The Tom Bearden

Help support the research



Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:51:16 -0600


 Some answers below, inserted after the questions.  Glad to be of (hopefully) some assistance. 

 Can't help on the papers; only have my own file copy.  But just go to a good scientific library, and they will have the Poynting and Heaviside papers, etc.  Or if you're a real bear for punishment, often the collected papers of Heaviside and sometimes of Poynting wind up being for sale (the volume, etc.) on the web, at used book stores.  I bought the collected papers of T.D. Lee that way, after painfully running them down, volume by volume.

 Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:53:09 +1100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200

Hello again Tom,
My sincere Congratulations on your success in having been granted a US PATENT for the MEG. I am really very excited ! Personally I cannot wait for the first production units of your MEG - CAN I ORDER THE FIRST ONE NOW?
I wrote you some time ago about the patent details which I would like to study so I can learn more about this device. Now that your Patent has been finally granted can you please tell me the PATENT NO. so that I can get a hold of a copy?

ANS: The patent has not formally been issued; we were formally contacted by the Patent Office and informed it had been accepted and will be issued shortly.  So we do not yet have the formal number.  Should have, hopefully, by the end of the year.

Poynting Vector Question:
Also I have been researching some of the references in your works on the MEG etc and am having some difficultly in obtaining copies of the original technical papers of OLIVER HEAVISIDE. I can easily grasp the concepts of the POYNTING VECTOR and how the energy flow is along the outside of the copper transmission line since the maths here is relatively straight-forward - but nothing in my references mention anything about the "heaviside component" your papers always mention.
In the standard theory, the poynting vector is integrated over a closed surface ( or an infinite plane intercepting the vector at right angles)  to give the power flow in watts per square meter and this integrated total flow equates simply to be the power absorb by the load or the power that leaves the battery. This is the total power flow "outside the wire" - isn't it ? - where does the heaviside component fit into the picture?

ANS. Easy.  First, we must think rigorously, since electrical engineers unfortunately distort the word "power" to speak of "drawing power from the source", which is a total non sequitur.  Rigorously, work is the change of form of energy.  Power is the rate of doing work.  Also, the power is developed right there on the entity that is causing the change of form of the energy.  So power is rigorously the time-rate of changing the form of the energy.  (We never get rid of the energy or consume it, but merely change its form).  Any flow of energy that is changed at some rate, thus results in work being done at some certain rate upon the "diverger" or "collector" doing the changing of the energy form, etc.  If the flow of energy has no change whatsoever forced in it, it develops absolutely zero power.  An energy flow of 10 billion joules per second, has absolutely zero power if there is no change to it.  However, if we divert aside from that flow, and out of it, say, a thousand joules per second, then we have an energy flow of 1 kilowatt.  We still have most of that 10 billion joules per second flowing, but the huge nondiverged component develops absolutely zero power.  To speak of "watts per square meter" thus ALWAYS refers to the changed or diverted or diverged energy rate per square meter.  It does NOT refer to the energy flow rate per se per square meter!   That insidious little "integrate the energy flow vector (which of itself has zero power) around a closed surface, will separate that total energy flow vector into two vector components:

(1)     a component which remains unchanged from entering the closed surface from one side, passing through the interior volume unchanged, and exiting the other side.  That component is, say, positive going in, and is equal but negative going out, so it is said to "cancel".  The electrical engineer thus discards it.  That is wrong, wrong, wrong.  The energy flow is STILL THERE, just not diverged, not changed, hence does no work and develops no "power" on anything.  Heaviside accounted for that component, as well as the diverged component.  Poynting did not.

(2)     (2) A component which is diverged or changed inside the volume, once it enters, and thus exits the volume some other direction, rate, etc.  That DIVERGENCE FROM the energy flow, is what did some work in that volume by changing its form (e.g., its direction).  Hence it also had some power (rate at which the work was performed on "that which diverged or changed it".  The "power" in watts per meter squared, is how much energy per second per square meter is being DIVERGED FROM that flow, etc.  It is NOT the energy flow per se.

Lorentz' trick (the very little trick of integrating the entire energy flow vector around a closed surface, to arbitrarily discard the nondiverged component that develops no power and retain only the diverged component developing some power, is still used by every electrical engineer to discard that Heaviside component that is nondiverged.

Poynting never even considered anything but the DIVERTED component, which IS NOT the energy flow per se, but the diverged or collected or diverted energy flow.  That is the part that will enter the circuit, diverted by the surface charges and their fields.  We measure what gets dissipated in or from the circuit, so what we measure being dissipated from the circuit must first have entered the circuit. In short, we will measure the Poynting component. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we realize that we did not measure in that external circuit anywhere near all the EM energy pouring out of the terminals of the power source.

I suggest you go directly to the original papers by Heaviside and Poynting.  You will find that Poynting even got the direction wrong by 90 degrees and was corrected by Heaviside.  Here is a direct quote from Heaviside:

“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… .  Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical.  This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current.  The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire.  Their departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure.  It causes the convergence of energy into the wire.” [Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.]

Now examine the Bohren experiment:  Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.

The texts "define" -- totally erroneously!!! -- the field and potential as what is diverted or diverged from the field or potential by an assumed unit point charge, and erroneously call that entity the "magnitude of the field or potential" itself!.  It isn't.  At best it is an indication of the point intensity of the internal energy flows comprising the field or potential.  The intensity of the flow of a river at a point (measured by diverging some of the flow around a unit standard static point rock) is certainly not the "magnitude of the river".

The part of the field or potential (i.e., the flows comprising it) that misses interception by the unit point static charge, is not accounted at all, for that component does not enter into the "point intensity".

Bohren simply placed the intercepting charge into resonance, thereby violating the "static charge' assumption in the standard definition of "magnitude of the field" and "magnitude of the potential".  Such a resonating charge oscillates well beyond the "static intercepting position of the charge", and sweeps out a greater geometrical interception cross section for the energy flows comprising the field.  So it "intercepts" part of this formerly nondiverged energy flow in the field that normally misses the static charge.  The Bohren experiment thus catches more energy than we have "defined" or "calculated" for an assumed unit point static charge, and it thus outputs 18 times as much energy as the incorrect Poynting method calculates was input. In short, it succinctly proves the existence of that extra Heaviside nondiverged component that Lorentz taught everyone to just ignore.  The Bohren experiment also decisively proves the extra energy is there, and it can also be collected. 

I am confused whether the Heaviside component you talk about is in
fact our interpretation of the Poynting Vector S=E X H or is it another (new) energy flow altogether and different to the Poynting vector - or is it part of the poynting vector itself?

ANS: You have to understand the difference between the "field" (1) as you were taught it (always the effect of the massless spatial field's interaction with that assumed unit point charge, and thus the "field point intensity" rather than the "magnitude of the field", and (2) the field as it exists prior to the interaction (the causal field in massfree space).

Electrical engineering substitutes the effect for the cause.  Ubiquitously.  A gross non sequitur.

That was natural at the beginning of electrodynamics, when everyone believed in a material ether.  In that case, there was thought to be not a single spatial point in the entire universe where mass and charge were absent!  Now we know that is false.  But they never changed the erroneous equations and "definitions"!  All they did was sorta announce one day, "Well, there is no material ether so we are not using one", and did not change a single equation, all of which assumed and still assume that material ether everywhere in space.  I.e., they all still define the "magnitude of the field" prior to any interaction at all, as the "intensity of the field's internal energy flows" as measured by an assumed unit point static charge interacting with the field.  Here they call what is diverged from the interacting field, as the field. Wrong.

The field part (the E and H part) of the Poynting theory is thus "hookered" by substitution of the effect (the diverged energy) for the cause (the entire flow of energy comprising the field prior to any divergence at all.)  It's a real mess that ought to be strongly cleaned up.

That error, I believe, is what has hidden the "dark energy" responsible for the excess gravity that holds the arms of the spiral galaxies together.

Do you have copies of the Heaviside Papers on your website ( I could not find any) ? I have obtained the Whittaker Papers which I found very very interesting and do confirm your theory about the static potential.

ANS: Unfortunately I do not have copies of those posted there.  Any good technical or large university technical library will have Heaviside's papers (volumes of the collected papers) and Poynting's papers.  I don't know anywhere they can be obtained off the web, though these days it would not surprise me!  Even if your library doesn't have them, the library can get them for you via interlibrary loan, so you can copy them. Etc.

I am sorry to bother you as I know you are extremely busy, but I do hope you find the time to respond to my ignorance!

ANS:  Not to worry!  I really appreciate seeing a person digging in to check out the references and really understand what we are saying.  That is the hope of the future.  My purpose, being an old dog and long in the tooth these days, is to pass on what was so difficult to come by, so that the younger fellows do not have to spend 20 or 30 years of their lives finding it out.  They should just start from where I am, and go much further, and also do a much better job of it!

Kind Regards.

Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 5:00 AM



Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:27:15 -0500


  I don't think the 18 months applies to us under some kind of grandfather clause they apparently have.  However, we have received the first action from the patent office, recognizing about half of our claims, and questioning the other half, and we have submitted a very strong but respectful reply and rebuttal of the examiner's reasons for tentative rejection of the others.  Understand, one usually is dealing with a B.S. level electrical engineer patent examiner, perhaps M.S. at best, and so it takes some doing to break things down to where he is coming from.  But our patent attorneys are very pleased with our response, and believe we will probably get all claims recognized.  So the next action will probably occur in about three months or so, and we will have a  very good picture of the situation at that time.  The most important claims are now recognized, but three of the others are needed also, so we are pursuing it vigorously.

  My forthcoming book (early 2002) should deliver some bombshells to the overunity community, particularly to those so confident that they already "know" how it works, without ever having seen an overunity circuit in operation.  For the first time anywhere, we will reveal several kinds of phenomenology connected with overunity systems that simply do not appear in the textbook or normal electrical circuits, nor in the literature either except in extremely rare parts of physics.  We will also reveal what is specifically involved in close-looping an overunity system, the peculiar new phenomena that arise, and how to solve it.  My intention is to release all these young fellows and young grad students on how overunity works, as soon as our patent applications are secured.  By late Spring 2002, that should no longer be a problem, and the book hopefully will turn the serious ones loose for going and developing their own types of systems.

  One cannot just use standard circuit analysis on an overunity system, no matter how advanced.  Instead, one must analyze the supersystem, which consists of three components: (1) the physical electromagnetic system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics.  As a point, ordinary EM and circuit theory assumes away both the other two parts of the supersystem, assuming a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum.  We have stated in our solution to the source charge problem that all EM energy comes from the time domain, and reinterpretation of Whittaker 1903 and Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 5 strongly supports that position.  Any overunity system is in disequilibrium with its active environment (the other two components of the supersystem) and must be analyzed as such.

  The disequilibrium state is a priori an excited state.  Standard thermodynamics cannot even compute the entropy of systems far from equilibrium in an active environment.  Yet half the "overunity community" still has this old stuff solidly in their head.  The first thing that has to be done is to violate classical equilibrium thermodynamics!  That is permissible, since the profound discovery of broken symmetry in physics in 1957, and T.D. Lee was awarded the Nobel Prize.  Yet when have you heard of any electrical engineer examining in detail the broken symmetries in any dipolar circuit or system?  That is the point.  Our engineers are still applying a 137-year-old theory to design and build generators and electrical power systems, and the organized scientific community is defending that stuff as if it were the final word.  A very great amount of physics has been discovered since then, much of which severely impacts electrodynamics, but the power industry and the universities seem to keep the two things separate, as if a giant ocean were between them.  Nature does not stick just to U(1) group symmetry electrodynamics.  Particle physics long ago had to go to non-Abelian EM, because the other stuff doesn't hack it in their discipline.  So what is really needed are some quite dramatic changes to the electrical engineering curricula and to the mindset.  If they would turn those young grad students and post docs loose and fund them, and not castigate them when they deliver doctoral theses in the overunity area and reject the thesis, the entire energy crisis would be solved completely and forever in three years flat.

  Meanwhile, we are trying to insure that they never put this genie back in the bottle again, and we intend to give those young fellows just about everything we've worked out so painfully over the last 30 years.  Then they can start from there and not have to rediscover the wheels.


  Tom Bearden

 Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:43 AM

To: Tom Bearden



Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:10:52 +1000

Dear Tom,

  I have been following your theories for a number of years and while I cannot claim to fully understand everything that has been published, your theories and work towards the free energy is most inspiring indeed. My congratulations to you for the many years of hard dedicated work you have put in.

  I have been particularly interested in your MEG device as I myself am an electronics engineer. I have constructed several prototypes but have failed to reach over-unity myself. I think my failures are mainly due to testing methods or inaccuracies as well as using the correct materials for replication of the MEG. However I have not lost faith or interest, infact my failures only seem to cause more determination.

  My main question here is how long do you think your original patent application will take to be approved and whether we will soon be able to at least view your original MEG patent application soon. As I understand , there now appears to be a new 18 month patent application period whereby the patent office will publish patent applications after 18months. If this is correct could you please advise me on when this time will expire so that I can be on the look-out for more clues on replicating your MEG designs.

  thanking you