It outputs negative energy continuously (see my source charge solution), thus producing associated negative energy EM fields and potentials. Those produce negative gravity (antigravity), a priori.  Still nothing too big, but now a step in the right direction.
Now comes the good part.  After Maxwell died of stomach cancer in 1879, two scientists independently and simultaneously discovered the "flow of EM energy through space".  Before then, that concept did not concretely appear in physics.  The two men, of course, were Poynting and Heaviside.
Poynting never considered anything but the divergent component of the energy flow, which gets diverged into the conductors of the external circuit of the generator to power up the Drude electrons. Thus Poynting got the direction of flow wrong of the EM energy in space surrounding the conductors of the external circuit connected to the power supply, since he assumed that energy flow to be at right angles to the conductors. That is merely the diverged component of the energy flow in space outside the wires.
Heaviside also considered the remaining component of the flow that is nondivergent, because it is in curl form and the divergence of the curl is zero (in flat spacetime).  (Note that the divergence of the curl is not necessarily zero in a CURVED spacetime!).  Heaviside also corrected Poynting on the direction of flow of the total energy flow in space outside the conductors, which is almost parallel to the conductors.
A startled Heaviside also realized that the remaining energy flow --- after the Poynting component is diverged into the wires to power up the electrons -- is still so great that almost no change in direction exists in it and the original total flow. In other words, the nondivergent Heaviside flow is enormously greater in magnitude than the puerile diverged Poynting flow component.  Quoting Heaviside:
“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… .  Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical.  This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current.  The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire.  Their departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure.  It causes the convergence of energy into the wire.” Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.
I did a back-of-the-envelope gut estimate (would certainly welcome a better calculation) and the Heaviside component is some trillion to 10 trillion times as large in magnitude as is the Poynting component, for the simple circuit I looked at.
What this means is that every generator and battery (and other dipole and dipolar power source) already pours out enormously more EM energy than the energy one inputs mechanically to the shaft of the generator, or the chemical energy expended in a battery, etc.  In the 1880s, one had no inkling of what could possibly be the source of that enormous energy flow. There was no relativity either special or general, no quantum physics, no modern particle physics to speak of, etc.  The electron was not even discovered.  So to keep from being called an idiot and perpetual motion nut not accepting conservation of energy, Heaviside wrote very cautiously about it, but he did write about it in clear terms, though in terms of angles the various flow components make with respect to a reference direction.
In the 1990s that followed, the greatest electrical physicist was Lorentz.  He understood both men's work, but even the great Lorentz did not dare champion something so violently against all the notions of science of the day as was Heaviside's inexplicably huge nondiverged EM energy flow component.  Lorentz reasoned that the huge Heaviside component "had no physical significance," because it did nothing.  Even the great Lorentz would have been professionally destroyed had he suggested that a generator outputs a trillion times more EM energy than one inputs mechanically to it!  So, unable to solve the problem, he eliminated the problem itself.  He simply assumed a closed surface around any volume element of interest, and proceeded to integrate the entire energy vector around that closed surface. That little trick neatly eliminates the nondiverged Heaviside component, while retaining the diverged Poynting component.
And all the engineers today still use Lorentz's neat little integration trick, and thereby arbitrarily discard a trillion or so times as much EM energy as they account for.  The students today are rarely if ever taught this background, or anything about the Heaviside extra, enormous energy flow that normally doesn't interact with anything.  (Good thing it doesn't ordinarily interact because the spacetime is sufficiently flat; else to possess a few flashlight batteries in New York City would be to fry the entire city).
The same "no physical significance" conundrum is still used to justify that Lorentz integration trick, etc.  E.g., quoting Jackson (a superb electrodynamist, and one of my heroes), Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., 1975, p. 237: "...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it.  Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences."
That of course is not quite true. The Heaviside component is such a curl of a vector field, and it is enormously greater in magnitude than the Poynting component. Thus if accounted, it dramatically changes our assumption in classical EM that curved spacetime can be neglected. It changes the physics assumption that one doesn't get very much ST curvature from the usual EM fields and potentials.  One does get significant ST curvature when the huge Heaviside energy flow is accounted, for it makes the change in EM density of ST due to EM changes far greater than we have been taught (a trillion times or so greater).
As an example, I nominated the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component the source of the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together.  But that is positive gravity, because we are referring to positive mass, positive energy source charges when we speak of positive gravity.
The Bohren experiment, I believe, also clearly proves the existence of the Heaviside component and shows that energy can be extracted from it if we work at it a bit. That is a separate discussion, but it comes out (I think!).
Now in thermodynamics, sharp gradients are known to violate thermodynamics and that is recognized (e.g., Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, p. 459).  But as Kondepudi and Prigogine point out, not much is known about strong gradients, either experimentally or theoretically.
What is not known is why sharp gradients produce departure from the laws of thermodynamics as  those laws are presently formulated and interpreted. (The present second law is on its way to being destroyed, e.g., and is in fact falsified by every charge, EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe.  Some very good scientists are now beginning to nail the coffin lid shut on the present second law. The first law has also a flaw as presently stated and formulated, that actually would exclude gauge freedom. I will be pointing out those flaws in a couple of papers I'm working on.).
Well, a sharp gradient momentarily makes excess Dirac sea holes in the local vacuum (remember when they admit in particle physics that adding energy can lift electrons from the Dirac Sea!), and now the holes persist a bit because of the sharp gradient. They are also 4-spatial, not 3-spatial because they have not been observed (have not yet interacted).  For really sharp and really powerful gradients, a tremendous surplus of persistent Dirac sea 4-holes is produced (at the OUTPUT of the process or device).  I got that idea while finishing my MS in Nuclear Engineering at Ga. Tech in 1972. 
Years later, working with Floyd Sweet on his Vacuum Triode Amplifier (I named it that and the name stuck), we had a beautiful chance to put that notion to the test.  The VTA exhibited a COP = 1,500,000 and it could be "pushed" to even higher gain (COP).  It was a case similar to the Bohren experiment, but involving far greater magnitude fields and thus far greater magnitude Heaviside components.  Sweet had a proprietary process by which he triggered the barium nucleus in a barium ferrite permanent magnet into sustained self-oscillation (that is now known in some magnetic materials, but studied in mostly thin films).  But since the nuclear EM fields are so powerful, and their neglected Heaviside energy flow components are thus incredibly powerful, now one really involves some significant curvature of spacetime!
The sharp and very strong gradients also produced Dirac sea holes, because the device's output (500 watts) was mostly cold energy (converging energy, not diverging energy). Shorting the output leads of the VTA would result in instant icing of those leads, NOT heating and melting.  By back of the envelope gut estimates, I estimated that if the unit were "pushed" to double its output, the curvature ought to be sufficient to produce enough antigravity to significantly reduce the weight of the VTA on the bench.  At 1500 watts, I estimated, the unit would hover with the local negative gravity field and the local earth gravity fields being equal and opposite. Push it more, and it would levitate.
So I convinced Sweet to do the experiment (he built a new output section to get it done).  He did the experiment there in California, with me here on the phone in Alabama.  He increased the output in 100 watt stages, from 0 to1,000 watts.  The unit smoothly reduced its weight on the lab bench by 90% at 1,000 watts output. A beautiful curve resulted, which when projected would have crossed the zero weight axis at about 1250 watts. So my crude estimate wasn't too bad for initial work!
(Sweet later confirmed to me that his curiosity got the better of him, and he did add more load and "push" the unit after we hung up. He stated he placed the unit on a tether, levitated it, canted it and flew it around the room. He was lucky his magnets did not explode from the excess monopoles deposited in them.  He did explode several magnets in later "pushing" for more power, and they go off like real hand grenades.  Disconcerting when one's lab is in a bedroom, and not in facilities with explosive containment abilities.
Thereafter an assassination attempt was made on Sweet's life, and he was threatened repeatedly, on the phone at night, by mysterious folks accosting him in the shopping center, etc.  The assassination attempt was with a silenced rifle from about 300 yards. Being aged, he stumbled as he was coming up the front steps, and fell forward sprawling.  Just as his head moved forward, the bullet cracked right by his ear, and there is no mistaking that sound.  Thereafter Sweet was so frightened he would never again perform the experiment, nor would he go to the scientific community leaders with it as I urged him to do.  He mortally feared for his life, and with good reason.  Sweet later died and took the secret of activating his magnets with him. I know 90% of it, but not the critical remaining 10%.  What I know or surmise, I put in my book. 
I did write a crude paper back then, placing Sweet's name first since he was the inventor of the VTA, not me. The paper is:

Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.

Whew!  Now back to the Hutchison experiments.  Basically John blasts away, often with two coils at once, and creates gradients that are (1) very sharp and (2) very strong momentarily.  So he creates (when he gets everything adjusted just right) some persistent Dirac sea holes, which produce negative energy EM fields and potentials, and also produce negative energy Heaviside components.  These latter components are what produce the significant antigravity, levitation, etc. when these phenomena occur (usually not controlled, but just willy-nilly). John has learned over the years how to increase the probability of getting the results, without understanding just what is doing it.  He's doing (in my opinion) another version of the Sweet mechanics for producing antigravity fields that react back on objects in those fields, to produce antigravity effects.  It's getting the sufficiently sharp and sufficiently powerful gradients (discharges) that provide one key to getting those persistent Dirac sea holes whose negative energy fields and potentials --- and whose negative energy Heaviside energy flow components --- make the antigravity effects.
As a note, Heaviside was a recluse, particularly in the latter years of his life, living alone in a little garret apartment.  Years after his death, some of his notes were found in a little storage hole beneath some loose boards in the floor.  See

H. J. Josephs, “The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957,” The Institution of Electrical Engineers Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76.

In those notes, Heaviside had realized the gravitational significance of his long neglected component, and had worked out a theory of gravity effects based on it! 
Professor Laithwaite (now deceased) felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (ExH) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics.  Extracting from Laithwaite: 

"Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S=(E'H)+G, where G is a circuital flux.  Poynting had only written S=(ExH). 
Taking p to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu-ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.” 

Laithwaite played with this Heaviside component with respect to anomalous effects in gyroscopes. For a Laithwaite paper, see

E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.

Ironically Laithwaite was an up and coming Professor, because of his significant work in gyros etc. Thus he was a "rising star", so to speak, and so recognized. He was invited to give an address to the Royal Soc. of London, a great honor.  For his lecture, he brought in a large, heavy gyro which, when not running, he could only lift with both hands with real effort.  So he demonstrated this, and then plugged the cord in and ran the gyro up to speed, then unplugged the cord with the gyro running at speed.  Then he readily lifted the running gyro with one hand, to show that something very novel was going on here. He remarked that Newton might be in trouble -- which was a shocking "no-no" at the Royal Soc. Lond.  Thereafter, his career was curtailed, etc. though he continued to be a professor, etc.  He later filed a patent with a colleague, see

Laithwaite, E. R. and W. R. C. Dawson, "Propulsion System," U.S. Patent #5,860,317, Jan. 19, 1999.  See also his European patent WO95/30832, Nov. 16, 1995. 

Unfortunately Professor Laithwaite died before his American patent was issued.

Anyway, hopefully that gives some insight into Hutchinson's work, and (at least in my opinion and in my own understanding) some inkling of the probable physics underlying those anomalous antigravity effects.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden

Slightly edited