The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:17:40 -0500 

Dear Dr. Sylvain,
I'm very touched by your letter, because the terrible conditions in Africa for its peoples has been one of the driving motives in my long search for COP>1.0 systems and cheap clean energy.  These conditions are intolerable, and simply must be alleviated.  Cheap energy is of course the basis for modern economies of most nations.  Without cheap energy, no impoverished nation ever gets a chance to build up its infrastructure, because the economy stays downtrodden also.
In trying to do something such as the MEG, one is confronted by a veritable maze of laws, requirements, practices, etc. that one must successfully negotiate if ever one is to get a unit on the world market.
First, what we have with the MEG is a series of successful laboratory experiments. We certainly do not have developed units ready to go, and ready to be mass produced and sold.  The MEG system is highly nonlinear, uses four areas of physics (one exotic, the geometric phase as represented by the Aharonov-Bohm effect), in addition to electrodynamics.  However, U(1) electrodynamics --- as you know -- does not include the interaction of the active vacuum nor does it include the interaction of the local curvatures of spacetime back upon the system.  That is, present electrodynamics has not modeled the supersystem, which is comprised of three interacting components: (1) the system and its dynamics, (2) the active vacuum and its exchange dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their interaction dynamics.
Notice that components (2) and (3) comprise the ACTIVE ENVIRONMENT of the EM system component (1).
By failing to model the active environment of the system, U(1) electrodynamics effectively assumes a flat local spacetime (falsified since 1915 and the advent of general relativity) and an inert vacuum (falsified for decades in particle physics).
Further, to have a partially or totally self-powered EM system, the system must act partially or totally as an "electrical windmill in a free electrical wind from its environment".  In other words, for COP>1.0 the environment must input part of the energy used to power the system loads and losses, and for self-powering or COP = infinity operation the environment must input all the energy used.  Further, this reception and use of input energy from the environment must be stabilized and regulated so that stable operation can be had with changing loads.
So the inventor or inventing group for any would-be COP>1.0 electrical power system has a formidable task.  First, a patent or patents have to be secured to protect intellectual property rights, or the group has nothing of value at all, even after years of work and expenditure.  Then foreign patents (very expensive) have to be filed as well, or there is no protection past the shores of one's own country.  Then to finish the research and development, one is looking at a "sheer vertical cliff" of appreciable funding required, plus a quite advanced laboratory (including the physics, not just the electrical aspects).  Given that one gets the funding for that and the properly selected laboratory team (specialists in four different physics discipline, specialist in higher group symmetry electrodynamics, specialists in simulation and modeling in order to fit together a mathematical model, necessary for design and stage-up), specialist in control of nonlinear and chaotic oscillations, etc.  Given the lab and team, then a solid year of very hard work is required before production prototypes can be arrived at for mass production.
All that prices out to about $20 million in the U.S.  So we have arrived at that "sheer vertical cliff" that so far has successfully defeated every other previous COP>1.0 system that attempted to go into final development for production.
In the face of that, one is also subjected to a tirade of insults, suppressions, libel, etc. from misguided members of the scientific community, who "already know that all such systems are perpetual motion foolishness".  Sadly, these same misguided scientists do not even realize that the U(1) electrodynamics and electrical engineering they so blandly accept, already implicitly assumes that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine of the worst kind, freely creating energy from nothing and continuously pouring it out in all directions.  In short, they have not even realized or come to grips with the hoary old "source charge problem", well known to be the "most difficult" problem in both classical and quantal electrodynamics.  But it is certainly hidden from the electrical engineers, and I know of no electrical engineering department anywhere that informs its students of that tremendous and fundamental problem that devours the electrodynamics models presently used.
The basis for the solution to that source charge problem is of course the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as on the ends of a source dipole, or such as exists for an "isolated charge" when its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign are accounted.  It is well-known and fully recognized in physics (not in electrical engineering!) that the bare charge and bare mass of a charged particle is INFINITE!  So is the charge of the clustering virtual charges of opposite sign.  The DIFFERENCE between these two infinite terms gives the observed finite value in the textbooks and handbooks for the observed charge of that charged particle, through the clustering shielding.  Here is a nice little quotation on that from Nobelist Weinberg:
 "[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions.  But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles.  In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite.  The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."  [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].
So by modern physics (not Tom Bearden!) every charge in the universe already involves (1) infinite energy interactions, and (2) polarization of the active vacuum. None of this appears in electrical engineering, but it is true nonetheless.
So our MEG problem is to obtain the necessary major funding partner to get on with setting up the necessary laboratory team to finish the research and development of scaled-up units.  We have three processes for close-looping and stabilization, one of which has been proven on the bench in simplified form.  One faces a situation where, if the MEG buildup is relatively simple, the close-looping is highly complex, or if the MEG buildup is made complex, the close-looping is simplified.
Anyway, you will note that we do not sell stock to the public, and we are not "fleecing" the public.  We have to date funded the development of the MEG (for about 10 years) ourselves.
We are confident, however, that we will eventually be able to secure the necessary capitalization, and get on with finishing the MEG system and putting it into production.
If we do succeed, we also will set aside 10% of all profits for directly doing something about the terrible conditions in undeveloped nations.  That is our goal, and that humanitarian side of it is always stated to would-be investors as non negotiable.
God bless you, and we shall do everything within out power to get this system finished and onto the world market.  If we fail, we also will be getting out all the information we can, in my forthcoming book.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden

Lomé le 30/06/2000

To : Tom Bearden

Dear Sir

I have discovered your Web Site and its contents just few months ago ;
I have a Phd in Electrical engineering in France and have  worked for more than 10 years in one
of the best Power Electronics Research Labs in Paris, France .
Unfortunately I am just used with U(1) Electrodynamics , and presently   my professional environment in Togo/Africa is not adequate to try to replicate the MEG; its why I have transmitted some information about your web-site and the MEG  to my ex colleagues in France and I have heavily suggested to them to replicate a MEG ( in open loop ) . They are just used with U(1) Electrodynamics but as they are very competent , skilled and  opened mind , successful replication of the MEG may be  an I hope a good health for you and a great success for your present challenge about your MEG project , because such a success , I am sure would be a catalyst for many electrical engineers through the  world .
At the present time , personally I am just gathering and looking theoretically for my own guidance through   the numerous bibliography you suggest on your web-site .
Anyhow I ll keep following the progress of your project because it is that kind of project  that , if
 successful ,  can be very useful in Africa where the cost of the energy is so high that it  precludes  millions of peoples out from a minimum of economic  development ( the cost of elect energy in Togo
 ( whenand the PIB  is less than 450 US$ /Inhabitant/year !!!!) .
 Sorry for my poor  English .
Best regards

 Mr d Almeida