The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



Subject: RE: MEG instead of Coal Plants
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:43:16 -0600

Dear Frank,

Those are cogent comments on increasing the use of coal for coal-burning power plants, which also increase the biospheric pollution a priori.

Our little group is struggling with two entrees to try to help solve the escalating energy crisis, by furnishing cheap and clean energy from the vacuum solutions.

First is our patented Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, as first a COP>1.0 device and in a second follow-on variant in a self-powering device. We are again in serious (hopefully final!) negotiations for the substantial funding needed to get on with finishing the required engineering development of the MEG.

Second is adaptation (covered in a provisional patent application) of a process -- already soundly proven in physics since 1967 -- by means of which an interim solution can be developed and applied to any electrical power plant using steam turbine powered generators. This process in its fairly rapid first generation development would reduce the fuel consumption (either hydrocarbon or nuclear) of an on-line plant by three-quarters. In the second generation (again, fairly rapid) development, once the plant is stably on line and powering its loads with reduced fuel consumption, then feedback self-powering can be switched in and the plant will then operate with no further fuel consumption, until it must be shut down for maintenance again, etc.

The world energy crisis is not going to let up. Supplies are extremely fragile (oil, gas, locations, availability, worldwide competition for the same limited resources) and energy demand is escalating rapidly (China, India, U.S., just about everywhere). Almost anyone can see that the continuing increase of energy prices is here to stay. In the U.S. we already have two great automobile companies essentially bankrupt, several airlines in and out of bankruptcy, many large companies continuing to lay off workers, natural gas prices have doubled in less than two years, steady bleed-out of U.S. dollars continues, national debt continually rising, etc. It does not take a rocket scientist to see an approaching catastrophic economic collapse of the United States, whenever a significant hiccup occurs in the present very tight energy supplies. It's not a matter of "if" but a matter of when.

Since all modern national economies are based primarily on cheap energy (and we would hope, on cheap clean energy!), humanity urgently needs to get off its fossil fuel dependence. And the better way is definitely not in building more big nuclear power plants, unless we wish every terrorist in the world to wind up with nuclear weapons, with everyone’s cities and populations blowing up, and nuclear wastes dramatically increasing to poison our descendants and the biosphere even 20,000 years from now.

So those who are serious in attempting the “energy from the vacuum” solution must continue as best they can. There are several legitimate inventors or inventor groups who have solutions that could be finalized quickly and gotten into production and deployment. I don’t care who gets energy-from-the-vacuum systems first developed and out on the market! Just so long as it gets done and the biosphere gets cleaned up, cheap and clean energy is made available to all the poor peoples of the world to lift them from their dire poverty, and we can cease poisoning and polluting the planet and biosphere. 

Hopefully, we can also get the world to understand negative energy (the so-called “dark energy” that the astrophysicists are seeking so avidly with their telescopes, unaware it can easily be evoked on the lab bench) and dark matter (the Dirac sea hole currents that Dirac so hated and steered everyone into treating them as positive mass-energy positrons with positive energy EM fields when they are negative mass-energy electrons with negative energy EM fields). Again, dark matter can also be easily evoked in actual lab circuits, as Bedini has done. Hopefully, we can get our scientific community to again restore accountability and recognition of Heaviside’s incredible curled component of EM energy flow in all our circuits – often a trillion times the feeble Poynting energy flow that we are taught to account -- that was so arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz. It is that unaccounted but universally present giant energy flow that enables our process for using a little of it to dramatically reduce the fuel consumption of most types of electrical power plants.

If these things can be done and our scientific community’s prevailing attitude can be changed appropriately, then our bright young engineers and post doctoral scientists will be freed to rapidly develop an unparalleled energy revolution in science and engineering and industry. The energy needs of the world can be met and the biosphere can be cleaned up again. Then science can develop and use negative entropy engineering rather than the present positive entropy engineering. With use of negative energy, antigravity propulsion is achievable in practical devices, and “cooling” power processes can be used, thus eliminating and even gradually reversing the artificial global warming by our energy processes and related things. With negative energy and the resulting negative entropy engineering, in theory eventually one can use a flashlight battery and power New York City, or London, or Moscow, or Lisbon.

The human and biospheric EFTV needs are so urgent, and all our national economies are increasingly so threatened, that it simply must be done.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden