The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:21:37 -0600

 
Dear Colin,

Unfortunately inventors still in the patenting process obviously cannot release all their details on their invention!  So a few things about the MEG we could not and would not release at this time. Other inventors having legitimate COP>1.0 process from the vacuum energy input also are in the same situation.

As in any new area of research, this one is new because there are no "handbooks" etc. Further, it is handicapped by the rather stupid attachment of electrical engineering to closed current loop circuits containing the source of potential in the circuit. That circuit self-enforces symmetrical regauging, making the back emf equal to the forward emf. That guarantees that a real system with some real losses will never produce COP>1.0 from its vacuum energy input, no matter how much excess energy it receives, since it "locks up" all the excess energy in stress in the system, not permitting it to do work in the load.

In fact, until my book on Energy from the Vacuum, there hasn't been any publication that attempted a legitimate theory of permissible COP>1.0 EM systems taking their energy from the vacuum, and citing the hard physics references in the literature for all the various aspects. Now at least there is a beginning, but there is still a very long way to go.

Meanwhile, the biggest problem is the archaic classical electrodynamics model (i.e., the electrical engineering model). It is very seriously flawed; some things are just flat wrong in it, and have been proven wrong for a century or more.

Perhaps the best thing you could give your SERIOUSLY interested friends would be my new paper on Precursor engineering. For one thing, it lists the major errors of interest in the CEM and EE model. Quite frankly, anyone not willing to seriously read outside and beyond electrical engineering is simply not worth wasting any time on. As you can see in the paper (it can be downloaded from my website for free), these errors in the CEM model are profound. Indeed, it is precisely this classical Maxwell-Heaviside EM model -- which was a great step forward and generated a great deal of progress in science at its inception -- that is now the greatest barrier to the further advance of electrical power systems science. Simply check the list of errors in the model and make up your own mind.

Also, just try to find an electrical engineering publication that lists the fundamental assumptions in that classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics model. To my knowledge, there are none. Further, I know of no professor or EE department anywhere that lists the model's assumptions, or makes the students aware of them. Needless to say, the very first thing to examine in any model is the fundamental assumptions it contains and is based upon.

Also, I know of no electrical engineering publication that mentions and discusses the source charge problem. That most profound problem has been purged from all the EE texts, although at least brief discussion of it can be found in physics texts and in a few physics papers. Yet it is the fundamental problem necessary to consider when one wishes to work toward direct extraction of energy from the vacuum. Every charge and dipolarity in the universe already does extract virtual state energy directly from the vacuum, continuously, integrating it into observable energy size, and re-emitting the absorbed energy as real observable photons in all directions. Thus it establishes and continuously replenishes its associated fields and potentials and their energy, spreading at light speed in all directions from the moment of formation of the charge.

The EE model erroneously assumes that every EM field, potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe is, and has been, freely created from nothing at all, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.

That such serious errors continue to be propagated and upheld by our entire university system, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, our great national laboratories, our university electrical engineering departments, etc. is totally inexplicable.

Anyway, for your experiments you might wish to take a look at the area of negative resonance absorption of the medium. In that area, the experiments violate the present definition of the "field intensity" (the field itself is not even defined in EE). Hence when feeding energy at either the UV or IR domain, into a medium comprised of conducting or insulating particles that go into particle resonance at the fed-in EM frequency, then the medium outputs 18 times as much energy as one inputs by Poynting calculations. One actually inputs the excess energy in the long unaccounted huge Heaviside component, arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in the 1890s and still discarded by classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.

Note that the optical fellows in that "negative resonance absorption of the medium" area never discuss the thermodynamics of the interaction, e.g., that thermodynamically the experiment yields COP = 18. Neither do they usually discuss "excess emission". Instead, they discuss  "change of reaction cross section" which of course happens since the experiment violates the conventional STATIC unit point charge assumed in the definition of field intensity to interact with the field-as-it-exists-in-space to produce a "measured intensity" of the resulting force field in matter, by the amount of energy diverted from the field itself by the assumed unit point static charge. If the same charge is in resonance, it sweeps out a greater reaction cross section geometrically, hence develops more energy to re-emit -- some 18 times as much.

I wish you good fortune in your experiments and pursuit of them.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden


Dear Mr. Bearden,         

First of all, I would like to thank you for the free copy of Energy From the Vacuum that you sent me for Christmas.  I have read up to the second chapter, and am finding it very interesting and relevant to science.  Dr. Myron Evanís breakthrough physics theory, which is gaining acceptance from scholars around the world is also very encouraging to me as I am pursuing physics as a career.  To give you a little background on myself I am a community college student from the Detroit area.  After I complete my associates in science, I plan to attend Arizona State University and to at least receive my masters is Physics.         

I am writing you today to ask you a question and to offer a proposal.  I recieve updates daily from a website (www.fastweb.com)  that lists all the available scholarships you can receive.  One of which is an inventors competition.  The requirements are to submit a new invention personally, and it gets judged and the winning party receives 50,000 dollars to the students and 5,000 dollars to the advisor.  I have one friend, Brandon, who is majoring mathematics and minoring in physics, currently has a research position at Wayne State University, a full ride scholarship, and is attending to Cornell this summer to do research.  My other friend Sean is a genius and is going physics.  My proposal is that we try to build an over unity device for this competition, and you be our advisor.  We could probably correspond through email with any questions or problems we are having, or possibly over the phone. 

So the questions I have are as follows: 1.  How expensive would building an over unity device be? 2.  How much time would it take? 3.  Would it be practical for a few undergraduate students to build an over unity device, who have a passion for physics. 4.  Would the MEG be the simplest to build, or would other devices such as the negative resistor, or Cold Fusion be easier. 5.  If we needed a grant for the expenses, could you and your colleagues help us in convincing the party in granting us the money.         

My last question is what literature off of your website, and out of Energy from The Vacuum should I give to my friends.  My friends are very interested in this subject, yet skeptical because of the implications and donít have much time to review all of your work between their school studies.  My friend from Wayne State recently visited Myron Evanís website and was excited about all the positive reviews from working university scientists, and downloaded a lot of his work.  If you could list off what subjects are critical to this, it would be much appreciated.         

The deadline for the competition is June 1st.  I would like to start contributing to research in this area because I know if you put your mind to it anythingís possible.  Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely,         

Colin