The Tom Bearden


Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:03:46 -0500

Thanks Ken.

 We do try to advance a solid technical understanding of what we are doing and attempting, based on good physics.  E.g., no inert (no internal sources) system in equilibrium with its environment can possibly produce COP>1.0.  To produce overunity, the inert system has to be in disequilibrium with its active environment, freely receiving some excess energy from it.  In that case, the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium with their external active environment applies.  As is well known in such thermodynamics, such a system is permitted to perform five "magic" functions: (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess energy is freely received from the active environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the external environment, exactly analogous to a windmill), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

 Every charge and dipole in the universe already does all five of those functions, yet receives absolutely no energy input in 3-dimensions.  For the solution to where the energy comes from, see my solution to what has been called the most difficult problem in quantum and classical electrodynamics: T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole", on my website  After publishing that paper, I discovered very powerful support for my reinterpretation of Whittaker's decomposition of the scalar potential; that support comes from  F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, in Chapter 5.  Mandl and Shaw give a deeper coverage of the photon polarizations.  They also strongly argue that the longitudinal and scalar polarizations are not directly observable, but only in combination, where they manifest as the "instantaneous" Coulomb (i.e., electrostatic) potential.  Transformed into wave language for the macroscopic world, that precisely agrees with my reinterpretation of Whittaker's decomposition.  It also establishes a new and highly preferred EM energy flow symmetry (and corresponding energy conservation law) in physics, and particularly gives the primary mechanism for that fifth "magic function" (exhibit negentropy) that an open system far from disequilibrium is permitted to do.

 A windmill is a perfect example of an open disequilibrium system, performing functions four and five of that magic "five" permitted.  If one puts the windmill in a barn, so that no outside air can blow on its blades, one will have to crank the windmill oneself.  As an analogy, all our present EM power systems are deliberately though unwittingly built like "electrical windmills in a barn".  So even though free "electrical winds" are easily available, none of our present self-crippling systems take advantage of them, and in fact their designers just ignore all such free EM energy flow winds.

 The standard EM theory taught in electrical engineering has a math model (after Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Heaviside-Maxwell equations) that then addresses and models only those Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz systems that are indeed in equilibrium with their two active external environments: (1) the active local vacuum and its dynamics, and (2) the local curved spacetime and its dynamics.  Lorentz therefore simply discarded all permissible  overunity (disequilibrium) Maxwellian systems.

 Consider the "supersystem", consisting of (1) the physical electrical power system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics.  We already know in physics that all three components of the supersystem do interact.  One cannot have an operating power unit sitting calmly on the stand and running, unless these three parts of the supersystem are indeed interacting.

 The conventional electrical engineering model uses that highly truncated Lorentz-regauged EM.  So that discards the active vacuum environment and also the active curved local spacetime environment.

 Lorentz did it diabolically, though unwittingly.  He changed the potential energy of the system twice, but carefully selected (out of an infinite number of options) so that the two free field forces that appeared were equal and opposite.  Hence the system freely changed its potential energy twice, as assumed by the Lorentz regauging, but deliberately in such fashion that all the energy is locked up in altered stress of the system.  In particular, the extra regauging energy is not allowed (by choice!) to be discharged (that requires a force field) to do work in a load.

 It is totally this mathematical trickery and the ASSUMPTIONS that accompany it, that has been responsible for our engineers building only COP<1.0 systems for more than a century (since the 1880s). Yet so ingrained has this crazy mindset -- that no COP>1.0 EM systems are permitted by nature -- has become an iron dogma in science.

 It follows that, in order to have a legitimate COP>1.0 EM power system, one must first (at least in some part of the circuit) violate that Lorentz condition.  That is, one must recover in his circuit or supersystem sufficient interaction with the external parts of the supersystem, to provide and inflow of excess potential energy, and at the same time he must not SYMMETRICALLY do that "regauging".  It must be ASYMMETRICAL, so as to permit a net force to be present.  This then allows one to discharge the free regauging energy, in the load to do work.  Unless the regauging (change of potential and thus change of potential energy of the system) is asymmetrical, then the prevailing dogma rigorously applies and that system will not exhibit COP>1.0.

 There are already known, tested, published overunity EM experiments in physics, and it only takes one single white crow to prove that not all crows are black.  E.g., the Bohren experiment can be performed by any competent university materials science lab or nonlinear optics lab, and it gives a COP = 18.  Both the experiment and its independent replication are published in American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983

 So the first thing a legitimate overunity researcher needs to tell you, is exactly where and how his system is deliberately violating the Lorentz condition.  Unless that is happening, the otherwise inert system is not overunity, and cannot be overunity.  Yet one of the things so wrong with the present loose-knit "overunity community" is precisely the absence of any such scientific approach.  But any legitimate COP>1.0 system will have one section at least, which violates the Lorentz condition.

 Also, our most modern physics theory today is probably quantum field theory, at least with respect to success in applying it all across physics.  One of the axioms of that theory is the gauge freedom axiom.  In short, this tells us that just changing the potential energy of a system is not work and does not cost us.  To dissipated the energy or change its form to something else, is work and that will cost us.  But just go freely change the potential energy of the system is cost-free and does not require work.  In real systems, of course, we may have to pay a little for switching or some such, but we do not have to pay for the energy in that increase.

 From the gauge freedom axiom alone, the notion that cranking the shaft of a generator introduces power to the external circuit is false.  ALL changes of potential energy to a system -- such as the external circuit -- are free and must be free, or most of modern physics has to be seriously overhauled to get that gauge field theory back out of it.

 What is so sad is that all the above is well-known physics, though it is not in the electrical engineering curriculum.  And yet, at every university and every electrical engineering department, to just advance the legitimate requirements for permissible overunity EM systems is to automatically be labeled a charlatan and a lunatic.

 But this has always been the posture of the scientific community for anything that is REALLY "out of the box" thinking -- to use the prevailing "buzz words".  There are literally hundreds of examples, including the kinetic theory of gases, continental drift, the amorphous semiconductor, originally the conservation of energy law itself, Goddard's rocketry, etc.

 I see little change today in the scientific community's prevailing attitude, from its historical condemnation of anything new and its historical character assassination of the offending scientists.

 In theory at least, science is supposed to be based on the experimental method.  If the experiment refutes the accepted theoretical model, it is the model that must be changed, not the mind of the experimenter.

 So the Bohren experiment alone is sufficient to warrant the National Science Foundation and National Academy of Sciences to go full-bore into research in overunity EM systems.  There are other COP>1.0 experiments also, of course.  If Lorentz' other little integration trick (of integrating the energy flow vector around any volume element of interest, therefore neatly disposing of that part of the energy flow that misses the collector and is not diverged) is ignored, then suddenly every dipolar EM circuit we ever built is revealed as producing appreciably more EM energy flow than we input to it.  Poynting never considered this component that "misses" and is nondiverged, but only consider the component that gets intercepted and caught.  That's rather like ignoring all the power output by a radio station, except the little bit that I catch in my own individual receiver.  Heaviside did discover that additional, rather large nondiverged energy flow component accompanying every circuit.  But he could not explain where on earth the excess energy -- in startling amount -- was coming from.  Neither could Lorentz.  So to prevent being labeled a perpetual motion nut, Lorentz neatly disposed of it with that little trick.

 And all the electrical engineers and power system designers continue to use that same little trick, to ignore the energy the circuit did not catch and intercept.  What a way to run a railroad.

 Anyway, you might be interested in a very rigorous three scientific papers, two on the MEG and one on many ways to go about legitimately extracting EM energy from the vacuum.  These three papers are by M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., and they are:

 "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.

 "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with  the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393 (in press).

 "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

 Very best wishes,

 Tom Bearden, Ph.D.

    Please place me on your announcement list.
    I have viewed and downloaded JLN Labs' diagrams of a prototype/lab duplication MEG, as well as haveing viewed a video of your self.
     I am quite intrigued, and check your site often in hopes that your international patent process has completed and that more particulars reference MEG have been revealed.
    Of all the "Free Energy" proponents I have seen, you are the most rational.
    Thank You.
    Kenneth R
    Sand Point Alaska