-- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.


Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

by Arend Lammertink <lamare{at}gmail>
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 talk page 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 here 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 personal talk page 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.


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:

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 out of a horn because of "impedance matching", all right. But explaining "an artificial earthquake", knocking out "an entire power plant" and nearly causing "the steel frame of a sky scraper" to collapse as "impedance matching"? Come on, give me a break.

Resonating a coil

Normally, when you drive a half open coil at its natural resonance frequency, such as in a transmitter, you connect one side of the coil to ground and that is the side you drive. This is what Dr. Stiffler does in some of his circuits. With this technique, you make a tap in the coil somewhere at about 25% of the coil and at exactly the right time, you pull that tap trough a transistor up to the positive of your power supply. That way you basically steer a current trough the coil, you move the charge carriers around. On the other, open, side of the coil obviously no current flows and as you can see from Dr. Stifflers experiments, there is high voltage at that side of the coil. Dr. Stiffler has performed various experiments using resonating coils and he has shared a lot of his work here.

Now let's get that straight. When you drive a half open coil at its natural resonance frequency, at one side of the coil you have zero voltage and high current, while at the other side you have zero current, but high voltage. Now this is obviously interesting, since we already know we can create high voltages almost for free. That is, we can create a strong electric field for free and as long as the charges outside our system that may be affected by this field cannot influence the charge carriers in our system, we can use that field for free.

The spark gap oscillator

Some of the first devices in which coils were resonated where the spark-gap transmitters used in the first three decades of radio:

In its simplest form, a spark-gap transmitter consists of a spark gap connected across an oscillatory circuit consisting of a capacitor and an inductor in series or parallel. In a typical transmitter circuit, a high voltage source (shown in the schematic as a battery, but usually a high voltage transformer) charges a capacitor (C1 in figure) through a resistor until the spark gap discharges, then a pulse of current passes through the capacitor (C2 in figure). The inductor and capacitor after the gap form a resonant circuit. After being excited by the current pulse, the oscillation rapidly decays because energy is radiated from the antenna. Because of the rapid onset and decay of the oscillation, the RF pulse occupies a large band of frequencies.
The function of the spark gap is to present initially a high resistance to the circuit to allow the capacitor to charge. When the breakdown voltage of the gap is reached, it then presents a low resistance to the circuit causing the capacitor to discharge. The discharge through the conducting spark takes the form of a damped oscillation, at a frequency determined by the resonant frequency of the LC circuit.

This damped oscillation is characteristic for these early spark gap transmitters and these transmitters could only transmit short bursts of electromagnetic energy. As you can see in the schematic, the spark gap itself is not part of the resonant tank circuit. A later development was the so-called Poulsen arc converter. Wikipedia:

Spark gap transmitters generate fairly broad-band signals. As the more efficient transmission mode of continuous waves (CW) became easier to produce and band crowding and interference worsened, spark-gap transmitters and damped waves were legislated off the new shorter wavelengths by international treaty, and replaced by Poulsen arc converters and high frequency alternators which developed a sharply defined transmitter frequency. These approaches later yielded to vacuum tube technology and the 'electric age' of radio would end.

The Poulsen arc converter is based on William Duddell discovery of the "singing arc" in 1900:

Since radio discovery began, the methods used to generate high frequencies have often changed. There was first Heinrich Hertz's resonant circuit excited by sparks; this method, while applicable to telegraphy, creates only damped waves unsuitable for modulation. In 1900 while seeking a method of created undamped waves, William Duddell discovered the "singing arc".
He demonstrated that an arc light is capable of exciting continuous oscillation in a parallel resonant circuit. In 1906 Valdemar Poulsen constructed the first practical arc transmitter for transmission work; but it was soon superseded by the vacuum-tube transmitter.

This is the schematic of Duddell's Experiment:


Characteristic for this arc converter circuit is that the spark gap is part of the resonant tank circuit. It makes use of the negative resistance characteristics of a spark gap and that it emits a continuous wave:

Unlike the spark-gap transmitter converter, the arc converter produces undamped or continuous waves (CW). This was an important feature as the use of damped waves resulted in lower transmitter efficiency and communications effectiveness, while covering the r.f. spectrum with interference. This more refined method for generating continuous-wave radio signals was initially developed by Danish inventor Valdemar Poulsen. The Poulsen arc converter can be likened to a continuous-duty-rated electric arc welder with a tuned circuit connected across the arc. The negative resistance characteristics of an electric arc permits the creation of a relaxation oscillator that converts direct current to radio frequency energy. The arc converter consisted of a water-cooled bronze chamber in which the arc burned in hydrogen gas between a carbon cathode and a water-cooled copper anode. Above and below this chamber there were two series field coils surrounding and energizing the two poles of the magnetic circuit. These poles projected into the chamber, one on each side of the arc to provide a magnetic field. This field helps to stabilize the arc and improve overall conversion efficiency. In today's world one can still find oscillators based on negative resistance devices; the tunnel diode is one of them.

Another one is the so-called lambda diode, actually a circuit consisting of 2 FET transistors or 1 FET and a BJT. More on this circuit here, here and here.

This negative resistance effect of a spark gap is also described in Wireless Telegraphy and High Frequency Electricity, H. LaVerne Twining, 1909, pages 180-196:

If we take observations with a voltmeter and ammeter on a solid carbon direct current arc, for various constants of the arc, using the potential difference in volts as the ordinate, and the current in amperes as abscissa, we will find a curve that is concave upward and as the current increases it slopes downward; it is therefore a curve that slopes in the opposite direction to the curves that obey Ohm's law. All this phenomena has been investigated by Messrs. Ayrton, Upson and others, and the conclusion is that in all cases, whether between carbon and carbon, or carbon and metal, or these with gases, the curves slope downward, showing that as we increase the current through the arc the potential difference decreases.
The action of the capacity and inductance on the arc may be as follows: In shunting the capacity C and inductance L across an arc (see Fig. 2) that is burning steadily, the capacity instantly takes upon itself a charge and the current through the arcs is at the same time diminished, the potential difference therefore increases across the arc and this tends further to charge the condenser. This reacts on the arc and still further increases its current, which in turn lowers the potential difference. Since it discharges through an inductance L, it not only fully discharges but becomes charged in the opposite direction, just as a pendulum, when pulled to one side and let go, will not only go back to its original position, but go far beyond it in the opposite direction. When in this condition, it is ready to repeat the operation with more vigor than before, and so, persistent and undamped oscillations are set up by the condenser charging and discharging.

Also see The Usefulness of Negative Resistance:

Long before Heinrich Hertz’s experiments to prove the existence of electromagnetic waves (1886–1888), it had been noticed in arc discharges that the voltage temporarily fell as the amperage increased. The mathematician Hertha Ayrton, who continued the research work of her husband William Ayrton on the electric arc, set out the formula on the inverse proportionality between arc amperage and voltage known as “negative resistance.” She was the first woman to be made a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in recognition of her research.
Her discoveries were taken over by the physicist George Francis Fitzgerald to support his thesis that the negative resistance of the arc could be used to produce unsuppressed continuous electromagnetic waves, since this resistance to some extent overcame the resistance of the second circuit. William Duddell, a colleague of Hertha and William Ayrton at the London Central Technical College, then discovered that the arc of a DC arc lamp begins to “sing” without any further conversion if an oscillating circuit is switched in parallel to it.

More on the Poulsen / Duddell "Singing Arc": [1] [2]

Comparison with antennas


Typically a dipole antenna is formed by two quarter wavelength conductors or elements placed back to back for a total length of \scriptstyle{\lambda/2}. A standing wave on an element of a length ~\scriptstyle{\lambda/4} yields the greatest voltage differential, as one end of the element is at a node while the other is at an antinode of the wave. The larger the differential voltage, the greater the current between the elements.

Gain of dipole antennas
length L in \scriptstyle{\lambda} Gain Gain(dB)
\scriptstyle{\ll} 0.1 1.50 1.76dB
0.5 1.64 2.15dB
1.0 1.80 2.55dB
1.5 2.00 3.01dB
2.0 2.30 3.62dB
3.0 2.80 4.47dB
4.0 3.50 5.44dB
8.0 7.10 8.51dB

From theory to practice

Dr. Andrija Puharich

Dr Andrija Puharich reportedly drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles around North America in the 1970s using only water as fuel. At a mountain pass in Mexico, he collected snow for water. He wrote in a article:

It is hardly necessary to weigh the value of the World Energy bank account for any sophisticated person, these days. It is grim. The oil reserves will dwindle away in a score of years or so, and the coal reserves will be gone in some twelve score years. ( Ref. 1)
This is not to say that the outlook is hopeless. There is an abundance of alternative energy sources, but the economics of development and exploitation present an enormous short term strain on the world political and banking resources.
Visionary scientists tell us that the ideal fuel in the future will be as cheap as water, that it will be non toxic both in its short term, and in its long term, effects, that it will be renewable in that it can be used over and over again, that it will be safe to handle, and present minimal storage and transportation problems and costs. And finally that it will be universally available anywhere on earth.
What is this magical fuel, and why is it not being used? The fuel is water. It can be used in its fresh water form. It can be used in its salt water form. It can be used in its brackish form. It can be used in its snow and ice form. When such water is decomposed by electrolytic fission into hydrogen and oxygen gases, it becomes a high energy fuel with three times the energy output which is available from an equivalent weight of high grade gasoline.

There are some rare mp3's available of Puharich's appearance in "Open Mind" with Bill Jenkins.

Anyway, let's take a look at what Puharich did, because this one is the easiest to understand. Figure 1 in his patents shows his signal generator block diagram (page 3):

You see that L1 and L2 are driven from an open transformer and therefore no current flows in and out of the outer terminals of the whole train, which starts at the open end of the "insulating" TF and ends at the "resonance sensing" resistor.

What is particulary interesting about Puharich is the wave form he used in figure 15 at page 17:

Here he shows a full-wave rectified waveform, there are no "silent" periods in between the pulses, even though he writes in the caption that the wave is half-rectified. What is important to realise is that he eventually used unipolar pulses in one direction, but matched to the resonance frequency of the load train. If you look carefully at the lower wave form, you'll see that you can easily draw a sine wave across the tops of the high frequency waves. That is the wave that matches the resonance frequency of the load train. And the he uses the "resonance sensing resistor" with some kind of feed back circuit to make sure his load train is always in resonance. Very clever and elegant!

If you look at his block diagram, you don't see any rectifier. This suggests he did his rectification before his power amplifier, before his "insulation transformer", which would be a bad choice in terms of energy he has to spend himself in order to drive the transformer. After all, the primary of the transformer is an inductive load and at the zero crossings, you need to spend a considerable amount of power in order to get the current the other way around. So, it would be much more efficient to do the rectification after the insulation transformer and then drive the transformer with the signal shown in the upper half of the picture.

If you want to do that and drive your load from one end of a half open coil (as shown in Puharich's figure), then you cannot use full wave rectification, but you would have to use a single diode (which would be half wave rectification) as also done by Meyer, which has the disadvantage of introducing imbalances in the system.

As shown in the figure, you can accomplish full wave rectification by using a sort of diode bridge, driven from two secondaries. And because you don't want any disturbances created by the load to end up in your driving coil, it would be best to also use couple capacitors which act as high pass filters as shown in the figure.

Careful reading of Puharichs papers revealed quite a surprise:

There is an `Open Circuit` reversible threshold effect that occurs in Component III due to water polarization effects that lead to half wave rectification and the appearance of positive unipolar pulses;
A secondary effect of the change in the RC constant of water on the wave form shows up as a full half wave rectification of the carrier wave indicating a high level of polarization of the water molecule in tetrahedral form at the outer electrode.

So, to my surprise, Puharichs rectifier is to be found inside his fuel cell and works very similar to how they made electrolytic rectifiers in the old days, rectifiers that produced a glow on the electrodes during operation, as described by Horace Heffner:

A blue-green glow has been observed on electrodes of high voltage electrolytic cells and electrolytic rectifiers. Electrodes to create the blue-green glow can be made from metals like Ni, Zn, Ti, Al or Zr that form insulating oxides. The glow has been created in cells containing a weak electrolyte like Pickling Lime (CaO), Baking soda, sodium metasilicate, or acetic acid, by gradually increasing the AC voltage through them typically to 200 - 400 V AC. Zn can only be conditioned to about 76 volts. As the electrodes are “conditioned” using high voltage AC they begin to act like opposed diodes and the cell then acts like a capacitor with a low current bypass resistor.

Nyle Steiner describes the same thing:

In the early days of amateur radio, the dc plate voltage power supply for the transmitter, was often made using homemade rectifiers. From what I have read, these rectifiers would usually consist of an aluminum and lead electrode in a jar of Twenty Mule Team Borax solution. Borax is another name for sodium tetraborate. The aluminum becomes the cathode after a forming process of applying some ac current through the rectifier. Often, many jars were used in order to accomodate high voltages. It has been reported from various sources, that these rectifiers would also emit a faint glow when in operation.

Steiner also explains the difference between an electrolytic capacitor (2 aluminum electrodes) and an electrolytic rectifier:

The "diode effect” can be seen by replacing a conditioned electrode with a fresh electrode which is not yet conditioned, or a metal that does not form a similar layer, like lead, magnesium, or carbon. In one half of the trace there is close to an ordinary linear ohm's law relation, while in the other half the conditioned electrode's rectification and breakdown voltage remains evident.

Based on this, it is clear that at least Puharichs WFC should be regarded as being very similar to an electrolytic capacitor and/or an electrolytic rectifier, which means that there must have been a dielectric layer on at least one of his electrodes. This suggests he used a nickel alloy that forms a protective surface layer, as aluminum and stainless steel does. Since Puharich also talked about being able to use seawater in his WFC, he may have used Cupronickel:

In seawater, the alloys have excellent corrosion rates which remain low as long as the maximum design flow velocity is not exceeded. This velocity depends on geometry and pipe diameter. They have high resistance to crevice corrosion, stress corrosion cracking and hydrogen embrittlement that can be troublesome to other alloy systems. Copper-nickels naturally form a thin protective surface layer over the first several weeks of exposure to seawater and this provides its on-going resistance.

Edwin Gray

Now enter Gray's "Conversion Switching Element Tube" (CSET). This consist of two rods, "connected" trough a spark gap, and concentric with those two grids, both in the shape of a tube, as you can find in his patents:

Image:Gray_tube.JPG Image:Gray_US4595975_p2_fig1_bf3.JPG

Now obviously, if you would connect that grid to the open end of a resonating coil, the voltage of the grid would go up and down in the rythm of the coil resonance frequency. Note that: the coil resonance frequency. That's another frequency than the spark gap oscillator frequency, it is much, much lower. And that is essential.

As you can see, there is a "resistive element" in there, which is shown as variable in the schematic. It appears that only the long, HV rod is capacitively coupled to the grid, while the other rod gives you sharp HF spikes once the tube is properly tuned, at very high frequencies. So, it seems like the action takes place at the long rod, which is at HV DC. How can that be? Well, the actual tubes were constructed a bit different than shown in the official documentation, as drawn up by John Bedini:

So, the action really takes place at the short rod, that tiny little thing on top of the "resistive element", which is also capacitively coupled to the grid and gives you those HF, HV spikes that go trough just about anything as is shown by John Bedini in his video's.

So, these spikes not only go to the grid because of the capacitive coupling between the short rod and the grids, they will also go all the way trough the diode, commutator, batteries, etc. and end up on a second couple capacitor, component 38. So what we have here is that you have HV, HF spikes that end up in phase on both capacitors, which can both be considered to be shortcuts at high frequencies. With that in mind, we can reduce the essence of Gray's circuit to just three components:

In essense Gray is driving his coils with HV, zero current, in phase at both sides of the coil. That suggests the coil must be resonating in full wave resonance. Only then you have HV, zero current at the terminals in phase.

But Gray also has his couple capacitors. These are such that the HF signal can go trough, but especially the capacitance between rod and grid is very small. I measured something in the order of 10 pF in my replication for the long rod. What this means, is that these can be considered to be high pass filters. And because the frequency of the oscillator is very high, these capacitors can be very small, so any disturbance signals created by the load inductor, cannot reach the HV source. That suggests that it could also be that the coils are not in resonance at all in Gray's system. Given that Gray also did some demonstrations where he "popped" magnets with his coils also points in the direction that with proper high pass filters you can pull this trick off without driving the coils into resonance.

In other words: here we have the trick that prevents the charge carriers in our voltage source, our dipole, to be disturbed and therefore we don't kill our dipole and are able to use the energy provided by the electric field for free.

To be updated:

Compare this with Gray's:

Grays CSET oscillator is not an LRC circuit. It's a nonlinear RC oscillator, which can only work because of the way a spark gap works:

In this picture you see the essential components involved with the oscillation. The oscillation frequency is very hard to determine or control, but is mainly determined by the RC time. The capacitance is dominated by capacitance between the LV rod and the Grid, while the resistance should be dominated by the (variable) resistor, the "resistive element", which is shown to be variable in Grays schematic shown above. When the spark gap breaks, the capacitor is charged within a very short period of time, something in the order of nano seconds. At that moment, there is no voltage difference between the HV and LV rods anymore, so the spark shuts off and the capacitor is discharged trough the resistor, until it reaches such a low voltage that the spark gap breaks again. The grid is connected to an inductive load, which also has some parasite capacitance, estimated somewhere between 100 pF and 1 nF for a power transformer, while the capacitance between the LV rod and the grid is estimated to be in the order of 1-10 pF.

For simplicity, I have drawn the variable resistor and the load inductor as being connected to ground. In the actual device, this is not the case, which means this system is extremely difficult to control and/or tune. The timing depends not only on the capacitance between the LV rod and the grid, but also on the parasite capacitance of the load, for example. It also depends on the discharge circuitry behind the variable resistor, which is also very complicated. So, to make a long story short: this is a nightmare to tune and/or control in the way this has been done. No wonder so far most people that studied this concluded that the CSET did not work. Well, it does work in theory, but getting this to work in practice is very challenging indeed.

A new look at Gray's device

It struck me that the "spark gap protection device 42" is not a protection device at all. It looks like it's actually the main spark gap that forms a classic spark gap discharge circuit, very similar to what Tesla was using for driving the primary of his Tesla coil. It's discharge path goes from HV cap 16 trough spark gap 42 (which has been drawn a bit strangely, to say the least), induction coil 36, cap 38 and battery 18.

With that in mind, we can find Gray's actual secret, the production of extreme pulses of magnetic foce using a negatice resistance device, in Eric Dollard's "Condensed Intro to Tesla Coils":

The formation of the energy impulse involves the discharge of a capacitor with the highest practical stored energy into an impedance (inductive) of the lowest practical value, and the discharge path is coupled to an energy supply through a negative resistance device. This negative resistance is classically a spark discharge, but a superior plasma device needs to be developed to enhance efficiency. Under optimal conditions the exponent of oscillation amplitude will be positive over a sustained period of time.
The net result of this system is the production of an extreme impulse of M.M.F. (magnetic force).

What makes a negative resistance device so interesting for steering coils into resonance for applications in magnetic motors is that the current trough a practical negative resistance device, like a spark gap or lambda diode, is always positive! See for example the I-V curve of a typical lambda diode circuit:


That means you can get a coil into a resonance mode where you have a superposition of a DC current and a complex AC wave going trough it, such that the magnetic field is directed into one direction. In other words: there are no areas in the coil where a reverse direction of the magentic field occurs. So, this DC offset is very important for the application of resonating coils in attracting/repelling motors. What happens is that besides the normal DC current going trough the coil, generating a magnetic field, you get additional wave-like impulses going trough the coil, which travel at a much greater speed than electrons (DC current), and therefore generate an extremely powerful magnetic field inside the coil, which you can harnass using magnetic attraction/repelling in a motor as well as by capturing the BEMF when allowing the magnetic field to collapse.

So far, so good.

Now of course the question is: what is the purpose of the CSET?

If you look at the older 1975 Gray patent, you won't find a CSET, nor do you find one in the "fuelless engine" documents circulating around the internet, which are basically a variation of Gray's earlier patent. Now the problem with spark-gaps is that this negative resistance effect is caused by the temperature variaton of the arc plasma due to the current going trough it, which is very sensitive and difficult to control. According to Mark McKay, in earlier versions Gray used "spark gaps placed around the periphery of the motor shaft and triggered by moving contacts that come into register. A novel speed control mechanism was provided that shuttled between different spark gap contacts to advance or retard the HV firing sequence." McKay also states that the first, even earlier, sixties prototypes only ran briefly. So, in earlier versions, Gray used very complex rotating spark gaps, which undoubtly gave him lots of (stability and scale-up) problems, given that Dollard already found a single spark device difficult to operate:

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.

Like Dollard, Gray's associates apparantly also went looking for a more simple and controllable spark gap device. How about using a fixed spark gap, not unlike a standard automotive spark plug, and somehow trigger that one at the right moment? Still very difficult to keep under control, but a walk in the park compared to controlling and operating rotating spark gaps around a rotating motor shaft in their very sensitive negative resistance mode of operation. And that's where the CSET comes in. It also has a spark gap, but this one only fires very shortly, cause it's immediately shut off. All it needs to do is to emit one single pulse, which is capacatively coupled from the main rod to the grids and then fed to the main spark gap, in order to fire the main spark gap. And that's all it does, it's a triggering device. If the main spark gap is normally kept in a state whereby it almost fires, it apparantly can be fired pretty easily using a single pulse from the CSET. Since the spark gap in the CSET only has to switch once, it does not have to be operated in it's negatice resistance region, so it is easily controlled.

It seems obvious that the principle of using a negative resistance device in order to energize a coil much more effectively can also be applied to Bedini's monopole motors, like the school-girl circuit. A modern implementation of a negative resistance device is a so-called lambda diode, actually a circuit consisting of two transistors.

Stanley Meyer

Aaron Murakami posted the schematics Meyer used along with some comments. The schematics come from Meyer's Water Fuel Cell Technical Brief.

This is the basic schematic Meyer used. We immediately see the similarities with Puharichs schematics, both use two coils in series with their WFC. While Puharich had his rectifier inside his WFC, Meyer used a single rectifier diode, which makes it a half wave rectifier. An interesting detail is what Meyer calls "capacitance charging effect", shown in the above picture as the wave form in the upper right, and in the following figure he shows how to model this in electrical components:

From this, we can deduce that Meyer was using tubes with a dielectric layer just like in electrolytic capacitors, so his WFC can be considered to be an electrolytic capacitor indeed. Given that he observed this capacitor charging effect, it is hard to imagine he was driving his WFC using high currents, because if that were the case, the dielectric layers would have to breakdown and therefore you would not get this capacitor charging effect.

Another interesting detail is how Stan configured his "resonant chokes":

Aaron's comment on this picture:

choke #56 is drawn incorrectly - they are wrapped in the same direction. I'll get to that later.

I don't think that is necessarily the case, though. Both are wrapped around a single core and in resonance, but the core shape in figure 3-23 is completely different then in the following figure:

So, you really can't compare the two cores. At first sight, the upper picture appears to be hard to control. At least, I don't really know how/if there are standing waves inside the core too, and if so, how the phase inside the core will be. Note that figure 10-3b is from his injector, which suggests in a later development Stan decided to use a separate core for the resonant chokes, which is much easier to control.

Given the way Stan shows how he drives his chokes, out of phase, the fact that they are bifilar wound, and the very strong indication that he was driving his WFC with high voltage, low current one can hardly conclude anything other than that his resonant chokes must each have been resonating in half wave resonance. And since they are completely out of phase, you get zero current at the WFC side, while getting maximum voltage across your WFC. With this configuration, the dielectric layers on the tubes much be such that they can withstand the maximum voltage produced by the coils in resonance.

Update: there's an interesting overview of Meyer's history here:

He then discovered that the performance of the VIC was (improved) by wiring all coils (primary, secondary, and the 2 "choke" coils) on the same core. What he did to "sense the resonance" was to add an additional pickup-coil on the core, and creating a closed loop PLL with it to drive the primary.

This suggests that when you use one core, the secondary and the lower choke coil can be considered to be one coil, because of the place where the diode is placed. This suggests you may be better of without the "secondary" and use the chokes as secondaries. That way, you can place the diode in the middle and then both circuits are in balance, so you don't need to make the lower choke adjustable (wiper arm).

This overview also mentions that Meyer referenced Puharich in one of his patents:

Then he came suddenly on the idea to use rippling DC current, which gets additionally pulsed with a duty cycle, for electrolysis... Maybe he accidentally at one point just used the rippling rectified current from a transformer without using a capacitor to smooth it and he had just the idea that maybe by pulsing one can increase the efficiency or maybe he got inspired by the ideas of Henry Puharich (Patent US4394230), who patented a water electrolysis process which is 100% efficient (water doesn't get warm anymore). ...Also Stan states in the vids, that in this time he informed himself as much about water and hydrogen production as he could. Therefore it is very likely that he stumbled across Puharich's patent. Another point which indicates Stan knew the Puharich patent may be, that in a later Patent (US4798661) he even cites Puharich's patent as reference.


Added (more or less) the following comment on the site of Alex Petty:

I think you may want to use aluminum tubes instead of stainless steel. You always get a thin layer of dielectric material on your tubes, which not only insulates, but can also be polarized.

With aluminum, you can control the thickness of this layer by means of applying the desired insulation voltage, while submerging the tubes in ordinary backing soda. See:

I did some experiments with aluminum some time ago:

In “figure 10-3B” Stan has his coils wound bifilar on a single core, which core makes a closed loop. I think that is an important detail. First of all, Leedskalnin’s “perpetual motion” holder shows that a magnetic field can be maintained within an iron core, without any current going trough the coil:

How can that be?

I suspect that it is possible to enclose a propagating electro-static wave inside an iron core, which suggests it may be possible to use a CLOSED LOOP iron core in order to not only “trap” a magnetic field, but also an electro-static wave.

All right. Now the choke coils, wound on a single core, are actually BOTH driven at the same time. One trough the diode, and the other one trough the “ground” connection, with opposite phase. By winding them on a single, closed loop iron core, you get the situation that the currents going trough the coils are ALWAYS out of phase (when in resonance), and therefore the magnetic fields generated by the coils in such a configuration CANCEL ONE ANOTHER OUT.

That means this is a way to get coils into a longitudinal dielectric resonance mode, a mode whereby you get a pure dielectric/electrostatic oscillation in your coils, propagating capacitively between your coil windings and which is magnetic-field free and therefore CURRENT FREE oscillation mode.

The properties of these longitudinal dielectric resonances are very interesting. These are the kind of resonances Tesla was using, and he did so for a reason. One of the most interesting properties of longitudinal electricity/waves is that they propagate along a conductor basically loss-free and do not generate EM radiation.

So, what you want to do is create longitudinal impulses in your “choke” coils, at a resonance frequency of your coils, so you get high voltage, zero magentic, zero current impulses at the end of your coils. And since there is no magnetic field and no current, you essentially have electrostatic impulses, impulses of the electric field, propagating along the wires of your coils.

Now it is possible to split water using an electric field alone. This is called “dielectric breakdown”:

According to wikipedia, destilled water breaks down at a field strength of about 70 MV/m. That is a lot, but it is the same as 70 kV/mm OR 70 V/um.

All right. Now when you look up the theory about old-school electrolytic capacitors and rectifiers, you see that with aluminum you can create very thin layers of dielectric on your aluminum. That is still being done today with electrolytic capacitors, but the electrolytes are much better than what can be achieved with soda. Still, soda should work pretty well for our purposes.

So, if you are able to make a dielectric layer in the order of 1 um on your aluminum tubes, which thickness you can control by means of the applied voltage when growing the layer, it is clear that the required field strengths are achievable by applying in the order of 70 V across your “electrolytic capacitor”.

What is essential for understanding an electrolytic capacitor is that it is NOT just two metal plates with a dielectric (water) in between. Actually, one of the plates is being formed by the liquid and the dielectric is that thin layer on your tubes, which is why you can get large capacitances. You see, the plates are very close to one another. Like in the order of 1 um….

So far, so good. In the stuff I wrote about the electret effect, as a.o. observed by John Bedini, I explained that the “cold boiling” effect he was observing (electrolysis) is happening because he also grows a thin layer of dielectric material on his battery plates, essentially creating an old school electrolytic capacitor. And by polarizing this layer with high voltage impulses out of a coil, applying a temporary strong electric field to his dielectric, apparantly it is possible to get this dielectric very strongly polarized. To such a degree that in the vicinity of the dielectric layer you get an electric field in your water strong enough to reach the dielectric breakdown requirements for water to “spontaneously” electrolyze.

And IMHO, THAT is what you in essence want to do with Meyer’s and Puharichs water fuel cell…

So, you want to get your “chokes” into a longitudinal, electrostatic “Tesla” resonance mode by killing the magnetic component, and apply that to an “electrolytic capacitor” with dielectric layers strong enough to withstand the voltages you torture them with, such that you DO keep these layer polarized. And because these layers grow automatigally to a thickness strong enough to withstand the voltages you apply across them while your tubes are submerged in soda, you now have a way to create dielectric layers with the optimal thickness very easily. :)

And if you do this right, no current (except for a small leakage current) flows trough your WFC. And that is an essential element to achieve, because if you do drive a current trough aluminum tubes submerged in water, the tubes WILL deteriorate. And that is the reason people go for stainless steel instead of aluminum, but then you basically throw the baby out with the bathwater, because then you cannot control the thickness of your dielectric layer anymore.

Interestingly, Alex also has an article on Meyers "gas core transformer":

The patent for this invention can be downloaded from my site:
What Stan developed in the Electrical Particle Generator is quite incredible. It’s a highly efficient transformer whose primary can be powered with AC, pulsed DC and even pure Direct Current! The most important feature of this device is that it, once operating at speed, functions in a highly efficient manner. Stan always referred to this device in his subsequent patents as the “Unipolar Pulsing Core Transformer”, a name which anyone who has spent time on Meyer’s work will recognize.
In conventional transformers, iron cores can only amplify the field of the primary coil to a limited degree. The flux flow communicated to the secondary windings through the flux of the primary field alone is very low in comparison to what can be done with Meyer’s fluid core concept.
Also, PVC or flexible vinyl tubing works far better for fluid core construction then copper or aluminum. The first core I made (shown above) was made out of copper, but in subsequent cores I have used PVC.
The reason for this is that you don’t want the field emanated by the primary coil or the magnetized particles hindered or affected in any way. It is the case that both copper and aluminum have a dampening effect upon magnetic fields with relative velocity to these materials.
In many of Meyer’s patents (such as seen below), he refers to a Unipolar Magnetic Field Coupling and uses his “Loop” symbol notation.
Here Meyer refers to the gas filled “pulsing core”, and it’s “unipolar magnetic field coupling” action. He always used the cryptic circles on his block diagrams to indicate the effect. Of course, he never disclosed this notation explicitly. Through years of thinking about Meyer’s work through my own primary research effort, I have discovered that what his little circles actually represent are the magnetic fields of tiny magnetized gas ions which when accelerated by the primary coil on the gas core, move at tremendous speeds across the secondary windings inducing significant charge amplitudes.

What Alex is suggesting here is that the "pulsing core configuration" (figure 3-23 above) is not a normal iron-core transformer, but a water-core transformer. Since water is not magnetic, this suggests that we are actually looking at a transformer core for dielectric coupling, coupling and propagation of electrostatic energy, whereby you chose resonance modes in your coil at longitudinal resonance frequencies, whereby the magnetic component is supressed.


Based on my analysis of the systems built and demonstrated by Gray, Meyer and Puharich, I came to the conclusion that the basic principle is that you decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in an unusual way, using a rectified carrier wave. By making sure that any frequencies the load circuitry may create are much lower than the carrier frequency, you separate the frequency bands wherein driving circuit and load circuitry are operating. Once you have done that, you can use a simple high pass filter to completely decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in that sense that virtually no current goes back and forth between driving circuitry and load circuitry. So it's in essence a separation in the frequency domain combined with a high-pass filter trough which only the HF electric field from the carrier wave can pass. No charge carriers are actually exchanged between driving circuitry and load circuitry.

The basic theory for this is Tom Bearden's "don't kill the dipole" as described in this article. Basic conclusion of that: the electric field comes for free. Potential (voltage) comes for free as long as you don't influence the charge carriers that create your dipole, your voltage source. In the analysed systems, they all excite two inductive loads in series. Gray excited both terminals of the load train in phase, while Puharich and Meyer did this out of phase. This explains why Gray most likely used bifilar wound coils. To understand the basic principle, it is perhaps best to think in the line I have been following towards the solution of this mistery, which is as follows.

When you resonate an open coil in full wave resonance, you get high voltage, zero current at the terminals, in phase. So there you have the basic connection to using the voltage source for free, but you have to figure out a way to do that without disturbing the charge carriers that give you the voltage source.

With a single coil, the current stays inside the coil, so you can't use that. So, when you split the coil into two, you get the current in the middle for free, provided you don't disturb your voltage source, your driving circuit. So normally, when you use the current, you will disturb the resonance, which will eventually also disturb your driving circuit (because it is somehow coupled with it), so you still have to provide current to keep the system in resonance and pay the price.

And here's the trick: the driving signal is delivered to the coil on top of a half rectified carrier wave, which is fed into the circuit trough a high pass filter. Because the carrier is half rectified, you basically "touch" the coils into one direction, so you don't get any HF in there.

That way, you get the current and the power, but the disturbances caused by using the power, cannot reach the driving circuit, because of the high pass filter! And then you finally got what you want. You can use your voltage source, without disturbing it, so then you don't have to pay the price.

Once you have that clear, you can also imagine that you can drive this principle much further. As long as you make sure you have a proper decoupling between driving circuitry and load circuitry, you can most likely get by without driving the load train into resonance after all. At this moment, this still has to be experimentally verified.

If you would want do go beyond what these three did, the final trick would be to drive two identical loads in opposite phase, so the whole system is perfectly in balance and in resonance.

The Electret Effect

This is some of earlier work, describing what I called "the electret" effect, in which I give a possible explanation for the effects reported by a.o. John Bedini. Even though not in a swallow-once digestible format, still very interesting material to work with and improve upon:

  • (11-28-2009) - "It is clear that at least most of the charge -- and thus the energy -- is stored inside the dielectricum, but I have a very hard time believing no charge is actually stored on the metal plates at all. In proportion it is just a tiny little bit, but not zero. So, I think on that part, this MIT experiment is not really that shocking. However, what is interesting, is that the dielectricum apparantly is capable of keeping it's charge, even when the metal plates (and therefore: any polarizing external -- to the dielectricum -- electric fields) are removed. [...] If we then take a look back at Inquorate's standing capacitor, it is clear that something similar takes place in both cases. This suggests that once you have a polarized electret in between metal (capacitor) plates, that the electret will charge the plates. Apparantly, some electrons are drifting trough the electret from one plate to the other, such that the plates becomes charged, and we can measure a voltage on the outside. If we once again assume that "radiant" energy basically is the electric field, which can exist without current, without electrons moving around, it appears to be clear that "radiant charging" primarily polarizes the dielectricum and energizes that, while the capacitor plates themselves are charged later by the polarized dielectricum, the elektret. That would explain both effects, as far as I can tell...."
  • (11-30-2009) - "It may be that it is possible to form a (non-permanent?) electret inside (certain types?) of capacitors. The dielectric material inside a capacitor can be polarized using an electric field. When the capacitor discharges, this polarization normally gets lost pretty fast. However, there is a "memory" effect in that the polarization is not immediately gone when a cap is short circuited. This effect is also known as "dielectric relaxation" [...] Now, it appears logical that when the capacitor is charged with high voltage pulses, you perhaps somehow "super polarize" the dielectric. That would mean you can enhance this "dielectric relaxation" effect to such an extent that you practically create a non-permanent electret, that keeps alive much longer then a few microseconds, perhaps up to minutes or even hours."
  • (11-30-2009) - "After some reading, it seems that the electret theory may very well be the key to understanding Bedini's systems as well as the Tesla switch. Especially this recipe for how to make electrets is so strikingly similar to Bedini's circuits, that it feels like this has to be the answer we have been looking for: - Both this circuit and the fact that some people reported spontaneous recharge of capacitors and/or continuation of the charging of batteries after the power has been switched off point in this direction."
  • (12-16-2009) - "It appears that when an insulating layer is formed/added that has the right dielectric features, that it is possible to create a non-permanent electret inside a capacitor due to the so-called "dielectric relaxation" effect, which would mean that you have an electric field in between the capacitor plates which is provided for free by the dielectricum"
  • (12-22-2009) - "So, basically we have both with Meyer and Bedini technology: 1) forming of thin, polarizable dielectric layers on the plates of either capacitors or battery plates, the latter essentially becoming capacitors, because the dielectric is non-conducting. 2) the use of high voltage "spikes" to form/maintain the polarization of the dielectric, boosting the "dielectric relaxation" effect, essentially turning the dielectricum into a non-permanent electret. 3) COP > 1. 4) "boiling" effects, unwanted in Bedini's technology, while basically utilized by Meyer. All in all, I think both are using the same energy source: the super-polarized dielectricum and that is which is apparantly able to provide excess energy."
  • (07-07-2010) - "Of course, this may not be the only phenomenon observed, but one thing is certain: Bedini's batteries do "cold boil" *after* the power has been shut of. In other words: there is at least one known way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen that can last long after any power has been fed into the system. The only way I see to explain that is that a (non permanent) elexctret layer has been formed on the plates inside the batteries, which is basically a polarised insulating layer. One example of such a layer is aluminum oxide, which is actually the dielectric used inside any aluminum based electrolytic capacitor which happens to show similar effects. I.e. "self charging" after having been "conditioned" with Bedini's "radiant" high voltage pulses."
  • (08-19-2010) "There are two half reactions. One of them "eating" electrons, the other delivering electrons. So, in essence all it takes to form a complete reactions is a way to move the electron from where it is freed to where it is used in the other half reaction. Normally, you would do that using an electrical wire, so to speak. However, there also is an effect known as "dielectric breakdown". This means that when a sufficiently strong electric field is applied to a dielectric, it stops being an insulator and becomes an inductor. For water, this happens when field strengths in the order of 30 MV/m, or 30 kV/mm, or 3 kV/ 0.1mm are reached. I should add that the required field strength for dielectric breakdown to occur in water does not necessarily have to be a static field strength. Given the fact that the electric field propagates at the speed of light, one can at least theoretically reach the required field strength with lower voltages, provided one switches fast enough. In other words, one can create a elecrical shockwave where at the wave front you have a very steep change in the field strength. If that would be the case, I would expect that Bedini kind of pulses are more effective than harmonic (sine wave) oscillators, because of the rapid switching provided by the sudden interruption of a current trough a coil. Interestingly, some glowing has been reported by some WFC replicators. This does suggest it is possible to achieve electrolysis by having the electrons jump directly between the two half-reactions taking place *inside* the fluid. You basically get tiny sparks inside the fluid instead of a current going the long way trough the power supply. It may very well be that there are at least threo ways to induce the required field strength in the fluid: 1) You use really high voltages (> 30 kV/mm) across your capacitor plates. 2) You send a high voltage shock way trough the fluid, which travels trough the whole fluid between the plates. 3) You polarize a thin dielectric layer to such a degree that in its vicinity the electric field is greater than what is required for the water nearby to reach dielectric breakdown. The results posted by different experimentors and/or some patents suggest that all three ways are possible and can be achieved practically."
  • (08-20-2010) - "I know I posted the standard reactions for electrolysis and that was on purpose. Both half reactions are standard redox reactions which do not occur naturally, because it takes energy to take electrons from the negative ions and feed them to the positive ions to keep the reaction going. Normally, you do that using electrodes and a power supply, but there ain't no law of physics that forbids you to perform the exact same reaction more directly using a strong electric field."
  • (08-20-2010) - "What you appear to misunderstand is the question *where* the current is flowing. Current is nothing more nor less than moving electrons around, which occurs when (free) electrons are subjected to an electric field. What is most common is to have electrons move around in a wire using a power supply, but there are other ways. For example in classic amplifier tubes, there is a heated wire which releases electrons into the vacuum, which are subsequently attracted to the metal shield surrounding the wire and that way you also get a current. Using the same principle, pushing electrons around using an electric field, it is clear that you can also move free electrons around in a fluid, which *is* a current. It's just that the current remains locally inside the fluid, so you don't provide a current into the fluid yourself trough the terminal contacts. In other words: if you somehow have been able to create free electrons inside your fluid, all it takes to make them flow trough the fluid is an electric field. And as it happens, you can create free electrons inside the fluid pretty easily. Just apply an electric field that is strong enough to rip electrons from the negative ions, a.k.a. "dielectric breakdown"."
  • (08-21-2010) - "Putting these things together, I first of all concluded that in these "conditioned" capacitors the dielectric layer, where the energy is actually stored given the MIT leyden jar experiments, is somehow being super polarized. That means such a very thin dielectric film on the aluminum anode can apparantly be pushed into high gear, which means this super-polarized film you will generate a very strong electric field in its vicinity. Not because there is a high voltage across this dielectric film, but because the film is very thin. Normally, when a electrolytic capacitor is charged, this field is being nutralized, because charges are being drawn towards / pushed away from the surface of this thin film at both sides, until eventually the fields generated by these charges balances the field generated by the dielectric. It is because of these fields that oppoze one another that the capacity of a capacitor becomes bigger due to the presence of a dielectric. Apparantly, it is possible to disrupt this balance by shortcutting the capacitor, after which the capacitor will re-establish the balance by spontaneously recharging itself. The interesting thing, however, is that just after this shortcutting, the only field that is present in the vicinity of the electrolyte, the water, is the field generated by the dielectric. And because this dielectric layer is very thin (a few micrometers) you will for some time have a very strong electric field in the vicinity of the dielectric, especially if you have polarized the dielectric using high voltage spikes/pulses, because the polarization of a dielectric depends on the applied field strength, not on the applied current or something. Given that Bedini's "cold boiling", i.e. H2 and O2 generating, batteries are being fed with the same kind of energy, HV spikes, and we also have similar "spontaneous" recharging, albeit with different metals and chemicals, I concluded that we are really looking at the same thing: a thin dielectric film is apparantly also formed inside batteries and that is apparantly also being super-polarized. Bringing this together, I concluded that this must be the key. The construction of dielectric capacitors and batteries is very similar, especially in the old days and we get similar effects, even though hydrogen production does not always occur. Given that the water contained in batteries is full of ions and the "cold boiling" effect observed by Bedini and others when the batteries are being charged with pretty powerfull Bedini chargers, I concluded that in this case the fields generated by the thin dielectric films on the plates is that strong that somehow electrolysis is being achieved, even after power is being fed to the battery. Based on that, I concluded that the presence of a strong static electric field inside the electrolyte is the sole requirement for this kind of electrolysis to occur and that that has nothing to do with any resonance effects in the water, as Meyer says. I mean, it just can't be if we can trust Bedini's observations and I do trust these are real accurate observations. Now this doesn't mean that it is impossible that you could also have interesting effects using resonance, but if that is the case, it has nothing this particular mechanism. So, in my view, it may be much more difficult to create strong polarized dielectric films when the anode/cathodes are submerged in water containing lots of ions, but eventually all that really means it that you need more muscles to polarize your dielectric, because you have to drag more ions around. So, it may take more energy to accomplish the effects we want, but the energy it takes to free electrons from the negative ions in the half reaction, and feed them to the other half reaction to get elecrolysis is exactly the same. So, the bad news is that you will have to spend considerably more effort to see these effects with non-pure water. The good news is that it is achievable anyway and when you succeed in creating self-healing dielectric films on aluminum tubes as is being done in electrolytic capacitors all the time, I am convinced you can really get to a point that such a super-polarized dielectric releases great amounts of hydrogen gas for which you only have to pay the energy needed to maintain the polarization field. However, even that energy does not have to be lost, since you can re-use this energy when "discharging" the capacitor, which will not only return most of the energy, but will also enhance the disbalance of the fields. That means you will actually get more hydrogen production if you reuse this energy!"

Also see this video with John Bedini explaining what happens with his batteries. And you may want to check out these documents by D.M. Rogers wherein he reports about his measurements with lab batteries charged with Bedini's method. Don't get confused about the "Plante cell". Gaston Planté was the inventor of the lead-acid battery..... And there ar three more interesting video's in the post by cody:

"This is an interesting effect, and obviously it is a real effect. I just wanted to start some discussion about what is actually going on to cause this effect. Im proposing that a physical change is occurring on the capacitor plates. [...] So what is it about this physical change that is so special. John B says that one plate forms a crystaline structure and the other is like an oxide, sounds like a semiconductor to me, a diode that is. We do have semiconductors that can harvest light waves(solor panels). Would it be so hard to believe that maybe we are making a semiconductor that is harvesting radiant energy waves?"

Update May 22, 2013: the Bedini video is no longer available at Google video, but you can find it also on youtube

Latest developments, to be incorporated

I have uploaded the pdfs with my sketches as well as the summaries of my posts kindly provided by Slovenia to: You can also find lots of reference material there, like patents and the excellent work of Eric Dollard. And there is an audio library I got my hands on some time ago, which contains a.o. interviews with Andrija Puharich, Royal Rife, John Bedini and Tom Bearden: So the key concept to understand here is that you get the energy for free using the trick with the rectified carrier wave and the high pass filter. Coming to think of it, I don't think that really puts any restrictions on the kinds of signals you can feed into the system on top of the carrier wave! (provided the frequency of your carrier wave is high enough.)

So, you can basically tinker with the low frequency signal that is being modulated on top of the carrier wave all you like. I think that won't change a thing in terms of the price you have to pay for the energy, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Since we now really understand the trick, it seems that you can also get away with driving other inductive loads in various configurations this way. Your mileage may vary, but the basic trick definately has a lot of potential. (pun intended) So, the most basic trick is to use a HF half-wave rectified carrier wave (which can be HF spikes as Gray did) on top of which you have the signal that energizes the inductive load (as done by Puharich most elegantly, but can be a "block" wave as Meyer and Grey did), *trough* a high pass filter. The filter makes sure that any LF junk created by the load cannot disturb your voltage source. And then you don't have to pay the price.

Switchable SEC circuit I'm beginning to think that you don't have to drive the load train in resonance, but you need the zero current, so you do need an inductive load train.

As long as the frequency of the rectified carrier wave is high enough and you use a high pass filter, then you should be able to drive the load with any signal you like.

But have to give this more thought.

What would happen if you would take Doc's SEC circuit, switch that on/off at 50 Hz and drive the HV primary of a tf with that, trough a couple cap and an AV plug? There are multiple versions [of Dr. Stifflers SEC circuit], this one needs an adjustable coil. IIRC, there is also one which does not need that and is tuned with a variable cap. So, based on this one, you find the schematic attached which I had in mind. I didn't draw all the decoupling caps, etc. but you get the idea. Just switch it on and off using a 555 timer or something like that. If this SEC circuit starts fast enough, I think this should work.

I also drew a comparison with what Gray was more or less doing, so you can see the similarities. If I finally understand this right, with Gray's stuff, you would need a bifilar wound coil or two identical coils in series (as you see with Meyer and Puharich, but for different reasons), because he drives both terminals in phase. With an AV plug, you should not need a bifilar wound primary, so this should work.

Gray used a spark gap oscillator and this is also an oscillator, but one that is much easier to build, tune and control. And because of the ultra wide bandwidth of Doc's circuit, this is about as close as you can get to a real spark gap oscillator with modern electronics.

I have drawn the couple cap before the AV plug, but it may be that you need two couple caps and place them after the AV plug, more or less as I have shown with the Gray equivalent.

So, it will be interesting to experiment with this circuit and make your own variations. It is very similar to what Gray did and with this we will at least get some answers to some of the questions that remain. And with a bit of luck, we hit the jackpot straight away.

Slayers circuit

The following schematic has been posted by Slayer and shows a similar exciter circuit: When you talk about driving an ordinary power transformer as used in power supplies from an exciter circuit, you are talking about inductances that differ by orders of magnitude, because of the magnetic core used in power transformers. In your SEC circuit and similar devices, we are talking in micro Henries, where in power transformers you are talking in milli Henries.

So, as far as I can tell, when you drive a power transformer from a SEC circuit trough a couple cap and an AV plug (half wave rectifier) you can neglect the inductance of the power transformer in the frequency range your exciter operates. But it *does* have its parasite self capacitance and that one we have to take into account.

If I assume the power transformer has some kind of virtual ground, then the resonance frequency of your exciter will no longer be determined only by the parasite capacitance of your driving coil, but you get the combination of your couple cap and the parasite capacitance of the power transformer you're driving (which are in series to one another) more or less in parallel to the parasite capacitance of your driving coil. So, you get a bigger capacitance and therefore the resonance frequency of the whole will be lower than that of a naked exciter.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, because the details are not clear to me. I see you have to take the parasite capacitance of the transformer into account for determining the value of your couple capacitor, but I can't say how you should model the parasite capacitance of the power transformer, because I don't know how to account for the diodes and/or any virtual ground that I think comes into the equation somewhere.

So what you want to do in essence is charge the parasite capacitance of the primary of your power transformer as efficiently as possible, keep it charged for a while and let the transformer do it's thing, then switch off the exciter and let the transformer do it's thing for a while again. And then start the whole exercise again....

Combining Slayer and Puharich

The following schematic shows another possible combination of an exciter circuit with what Puharich was doing:

The question that remains is wether or not you have to drive the power transformer in resonance, or that you can get results without doing that. In the latter case, probably a high pass filter is needed.

If we compare this with Puharich's schematic from his AM modulator in his patent US3563246, we immediately see the similarities. The modulator at the right side of the schematic around transistor 71 is virtually the same as Slayer's circuit:

The values for the various components can be found in the patent.

For completeness, the circuit described by Puharich in his patent US3629521 as "A circuit arrangement of a transdermal transmitter having a balanced output and 'automatic carrier frequency control'":

The following schematic shows yet another possible variation of some of the above circuits. A combination of a low frequency exciter circuit with what Gray was doing:

The idea is to take two identical power transformers. The first one you drive just like is done in Slayer's circuit. Then, you use one open side of the high voltage coil to drive the second one into resonance, trough a high pass filter. Then you should get the power at the secondary of the second transformer for free, if you have the right harmonic resonance frequency in your transformers. I have drawn the connection of the high voltage coil of the first transformer to ground. Slayer connected that one to the base of the transistor. I don't know the reason for that, but it may be necessary to get the transformer in the desired resonance mode.

Update: Coming to think of it, you probably have to drive two identical transformers in series if you want to do this, so you need three identical transformers. You see, the driving transformer is in quarter wave resonance and the load should be in half wave resonance. So, you would need two of the same transformers in series as load....

Update 2: I am not so certain about the requirement to drive 2 transformers anymore. It depends on wether or not the driving transformer is in half or quarter wave resonance. And that probably depends on how/where you connect the negative terminal of the secondary of the driving coil. So, some experimentation will have to be done to determine the details.

Update 3: A feedback loop is required in order to steer the transistor. See #Canaries_saving_the_day

Update 4: You need to get the 220V coil into a such resonance mode that it is in half wave self resonance or a multiple thereof. So, if you would use a 220V transformer and you divide 220 by multiples of 2, the closest to 12V is by dividing by 16, which would give you 13.75. Since the voltages are directly related to the number of turns, a 12V-220V transformer has a bit too few turns on the secondary in order to drive the 220V primary into self resonance. To correct for this, you can add a trimmer capacitor across the 12V secondary and tune the circuit into the optimal resonance point.

Driving two identical transformers combining Slayer and Puharich

When we combine all the pieces, then we can come up with the following principal schematic:

As can be seen in Puharichs modulator schematic, his oscillator is virtually the same as Slayers. So, it should be a piece of cake to use Puharichs modulator schematic in combination with Slayers oscillator. So, then we have an exciter that produces a carrier wave in the MHz, which can be modulated. As can be seen in Puharichs block diagram, you can use this modulator to get a load into resonance at its own resonance frequency, which is independent of the carrier wave frequency. All we need for that is a feedback signal. This can be had easily using a "resonance sensing resistor" as done by Puharich, but I think these can also be 2 sets of diodes, so you only loose 0.6 V across your sensor. If you want to achieve half wave resonance of the coils, you also may want to consider using capacitors instead of a resistor or diodes.

This feedback signal has to be fed into to modulator, with the right phase. I have drawn an opamp for amplification, but of course this can also be a simple transistor amplifier circuit. Puharichs schematic suggests it already has the right phase, but it may be necessary to correct for that, also depending on your amplification circuitry and the desired resonance mode (see below). So, some more details have to be filled in, but as far as I can tell, this should work in principle.

Note that I drew the opamp the wrong way around...

Update: A feedback loop is required in order to steer the transistor. See #Canaries_saving_the_day

Driving two identical WFCs combining Slayer and Puharich

If we apply the same line of thinking to the question of how to drive a WFC most effectively, we would get this:

Since the WFC should be considered as being a resonant cavity, in Meyers words, we should match the resonance frequency of the driving coils to the resonance frequency of the WFCs we want to drive. Since we want to drive the whole thing from the electric field, without having to provide current ourselves, we have to make sure everthing is in balance and therefore we have to drive two identical loads out of phase, such that we can tap a signal somewhere that we can use to maintain the resonance in the WFCs with trough a feedback circuit, basically as Puharich did.

With this principal schematic, you can choose what kind of signal you want to feed your WFCs with. If you want to drive them with current, then you have to make sure your driving coils are in quarter wave resonance. If you want to drive them with voltage, you have to make sure your driving coils are in half wave resonance.

And if you want to go more advanced, you can tune the resonance of your driving coils using voltage controlled varicaps, like this:


Controlling the resonance mode of the driving coils

I have stated above that you can choose what kind of signal to feed your WFCs with by controlling the resonance mode of your driving coils. Quarter wave resonance (with respect to one coil) gives you low voltage, high current in the middle, half wave resonance gives you high voltage, low current in the middle. But how can you control this?

The answer to that question lies in the phase difference between voltage and current going trough a coil. There is a 90 degree phase shift between the voltage and the current. And it is that difference you can use to control the resonance mode of the driving coils, simply by making sure the resonance mode you want has a 360 degree phase shift all around the feedback loop, as explained here:

For an oscillator to oscillate sufficient feedback of the correct phase, ie "Positive Feedback" must be provided with the amplifier being used as an inverting stage to achieve this. In a RC Oscillator the input is shifted 180o through the amplifier stage and 180o again through a second inverting stage giving us "180o + 180o = 360o" of phase shift which is the same as 0o thereby giving us the required positive feedback.

In a Resistance-Capacitance Oscillator or simply an RC Oscillator, we make use of the fact that a phase shift occurs between the input to a RC network and the output from the same network. for example.

RC Phase-Shift Network


The phase shift network can also be implemented active, as explained here:


Canaries saving the day

Over at YouTube, there is a very interesting video showing a schematic with similar characteristics as the circuits described here:

As I posted at EF, I found a very interesting circuit simulating a canary:


This actually comes very close to the schematic schown in the above YT video. Just remove C1 and you have the same circuit in principle, except for the secondary where the loudspeaker is connected to and the loads.

The oscillation is determined by the transformer as well as C4, where C3 is just the feedback loop to steer your transistor with. The interesting detail with this circuit is that the power supply is attached to the central connection of the primary of the transformer and that it is very similar to Slayers circuit. While here you see external capacitors determining the resonance, Slayer uses the parasite capacitance of the coils to put them into self resonance.

Since the upper and lower half of the primary are equal and magnetically coupled, the resonating current going trough the coil is equal in the upper and the lower half of the primary. In other words: the resonance current flows back and forth between the primaries and C4. This current does not reach the power supply and therefore no killing of the source dipole.

So, IMHO this is a very interesting circuit to play with. If you leave C1 out, you should be able to grab more power out of the secondary then you need to put in in order to keep the oscillation going.

What this circuit also shows is how to implement the feedback loop, which is what is missing in some of the circuits in other parts of this article.

Spice simulations

I have done some simulations using LTSpice, available at no cost, works on Windows and under Wine on Linux as well. I simulated some variations of what I dubbed the Free Energy Transformer, or FETF for short. The first schematic is based on the canary circuit. If you want to play with these, you can find the LTSpice files here:

FETF version 6

Version 6 of the Spice simulations revealed an interesting detail:

At the upper picture you see the schematic I used in the simulation. At the lower picture, you see the currents going trough the coils, capacitor C1 and the collector of the transistor. When you look a the schematic, you may think that when the transistor opens, you will see an increase of current going trough the upper coil, L2. At least, that is what I thought would happen. The simulation shows that instead of an increase of the current trough L2, the current trough L2 actually decreases. What actually happens is that the capacitor gets charged and the current for that can only come trough L3. So, you see the current trough L3 increasing.

FETF version 5

With this result, it is interesting to see the same behavior in version 5 of this circuit, where there are two separate capacitors in the resonating tank circuit:

When the transistor opens, the current trough L2 decreases, while the current trough L3 increases. The current trough both capacitors increases in strength, with almost the same curves for both capacitors.

A major difference between version 5 and 6 is the amount of current flowing trough R1. With version 5 there is almost no current flowing trough R1, while with version 6 R1 has almost the same current as L3.

Stiffler/Slayer circuit

I also made a Spice model for a circuit similar to what Dr. Stiffler and Slayer have shown. The LTSpice file for this is:

This is the schematic used in the simulation. Most of the capacitors are estimated values to model the self capacitance values of the coils:

In the simulator, it is predicted that a 1 nF capacitor can be charged to about 180 V within 300 us:

Finally, you can also do an FFT:

This does show similar characteristics as the actual spectrum analyzer measurements performed by Dr. Stiffler.

About tuning of tubes of WFC

I'm not buying into this tuning stuff at all. The minute you glue the tubes into the vessel, any previously individual resonant frequencies become irrelevant as the tubes then become part of a larger whole. It makes little sense to me.

Let's see what we can say about this.

If you look at what Meyer and Puharich did, then from an EE point of view, they have their load in between two coils, which are most likely resonating. But resonating such that the overall resonance, which would be over the whole load train (coil 1 - WFC - coil 2), is such that you have high voltage, low current at the driving terminals of your coils. And that would be so called half or full wave resonance.

Now if you can consider your WFC to be a nice linear capacitor, then you would basically have a simple LC oscillator with a single resonance frequency. But if your WFC is not a nice linear capacitor, like when you have ions moving back and forth, you get interference patterns between what we might call the "LC" resonances and the resonances in your electrolyte, whatever those may be. The problem is that these resonances in your electrolyte, insofar electrically relevant (ions), also end up in your coils. Whenever you mix two waves of different frequencies, you end up with the so called "differential frequencies" or "beats" as the are called in acoustics.

This principle is used all over in radio and signal processing and is called heterodyne:

In radio and signal processing, heterodyning is the generation of new frequencies by mixing (multiplying), two oscillating waveforms. It is useful for placing information of interest into a useful frequency range following modulation or prior to demodulation. The two frequencies are mixed in a vacuum tube, transistor, diode, or other signal processing device. Mixing two frequencies creates two new frequencies, according to the properties of the sine function; one is the sum of the two frequencies mixed, the other is their difference. These new frequencies are called heterodynes. Typically only one of the new frequencies is desired—the higher one after modulation and the lower one after demodulation. The other signal is filtered out of the output of the mixer.

So, if we can assume that whatever resonances are taking place in the WFC generate electrical signals, because there are ions in the electrolyte if the electrolysis is basically Faraday-like, then you get these differential frequencies in your coils as electrical disturbances. And it is these disturbances that eventually reach your driving circuit if you don't do anything to prevent that. And that means you don't have your nice "high voltage, zero current" situation at the terminals of your coils anymore and you will have to pay for that.

As far as I can tell, there are two ways to prevent these unwanted and expensive disturbances to reach your driving circuit:

1. Use a high-pass filter, as I explain in my article.

2. Match the resonances in your WFC to the resonances in your driving coils, so they resonate all at one and the same frequency (or at least harmonic to one another). Then you don't get these "beat" frequencies and so you don't have to pay the price of having your dipole, your voltage source, killed by the beat....

IMHO, option 2 would be the hard way to do this....


Turns out you have to consider a WFC also as an electrical component, capable of resonating. The dielectric layers on the tubes, which are always there, form non-linear capacitors between the tubes and the fluid, just as in an electrolytic capacitor. Depending on the voltage across these dielectric layers, you either get a short cut, so current going trough, or you get capacative coupling of the fluid with the metallic capacitor plates, the tubes.

I have done some analysis of resonating coils some time ago, which you can find in my article. Now if you manage to get a higher harmonic standing wave in between your tubes, which would be both electric and acoustic, then you get the same current at the hot spots, but you only have to pay for the current at the hot spots at your tube surfaces. So, that way you can get a real power gain, power which is tapped from the electric field by the charge carriers in your fluid. The ones that don't reach your tubes....

The only question then is: is electrolysis possible with "in fluid" currents? I guess the answer is yes, cause otherwise this won't work....

Farrah Day: Look Lamare, you can't have it both ways here, either the dielectric oxide coating on the ss is breaking down at very low voltages - basically the voltage required to initiate electrolysis in the first place - and so not doing anything or it plays a part as a dielectric at higher voltages.

This is how I think the WFC should be modelled in terms of electrical components:

On either sides, you have the capacitors between the fluid and the tube, because of the dielectric layer on the tubes. Now the characteristics of these capacitors depends mostly on the thickness of the layer. And these are non-linear capacitors. Below a certain voltage, depending on the thickness of the layer, they act as capacitors. Above that voltage, the dielectric breaks down and you get a shortcut. I have modelled this as a zener limiter:

Zener limiters are constructed with two opposing zener diodes. Each individual diode can limit one side of a sinusoidal waveform to Zener voltage while keeping the other side near zero. When the two opposing Zener diodes are paired, the waveform is limited to Zener voltage on both polarities.

So, you can actually have it both ways! And, more importantly, you have to make sure you use the one you want!!!

When you are talking about electric (or electromagnetic) resonance, electric standing waves, there is a very interesting relation between current and voltage, or field. At the hot spots in the current, the field or voltage has a dead point and vica versa.

You can see the difference when resonating a coil. When you drive a current trough the coil by making a tap somewhere, you drive the coil as if it were "closed" and you get a current hot spot at your terminal. When you drive the coil using high voltage taken of an *open* resonating coil, you get a voltage hot spot at your terminal.

So, depending on how you drive your WFC, you either drive it with low voltage, high current to get the resonance such that you deliver the current, or you drive it with high voltage, low current and you get the same resonance, only with a different phase, so you don't deliver the current yourself.

Capacitors also act as high pass filters. So, at higher frequencies they act as shortcuts. That is the effect Gray was using, and Meyer as well. So, I was wrong in that Meyer and Puharich should have used couple capacitors. They did, they just were at a place where I didn't see them.

Now things really start to make sense in this part, too. It appears that wat Fast Freddy is doing, is force a current trough his WFC because the dielectric on his tubes breaks. That explains why his tubes detoriorate, because the protection the dielectric provides works because no electrons can reach the metal inside, so the metal cannot oxidise.

So, if you want to get the fluid into resonance and want the electric field to power your WFC, you do want to use capacitative coupling and you do want to make sure your dielectric layer does not break down. So, on the one hand you want large capacitance between your tube and your fluid, and on the other hand you want the layer to be thick enough so it can withstand the voltages you torture it with.

In order to do that, aluminum would be a much better choice for your tubes as stainless steel, because with aluminum we know how to grow dielectric layers with just the right properties. You can grow them electrolytically in a bath with soda, just like when you make an electrolytic capacitor. Only in this case, you want a relatively thick layer on both tubes, so you would grow the layers using AC instead of DC. And if you use the circuitry you intend to use to drive your WFC with, the layer will automagically grow until the optimal thickness is reached...

See the exercise with the soda rectifier over here: Borax or Baking Soda Rectifier and the glow.

Dave found the BEST gas production at the VERY SAME frequency that just so happens to be where his tubes resonate ACOUSTICALLY IN WATER ... HMMM... Maybe it is nothing at all but a coincidence, but maybe there is just something to it........................


The pipes are just like the pipes in an organ, for example. The walls are stiff, because of the metal, so you can't get accoustic resonance perpendicular with respect to the tube walls. The resonance has only one way to go and that is in the length of the pipes. And the way to keep it going is by exciting it electrically, meanwhile providing power extracted from the electric field.

Hmm. This is not entirely correct. You can have resonance in both directions, but the resonance frequencies in the length direction of the pipes are much lower then the frequencies between the pipes, because of the difference in distance the sound has to travel. This is analog to the difference between closed versus open cylinders:

Note that in this example, the tube is open or half open....

Both stiff walls and open ends are possible.....

Some more on coil resonance

Let's look a bit deeper into resonating coils. As I stated before, Stifflers circuit resonates a coil at a multiple of its natural ground resonance frequency. Since the coil windings have a parasite capacitance towards one another, part of the electric energy, which is a wave, travels across these capacitances.

Usually, these parasite capacitors are only considered as a whole in order to calculate the natural ground resonance frequency of a coil. But they are very significant when we want to understand what happens with Stifflers circuit, the Joule Thief, Stanley Meyers stuff and all other resonating free energy coil systems.

I have been thinking about this for quite a while, but up to yesterday, I never understood what is actually happening inside a coil and wondered wether or not you could get the same effect by putting a bunch of caps in series and put those in resonance.

Then I realised that a coil wire is round and that the current, the electrons, actually travel across the surface of a wire. If we only consider the longitudinal component of the resonating waves along a coil, we are looking into the electrical wave traveling along the coil, perpendicular to the coil wires. In other words: we consider an electrical component that travels perpendicular to what we usually consider the direction of the currents going trough the wire.

I made some sketches which I have attached. The first page is just a rough sketch with some notes illustrating my line of thinking, but not much more.

If you take a look at the second pge, you see at the top-left two parts of coil windings, with at the top-right a model made up of capacitors, which is how you would usually think about these kind of things. If we consider the wire in the model connecting the different capacitors, and consider a current going trough there, you will have a magnetic field H curling around the wire.

However, the real parasite capacitors at the surface of coil wires are not at all connected to one another with straight wires. It’s a round surface, so the electrons will make curves, spirals, moving between the “capacitor plates”. So, you won’t get a H field curling around, but you will get an H field in parallel with the coil wires!

When I made this second page, I assumed there would be a resulting current spiraling around the surface of the wire. Then I realised that there is actually no reason to assume this spiralling current to have any preference for a particular direction. In other words: half of the electrons traveling between the capacitor plates will go in one direction, the other half will go in the other direction. And that is very interesting, since we now have an electric field propagating between the coil windings, *without* a resulting magnetic field!!!

And, if there’s no magnetic component, there’s no Poynting vector, and therefore no radiation of energy…

Very interesting, because this might give us some hints on how to make signal guides for longitudinal electric waves. One tends to think in the direction of putting several isolated wires in a row. Then, you would have the capacitive coupling to propagate the energy, while the spiralling currents prevent any magnetic component to spring up and radiate our precious energy away into outer space……

The sketches, page 2:

Conclusion: The longitudinal component of the wave across coil windings has the magnetic field component H in parallel with the wire, while the current moves perpendicular to the coil wire, across the surface. In order words: when f goes to infinity, the external supplied current goes to zero.

Page 3:

There is no reason to assume there is a difference between I_l and I_r. Probably 50% of the electrons go left, 50% go richt. So, H_left == H_right. Or: H_result == 0.

Conclusion: Because of the shape of the coil wires, a pure electrical wave is possible, without magnetic component and without et electrical current to feed in from the outsite.

  • Transversal component requires external current to keep going
  • Longitudinal component powers itself, delivers "pure" potential.

Also see:

Extracts of some relevant discussions

  • (11-24-2009) - "So, it is the electric field that causes the charges to move (do work), while this same movement of charges (current) kills the very reason of it's existence: the field, or the potential on your battery or generator. If you could somehow use the potential of any dipole without killing it, you could get an infinite energy source. In other words: you have to disconnect "current" from "potential" one way or another. [...] Probably the most important thing to realise is that there are two energy flows in any circuit or wire: 1. the electric (or EM) field(s) - or "radiant energy" as John likes to call it. 2. the current -- charge carriers moving along inside a conductor. The E(M) field comes for free, it's a continous stream of "vacuum energy" being converted by any charge carrier."
  • (11/26/2009) - "Bearden absolutely has a point in not killing the dipole and that the Maxwell equations are incomplete as taught today. And I believe he is right that this has been done on purpose, even though that is not so relevant in the technical discussion. Anyway, Meyl re-derived the Maxwell equations directly from Faraday's experimental observations and comes to the same result, as far as I understood. So, Meyls work gives a solid foundation of the Maxwell equations as they should be. In essence a straight-forward mathematical exercise without any postulates, based on observed physical measurements. The most essential difference between the classical Maxwell equations and Meyl (and Bearden, I assume) is that Meyl no longer postulates the existence of charge carriers as the cause for the EM fields. In other words: Meyl basically proves that EM fields can exist without any need for matter to be present. EM fields are the cause matter exists and not the other way around. As a result of that, it is clear that both longitudinal and transversal EM waves can exist in vacuum, while in the classical view the former cannot exist, because it is assumed there are no charge-carriers present in the vacuum. So, essentially, with Meyls Maxwell equations we have a set of equations that describe the propagation of waves trough a medium, which at the same time reflect the characteristics of that medium. And these resemble the characteristics of a fluid/gas very nicely, hence we have basically a description of a fluid/gas like medium we used to call aether. And on its turn, the waves that flow trough this medium have the ability to form the localised waves we call matter. According to Meyl, matter actually is some kind of vortex and it appears logical to assume that these vortexes can "suck" up some kind of aether energy flow from the environment and convert that into a steady outflowing energy stream known as the electric field. In other words: a charge appears to be some kind of spherical (combination of) aether vortex(es) capable of continously converting some kind of incoming aether energy flow into a "static" electric field. This is an ever-lasting process, which can be considered as a monopole. However, that "static" field is not static at all. It's a continuous flow of energy. Interestingly, there are two kinds of charges. We call them positive and negative and it appears these generate two distinct kinds of energy flows. One from positive to negative, and one back from negative to positive. When superimposed on one another, these appear to (largely) cancel eachother out in terms of the ability to do work, that is, the ability to apply a resulting force onto free charges (electrons) in order to make them move. Of course, once charges are moving, they are moving in such a direction that these two energy flows eventually balance each other out."
  • (08-24-2010) - "Then I realised that also when using a normal capacitor, no charge can actually flow trough the capacitor. So, Grays's tube is in essence nothing but a capacitor. The rods in the centre as capacatively coupled to the grid. However, because of the significant distance between the "plates" you have a very small capacitance. So, if you want to send anything like a signal over to the other side, you will need to use very high voltages and sharp pulses. But the basic principle for getting free energy is to avoid killing the dipole. As I explain in my article, it is possible to manipulate the electric field for free, so if you can find a way to couple the driving circuit to the circuit that you want to drive by means of only the electric field, you can use the energy from the electric field for free. And that basically means that you don't want to have any charge carriers being exchanged between the driving circuit and the load circuit. And since no charge can flow trough a capacitor, you can do that in principle using a capacitor. Adding one and one together, it should be possible to drive a (almost) "half open" coil into resonance by driving it from the side where there is high voltage, but no current, by a simple (small) capacitor that should not be an electrolytic capacitor, and feed that with sharp pulses, since these are easily transmitted trough a capacitor. A Bedini kind of coil driving circuit should deliver you just the kind of driving signal you need: a spike, with a sharp rise at the front. However, at the other side of the coil, there is zero voltage, but high current. In other words: at the other side of the coil we need to have charge carriers available. That is why we have to connect that end of the coil to earth. Plenty of charge carriers there! And then suddenly it also becomes clear why Tesla's single wire transmission is so interesting. Because if you have the primaries of multiple transformers resonating at their natural resonance frequency, all it takes to extract free energy from the electric field is to connect the "cold" side of these resonators (there where no current flows) to one another...."

One more thing

Let me add one more thing to the discussion about what this is all about, cause in the end this is not so much a scientific or technical issue. It's really the same thing as what we are doing for ages. At some point, somebody thought "hey, the wind is blowing and delivers energy. Can't we use that to get power?" Good idea, let's make a windmill. Next thing, hey, water is flowing in a river and delivers energy. Good idea, so we got the watermill. Hey, the sun is shining light to the earth, which delivers energy. So we got solar panels. Hey, there is heat in the earth, can't we use that? Good idea, so we got heat pumps. And now someone comes along and says: "Hey, the electric field spreads with the spead of light from every charge carrier in the universe and delivers energy. Can't we use that to get power?". And all of a sudden that is "fringe" science, "impossible" and the like, while it's really the same thing. The difference is not a so much technical issue, but a political issue, because this energy source is so cheap and readily available that it will put a whole lot of companies out of business and frees the people of the earth of the burden associated with the need for energy. And that is why the whole scientific community acts like a bunch of religious zealots, as if it were written "Thy shalt not use an energy source that is cheaper than oil". And that is also why this technology will not be introduced to the people of this planet trough the scientific community, but it will be introduced bottom up, it will be a grass roots movement which is unstoppable now the knowledge how to do it is out in the public.

And one final issue to finish my point: in the Maxwell equations the scientific community says that it is the matter that creates the electric and the magnetic fields, while in Quantum Mechanics they say it's the fields that create the matter. It is so obvious that one of the two is incomplete, that this issue should have been solved 50 years ago. The fact that it is not says enough about how independent the scientific community really is these days.


It ain't no dead horse, my friend. It's a Phoenix rising from the ashes, and believe me, it is awesome to be a part of that. It is an honour and a privilege to finally be able to give Nikola Tesla the credit he deserves. There simply is no physicist neither alive nor dead that can come even close to standing in his shadow, but we have allowed him to be almost forgotten and allowed the oil companies to strip us naked. Now their days are numbered, so let me leave a message to whom it may concern:

   Sehr geehrte Herr Wissenschaftfuehrer,
   You can fool all of the people some of the time,
   You can fool some of the people all of the time,
   But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
   - Abraham Lincoln -

The ruins of 106 years Einstein relativity

Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.

Read more at my site:

Quantum Mechanics also Flawed

Since the last update of this article, I managed to falsify both Einstein's relativity theory as well as Quantum Mechanics, which leaves us with only one fundamental theory that has not been falsified up to this day, even though main stream science put forth all kinds of myths to suggest otherwise. Dr. William Cantrell gave an excellent overview of that:

Let me share some info I wrote in February 2013 in my application for a job regarding the development of active phased array radar systems to which I have received no reaction to date:

<begin letter>

At some point I became interested in free energy and alternative scientific theories and I studied quite a lot of material, most of which was a confusing mix of fact and fiction. There are some notable exceptions however, which give one the dots one can connect in order to paint a scientific theory which is simple and elegant and offers the long sought for unification of gravity and electro-magnetics, and also offers clean and cheap solutions for our energy and associated environmental problems.

To start with the latter, I'd like to refer to and quote from the paper "Conversion of the Vacuum-energy of electromagnetic zero point oscillations into Classical Mechanical Energy" by the German Professor Claus Turtur[1]. 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:

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.

IMHO, this is a groundbreaking piece of work that shows us that both the electric and magnetic fields emitted by electrons and atom nuclei can (to a certain degree) be considered to be energy sources, because these particles are constantly being supplied with energy by the vacuum which they convert to (EM) field energy. Of course, this energy source can in principle be tapped and used for all kinds of applications. And therefore the arrival of the end of the fossil fuel age is a mere question of time.

Another interesting work is the paper "Real or Imaginary Space-Time? Reality or Relativity?"[2] by Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill, "since 1939 singularly uninterested in non-ether theories of non-Newtonian relativity", in which he argues that Einstein's relativity theory stands or falls with the question of whether or not the Lorentz transformation is required and applicable for the description of the electro-magnetic field(s):

The real space-time of Newtonian mechanics and the ether concept is contrasted with the imaginary space-time of the non-ether concept and relativity. In real space-time (x, y, z, ct) characteristic theory shows that Maxwell's equations and sound waves in any uniform fluid at rest have identical wave surfaces. Moreover, without charge or current, Maxwell's equations reduce to the same standard wave equation which governs such sound waves. This is not a general and invariant equation but it becomes so by Galilean transformation to any other reference-frame. So also do Maxwell's equations which are, likewise, not general but unique to one reference-frame. The mistake of believing that Maxwell's equations were invariant led to the Lorentz transformation and to relativity; and to the misinterpretation of the differential equation for the wave cone through any point as the quadratic differential form of a Riemannian metric in imaginary space-time (x, y, z, ict). Mathematics is then required to tolerate the same equation being transformed in different ways for different applications. Otherwise, relativity is untenable and recourse must then be made to real space-time, normal Galilean transformation and an ether with Maxwellian statistics and Planck's energy distribution.

Based on this, I wrote an article on my website[3] in which I argue that because of the well established wave-particle duality principle, which states that all particles are some kind of (localized) electromagnetic wave, it cannot be correct that the electro-magnetic fields are caused by particles and that therefore the Maxwell equations should be reduced to their shape without charge or current in order to be generally applicable. In other words: IMHO, Thornhill is correct and Einstein's relativity theory is untenable.

Then my critique on Quantum Mechanics. As you know, QM is based on the well known double-slit experiment, which according to Wikipedia "demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena". But does it?

Let's think about this for a while. According to Quantum Mechanics, the light falling in/on to the double slit consists out of "photons" that are randomly emitted by single electrons - particles with a diameter of a fraction of the wavelength of the emitted light - once they change orbit around their nucleus at random moments. Then, at the other side of the slits, we get a nice interference pattern. In other words: at the exit of the two slits, we have two signals that are nicely in phase thus creating an interference pattern, while at the entrance we supposedly have one big pile of random garbage.

Now if we really want to believe this, I'm afraid you will have quite a problem explaining to yourfinanciers why you spend millions of Euros on designing (control systems for) phased array antennas while supposedly all you need to do is place a double-slit plate in front of your antenna and your outgoing signal will be in phase automagically. I mean, if it works like that at light frequencies, why shouldn't it in the X-band?

In other words, if you want to keep your financiers happy, I'm afraid you have no other option but to agree with me that if you have a nice signal in phase going out of your dual slits, you also have an incoming signal that is in phase. So, the incoming light in the dual slit experiment must be in phase in order for a interference pattern to appear and can therefore not be the result of a "fundamentally probabilistic" phenomenon and thus QM is fundamentally flawed. Light can be absorbed and/or (re)emitted by means of electrons changing orbits around their nuclei, but they do not do so at random. They do so in harmony or resonance with one another.

Now that we got that in place and have thus falsified both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, we have only one (fundamental) theory left which has up to this day not been falsified, which of course is the aether theory. The work of Paul Stowe shows that with this theory, one can indeed come to a unified theory of everything[4]:

Many of apparent inconsistencies that exist in our current understanding of physics have results from a basic lack of understanding of what are called fields. These fields, electric, magnetic, gravitational...etc, have been the nemesis of physicists since the birth of modern science, and continues unresolved by quantum mechanics. A classical example of this is the problem of an electron interacting with it's own field. This case results in the equations of quantum mechanics diverging to infinity. To overcome this problem, Bethe introduced the process of ignoring the higher order terms that result from taking these equations to their limit of zero distance, in what is now a common practice called renormalization.
These field problems result in class of entities called virtual, existing only to balance and explain interactions. These entities can (and do) violate accepted physical laws. This is deemed acceptable since they are assumed to exist temporarily at time intervals shorter than the Heisenberg's uncertainty limit. It has been known for some time that such virtual entities necessitate the existence of energy in this virtual realm (Field), giving rise to the concept of quantum zero point energy.
As a result of this presentation I will propose the elimination of both the need for renormalization and any such virtual fields. This will be accomplished by replacing the virtual field with a real physical media within which we define elemental particles (which more precisely should be called structures) and the resultant forces which act between them.

The essence of Stowe's model is to describe physical reality in terms of an ideal (super)fluid[5], wherein we finally get an understanding of what gravity is:

I have determined that in my opinion all of physical processes can be defined in terms of the aether populational momenta (p). Such that,
Force (F) -> Grad p
Charge (q) -> Div p
Magnetism (B) -> Curl p
Gravity for example is Grad E where E is the electric potential at x. This resolves to Le Sagian type process as outlined in the Pushing Gravity models. The electric potential E in turn is created by charge which is Div p...
My model is a direct extension of Maxwell's vortex model of interacting rings (the smoke ring model). I have been able to define all fundamental constants in terms of basic parameters, including the gravitational constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated to all others, fitting into a unified system.
The key to this system's definition is the realization that charge is fundamentally a result AND the measure of the compressibility of Maxwell's aether.

As a conclusion of this very short introduction of aether theory, I believe it is fair to say that this will be the theory of the 21st century with which humanity will make a/o devices that are capable of drawing their power directly from the aether as well as anti-gravity propulsion systems as pioneered by a/o T.T. Brown (see for example: [6]).

For the remainder of this letter, I would like to focus on one particular interesting phenomenon that is being associated with the aether theory, which is the existence of longitudinal electro-"static" waves. According to main stream theory these can only exist in a plasma, while according to a/o Nikola Tesla and Eric Dollard[7] these do exist and can at least propagate trough the interior of the Earth and do so with a speed of pi/2 times the speed of light. Intriguingly, Charles Wheatstone measured a propagation speed very close to that in his 1834 experiment, which could be easily replicated using modern components[8].

To me, this is a fascinating phenomenon that appears to be completely in line with an aether theory. For example, I believe the double-slit experiment can be explained by postulating that the slits cause the propagating waves to change their propagation mode, whereby the incoming "particle" mode is (localized, quantized) electro-magnetic in nature, while the "interfering" mode actually is longitudinal in nature.

When we return to the basic postulation of the existence of a medium with fluid-like properties (characterized by a permittivity, e_0 = 8.854 pF/m, a permeability, m_0 = 4pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms[9]), then it is clear that longitudinal electro-"static" pressure-like waves should be able to propagate trough the vacuum. And if we follow Paul Stowe's thesis that the magnetic field can be mathematically modeled as the rotation or curl of/in the aether, then it is clear that for the propagation of electro-magnetic waves the aether must move in spirals, while for the propagation of the postulated longitudinal waves it can move straight ahead, which gives us a theoretic basis for the supposed propagation speed of pi/2 times c.

When we continue on this line of thinking, we can also get an idea about what the difference is between the near-field and the far-field, namely that actually two kinds of of transverse waves exist[10]:

1. A 'real' transverse wave which can only occur ad the boundary between two media, like wire and air/vacuum, which is what is known as "the near field".

2. Some kind of rotating vortex phenomenon in the aether, which is known as "the far field", and may look something like this:


The latter is what we know as particles. And this rotating dual-torus geometric structure can be found on all scales, from the sub-atomic to galaxies. David LaPoint published a number of videos on what he calls "primer fields" in which he shows how this structure can be brought to life in the laboratory using a number of specific (shaped) magnets[11]. When watching this video, one can keep in mind that according to Stowe's theory the magnetic field is a rotational force and therefore the polarity of the magnetic field has to do with the spin direction of the aether.

What is further interesting in this regard is that by introducing two possible transverse propagation modes within a fluid-like medium, the still not fully understood difference between the near- and the far-field becomes a matter of fluid dynamics, which does not require the introduction of "virtual particles", as is currently needed[12]:

In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far-field effects are manifestations of real photons, whereas near-field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects that are of far shorter range than those of real photons.

Actually, one can wonder how virtual (and thus by definition not real c.q. non-existing entities) can be seen as being part of a proper scientific theory. According to Poppers' criterion[13], a scientific theory should be falsifiable by means of tests:

In the mid-20th century, Karl Popper put forth the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from nonscience. Falsifiability means a result can be disproved. For example, a statement such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove it either way; it simply lies outside the reach of science.

How can a virtual - by definition non-existing - entity be "testable" and thus scientific?

Either way, faster-than-light longitudinal waves appear to be a real testable phenomenon that might very well lead to significant innovations in radar systems and other (RF) systems. If these waves exist and indeed propagate at a speed of about 1.6 times the speed of light, then of course that would give significant advantages over slower transverse propagation modes.

I am currently working on these theories and concepts as a hobby, which I hope will eventually lead to a demonstration of a longitudinal moon-bounce using the Dwingeloo radio telescope[14]. However, I would love to work on these kinds of concepts professionally and work with a team of people that understand what I am talking about, become a master in microwave engineering and contribute my share into pushing the limits of what we thought to be possible further than most people can even imagine today.

















<end letter>

I am exceptionally pleased with the work of Paul Stowe. His model, based on Maxwell's, is not only very simple and elegant, it also explains what gravity is and thus lays the foundation for the long sought for unification of physics within a straightforward aether theory. This enables us not only to visualize the electro-magnetic field, but also to understand what is missing/wrong with our current theories.

As you can see, in Stowe's model the magnetic field is defined as Rot or Curl p, where p essentially portraits a fluid model of the aether. In other words: for a magnetic component to occur, the aether moves in spirals or circles, and that is what we find back on all scales, as shown by David LaPoint as well as Nassim Haramein.

Now if you want to describe oscillating systems and/or waves, you need two fundamental ingredients:

1) compressibility / elasticity / springing;

2) some kind of momentum.

It is clear that within electrical and RF engineering, the momentum is modelled by the magnetic field, which is limited to representing ONLY the rotational component of the actual (fluid-dynamic) momentum that is present in the aether.

In other words: there is a momentum component within the aether that is not being accounted for within our current theories, but is accounted for within Stowe's model, which is why I like that one so much. Unfortunately, Eric Dollard does not like Stowe's model, because he does not like the idea that the aether itself is modelled using Newtonian quantities like kilogram and pressure.

Some more:

Some posts about this subject with a/o an alternative hypothesis regarding Aspect's experiment:


  1. - How An Electrical Circuit is REALLY Powered - Bearden for Dummies - "Let me put it this way. Every electrical system we ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the active vacuum by the source dipole in the system." - Further quoted here:
  2. - In this paper, Prof. Klaus Turtur shows that the electric field emitted by any charge carrier not only is dynamic (spreading with the speed of light), but it also contains energy. That energy comes from somewhere, which you might call "the Dirac sea" or ZPE, or whatever. Bottomline is: any charge carrier continuously converts some of this "vacuum energy" into a constant stream of "static" electric field energy: "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."

Related patents


In the News

See also

- Articles
- PESWiki home page

Personal tools

Sponsored Links