The Tom Bearden


From Energy Reverberation to Big Bang

This iterative additional energy interception and collection (divergence) from the huge, usually nondivergent Poynting energy flow that Lorentz mistakenly had everyone discard, is a very important rediscovery -- certainly Heaviside knew it. We are just now beginning to see the full ramifications.

I have constructed a chart of some anomalous and powerful energies (such as from overunity EM systems to anomalous gamma ray bursters) and am awed that the new work-energy theorem (for multipass, multicollection) seems to be the missing principle that is involved in all of them. At the top of the chart (a series of curves), there stands a new kind of Big Bang.

In other words, for extremely rapid initiation, the energy density (asymmetrical self-regauging) of the system can rise so rapidly that it is sufficient to rupture 4-space at that region. So the rapidly increasing energy density just "blows out a hole" from 4-space into n-space, where n> 4.

Beyond the 4-space hole, in n-space there thus is formed (by the blowout) a new 4-space universe. So it seems that this is indeed a new kind of Big Bang, and a fundamental new change, striking at the very heart of astrophysics.

With the new theorem and the multipass, multicollection explanation, I was able then to propose an alternative explanation of how the Lawandy lasing without population inversion works (how the excess energy is extracted from the vacuum) and also the Patterson power unit, which has been replicated and independently tested (one version produced COP = 1200).

It is possible, in fact, to utilize energy flow reverberation, multi-pass collection, and asymmetrical self-regauging in a device which surges the energy to and fro along a "single wire circuit" between two collectors, with a load in the middle. Such a device can be permissibly achieve COP>1.0 without violating the laws of nature, physics, or thermodynamics.

Scott McKie's New Energy Device

Inventor and researcher Scott McKie has filed a patent application on an energy system using just such an energy reverberation and iterative energy interception and collection. In addition, it uses the novel fact that by potential alone one can alter (rotate) the inertial frame of a component.

Before the reader pops his eyeglasses, he should read "Quantum Aspects of the Equivalence Principle" by Aharonov and Carmi. We quote from p. 494:

"Not only can 'inertial forces' arising upon transition to a noninertial system of reference be cancelled by the introduction of 'real forces' (and vice versa), but the 'inertial potentials' belonging to such forces (even in 'force-free' regions) can similarly be cancelled. Both facts together afford a 'geometric interpretation' (i.e., as inertial effects produced by a change of reference frames) to both fields of forces and their potentials." In short, force fields and potentials can be interpreted as a change of reference frames, hence inducing rotation of the frame without concomitant propagation velocity of the object in question. This can in fact be accomplished in a capacitor, as McKie apparently has succeeded in doing.

So Scott apparently charges a capacitor in a rotated frame (without having to move the capacitor), where its capacitance appears much less in the lab frame (only the projection of the rotated capacitance into the lab frame). Then he sharply snatches the charged capacitor out of its rotated frame back into the lab frame, again without using capacitor motion. In so doing, its apparent capacitance as seen by the lab observer increases and so does its charge and energy (it is regauged from the vacuum itself). The interesting thing is that this seems also to be a process for impressing extra energy onto the Dirac Sea electrons, and lifting excess electrons out of the Dirac Sea, because the charge in the capacitor (as seen by the lab observer) seems to increase simply due to the charged capacitor's rotation back into the lab frame.

So Scott can apparently discharge more energy from the capacitor in the lab frame, than he was required to furnish to charge it in its rotated frame state. He has in fact utilized a very novel new way of extracting energy from the vacuum. Here again we caution that, due to its frame rotation, the capacitor actually receives excess energy (and charge) from a special kind of "external environment" other than the lab inertial frame. So again it is an open system, not in local equilibrium but switched in and out of equilibrium. Hence in theory it is permitted to produce COP1.0, if other things are sufficient.

Here we inject some additional information. It is not commonly known that, in general relativity, the energy is up for grabs anyway, and in fact it can be shown that there really are no ordinary energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation laws in the accepted sense. In other words, the "normal" conservation of energy we are so used to, can be violated anyway. Even the great Hilbert knew this in 1917. Quoting:

"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." Russian physicists have long known this most interesting fact. E.g., quoting Logunov and Loskutov, writing about Hilbert's assessment: Unfortunately, this remark of Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible. So while startling, McKie's use of frame rotation as a means of apparently violating the "normal" energy and charge law actually has a solid basis in general relativity, but one that is still unknown (or fiercely resisted) by most Western relativists. In our own view, again we prefer to think of this rotation and violation of charge and energy conservation in the local lab frame system as simply opening the system to an energy exchange with a different kind of external active environment (the change of energy and charge occurring when the frame is rotated.) We note that the capacitance decreases with the capacitor in the rotated frame, as seen by the lab observer, then increases when the capacitor is snapped back into the lab frame again. Also, although we normally do not consider it, a capacitor (or any other component) actually must "exist" in all possible frames at once, since all those frames are real. Observation is in one sense a means of "selecting the frame from which the observation is made". Once we understand that the frame can be rotated without spatial propagation of the capacitor itself, then the notion of it "sitting there still, but being in a rotated frame" does not appear quite so bizarre after all.

The novel part of this "frame rotation as a means of asymmetrical regauging" effect is that, without violating the laws of physics, Scott produces asymmetry both of the charge in the charged capacitor and stored energy in the charged capacitor. If we assume that the charge he inputs to the capacitor "exists" as a different amount of charge in the rotated frame, then to an observer in the capacitor's rotated frame he is charging the capacitor with the normal amount of charge and the capacitor has the normal amount of capacitance. To the lab observer, of course, he is using less charge (in the lab frame) to fill the capacitor in the rotated frame, and the capacitor thus has "less capacitance". The asymmetry of yanking the capacitor back into the lab frame then produces observable effects (extra charge and extra energy available for dissipation as work in the load), as is to be expected, given the asymmetry occurs.

However, Scott has reported great difficulty with switching, capacitors, etc. but in theory the design should be able to work, at least from the standpoint of relativity, if he can overcome these problems.

When an Overunity Device is Considered Achieved

Of course, scientifically one is confirmed as actually achieving an overunity device only after it has been tested and certified overunity by an independent and well-qualified test group or agency. That is the normal requirement upon scientific researchers in any field; their results must be independently tested and certified. Scott intends to have precisely such independent certification testing accomplished when he can fully overcome his present component problems. We are certainly encouraging him and rooting for him on this project.

Our little group (CTEC, Inc.) does not qualify as a proper independent testing group for the McKie device, since I have been and am involved in the project, having come up with the reverberation and frame rotation explanation of the technical mechanism by which it theoretically works. In fact, I wrote the draft of the Provisional Patent Application which was filed about a year before the formal Patent Application. Scott's invention also uses techniques from both his own former patent and from CTEC's patent pending approaches. So (quite properly) I disqualify myself (and in fact all my CTEC colleagues as well) from being any proper independent test group for the device, because we are not independent.

In the future, perhaps we will (1) have additional information as to certified test results of the McKie device when the component difficulties are overcome and such tests are accomplished, and (2) be able to post them on the net.

Again we caution the reader that all this is theory until independent certified tests verify it.

Collected Energy Is Recyclable To and From Multiple Collectors

We have all been misled by our professors in the area of "energy conservation." There is only a single master law of energy conservation, and it is this:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However, Energy collection upon a collector can be created and destroyed. Further, I personally add the following corollary: Energy always exists in dynamic flowing form. Collection of energy upon an interceptor/collector can be in an equilibrium condition and appear static, just as does a fixed whirlpool in a river. But the "water" -- the energy itself -- is always flowing in and out of that collected divergence volume of the whirlpool. And the energy is always flowing in and out of that collection of energy upon any collector, be it static or dynamic. Actually the notion that a "static" field or potential contains dynamic energy should not be too surprising. In 1903, Whittaker showed that any scalar potential is not a scalar entity at all, but instead is a harmonic bundle of longitudinal EM phase conjugate wavepairs. (Unknown to Whittaker, each such longitudinal EM phase conjugate wavepair comprises a new net wave that is a time-polarized EM wave.). At any rate, the "static" potential is a whole set of bidirectional longitudinal EM energy flows.

Then in 1904, Whittaker showed that any EM field pattern (or wave, e.g.) can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions. Since these two scalar potential functions are based on two scalar potentials, then the "static" EM field decomposes into two sets of functions of harmonic sets of bidirectional EM longitudinal EM wavepairs.

So a static EM field or potential is actually a multivectorial entity, filled with energy flows in both directions. It therefore should not be surprising that any static potential or field thus contains angular momentum, and indeed that is well-known in more advanced electrodynamics. For example, in 1980 Graham and Lahoz reported measuring the free electromagnetic angular momentum created by quasistatic and independent fields E and B in the vacuum gap of a cylindrical capacitor. Others have done so since then.

Much of the confusion in the energy dynamics field is due to the confusion and failure to differentiate between energy flow, energy transport flow, divergent energy flow component, nondivergent energy flow component, energy collection, energy form, energy collection form, change of energy form, change of energy collection form, etc.

Note:  Dr. Bearden is no longer associated with the McKie device.