The Tom Bearden





Energy from the Vacuum

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

Help support the research



Subject: RE: New Federal Agency modeled after DARPA for Energy research
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:39:45 -0500


Hi Wayne,


Unfortunately, the new agency will be a component of the Department of Energy – and that is bad, bad, bad.


You can forget anything really innovative in energy, or that really might solve the escalating world energy crisis. Nothing like that will be forthcoming from the new agency, from DARPA (one of the very worst agencies we have, and it has been one of the worst since its very inception), and DOE (which will only do relatively conventional things).


You’ve got the big nuclear power industry, giant accelerators, hot fusion, etc. all tied up in there already. And much of that is where the money will go.


You will not see anything spent to study negative EM energy (from the Schrödinger equation and also from the original Dirac equation). Instead, you will see it claimed that negative mass-energy, e.g., is impossible.  Yet a negative mass-energy electron is precisely what a Dirac hole really is, and the vacuum itself does indeed have negative mass-energy states and also negative energy states. To see that, see the paper by Solomon. Quoting:


“In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. It will be shown that this is not, in fact, the case and that there must exist states in HT with less energy than the vacuum state. It will be shown that energy can be extracted from the HT vacuum state through application of an electric field.” [Dan Solomon, “Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117-122].


You will not see the deliberately fouled up electrical engineering model changed, to restore all those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that Lorentz discarded for J. P. Morgan back in 1892, or for the cute little integration trick by which Lorentz discarded (in 1900) the giant curled Heaviside energy flow component accompanying every Poynting component but more than a trillion times in magnitude).


You will see “more of the same old same-oh”. You will see research on things like ethanol from corn (more dirty energy input by the operators than the cleaner energy output from the ethanol itself, and an activity that drives up the price of animal feed so it is already driving up all our food costs, which totally serves the purpose of the great energy cartels). You will see lots of money diverted into building lots of new nuclear power plants. Not a dime will go into legitimate study of the NRAM (negative resonance absorption of the medium) effect and the possibility of building vacuum energy powered NRAM heat amplifiers in steam boilers to make self-powering steam boilers). Not a dime will go into study of EM energy extraction from the vacuum – even though every joule of EM energy poured out of the terminals of every power source (generator, battery, etc.) has been freely extracted from the virtual state vacuum, once the source dipole inside the primary source is formed and paid for. It is the broken symmetry of that source dipole, once formed, that produces the energy flow from the generator terminals, including both the accounted Poynting diverged EM energy flow and the (usually) nondiverged giant Heaviside EM curled energy flow component that is no longer accounted.


As Nobelist Lee pointed out:


“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.]


So the proven broken symmetry of that source dipole, once formed inside the generator, freely receives virtual state energy from the seething virtual state vacuum, coherently integrates it, and outputs a continual stream of real observable photons – real usable EM energy. This free outpouring of real observable photons continually establishes and continually replenishes the external “static” fields of the source dipole. E.g., quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:


“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].


Not try finding a single EE textbook that points out that the associated “static” EM fields of a source charge or a source dipole are actually continuous flows of real observable photons, whose energy has been directly extracted from the local seething vacuum interaction.


And try to find any interest at DOE, the national labs, DARPA, etc. in these things. Sadly, those people are not looking for new things; they are looking for “more of the same” things with a new disinformation coat of paint and whitewash on it.


Try to find a single DOE task that has to do directly with free EM energy extraction from the vacuum, or with the application of negative EM energy to rather quickly solve the world energy crisis.


Try to find a single DOE paper that points out and discusses the horrible falsities being taught in the present electrical power engineering model – falsities which have been pointed out by Nobelist Feynman, the great John Wheeler, and other noted scientists, but to no avail.


Try to find a single electrical engineering textbook which, in addition to the hoary old 1880s/1890s model, curtailed further by Lorentz in 1892 and 1900, also lists the assumptions of that old model, and particularly discusses which of those hoary old assumptions have long since been falsified by the march of modern physics.


Try to find Maxwell’s actual quaternion-like equations in any standard EE textbook. Or even a solid discussion of how the present EE theory is not Maxwell’s equations or theory at all, but is two further truncations of the already severely truncated Heaviside equations, pasted together after Maxwell was already dead.


Try finding any physics paper in the NRAM (negative resonance absorption of the medium) area that discusses or even points out that “negative absorption” is just a phrase used to avoid calling it what it is: excess emission. Try to find a single paper that has been permitted to be published, that discusses the thermodynamics of the NRAM process. (If you find one, please let me know immediately). Instead, the scientists in that area – whose experiments regularly produce COP = 18 – are force to say “negative absorption” and to only point out that it “increases the reaction cross section”. Look up the definition of “reaction cross section” and the definition of “coefficient of performance” and you will see what we are pointing out.


So long as this kind of sheer scientific hypocrisy (and thought control!) exists and dominates, there will deliberately be no real solution to the world energy crisis that is permitted.


And while we are at it:


(1)     Why is the axe-grinding “professional skeptical community” still allowed to blast off that a simple COP>1.0 (overunity) system is a “perpetual motion machine freely creating energy from nothing”? What a stupid falsity. A standard home heat pump has an efficiency of only about 50%, but it obtains (nearly freely) enough excess heat energy input from the local environment (atmosphere) that it outputs from three to four times as much heat energy as the electrical input energy the operator himself furnishes and pays for. A common windmill driven generating system has perhaps an overall 30% to 35% efficiency, but it has a  COP = infinity. Newton’s first law of motion is the law of perpetual motion! Simply place an object (such as, toss a rock out into deep space) into straight line motion in space, and it will remain in that state of motion forever, unless some external force directly intervenes to forcibly change its state of motion. Also, all our solid state physics students routinely do real perpetual motion experiments every year, in every major technical university. Simply evoke a superconducting current in a closed superconducting loop, and it will slowly decay to zero over an infinite time (forever). It will reach finite “half value” in some 10exp23 years, which is many orders of magnitude longer than the present life of the universe. Simply check a good solid state physics textbook, such as Charles Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York, 1996, p. 359-360.


(2)     Want to make a simple “free EM energy flow from the seething vacuum?” Simply lay a charged capacitor or an electret on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field and the H-field are orthogonal. Then by the Poynting energy flow theory in all the standard EE textbooks, that silly thing will freely and steadily pour out real Poynting EM energy flow S forever, given by the standard little equation S = E X M, so long as the gadget is allowed to remain together undisturbed. So there is absolutely no problem at all, in obtaining a free flow of real EM energy anywhere in the universe, from very simple gadgets and devices and for a one-time cost of peanuts. The problem is that the kind of asymmetric Maxwellian systems (the kind of “electrical windmills”) required to freely extract and use some energy from this free “EM energy wind”, were arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in 1892 and are still arbitrarily discarded by all EEs since then. So we already know how to get a “free EM energy wind”, but we have been absolutely prohibited from learning how to build a proper “asymmetric windmill” for tapping and using that free EM energy flow. And for goodness sakes, our vaunted DOE doesn’t even know this, nor does it do anything about it, nor does it intend to.


(3)     So why do our journals and scientific magazines continue to let such EM power lies be told, and why do these journals and magazines let legitimate researchers into “energy from the external vacuum environment” be called “dirty old perpetual motion nuts and crackpots”? And why do these leading journals and magazines not point out that a nonequilibrium steady-state system, so long as it has a free energy input from its environment (such as the windmill system, solar-cell array powered system, hydroelectric power system, etc.) will continue to work forever (perpetually) and freely with respect to the operator having to furnish any of the input energy, unless or until something breaks, the wind dies down, the solar radiation input is lost (as at night), etc.?


(4)     And why are our engineers not told that the conventional conservation of energy law is rigorously obeyed in special relativistic situations, but not necessarily obeyed in a general relativistic situation? This has been known since it was pointed out by the great mathematician Hilbert shortly after Einstein’s general relativity theory was born. It is still known to really good physicists (but not at all to the ill-informed old professional skeptical community or to electrical engineers, and apparently not to DOE either).  E.g., quoting Hilbert:


"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.].


Quoting Logunov and Loskutov:


"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately, … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179].


Quoting the eminent physicist Roger Penrose:

“We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.]


Note that Penrose points out that the “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, separate the curved spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this “solution” artificially adopted by many general relativists itself is almost always untenable.


But then, try to find a single standard EE textbook that still shows that giant curled Heaviside EM energy flow component. Or that points out that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much output energy flow from its terminals, as the mechanical energy that we crank into the generator shaft.


Now why do not the thermodynamics classes and electrical engineering classes – and textbooks -- include such information?


You can see the point. There is a continuing and giant conspiracy that has been accepted and imposed for more than 100 years, that one cannot have COP>1.0 EM systems taking their energy from an active vacuum/spacetime medium. That’s what the hoary old CEM/EE model assumes (after being severely truncated by Heaviside and twice again by Lorentz), because it arbitrarily assumes a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum. The same conspiracy states that a true COP>1.0 system would be impossible and would involve creating energy from nothing. That’s already quite falsified by the windmill, the waterwheel, the solar cell array, etc.


And how many times have we been hit over the head with the severely flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics! Yet in modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics, one is permitted to violate that old second equilibrium law almost at will, in several ways. ]For a list of such ways wherein one can easily violate the old second law, see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459].


Kondepudi and Prigogine also point out:


"Equilibrium thermodynamics was an achievement of the nineteenth century, nonequilibrium thermodynamics was developed in the twentieth century, and Onsager's relations mark a crucial point in the shift of interest away from equilibrium to nonequilibrium. … due to the flow of entropy, even close to equilibrium, irreversibility can no more be identified with the tendency to disorder… [since it can] … produce both disorder … and order…” [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, p. xv.]



So if the modern vacuum is truly active and energetic (and it is!), then it is a universal “active” environment which conceivably can be tapped to extract some excess EM energy freely or almost freely, thereby achieving true COP asymmetric Maxwellian systems.


But then, Lorentz deliberately tossed out all such asymmetric Maxwellian systems in 1892, and so electrical engineering from its beginning has ASSUMED that such Maxwellian systems are impossible. Yet in more modern theory, we know (and use) the fact that every charge in the universe is already in a violent interaction with the active vacuum, and the two cannot be separated! E.g., quoting Aitchison:


"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].


— • —


Anyway, one should not hold out any hope that such matters will be corrected by DOE, the great national labs, DARPA, our leading scientific agencies such as NAS, NSF, NAE, etc., or by our leading universities. The very fellows that are in fact the foxes watching the hen house are not going to change into harmless doves watching it. Those “chickens” are going to be fine, as long as they are locked up in the hen house. But if one breaks loose or seriously attempts to, it will be immediately “killed” by the waiting foxes.


Best wishes,

Tom Bearden



Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Fwd: New Federal Agency modelled after DARPA for Energy research


Tom - I thought you and Tony might be interested in this link.  Although I would like to think there has been some serious, basic research going on these past twenty years under the radar, it's nice to see they are finally putting together an agency to actually go after alternative energy sources.  Will they be successful? - Who knows!?
Wayne G