Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm.

  • 2 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

by Arend Lammertink

beginning October 22, 2010


This article describes some fundamental theory about a wonderful energy source that is available everywhere in the Universe: the electric field.

Mirror request

This article appears to be gaining speed. Good!

Now just in case someone might get some naughty ideas, please consider downloading and seeding this torrent:

This torrent is not only my insurance policy. It is most of all a way to vote with your computer. If you are willing to take a stand for truth, willing to help a hand to free humanity from the burdens associated with the burning of fossile fuel, the risk and long term effects of nuclear power and the ineffectiveness of currently applied renewable energy sources, willing to #occupy main stream science toghether, you can vote with your computer. Just download a torrent client (like this one: ), download the torrent file, which is subsequently used by the torrent program to download the whole archive from computers all over the world. And then keep your torrent client active as much as you can after finishing your download, because that way your computer helps to upload the archive to other computers.

Just know that by the time we'll see 100 seeders at ThePirateBay, noone will be able to stop this information from spreading.

Open source: work in progress

This is a work in progress! While I am fully convinced the basic principles and theory are correct, I am pretty sure there are still some mistakes in the details, which will be corrected over time, either because I notice the errors myself, or because of feedback by others. It is because of this that I have chosen to do this the "open source" way, using Linus's law:

''Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. - See: [Release Early, Release Often]

So, if you notice any mistakes or have any feedback, please use the There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2] or join the discussions on the forum. I have started a new thread dedicated for the discussion of this article.

If you want to help spreading this information and structuring it, please don't hesitate to go away and edit this article. You can see Help:Format how the format of this wiki works. Any help is most appreciated. Even if you don't really understand the stuff, just copying and pasting the info from energeticforum to here (linking it back there) and structuring it would be marvelous! To be honest, I'm really not too good in doing that, so again: any help is most appreciated. I mean, this isn't supposed to be my property. This is what supposed to be Tesla's gift to humanity, so it belongs to all of us and it's up to all of us to share and nurture Tesla's magnificent gift, a gift that will finally become reality if we put our minds to it!


Pdf versions of this article are available at my website: under the name "Free_Electric_Energy_{date}.pdf".

The latest one (current one: October 27th, 2011) will always be:


If you want to contact me, the first place to go would be the energetic forum, because then all information exchanged can be shared. You can also post a message at my User talk:Lamare using the "+" button on top next to "edit", and you can drop me a mail at lamare over at gmail at the dot com domain if ye can't use the forum for one reason or another. I also have an account at my own server which I hardly ever read: lamare over at tuks at the dot nl domain. For that one, I have pgp ( ), so if you want to mail me confidential that would be the way to go. I really don't mind being contacted with serious questions or anything, and would even like to be contacted by serious peoplen with feedback, etc., especially in or around Twente, but if you only have questions, please do study the available documentation first to see if your question has not already been answered and, more importantly, please, please, please don't bother me with stuff in the direction that this is impossible and the like. I mean: been there, done that. And that is totally useless anyway, cause I'm proud to be a Tukker!

-- Arend --


This document is being submitted in memory of Stanley Meyer and Gerrit Stokreef. Stanley Meyer was a great tinkerer who dared to challenge the powers that were and paid for it with his life. Gerrit Stokreef was one of my neighbors in the place where I grew up. It was a very warm neighborhood filled with loving, honest people that all had to work hard to make a living. Gerrit was always there when you needed him, he just never said "No". He lent me his oscilloscope years ago. I hardly used it until after he passed away and he left it to me. Now I know he lost his fight to cancer because the powers that were didn't want us to use the cures invented by Royal Rife. But the rules of the game have changed now. The genie is out of the bottle folks and there is no way to put it back in there. May Stan's dream finally be realized and may there be peace on this planet, beacuse when there's no need for oil anymore, which will put the powers that were out of business, who in his right mind would ever fight a war again?

While studying various articles and discussions about Free Energy, it struck me that there were some striking similarities between a number of systems, notably those made by John Bedini as well as Stan Meyer's Water Fuel Cell. At some point, it occurred to me that there might be a common explanation behind these different systems, which all appear to be some form of (electrolytic) capacitor. In various discussions at the Energetic Forum I have made an attempt to formulate a theory to explain a number of phenomena that have been reported in relation to these systems. Since the relevant information has been scattered all over the forum, it is my intention that all that information be brought together and assembled here.

The first direction I investigated was the idea that the excess energy observed in all these systems concerned was being extracted from the vacuum or ZPE or whatever you want to call it by means of an electric field generated by a polarized dielectricum. I still think that this theory was correct and did explain what John Bedini was really doing with his batteries. But at the time, I could not explain what Stan Meyer was doing.

Then I took a fresh look at Gray's system and I tried to envision how his spark gap oscillator worked. It occurred to me that this was basically generating HF, HV spikes just like the ones Bedini uses, with sharp rises, and soft drops. Since Bedini's pulses go through just about anything, I finally discovered the secret of Gray's system. He was driving an open coil from both sides, in phase.

From that, I went back to Bearden's "don't kill the dipole" and compared what I got from Gray with what Meyer did. And as if by magic, someone also posted how Puharich did it. Then the pieces dropped into place one by one. They were all using the same principle.

Of course, there were quite a few loose ends in the beginning but now I can finally explain the whole trick in just a few lines.

I hope that this information is helpful to those people that are better experimenters than I am, so that this technology will be further developed in the spirit of open source. I hope other engineers and scientists will study this article and the referenced material and make products that put this technology in the hands of the people of this planet, so disasters as in the Mexican Gulf will never have to happen again. I also hope that none of this will ever be patented, because this technology is worth the most when it is actually used, not when it is put behind bars because of greed and selfishness. Haven't we had enough of that by now?

Power to the people! (pun intended)


-- Arend Lammertink, MSc. --

The electric field as an energy source

Conservation of energy

According to the law of conservation of energy it is impossible to create energy out of nothing:

: The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

The fundamental foundation for the law of conservation of energy lies in Newton's third law:

: ''To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

In essence energy (work) is an integration (summation) of a force enacted between two bodies - or particles or even the fundamental 'God' particles or whatever the ether/medium may be composed of - over the effect of the force, the movement of the body over a certain distance or a displacement in/of the ether/medium. In other words, energy is in essence a measurement of the effect of the interaction between two bodies/particles and/or the medium. Fundamental point is that it is always a measurement of the effect of an interaction. And since action equals reaction, there can be no other way than that energy is always conserved. Because after all, as Tesla said, something cannot act upon nothing:

: ''It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

It is this law of conservation of energy that causes any machine that appears to produce "useful work" without the use of a visible or obvious energy source is considered to be "impossible" and done away with as perpetual motion:

: Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that once started operate or produce useful work indefinitely. This definition has been expanded to include any machine that produces more work or energy than it consumes, whether or not it can operate indefinitely. Despite that fact that such machines are not possible within the framework of our current formulation of physical law the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.

However, even though the law of conservation is correct, this does not mean it is impossible to create "machines that once started operate or produce useful work indefinitely" at all, provided you do not take the word 'indefinitely' too literally. But what this is really about, is the second part: "any machine that produces more work or energy than it consumes". Yes, this is correct, you cannot build a machine that produces energy out of nothing, you can only make a machine that uses some (external) energy source to do useful work. In most cases, we can use the energy source of choice more or less directly, like burning fuel, and we don't count the energy we have to spend in order to get our energy source. But of course it also takes energy to drill a hole in the earth in order to extract oil for making fuel. So, in essence, the fuel supply chain ("a machine") as a whole provides more energy than it consumes, that is, the energy needed to make fuel is less than the energy released when burning the final product, the fuel.

To continue in this line of thinking, the ground source heat pump is a perfect example of a machine that uses a certain amount of energy in order to extract energy from some other external energy source provided by nature, heat naturally stored in the ground:

: ''Ground source heat pumps, which are also referred to as Geothermal heat pumps, typically have higher efficiencies than air-source heat pumps. This is because they draw heat from the ground or groundwater which is at a relatively constant temperature all year round below a depth of about thirty feet (9 m).

Of course, we can apply this same principle in various ways, if we can find an appropriate external energy source provided by nature, preferably free of charge. Fortunately, an energy source exists that is available everywhere in the universe for free. It's an energy source that can provide limitless energy without any pollution whatsoever. This energy source is the electric field emitted for free by each and every charge carrier in the universe, 24/7, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Indefinitely. These are like tiny little stars that emit a different kind of light. All we need is a different kind of solar cell to utilize this and we can get all the energy we need whenever and where ever we want.

Once we really understand the electric field and how it is "created" it will be just a matter of a bit of trickery to be able to utilize this wonderful energy source without paying for energy ever again. Stanley Meyer did it John Bedini did it Edwin Gray did it and there is absolutely no reason why humanity should not have the luxury of cheap and clean energy.

Don't kill the dipole

Tom Bearden has made a number of video's as well as an article [copy] in which he explains how electrical circuits are actually powered.

: ''Here's a simple explanation of what powers every electrical circuit. When we crank the shaft of the generator and rotate it, the rotation transforms the input "mechanical" energy into internal "magnetic field" energy. In that little part of the circuit that is between the terminals of the generator and inside it, the magnetic field energy is dissipated on the charges right there, to do work on them. This work (expending the magnetic energy) forces the negative charges in one direction, and the positive charges in the other direction. [...] That's all that rotating the shaft of the generator accomplishes. None of that input shaft energy was transformed into EM energy and sent out down the powerline, as electrical engineers assume.

: ''Not to worry, energy does get sent down the power line but not from the generator shaft energy or its transduction. Essentially then, all the energy we put into the shaft of the generator is dissipated inside the generator itself, to push the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other. The separation of the charges forms what is called a "dipole" (opposite charges separated from each other a bit). That is all that the generator does. That is all that burning all that coal or oil or gas does. It heats a boiler to make steam, so that the steam runs a steam turbine attached to the shaft of the generator, and turns it -- and therefore forcing those charges apart and making that dipole between the terminals of the generator.

This is a very important principle to understand, even though Bearden is a bit off, IMHO, and it is very hard to get this straight. It does take energy to separate the charges and that energy is used to change the configuration of the electric field. The field is not the same before and after a separation of charges has been done, so the applied energy is converted into a form of energy that can perhaps be described as a stress, a disturbance, of the overall electric field. And when the charges flow trough the circuit, one way or the other, the same amount of energy is released to the circuit as the amount of energy needed to separate the charges. If really "all the energy we put into the shaft of the generator" would be "dissipated inside the generator itself", big generators would heat up like hellfire.

Imagine a room with a fan and a door. When the door is opened, the airflow, wind, generated by the fan pushes against the door and tries to shut it. While opening the door, you have to push it against the air flow, which costs you energy. You can get that same amount of energy back, when you use the pressure of the airflow pushing against the door to do work, like cracking a peanut. However, the fan is not powered by the energy you have spent to open the door, it is a separate energy flow that is powered by something else. In this analogy, the door stands for the charges (mass) that move around and can be used to do work while the airflow (wind) stands for the electric field that causes the charges to move around. The only thing is that the door is the fan. So, we get all those little fandoors we can push around and as long as we keep using the same fandoors to create the airflow and to do the work, we will never ever be able to extract more energy from the airflow than we have spent ourselves to open the door.

So, these fandoors (charges) are really wonderful things. You open the door and mother nature (the vacuum) spins the fan and gives you a flow of energy you can use. Now the good news is that you can not only use this free energy to get your door shut again to do work, you can also use it to push on your neighbour's door. The bad news is that your neighbour's door also has its own fan, which has the nasty habbit of blowing in the other direction, that is, it will oppoze your airflow, which makes it very hard and certainly not straightforward to get a foot between these doors and keep the air flowing without paying for it. So, if you may have had the idea of taking an electret, a piece of permanent polarized material that continuously emits an electric field (the airflow) for free, to induce a current in a nearby wire, you're in trouble. The charges inside the wire will oppoze this exteral field and neutralize it faster than you can blink your eye and then the party is over. So much for that one.

So, are the engineers right and is Bearden wrong after all?

Well, the engineers are right in that you do convert mechanical energy into potential electric energy by opening the door against the airflow. But, Bearden is right that the dipole that has been created is a energy source. That energy source puts out energy in the form of a electric field, real energy that is converted from ZPE or whatever into a "static" electric field, mostly to be sent into space without ever being used, except for that part that is needed to close the door again.

To sum this up: besides the energies that are normally considered, there is a second energy flow that is totally being ignored. And that is interesting, because if the law of conservation practically holds for the first flow (the opening and closing of the door) it means we can use this second, hidden, energy flow (the fan) for free! This also means that electrical circuits can never ever be considered being "isolated systems", so if you want to throw "law of conservation" stuff into the equation, you have to make damn sure that whatever energy is being exchanged by the electric field with the environment can be neglected in the case at hand. In other words: electrical circuits are always interacting with the environment, even though you can often ignore that when doing energy conservation calculations. But let's read a littlebit further in Bearden:

: ''So we "see" the dipole as if it were just sitting there and pouring out real EM energy continuously, in all directions, like a spray nozzle or giant energy gusher. We don't see the input energy from the vacuum at all! But it's there, and it's well-known in particle physics. It's just that electrical engineers -- particularly those that have designed and built all our electrical power systems for more than a century -- do not know it.

: ''So, according to proven particle physics and a Nobel Prize, the easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy from the vacuum. All you wish. Anywhere in the universe. For free. Just pay a little bit once, to make a little dipole, and that silly thing is like a great oil well you just successfully drilled that has turned into a mighty gusher of oil without you having to pump it. The dipole just sits there and does its thing, and it pours energy out forever, for free, as long as that dipole continues to exist.

Well, it may be right that particle physics says it's easy to extract EM energy from the vacuum, but that does not tell us how we can use that, nor how we can engineer systems that are able to make use of this unknown, or better: overlooked, territory. Where is that energy? Where does it come from and where does it go?

The answer to these questions can be found in the paper Conversion of the Vacuum-energy of electromagnetic zero point oscillations into Classical Mechanical Energy by the German Professor Claus Turtur. In the chapter "A circulation of energy of the electrostatic field" (pages 10-14) he makes a straightforward calculation of the energy density of the static electric field surrounding a point charge using nothing more than Coulombs law and the known propagation speed of the electric field, the speed of light, and shows that there must be some kind of energy circulation between the vacuum and charge carriers:

: ''If electrostatic fields propagate with the speed of light, they transport energy, because they have a certain energy density. It should be possible to trace this transport of energy if is really existing. That this is really the case can be seen even with a simple example regarding a point charge, as will be done on the following pages. When we trace this energy, we come to situation, which looks paradox at the very first glance, but the paradox can be dissolved, introducing a circulation of energy. This is also demonstrated on the following pages.

: ''The first aspect of the mentioned paradox regards the emission of energy at all. If a point charge (for instance an elementary charge) exists since a given moment in time, it emits electric field and field’s energy from the time of its birth without any alteration of its mass. The volume of the space filled with this field increases permanently during time and with it the total energy of the field. But from where does this “new energy” originate? For the charged particle does not alter its mass (and thus its energy), the “new energy” can not originate from the particle itself. This means: The charged particle has to be permanently supplied with energy from somewhere. The situation is also possible for particles, which are in contact with nothing else but only with the vacuum. The consequence is obvious: The particle can be supplied with energy only from the vacuum. This sounds paradox, so it can be regarded as the first aspect of the mentioned paradox. But it is logically consequent, and so we will have to solve it later.


: ''Important is the conclusion, which can be found with logical consequence:

: ''On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy. In section 3, we will understand this energy more detailed.

: ''But even now, we can come to the statement:

: ''During time, the field of every electric charge (field source) increases. Nevertheless the space (in the present work the expressions “space” and “vacuum” are use as synonyms) causes a permanent circulation of energy, supplying charges with energy and taking back this energy during the propagation of the fields. This is the circulation of energy, which gave the title for present section 2.2.

: ''This leads us to a new aspect of vacuum-energy:

: ''The circulating energy (of the electric field) is at least a part of the vacuum-energy. We found its existence and its conversion as well as its flow. On the basis of this understanding it should be possible to extract at least a part of this circulating energy from the vacuum – in section 4 a description is given of a possible method how to extract such energy from the vacuum.

So there we are. The electric field (the airflow in our fandoor analogy) is on the one hand powered by the vacuum and on the other hand it powers the vacuum. So, at least part of the energy in space / the vacuum, referred to with names as "Zero Point Energy" (ZPE), virtual particle flux, the Dirac sea, Orgone, etc. is not only fueled by the electric field, it is continuously converted back into an electric field by each and every charged particle in the universe, which makes the electric field a source of energy. The implications of that are staggering. It means that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to electrical systems, because they are not isolated. After all, Turtur shows without a shadow of a doubt that energy is being extracted from the active vacuum by each and every charged particle and thus every electrical system in existence in the Universe.

Interestingly, Nikola Tesla already said the exact same thing in 1891:

: ''Nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy. The eternal recipient and transmitter of this infinite energy is the ether. The recognition of the existence of ether, and of the functions it performs, is one of the most important results of modern scientific research. The mere abandoning of the idea of action at a distance, the assumption of a medium pervading all space and connecting all gross matter, has freed the minds of thinkers of an ever present doubt, and, by opening a new horizon—new and unforeseen possibilities—has given fresh interest to phenomena with which we are familiar of old.

Based on all this, it is clear that we need to look at electrical systems in a different way, we need a way of thinking that does account for the energy source that is really powering our systems. In a way, we need a similar change in our models as the change from Newton to quantum mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics can still be used in mechanical engineering most of the time, at some point they are no longer valid, for example in the calculation of satellite orbits. In the same way, the current electrical engineering model is fine for most applications where it suffices to consider only the door part of our fandoor analogy, that is, by considering electrical systems basically as an analogy of hydraulics, which is literally just a variation of Newtonian mechanics. However, if you want to be able to utilize the energy source the electric field provides, there just ain't no way to do that without taking the energy exchange between an electrical system and the vacuum completely into account. And that means we have to go back to field theory instead of describing our systems in terms of concrete components, the so-called lumped element models, especially in the case we are dealing with resonating coils. This is explained by James and Kenneth Corum points in Tesla Coils and the Failure of Lumped-Element Circuit Theory:

: ''In the following note, we will show why one needs transmission line analysis (or Maxwell's equations) to model these electrically distributed structures. Lumped circuit theory fails because it's a theory whose presuppositions are inadequate. Every EE in the world was warned of this in their first sophomore circuits course.

: ''All those handbook formulas that people use for inductance, L, inherently assume applications at frequencies so low that the current distribution along the coil is uniform. The real issue is that migrating voltage nodes and loops are not a property of lumped-circuit elements - they are the directly observable consequence of velocity inhibited wave interference on the self-resonant coil. Lumped element representations for coils require that the current is uniformly distributed along the coil - no wave interference and no standing waves can be present on lumped elements.

So, we need to consider the fields and that also means we need to realise that the nature of these fields is dynamic and not static. In the old Newtonian model, we consider the voltage across an impedance to be the cause for a current to occur, which in our fandoor anology would be the pressure that the door "feels" being enacted by the airflow on its surface, while in reality it is the airflow (the electric) field that acts upon the door and not the pressure itself. In other words it seems like the "pressure" the electric field enacts on our components is static, hence the name "static electric field", while in actual reality this force is a dynamic force, something flows along the surface that creates the pressure. Tesla already realised this in [1892]:

: ''There is no doubt that with the enormous potentials obtainable by the Use of high frequencies and oil insulation luminous discharges might be passed through many miles of rarefied air, and that, by thus directing the energy of many hundreds or thousands of horse-power, motors or lamps might be operated at considerable distances from stationary sources. But such schemes are mentioned merely as possibilities. We shall have no need to transmit power at all. Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus [Antaeus], who derives power from the earth we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

It is nothing less than a shame that even more than a hundred years later, we still burn fossile fuel for our energy, basically because of arrogance, selfishness and ignorance. Still, the question remains the same. It is a mere question of time... Anyhow, there basically is a deeper cause we have to account for: the electric field itself, which is present everywhere in the Universe. With that in mind, we continue with Bearden:

: ''The external (attached) circuits and power lines etc. catch some of that available EM energy flowing through space (generally flowing parallel to the wires but outside them). Some of the flowing energy is intercepted and diverted into the wires themselves, to power up the internal electrons and force them into currents, thus powering the entire power line and all its circuits.

: ''However, the power system engineers use just one kind of circuit. In the standard "closed current loop" circuit, all the "spent electrons" (spent after giving up their excess energy in the loads, losses, etc.) are then forcibly "rammed" back through that little internal section between the ends of the source dipole (between the terminals). These "rammed" electrons smash the charges in the dipole away, and destroy the dipole then and there.

: ''It can easily be shown that half the "caught" energy in the external circuit is used to destroy that source dipole, and nothing else.

: ''For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses.

: ''So half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole (kill the free energy gusher), and less than half is used to power the loads. It follows that our electrical engineers are trained to use only those power circuits that kill themselves (kill their gushing free energy from the vacuum) faster than they can power their loads.

: ''Well, to get the energy gusher going again, the dipole has to be restored in order to extract the energy and pour it out again.

: ''So we have to pay to crank the shaft of that generator some more, to turn that generator some more, so that we can dissipate some more magnetic energy to re-make the dipole. We have to work on that shaft at least as much as the external circuit worked on that source dipole to destroy it. So we have to "input more shaft energy" to the generator than the external power system uses to power its loads. Since we pay for the input shaft energy, we have to keep on burning that coal, oil, and gas etc. to do so.

: ''All our electrical power systems are "suicidal" vacuum-powered systems, freely extracting their useful EM energy from the seething vacuum, but deliberately killing themselves faster than they power their loads.

: ''All that the burning of all that coal, oil, gas, etc. accomplishes is to continually remake the source dipole, which our engineers insure will then receive be killed by the system itself faster than the system gives us work in the load. "

Now isn't that interesting, half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole, and less than half is used to power the loads? Think about it, how can that be?

There is an essential difference between the Newtonian analogy we use in electrical engineering (closed circuits) and the actual reality. The analogy of a capacitor in hydraulics (Newtonian analogy) is a piston moving back and forth in a closed cylinder wherein gas is pressurized. And here's the difference: Imagine moving the piston inwards, pressurizing the gas, and put the thing on your workbench. The piston will immediately move back, because of the gas pressure. Now charge a capacitor and put it on your workbench. See the difference? The capacitor will just sit there, keeping it's charge. In other words: our hydraulic analogy is unstable, it 'wants' to release it's energy, while our actual electrical component is stable when 'pressurized'. It will only 'release' it's energy when something external is being done. It has to be disturbed, because the charges in a capacitor actually attract one another, which makes them like to stay where they are. So, when 'discharging' a capacitor, as a matter of fact, these attraction forces have to be overcome. And that does not release energy at all, it costs energy to do that. So, it actually takes the same amount of energy to charge a capacitor as the amount of energy it takes to discharge the capacitor.

It is undoubtedly because of this that Steinmetz wrote, already in the beginning of the twentieth century:

: ''"Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated. There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by lines of force."


So, it may seem that the conservation law holds when considering electrical circuits in their 'prehistoric' analogy, in actual truth this is only the case because the interactions with the environment, the active vacuum, balance one another out. In reality twice the amount of work has been done than seems to having been done!


Any charge continously emits an energy field, an electric field, spreading with the speed of light, which is the real energy source that makes our circuits run. This energy-field, generated by the charges in our wires, is not created out of thin-air. Since there is a continuous flow of energy out of every charge, there also is a continuous flow of energy going into every charge. And that is where the energy eventually comes from, right from the vacuum itself. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter how the energy that ends up in the electric field is being taken out of the vacuum. It may be ZPE, it may be a "virtual partical flux", it may be anything. It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

All we need to know is that somehow, some form of energy flows into each and every charge in the universe and this energy flow is continuously converted into an outflowing electric energy field by each and every charge in the universe, 27/7, 365 days a year, for free.

And this is the basic concept to understand. The electric field comes for free, as long as you keep the charges separated and don't disturb them.

So, where does all this leave us? We can spend the effort of turning the shaft of a generator, which will separate the charges in the system we want to power and creates a dipole. When we do this, we do not actually store energy in the dipole, we change the configuration of the electric field. When we subsequently send those same charges trough the system we want to power, it is the active vacuum, the environment, which is kind enough to provide us with the energy that is needed to kill the dipole we have created to be able to power our load and with the energy to actually power our load as well. As we have seen, this is an exercise with a closed wallet from our point of view. The load receives the exact same amount of energy that we have put in the system ourselves as mechanical energy, apart from the losses. So, all things considered, the Newtionian analogy we use in electrical engineering is perfectly valid and applicable. Except for one tiny little detail.

We change the configuration of the electric field when we operate an electrical circuit and since we eventually get the same amount of energy back trough our load while doing this, this means we can actually manipulate the electric field for free, just by powering our circuits the way we always do. Get the point? While we are opening and closing our fandoor, we influence the airflow in our neighbourhood without having to pay a dime for that in terms of energy! That means we can manipulate our neigbors fandoor for free. So, all we need to do is figure out how to use our free manipulative power to put the fandoors in our neighborhood to work such that it is the environment that delivers the energy to power the neighbors load, just as it powers our load. In other words: we have to manipulate the electric field in such a way that charge carriers in the environment of our systems are moved around in such a way that they perform useful work, in such a wat that it isn't us that provides the energy, but someone else: the electric field itself. That means most of all that we have to make sure that those neighboring charges don't end up in our circuit, since then they will kill our dipole and we will have to pay the price, and secondly that we have to make sure that we don't disturb the charge carriers that make up our voltage source.

Let's take a look at how three inventors managed to do just that by using the power of resonance. You can find that part after the intermezzo with some interesting references.

Some literature

I collected quite some literature on the subject of ether science, free energy and electrical engineering, most of which is available here, as well as some audio files. You can not only find reference material there, but also a collection of various patents, which includes patents by well known researchers as Puharich, Meyer and Gray, but also some interesting stuff like the patents from and some older patents by Benitez which show that free energy devices similar to the Tesla switch or Brandt-Tesla converter were already patented as early as 1914.

Eric Dollard

Eric Dollard is the only man known to be able to accurately reproduce many of Tesla's experiments with Radiant Energy and wireless transmission of power. This is because he understands that conventional electrical theory only includes half of the story. He published several books and papers, some of which are available on my site. There are also some audio recordings available with the master himself.

Condensed Intro to Tesla Transformers

At page 3/4, Dollard gives a very interesting description of the kinds of signals the Tesla Transformer is supposed to produce:

: ''Contrary to popular belief, the Tesla transformer is not a steady state device but is a magnifier of transient phenomena. Also it does not behave like a L. C. network nor a transmission line, but more like a unique type of wave guide. If all parts of the system are designed properly the EMF and hence dielectric flux jumps from zero to an enourmous value almost instantaneously, thereby producing an almost inconceivable displacement current into space. The transformer is then basically a device for rapidly discharging the capacitor bank nearly instantly into free space, producing an enourmous dielectric shock wave similar to a sonic boom.

This suggests that Edwin Gray's devices are supposed to utilize this principle, this sonic boom.

Page 13/14:

: ''Due to the immense difficulties surrounding the spark device, a simple method and one of much greater control is shunt feed of the primary network by an A.M. radio transmitter of special design such as the unit at building number one. Due to the high impedance offered by the primary resonator the impedance effective of the tubes must be high and therefore must operate at high anode voltages. The electron emission however, must also be high, necessitating large cathodes and temperaturs. High anode {something} and large electron emission are usually of inverse relation in available vacuum tubes. Special pulse modulator vacuum tubes must be used. Hydrogen thyratrons might operate satisfactorally at low frequencies where the 1 microsecond deionization time will not hinder commutation. The most effective device for shunt feed may be the multipactor tube due to its strong negative resitance effects, but it is not clear if it will operate beyond 1000KC with much efficiency.

The Oscillating Current Transformer

In this article (Page 1-3, fully digital version), Dollard describes a.o. the existence of two destinct energy flows:

: ''The oscillating current transformer functions quite differently than a conventional transformer in that the law of dielectric induction is utilized as well as the familiar law of magnetic induction. The propagation of waves along the coil axis does not resemble the propagation of waves along a conventional transmission line, but is complicated by inter-turn capacitance & mutual magnetic inductance. In this respect the O.C. transformer does not behave like a resonant transmission line, nor a R.C.L. circuit, but more like a special type of wave guide. Perhaps the most important feature of the O.C. transformer is that in the course of propagation along the coil axis the electric energy is dematerialized, that is, rendered mass free energy resembling Dr. Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy in its behavior. It is this feature that renders the O.C. transformer usefull for wireless power transmission and reception, and gives the O.C. transformer singular inportance in de study of Dr. Tesla's research.

: ''Fundamentals of coil induction

: ''Consider the elemental slice of a coil shown in fig. 1. Between the turns 1,2 & 3 of the coiled conductor exists a complex electric wave consisting of two basic components. In one component (fig. 2), the lines of magnetic and dielectric flux cross at right angles, producing a photon flux perpendicular to these crossings, hereby propagating energy along the gap, parallel to the conductors and around the coil. This is the transverse electro-magnetic wave. In the other component, shown in fig. 3, the lines of magnetic flux do not cross but unite along the same axis, perpendicular to the coil conductors, hereby energy is conveyed along the coil axis. This is the Longitudinal Magneto-Dielectric Wave.

: ''Hence, two distinct forms of energy flow are present in the coiled conductor, propagating at right angles with respect to each other, as shown in fig. 4. Herby a resultant wave is produced which propagates around the coil in a helical fashion, leading the transverse wave between the conductors. Thus the oscillating coil posses a complex wavelength which is shorter than the wavelength of the coiled conductor.

Kenneth L. Corum and James F. Corum, Ph.D.

The Corums published some very interesting papers about Tesla coils and the modeling thereof. In RF Coils, Helical Resonators and Voltage Magnification by Coherent Spatial Modes (also published here) they model a coil as a conducting surface. A surface with the special feature that it conducts in one direction only:

: ''At radio frequencies a wire-wound helix with many turns per free-space wavelength (e.g., a Tesla coil) may be modeled as an idealized anisotropically conducting cylindrical surface that conducts only in the helical direction. The conductivity normal to the helical path is taken to be zero.

The abstract of the article:

: ''By modeling a wire-wound coil as an anisotropically conducting cylindrical boundary, one may start from Maxwell's equations and deduce the structure's resonant behavior. Not only can the propagation factor and characteristic impedance be determined for such a helically disposed surface waveguide, but also its resonances, "self-capacitance" (so-called), and its voltage magnification by standing waves. Further, the Tesla coil passes to a conventional lumped element inductor as the helix is electrically shortened.

A very interesting point of view. They also explain why the so-called "lumped elements" modelling of coils is not very suitable for the modelling of resonant behavior of coils, etc.:

: ''The behavior of distributed networks (such as wires, periodic physical structures, helices, corrugated wave guides, antennas, etc.) may be conveniently represented at a pair of terminals by lumped elements. Paris and Hurd have said, “It is customary in practice to speak of stray or distributed effects when the behavior of a circuit or device cannot be predicted on the basis of ordinary network theory.” The failure of any lumped element circuit model to describe the real world lies at its core inherent presupposition: the speed of light is assumed infinite in the wave equatiom (all regions of the universe can be communicated with instantaneously).

: ''Consequently, lumped element circuit theory does not (and cannot) accurately embody a world of second order partial differential equations in space and time. Lumped elements “have no physical dimensions and no preferred orientation in space they can be moved around and rotated at will.” Not so for real world coils.

They spent a complete article, Class Notes: Tesla Coils and the Failure of Lumped-Element Circuit Theory, on this subject:

: ''Can one model the physical operation of a Tesla coil appropriately with only lumped-element circuits? If not, why not? It was pointed out long ago that, at its operating frequency, a Tesla coil is not a lumped-element induction coil. Forget the quest for "many turns of fine wire". In fact, a Tesla coil has more in common with a cavity resonator than it does with a conventional inductor.

: ''With a real Tesla coil, voltage rise is neither by lumped-element transformer action (E2 = NE1), nor by induction (E2 = M di/dt), nor by simple lumped-element coupled resonance [V2 = V1×(L2/L1)½]. In all of those circuit models the current is analytically presupposed to be uniformly distributed along the wire in the coil (it's in the Neumann integral definition of inductance - see any elementary electromagnetics text) and the voltage will rise proportional to N, the turns along the coil. There are no standing waves on a lumped element circuit component. (In fact, lumped-element circuit theory inherently employs the cosmological presupposition that the speed of light is infinite, as every EE sophomore should know.

: ''However, a true Tesla coil (circa 1894) is a velocity inhibited slow-wave helical transmission line resonator: Vmax = S×Vmin, where S is the standing wave ratio. Voltage magnification is by standing waves. Period. No such voltages, even in the remotest degree, can be obtained by either lumped element transformers or by lumped element LC resonating circuits.

Walter Russell

Walter Russell is a very intriguing author for those who are interested in a/the bigger picture:

: ''Walter Russell is known as the "Man Who Tapped the Secrets of The Universe," "The Modern Leonardo," and "The Most Versatile Man in America." Gifted as a poet, painter, sculptor, author, musician, architect, scientist and mystic, Walter Russell's impact on early 20th century spiritual and scientific thought was impressive. His original and unique Periodic Table of the elements accurately predicted the location and characteristics of four undiscovered elements. It wouldn't be until years later that these elements deuterium, tritium, neptunium and plutonium were detected by laboratory researchers.

: ''Tesla urged Russell, "Bury your ideas in a vault for a thousand years to await the unfolding of human consciousness to comprehend your vision."

If Tesla said this, well, then he may be worth studying. His first book on his cosmology is "The Universal One":

: ''The Universal One is Walter Russell's first expression of his new Cosmogony explaining the Mind-centered electromagnetic universe. Russell later revised some of the content of The Universal One in The Secret of Light and A New Concept of the Universe. Students of the Russell science should be aware of the historic sequence of Walter Russell’s books of science, and note the various changes in details which Walter Russell himself made. Nikola Tesla told Walter Russell to hide his cosmogony from the world for a thousand years. Though a century or more ahead of its time, The Universal One, uniting spiritual Cause and scientifically observable Effect in a seamless whole, is now appealing to the many people—scientists and laymen alike—who are examining the nature of science and consciousness. In this 1926 historic volume, Walter Russell first reveals the possibility of transmutation of the elements.

From the prelude of The Universal One:

: ''THE supreme service which man can render to evolving man is to answer for him, dynamically, the great heretofore unanswerable question concerning the One universal force which man calls God, or Mind, or by other names. For long ages man has impatiently awaited the knowledge which would tear away the veil from the invisible universe which lies beyond his perception and bring it within the range of both his perception and his exact comprehension. Mathematical and measurable proof of the existence of but One Mind, One force and One substance would give to man absolute control over matter, the power to create, even as God creates, and within the same limitations.

: ''Man is omnipotent when he but knows his omnipotence. Until that day he is but man. Voltaire said that man could never comprehend God for man must be God to comprehend Him. Man is God and therefore God is within the comprehension of man. Man is Mind. Man is matter. Mind and matter are One. God is Mind. This is a universe of Mind, a finite universe, limited as to cause, and to the effect of cause. A universe of limitations cannot be infinite. There is no infinite universe. A finite universe, in which the effects of cause are limited, must also be limited as to cause so when that measureable cause is known then can man comprehend and measure all effects.

: ''The effects of cause are complex and mystify man but cause itself is simple. The universe is a multiplicity of changing effects of but One unchanging cause. All things are universal. Nothing is which is not universal. Nothing is of itself alone. Man and Mind and all creating things are universal. No man can say: "I alone am I."

: ''There is but One universe, One Mind, One force, One substance.

: ''When man knows this in measurable exactness then will he have no limitations within those which are universal. He will then know that all knowledge exists within man and is subject to his desire to recall it from within his inner Mind. Knowledge is not acquired from without but merely recollected from within. The recollection of knowledge from within is an electro-magnetic process of thinking Mind which is as exactly under man's control as is the generation of the same power to turn a wheel.Man must "think in light" his thinking must be in terms of the electromagnetic periodicities which measure all motion, for of such is he himself, and nothing else.

: ''To know how to think in light from within is to open the doors of all knowledge. Omnipotence lies in perfect thinking. There is no power in this universe other than the energy of thinking Mind. Thinking is the cause of motion and the periodicities, or states of motion, caused by thinking Mind are registered in light which man calls "matter." Matter is light. Nothing is which is not light.


Image:Arend ossenhoorn klein.jpg

One of the most intriguing phenomenon in nature is resonance, a phenomenon that has been used in the construction of musical instruments for ages. In the picture above, you can see me blowing the horn of an ox, a tradition that dates back thousands of years and can be traced to Germanic mythology, where this instrument was used to call upon Woden or Odin, the God of death and storm, who would wake up and chase the Fenris wulf. The wulf that ate the sun from june 21st until december 21st. So, if this wulf would not be stopped, there would be darkness forever on Earth. So, my ancestors would take this horn and imitate the sounds Wodan would make with his army of the death, flying trough the skies, sitting on his six legged horse called Sleipnir, and do all they could to help him defeat darkness. At some point in history, the Roman Catholic Church banned the tradition of the horn blowing and replaced Odin with a new figure, Sinterklaas, who in The Netherlands also rides a white horse, not trough the skies but on the roofs of the houses to deliver presents to the children at december 5th. It is this same fellow who became Santa Claus in most Western Countries. If you're interested in how this oxen horn sounds, you can take a look at our homepage, which is in Dutch, but there's a small YouTube video on there that shows us in action.

Some time ago, just out of curiosity, I attached an earphone to my horn and drove that from the sound card of my computer, feeding it with sine waves with various frequencies. At the resonance frequency of the horn, the sound was really amplified by the horn. With the earphone out of the horn, I could hardly hear it, while in the horn, I could clearly hear it. This of course leads to the question: Is this a real gain, or just "impedance matching" such that all the power is actually coming from the driving circuitry in the computer? The textbooks say the latter, but are these right, or are they applying the law of conservation of energy incorrectly?

After all, one of the most interesting details regarding a horn is that it is capable of amplyfing a signal, an effect used in early phonographs, such as this one:

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

The amplification effect of these kinds of resonators is mentioned here at Wikipedia:

: ''Early "mechanical" gramophones used the stylus to vibrate a diaphragm radiating through a horn. Several serious problems resulted from this:

: ''The maximum sound level achievable was quite limited, being limited to the physical amplification effects of the horn,

: ''The energy needed to generate such sound levels as were obtainable had to come directly from the stylus tracing the groove. This required very high tracking forces that rapidly wore out both the stylus and the record on lateral cut 78 rpm records.

: ''Because bass sounds have a higher amplitude than high frequency sounds (for the same perceived loudness), the space taken in the groove by low frequency sounds needed to be large (limiting playback time per side of the record) to accommodate the bass notes, yet the high frequencies required only tiny variations in the groove, which were easily affected by noise from irregularities (wear, contaminates, etc.) in the disk itself.

They say the same thing in their article about loudspeakers:

: ''Horn loudspeakers are the oldest form of loudspeaker system. The use of horns as voice-amplifying megaphones dates at least to the 17th century, and horns were used in mechanical gramophones as early as 1857. Horn loudspeakers use a shaped waveguide in front of or behind the driver to increase the directivity of the loudspeaker and to transform a small diameter, high pressure condition at the driver cone surface to a large diameter, low pressure condition at the mouth of the horn.

So, it is clear that there is more to the phenomenon of resonance than meets the eye, and even tough the textbooks do their best to explain the amplification effects associated with resonance away because they apply the law of conservation of energy incorrectly, we will see wether or not we can get real energy gains using resonance. Energy that is not created out of nothing, but tapped from the electric field, the ether, exactly as Nikila Tesla, Master of Resonance, has figured out years ago:

: ''It was an innocent experiment. Tesla had attached a small vibrator to an iron column in his New York City laboratory and started it vibrating. At certain frequencies specific pieces of equipment in the room would jiggle. Change the frequency and the jiggle would move to another part of the room. Unfortunately, he hadn't accounted for the fact that the column ran downward into the foundation beneath the building. His vibrations were being transmitted all over Manhattan.

: ''For Tesla, the first hint of trouble came when the walls and floor began to heave. He stopped the experiment just as the police crashed through the door. It seems he'd started a small earthquake in his neighborhood smashing windows, swayed buildings, and sending panicked neighbors rushing into the streets. The police had frequently responded to complaints about Tesla's unusual activities.

: ''Although Tesla was not the first to discover resonance he was obsessed with it and created some of the most incredible demonstrations of it ever seen. He studied both mechanical and electrical versions. In the process he created an artificial earthquake, numerous artificial lightning storms, knocked an entire power plant off line in Colorado, and nearly caused the steel frame of a sky scraper under construction in Manhattan to collapse. Tesla realized that the principles of resonance could be used to transmit and receive radio messages well before Marconi. In fact, many knowledgeable sources now credit Tesla as the inventor of radio rather than Marconi. This includes the Supreme Court which in 1943 ruled that Tesla's radio patents had preceded all others including Marconi's.

I mean, a bit more sound o