The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:05:35 -0600

Dear Guy,


Everyone has different skills.  My skill is in concepts and principles, since I dig into foundations --- which are not many people's cup of tea.  In foundations work, however, one discovers we really do not understand what a great number of things taken for granted really are.  Such as force, energy, mass, space, time, etc.  Even exactly what is meant by "observation" is still controversial.


First must come the concepts and principles, tied to good physics but outside the classical electrical engineering, because the classical electrical engineering model does not even allow COP>1.0 systems.


Mathematics you can hire on the street corner from any good university.  The Math is indeed necessary, but there are a great many persons who can do the necessary mathematics.  Most of these persons, however, have heretofore been lacking the concepts and principles.  Certainly they have been lacking them in the COP>1.0 arena, for there has not been any legitimate COP>1.0 theory of EM systems previously advanced.  Just try finding one.


My target is the sharp young grad students and post docs who are interested in COP>1.0 systems.  This target audience already has far better mathematical skills than I do!  One only has to cite "Lorentz symmetrical regauging" and they already know what it is as well as the mathematics involved.  They may not be aware that Ludwig Lorenz did it in 1867, way before H. A. Lorentz did it, but got all the credit for it.  So I tell them that, and also cite the beautiful paper by Jackson and Okun that gives the pertinent history and explains what a bum deal Lorenz (without the t) got.  Then one only has to call to their attention to what Lorentz regauging really does.  Such as change the potential energy of the system freely and twice, but in an arbitrary weird way so that all the free and extra potential energy you can have for free, is "locked up" and cannot be used to translate electrons as current to help power an external load.  Such as a change in the potential energy of the Maxwellian system represented by the equations assumes a rotation of the system out of the laboratory frame.  Etc.


To understand my work, one does have to read the literature, and it isn't easy.  If it had been easy and straightforward, it would not have taken 30 years to uncover it.


Also, to ever have a legitimate theory of COP>1.0 systems, one has to first have not only the principles and concepts, but also the hard physics references for each part.  Since no one heretofore has been doing that at all, that is what I'm doing.


As far as devices:  Simply charge a capacitor and lay it on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field of the cap is at right angles to the permanent magnet.  That optimizes EXH.  So that simple beast --- even by standard Poynting theory --- sits there and pours out EM energy from the vacuum, continuously and unceasingly --- and freely.  There is no problem at all in extracting the energy to gush out in a steady continuous flow.  That's all there is to building a COP = infinity EM energy source, totally violating the second law of thermodynamics because it steadily produces negentropy, not entropy.  (Not to worry, that has now been proven by some excellent scientists, and we will be covering that on our website).


The problem is, now what do you do with that silly capacitor and magnet?  You have a certified, proven free flow of EM energy.  The COP>1.0 EM system problem starts right there.


And that's the point.  Right there, most fellows refuse to do any further thinking on their own.  They get a number 40 glaze across their eyes, and say, "Why, that's too simple!  That's nothing at all."  And as long as they don't get it at that point, they never will -- and I have no further time to discuss things with them. They are slated to do engineering or applied research, not basic research.


There are no textbooks or courses on how to go about catching that energy gushing from that simple thing and using it to power a load.  Well, you can do it.  Johnson has done it, but that information is proprietary since he is an inventor.  All I can say about it is that he controls the spin-flipping, and has been working with that long before the present spintronics came along.  If the spintronics fellows get their ducks in order, they will be doing it also.  Johnson has indeed built a self-rotating permanent magnet motor, and I predict he will do so once again (the last one's magnets were stolen in a break-in in his lab).  The point is, one can evoke the exchange force in that contraption by various methods (those are indeed in various books, but widely scattered).  The exchange force is often momentarily several thousand times as strong as the H-field force of the magnet.  Doesn't take a genius to see that, if you evoke the exchange force repeatedly and in a controlled direction in an all-permanent magnet motor arrangement, you can use the exchange force to violate the line integral around the closed loop summing to zero.  If it sums to a finite number instead, then you have a totally permanent magnet motor that can turn itself.  If it puts out more energy than your switching costs used to evoke that spin flipping and exchange force, the system becomes a COP>1.0 system.  If you power a generator with the permanent magnet COP>1.0 motor, and use a part of the output to power the switching and timing, now you have constructed a COP = infinity (i.e., self-powering) system.


That is the type thought processes we are trying to "feed". 


Kawai, e.g., did develop first a COP>1.0 magnetic motor (described in his U.S. patent) and then also a self-powering magnetic motor version.  Control of his motor, his company, and his fate was seized right before my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues, by the Japanese Yakuza, here in Huntsville, Alabama in 1996. Otherwise, we would already have placed Kawai motors on the world market, at Kawai's specific request.


Those who are uninterested, or who wish all the work done for a complete textbook etc. up front, are not my interest.  First, no one is paying for this except me --- some $300K out of this working man's pocket over the last 30 years.  I'm interested in getting the attention of those sharp young grad students and post docs and interested engineers who are deeply interested, who wish to get into the "field that is not yet a recognized field" from a scientific basis, and are going to do a lot of personal work on the matter.  My purpose is to save them lots of looking and searching.  That's all.


So we release what we can.  We cannot release another inventor's exact information if we have a non-disclosure agreement with him!  And inventors do not make the patent laws; they simply have to try to live with them.


Anyway, that's the approach, and that's the rationale.  To some folks the information is highly useful.  To others it is of no use whatsoever.  That's understandable and expected.


But one cannot be or do all things for all people.  So one simply chooses what one can do, and does it.


And of course one keeps a sense of humor.  It is amazing how many folks can tell me how to do it better --- but have never done it themselves or even tried it. On the other hand, there are lots of folks who also do find the information both interesting and highly useful.


A real researcher in this field has a database which he works continually.  That's collected and filed hard references, a written database of all of that on his computer usually, and a growing set of filing cabinets.  If he's an experimenter, he also has equipment, instruments, parts, and various experiments in process. Those are the persons I'm targeting primarily.


There are also now some spectacular new developments in thermodynamics that I will be covering on my website in the immediate future.  The second law of thermodynamics in its present form is as dead as a doornail with respect to electrodynamics.  We'll cite the exact references (including in Physical Review Letters) and what they mean. Every charge in the universe violates the present second law, as does every EM field, potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe.  Stay tuned for the flash.  We'll also provide a rigorous  restatement of the second law, that IS consistent with experiment, IS consistent with the gauge freedom axiom, DOES provide for negentropy, and DOES allow overunity EM systems.  And we'll cite the rigorous physics papers proving the various aspects of all that.


So it's an exciting time.  The scientific community is at last beginning to arouse a bit from its long slumber with respect to COP>1.0 systems.


After all, a common solar cell has a COP = infinity, even though its nominal efficiency may be only 17%.  So the long objection that COP>1.0 EM systems are perpetual motion machines has always been ludicrous.  Nonetheless, such a charge is still regularly levied at overunity researchers.


Ironically, the real perpetual motion advocates are the electrical engineering departments, professors, texts, etc.  The standard CEM model used in electrical engineering implicitly assumes that the source charge freely creates energy out of nothing, continuously, and pours it out continuously at light speed in all directions, thereby forming its associated fields and potentials reaching across the universe at light speed.


Did any of your professors ever brief you on this long-vexing "source charge problem"?  Or encourage you to look for a solution?  Or encourage their graduate students to tackle the problem for a doctoral thesis?  Almost certainly not, since most professors themselves no longer are aware of the problem, and are adamantly committed to the proposition --- falsified by every source charge in the universe --- that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible and thus represent "perpetual motion machines".  But in electrical engineering all EM fields and potentials and their energy are implicitly assumed to be created by their source charges, without any observable EM energy input to the source charge.  It is experimentally established that there is no observable EM energy input to the source charge, involved in the process of generating the associated fields and potentials.


How then does one save the conservation of energy law itself (the FIRST law of thermodynamics?)?


There is no solution to that problem in all of electrical engineering, but the solution (the broken symmetry of any dipolarity, such as a charge together with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum) has been in physics since 1957, with a Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang that year. So it's pretty simple.  The EE model cannot even model the solution to that source charge problem because it does not contain the active vacuum, its interaction with charge, or a broken symmetry in that interaction.  Yet the solution has already been known for 45 years, but is outside the range of the EE model itself.  Therefore it is the EE model that is deficient and it should be expanded dramatically.


My work is designed for persons who will think deeply about that type of problem, and its implications, and who are interested in trying to find a solution to it, or recognizing the solution that is available in particle physics.  The work is not designed to produce kits or teach anyone how to build a specific COP>1.0 EM system.  That will come later, way down the line when we finally have a developed cogent theory and a developed COP>1.0 technology.  We have neither at the moment.


For kits and that sort of thing, we just point out overunity experiments.  They can replicate the Bohren-type experiment at will (it's performed many times each year by most nonlinear optics departments, under the guise of the "negative resonance absorption of the medium".  That's a euphemism for  "excess emission of the medium").  Bohren's type of experiment is done in the infrared or UV and outputs 18 times as much energy as the experimenter inputs, anywhere, anytime.  In short, the medium emits more energy than one inputs (by standard calculations).  So how does one save the conservation of energy law when faced with the proven Bohren experiment?  Again, the answer is there, but not in EE.


I do direct the interested party to where he or she can indeed find a reproducible COP>1.0 EM experiment.  Then it's up to them what they do with the information, or whether they wish to do the experiment for themselves.


Meanwhile, by making available the concepts and principles that do allow COP>1.0, and explaining exactly why, along with hard references on each part, the young researcher can just start from where I am and not have to spend 30 hard years of his life getting there.


That is what I'm doing or trying to do.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:01:13 -0500
Subject: Question

Dear Dr. Bearden,
    I have just spent almost 5 days reading your web site and am not finished yet. I, like you, no longer are seeking much from this world. I would like to leave this place a bit better than when I arrived. So, I read a lot and try to see if I can do anything constructive to help.
    I was a principal engineer with H**** aerospace and have just enough technical ability to slightly grasp your concepts. My problem is this. I send your web address to more competent friends, and generally get the same response. "He is too scattered". By this I mean that they either will not or can not make it through your web site. You mix conspiracy with ghosts and generally affront those less eclectic than you. I happen to agree with most of your "conspiracy" theories as well as much of the other.
    So, what I would like to ask is do you have a "concise" technical paper which deals with the Maxwell, Heaviside, Lorenz equations separate from all other phenomena This would be useful for some of my friends. Also there are many organizations capable of funding research towards a static goal, that I am familiar with. It's enough to affront Einstein, for instance, without rubbing their less open faces in  other phenomena not related.
    This is not meant to be a critique in any way, since I don't feel qualified to even speak on these subjects, much less argue them.
But I do think that your obvious wealth of knowledge could be a bit more sharply directed to appeal to the masses.
    Why don't you make a toy that incorporates one of the very small greater than one COP devices. This could sell and be unnoticed by the public, since it's a toy, and perhaps be used to fund some of the really worthwhile projects. I could help with the money for that with the "vulture" capitalists. Give them the lions share of the "meat" and keep the technology yourself.
    I am afraid that I am less articulate than I would like to be in this letter, however, I hope you will see my points as constructive.


Guy ******* BSEE