The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:18:56 -0600

Dear Leslie,  

Well, Caroline and I simply politely disagree (which is perfectly okay, so long as it's a polite disagreement over first principles and not a cur dog fight!) on what broken symmetry is.  I have respect for Caroline and her view, to which she is fully entitled.  As I state in the foreword to my website, everything there is just for information.  If it's useful, so be it.  If not useful, then one should just toss it in the old wastebasket and look elsewhere. 

Since it's broken symmetry I invoke, and broken symmetry was discovered (predicted) by particle physicists Lee and Yang, and proven experimentally by particle physicists Wu et al. in 1957, then yes I have to invoke particle physics, in my view.  I don't have to defend broken symmetry and extracting the energy from the virtual particle flux; that's in the standard particle physics model, in numerous texts and published scientific papers, etc.  Understand, one can still disagree with it.  But that's disagreement with a great part of physics, not just disagreement with me.

There is a very good quotation attributed to Stephen Hawking, where he stated:  "All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it.  We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs.  Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775.].

So one must realize that one is always using a model.  No model speaks absolute truth, but only what the limited model itself contains and predicts.  And every model is imperfect and contains foundations assumptions, regardless of whether they are enunciated or not.  We know from the Godel theorem and its mathematical demonstration that no model will ever be perfect anyway. 

We should always keep that in mind.  If differing models are used by two persons, they will see a situation quite differently, each in his or her own model. That does not make either one "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong", but merely states that, according to one's model which is XXX, this is the mechanism including the cause and the effect.  Where the rub comes in is when a person dogmatizes a given model, gives it absolute authority, then defends the model even if experiment refutes it.  That person then effectively claims to know "the thing in itself".  So far as I'm aware, no one has ever succeeded in knowing that -- at least in science.  A great many philosophies and religions claim to know it.  All of them differ.

So Caroline has commented in her model (not based on the standard particle physics) how she sees it.

I have commented in my model (based on the standard particle physics model) how I see it.

We have simply commented from different models.  The only use of either model is whether it works or not.  Particle physics certainly demonstrates many things that are experimentally consistent with its model, and has proven quite useful even though still imperfect.  We also cite the O(3) higher group symmetry electrodynamics model for the time-domain energy flow, time-domain energy currents, etc. (and quantum field theory with its scalar or time-polarized photon). 

I have personally worked with several overunity machines, one of which demonstrated COP = 1,500,000.  That one was tested independently by Walter Rosenthal, a very capable professional test engineer well-known in the testing community. Walt also tested one of the machines of the same inventor that was close-looped and self-powering.  So it isn't just Tom Bearden that states that several inventors have produced self-powering and COP>1.0 EM power systems.

In my model, and that of particle physics and quantum field theory, I stated it accurately.

Caroline stated it accurately in her model, which is quite different.

We have an interesting test of the two models: in one, a self-powering EM system is possible.  In the other, no such system is possible.  This is similar to the difference between classical equilibrium thermodynamics and the thermodynamics of a system far from equilibrium with its active environment.  In the first, no COP>1.0 system and no self-powering system in possible.  In the second, both are possible.  So the argument between the interpretation of the two models simply involves whether an electromagnetic system can be an open system with its external environment (the local active vacuum and the local active curved spacetime).

Well, in particle physics, every charge and dipole in the universe is already in disequilibrium with the active vacuum.  And each of them is an EM system.  Since it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black, that suffices for my point.  One still does not have to accept it, but it's good enough for me.

Since I've personally worked with several self-powering systems and their inventors, I prefer to hang in there with my own particle-physics-based model which permits them, and work to try to get a practical power unit developed and out there on the world market using the best model I have available.  After all, that's the kind of EM system I'm presently working on and the project I'm involved in.   I certainly can't use U(1) electrodynamics (which prohibits COP>1.0 systems because of Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations), nor can I use any other model that prohibits such systems from the getgo.

In my book to be published in 2002, I will also include some very surprising phenomenology that occurs in all EM COP>1.0 systems, and which one must be aware of and handle if one is to build a self-powering system.  The phenomenology has very surprising and far-reaching implications for many areas other  than  physics and COP>1.0 power systems.  I also state (and will not yet further discuss) that Bedini and I have filed a patent application on the very peculiar process one uses to close-loop a COP>1.0 EM system for stable operation in that excited condition and for self-powering.  The process does work and is working on the lab bench, although still proprietary until our patent rights are fully secured.

A single replicable experiment can falsify a contradictory theory.  No amount of contradictory theory can falsify a single replicable experiment.  That's the name of the game in "scientific method".  For me, right now I put my faith in the particle physics model and in the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges --- such as those on the ends of a dipole -- for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize.  They are consistent with the things I'm working with.  Anyone else is perfectly free to pursue any other model, and any other things they wish to work with.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden.

Hello Tom (Bearden)...
Glad to hear that you are recuperating nicely......hope all continues to go well....and I look forward to seeing the MEG become a reality very soon ....... hopefully in 2002....It would be nice to experience working (generators) device with real output. 
I hope you don't mind.......but I shared one of you statements with Caroline Thompson (via the net)....and these were here comments.....can you rebut please....
Also can I speculate that Hungary has an interest in  seeing the MEG come into fruition?
All the Best Wishes
----- Original Message -----
From: c.h.thompson
To: ; ;
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [jlnlabs] Excerpts from Tom Bearden's forthcoming book in 2002


Tom Bearden:
> We examine one of those composite dipoles comprising the "charge".  By the
> very definition of broken symmetry, that dipole is continuously absorbing
> virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum flux, and changing it into
> observable photon energy, then emitting (back to vacuum and 3-space)
> observable photon energy (emitting energy in 3-space).  Since all
> observation and detection are 3-spatial, the lab observer cannot see the
> virtual input EM energy a priori.

Tom is making this far too complicated!  There is no need to do anything
more than recognise that the input energy does not possess good enough
coherence properties and/or is too high frequency for us to detect.  It
exists in ordinary 3-space along with all the observable energy.

> Hence the charge continuously pours out energy,
> unceasingly, in 3-space in all directions.  Further,
> this energy came from the vacuum (particle
> physics)

Yes, it came from the vacuum, but no, we don't need to invoke particle
physics, since it did not come in particle form.

> in unobservable form, then was transduced, or from the time domain
> (quantum field theory)

We don't really need to bring QFT into the story either, or make things
sound difficult by mentioning the time domain, as if these incoming waves
were anything extraordinary.   We can just see for ourselves, from scratch,
what is going on.  (See my phi-waves and forces paper, or )

> then was transduced into observable EM form.


> In short, every charge and every dipole is a true negative resistor,
> continuously producing giant negentropy by pouring out energy unceasingly,
> in all directions.  The charge (and the dipole) are nature's bountiful
> of free electrical energy for us,

Hmmm ... "Free energy" for use in maintaining atoms in existence, more
likely!  Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but I think quite a few people
these days are misleading themselves.  I'm sure that Nature does have her
ways of keeping atoms "alive" and saving the universe from heat death, but
this does not mean that She is going to hand over to us, free gratis and for
nothing, the energy for which She already has good uses!

> (for the rest of the story go to: