The Tom Bearden


Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:54:01 -0500

Dear Gavin,

Like the way you are beginning to think about the problem; it reminds me of my own early struggles, so I can certainly appreciate it.

Here's a little "thought experiment" which may be helpful.

In the lab at a given point, we are going to instantly produce a dipole.  Little positive charge separated a bit from a little negative charge.  We'll pay for that, by doing work to force those little charges apart.  But we will "fix" the dipole solidly once the charges are separated, and never let them separate again.  (Hey, like forcing the magnetic poles apart, so that there's a north pole (plus mag charge) at one end of a bar, and a south pole (negative mag charge) at the other end.  Then the metal's characteristic holds these charges in place, so they do not vanish by floating back together to become "zero charge" effectively.

Since we can play God in a thought experiment, we also have perfect instruments.  We put a straight line from that point in the lab, radially out into the universe, and in fact all the way to the "end" of the universe, wherever that may be.

Along that line we also place a "perfect instrument", at lengths separated by one second of travel by light.  That's nearly 3x10exp8 meters apart.

Then we instantly produce our dipole, paying for separating the charges.  It cost us a little bit of energy expended on the charges.

One second later, the first instrument reads (whatever level the field will be at that point), and it REMAINS at that level from then on, which means a steady flow is passing, and the initial reading was because the moving front of that flow reached that instrument.

At the end of the second second, the second instrument reads and REMAINS at that level.

And so on.

One year later, we have filled a volume of space a light year in radius, with additional energy, and the energy is still flowing out of that dipole in our laboratory, as every second the next farther instrument reads and holds that reading.

The dipoles in matter have been radiating free energy in that manner for some 14 billion years.

We have other instruments set up in our lab which prove there is no EM energy being furnished to that dipole in 3-space.  Well, either we must throw away the conservation of energy law, or that dipole is receiving the energy from the time domain, since the fourth Minkowski axis is all that is left if we stay in a Minkowski model.

Be sure to read my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole" to see how that also solves the same problem for a single "isolated charge".  And be sure to read my reference on particle physics and the broken symmetry of the dipole to realize that particle physics is consistent with my solution.  Also read Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chap. 5 to realize that quantum field theory is also strongly supportive and validative of my solution.

Every charge and dipole in an EM system constantly pours out energy that way, and that is proven already in physics, just not in EE.

So every charge and dipole already prove that energy can be extracted from the vacuum and/or curved spacetime.  It happens in every charge and dipole in every electrical system.

That we have not learned to use that to actually arrange our systems so they in turn furnish us free energy, is the fault of the scientific community in not applying into electrical engineering what is already proven and known in physics.


Tom Bearden

Dear Tom Bearden (or his associates)

I am an Australian living in Denmark, with an interest in alternative energy / overunity devices. I have a background in Computer Engineering, and Languages (of late - working as a translator in my own small business). I have dabbled in Thermodynamics in my spare time (studied it) in the hope of finding an exploitable loophole or flaw in the 2nd Law which would enable me to construct a heat engine that did not require a cold sink (and hence would allow energy to be harvested from the air or sea, etc.). When I became aware of the potential for COP > 1 electrical devices, I shelved my former project as being no longer relevant.

I would be very interested in somehow helping with the distribution of the MEG in Denmark/Scandinavia and/or Australia when it becomes available, either by helping to organise a distribution channel, or even trying to set one up myself. I am a good writer and might also be able to help in getting a "grass roots" movement going, educating the masses, translating some of the technical background into a more digestible form (for non-Engineers), etc.

I would love to receive any information which you are willing to release regarding the state of the project, the expected path to be followed from here, the applications for the device that you will intially target, and in which countries, potential barriers to be overcome (e.g. safety regulations, licensing etc.). I don't suppose I could buy a working (small) MEG device yet, or get hold of a copy of the patent?

end of original message

I did a search under "Thomas Bearden" on the IBM patent database, and got no responses, which is why I
wanted to know if I can get an electronic copy of the patent application direct from you guys (assuming it is securely in place).

I have thought of a very simple experiment/argument that may show the potential of zero point energy, based on classical physics, which I sent to members of my family. I include the message below:
(you are welcome to publish it / edit it on the cheniere website if you think its useful).

Last night I thought of what I think might be a simple proof of the free energy available in the "vacuum" (zero point energy).

First some physics background.
Work is said to be done on an object if you apply a force that moves the object over a certain distance.

Work = force x distance.

If I push with all my weight against a railway carriage (which won't budge), I haven't done any work on the carriage, even if I do it for 5 minutes (but I will feel like I've done some work!).

If I push a 20kg box 5 metres accross the floor, and I have to push with a force of 50 Newtons to do so, I will have done 50 x 5 = 250 joules of work (not much really). Most likely the box will be stationary when I'm finished (unless it's on a skateboard), so it will have in turn passed all the energy into the floor as friction.

If, however, I throw a 200g cricket ball, applying say the same 50 Newtons of force over a 1 metre arc, I will have done work of 50 x 1 = 50 joules on the ball, and the ball will now possess that energy as kinetic energy, and this will incidently be equal to 1/2 mass x velocity squared as well. The ball will lose some of this energy during it's flight (friction), but it will still possess more than enough kinetic energy at the end of it's flight to smash a window.

Now, back to my proof.

Lie a bar magnet on a table top in front of you. Hold a paper clip in your left hand, 5-10 mm away from the bar magnet. Release the paper clip. It will skate accross to the magnet and stick to it. Now the magnet has done work on the paper clip, it exercised a force over a certain (very small, but real) distance. This requires energy. Where did that energy come from? We are not talking about much energy of course, a tiny fraction of 1 joule. But we can find something a bit heavier than the paper clip, and that will mean a greater force is exerted, and we can repeat the experiment 1,000,000 times, without the magnet getting "used up" as far as I am aware.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced it must be possible to develop some kind of "perpetual motion" device involving simple magnets (and no electrical input) - a so-called permanent magnet motor. It may never produce enough torque to be particularly useful, but it would illustrate the point that it is possible to harvest energy from the vacuum - in other larger scale ways.

For example, take a look at this device:

you could conceivably find a way for the ball to run down a slope somewhere and return to it's starting point.

I am currently trying to think of simple ways to make a permanent magnet "motor" (just something that will
cycle indefinitely, albeit very weakly). I think such a device could work as a bridge to help overcome public skepticism and resistance, and could be used, for example, in discussions with potential distributors, etc.
I realise of course that one must generally avoid the term "perpetual motion", as everyone knows that such devices are not possible in a closed system. The "windmill" analogy is much better.

I would appreciate a very quick acknowledgement of the fact that you have received my message, even if you just write A, B or C from the list below.

We have received your message:
A. but we are too busy to even think about it or read it properly at the moment, perhaps we will get time to later.

B. but cannot at present see that there is any useful role you could play in this project. Thanks anyway.

C. and your offer is vaguely interesting, we may get back to you about it in the next 3 weeks / 3 months / 3 years.

One more thing, I don't have vast sums of money to invest myself (if that is still an issue), but I know an investment funds manager (of a small fund, about $US 60 million) in Australia, whom I might be able convince to risk, say 5-10% of the fund on the MEG (with your help). I'm sure I could convince him to at least come and see what you have got to show (he is not your traditional funds manager, he's very much a lateral thinker).

Anyway, I will be in Australia in December, so I would need to be able to start organising things a bit before then.