Site:LRP:The Creation is One Big Perpetual Motion Machine

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:57 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

The Creation Is One Big Perpetual Motion Machine by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor Copyright © 2009


Ever since the initial impetus of the Creation, whether it was from a Big Bang or just a significant ‘move’ by an immovable ‘Mover,’ the result, of that ‘movement’ has been and remains a sustaining fact 14 billion years later, and will continue till the end of time, unless countermanded, by an opposing force of equal but opposite value.

Sir Isaac Newton, has defined that causal quantum reality, in his immortal equation,

F=MA\,, (Force equals Mass times Acceleration) and laws defining gravity and motion, notwithstanding, the speed of light having variableness within the curvature of ‘space-time,’ remaining consistent throughout the known Universe. [ "The formula F = ma is simply an algorithm for calculating the magnitude of the force. It states that "the magnitude of the force is equal to the magnitude of mass that is accelerating, multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration." No such "equals" formula is a definition it is only a calculational algorithm." Tom Bearden (The Final Secret of Free Energy) ].

Perpetual means ‘indefinite,’ ‘immemorial,’ and ‘indefinable’ as to duration and specification. Motion pertaining to movement, especially ‘quantal’ movement is defined in lengths known as ‘light-years,’ having distances governed by ‘space-time.’

Mass as defined, being the orbital function of electrons, moving at light-speed, circumnavigating the nuclei of specified atomic structures, enabling a cohesive unification of unified bodies within purposeful constructs, hence, the ability to quantify unity, enabling a significant unification, defining mass as substantive and functional, within given purposeful frameworks and references.

All of the ‘activity’ transpires as ‘light’ whose references are defined as ‘quantal’ and ‘quantum’ in action and property. Thus the statement: "Let there be Light!" is a distinct reference to the actual origination of ‘space-time.’ The light effectively being the essential material ‘canvas’ enabling the organizing electrons to organize as both ‘mass/particle’ and ‘wavelike’ structures.


Quantum Awakening: Have Scientists Found God?



Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field [Bernard Haisch]


Venturing To The Zero Point [Tom Bearden]


What Is Mass?


Dark Matter or Dark Energy


The exceeding complexity of these expanding explosive properties known as ‘lightwave’ (mass) particles is demonstrated holographically as ‘action-at-a-distance’ structures. The perpetual movement of these ‘lightwave’ particles enables the construct ‘canvass’ of the ‘Creation’ to sustain this perpetual movement of energy formation transferring from ‘wave’ function to particle ‘substance.’

Uncertainty becomes certainty with the introduction of ‘intent’ and ‘purpose.’ The ‘Creation’ becomes ‘real’ with the introduction of ‘Mind’ characteristics having ‘intent’ and ‘purpose.’ The substantive vehicle of the application of purposeful intent is the ‘frequency pattern’ of the ‘structured thought’ articulated as vocal expressions of the ‘individual’ characteristics of the ‘user.’ Thus the Creation takes on significance as a ‘user-based’ construct.


The Mind is NOT matter!

The Mind Characteristics of a "10 Sigma" Intent

A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter [David Bohm]


All the Best,

Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor


Tom Bearden’s website has provided a significant perspective and ample documentation regarding subject-matter that is not too comfortable for those who wish to remain in their ‘comfort zones.’ Nonetheless, he has provided ‘documentation’ that is necessary to gain the appropriate ‘knowledgebase’ to enable the furtherance of such information, to those who are willing to pursue significant inroads into ‘novelty of fact’ science applications.


I hope that people do not miss the significance of Bernard Haisch's comment regarding F=MA

For it was his associate, Alfonso Rueda, who actually derived significance from F=MA. He was not supposed to be able to derive an equation from F=MA. The fact that he did, speaks volumes regarding the significant genius of Sir Isaac Newton.


Bernard Haisch explains: "That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption."

"[Rueda] had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum."

"The "zero-point" refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-point state. Take any volume of space and take away everything else — in other words, create a vacuum — and what you are left with is the zero-point field. We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field with its ceaseless electromagnetic waves."

"We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between two metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A Dutch physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of the zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between the plates, and how this would generate a force, since there is then an overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the relation between the gap and the force very precisely. You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point field from the gap between the plates in this way. Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more of the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make the gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and the results agree very well with his prediction." Source:


That is why in a previous email, I stated that Tom Bearden had a partner [associate] in physics!


Commentary: There are no ‘force fields’ within ‘space-time,’ only ‘potentials.’ Each and every ‘photon’ within the EM wave is a magnificent dipole. Each and every ‘dipole’ within the fabric of ‘space-time’ derives its ‘energy’ from the seething vacuum.

Each and every battery derives its ‘energy’ from the same identical source, the seething vacuum of space-time. The lead-acid content of the battery merely provides a magnificent wrestling-match by first opening, then immediately closing the dipole of the battery, which ‘eats up’ the content of the lead-acid mixture. Gabriel Kron, established his ‘open path’ circuits, which essentially created a perfect ‘circuit’ enabling the ‘dipole’ to remain open in perpetuity, extracting all of the energy from the vacuum to power ‘loads.’


In a recent email [Sunday, July 23, 2006] Tom Bearden explains:

"Glad you gave the link to the Fact Paper on perpetual motion. Hopefully that will allay some of the total nonsense that has been "perpetuated" for a century about "dirty old perpetual motion".

I checked out that link on Vlad’s [NEC] site, where he posted the pdf’s of Maxwell’s 1864 paper. Excellent! That is Maxwell’s "real" theory of electrodynamics, before the 1880s truncation etc. after Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer. It is also 20 equations (quaternion-like) in 20 unknowns, not the feeble four 1880s equations in vector algebra so common today, the further had Lorentz symmetrization applied in 1892.

So at least Vlad [NEC] has hung out the actual paper having Maxwell’s original theory.

Isn’t it strange that in university we are still taught the Heaviside truncation with Lorentz’s further two truncations, as "Maxwell’s theory."

There is also a published book(let) with the paper in it, together with some commentary. That is James Clerk Maxwell, The Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, edited by Thomas F. Torrance, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996. This booklet contains Maxwell’s original dynamical theory paper and commentaries. It can often be purchased through Amazon, etc. for about $15.00."


Got a real chuckle out of the New Energy Congress’s "word to the wise" advice. The NEC stated:

“A Word to the Wise:

You've heard the saying, "He who is one step ahead is a genius he who is two steps ahead is a crack pot." That saying applies to the world of ideas. In the marketplace, it can be rephrased as follows: "He who is one step ahead is very rich he who is two steps ahead is very dead -- or at least very persecuted." If you have a "two steps ahead" technology that is nearly ready for introduction into the market, you might consider purposely ratcheting it back a notch or two so that it resembles a "one step ahead" technology. Then, once you have your foot in the door, and your reputation established firmly, the "two steps ahead" will only be one step ahead. Probably the only way a two-steps-ahead technology could be introduced would be through open source, where a simple set of plans for an easy-to-build device are published openly for the world, impossible to stop by the powers that be."

Right on!

There is a very important overunity energy technology in that "two steps ahead." region that could indeed be fairly quickly developed, that provides a heat amplification process (with the excess energy for the amplification freely received from the local excited vacuum – from the long-neglected giant Heaviside curled energy flow component that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded circa 1894). The basic overunity energy process and its results are strongly documented and solidly replicated experimentally in the hard physics literature (optical physics) since 1967. COP = 18 results are routinely achieved for the optimized IR experiments every year, in various labs and universities around the world. But those researchers do not know of the presence (or existence!) of the long-discarded giant Heaviside energy flow component. So they still do not really comprehend where and how the excess input energy is received by the self-oscillating charged particles in the experiment. It is not received from the usual and normal Poynting component, but instead is received in the unusual and almost unknown giant non-Poynting energy flow component. So the scientists in that field never discuss the thermodynamics of the process, lest they be called "crackpots." and "dirty old perpetual motion nuts." They hardly dare say "excess emission." Instead, they use the term "negative resonance absorption." instead of "excess emission." They only discuss the "increase in reaction cross section." of the self-resonant charges of the absorbing and re-radiating medium.

And they emphasize use of the tortuous term, "negative resonance absorption of the medium" (i.e., NRAM for short).

Two scientists were responsible for the independent discovery of EM energy flow through space, in the 1880s. Before then, that concept does not appear in the theory. The two scientists were Heaviside and Poynting. Poynting got the direction wrong by 90 degrees, assuming the energy flow directly into the wire. So he considered only the normal diverged component of the energy flow. But he published prestigiously, since he was an important professor. Heaviside, who never even attended university and was self-taught, considered the entire energy flow component experienced with circuits, including not only the very tiny diverged Poynting component, but also an additional extraordinarily large nondiverged curled energy flow component that just remains flowing through space outside and along the conductors, and does not get diverged into the conductors (normally). This latter component is a startling billion to a trillion times as large in magnitude as is the familiar but relatively "tiny" Poynting diverged component. This huge curled Heaviside component is normally nondiverged since usually the local spacetime is reasonably flat, vector EM applies and the divergence of the curl is zero.

Faced with the fact that every generator and battery already outputs tremendously more energy than is input to the generator by cranking its shaft, or by the battery by its internal processes, Lorentz simply disposed of the problem since he could not solve it. He reasoned that "it has no physical significance," because it does not interact and thus does nothing at all. He thus simply integrated the overall energy flow vector around a closed surface arbitrarily assumed around any volume element of interest. That neatly disposes of the nondiverged giant Heaviside component, while retaining the far smaller Poynting component that gets diverged into the circuit to power it.

One can see how Lorentz did it in H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the ongoing total energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra Heaviside circuital energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.

Quoting Oliver Heaviside: “It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… . Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the wire." [Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94].

Heaviside later realized that his giant curled energy flow component had gravitational significance. See H. J. Josephs, "The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957," The Institution of Electrical Engineers Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76. Heaviside’s hand-written notes containing his theory of electrogravitation, based on his theory of energy flow containing both the Poynting diverged energy flow component and the giant Heaviside curled energy flow component. The papers were found beneath the floor boards in his little garret apartment. His trapped EM energy flow loops were gravitational.

[Eric]Laithwaite felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (EXH) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics. Extracting from Laithwaite: "Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S = (EXH) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (EXH). Taking p to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu – ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant." [E. R. Laithwaite, "Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker," Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45].

To see how present electrodynamicists still arbitrarily discard the giant Heaviside curled energy flow component, and use Lorentz’s inadequate "no physical significance" argument to justify it, we quote Jackson:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice …" [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237].

So there really is a nearly totally unaccounted "giant curled Heaviside energy flow component" (proven by the NRAM experiments) associated with every Poynting energy flow from every EM system! But it is just customary to discount it and account only the very small Poynting diverged component.

However, NRAM experiments prove that the Heaviside energy flow component really is there, and at least a little bit of it can be freely tapped and extracted. if the curvature of spacetime is rhythmically curved in oscillating fashion at the same frequency as the curled component input, then some of that giant Heaviside component is diverged into the medium anyhow. This of course is an extra, totally "free" energy input, in other-than-Poynting form. The self-resonating charged particles absorb both diverged components a priori, so thus re-emit more Poynting energy flow than was in the original operator’s input Poynting energy flow component. The self-resonating particles do not emit more energy than they absorb, from both the "known" input component and the presently "unknown" input component. And so the conservation of energy law is conserved, and the thermodynamic efficiency is always less than 100%, yet the COP = 18. That of course is permissible if the external environment freely inputs extra energy into the system, in addition to the operator’s "paid" energy input.

So the process is quite analogous to a common home heat pump, which has an efficiency of about 50% and yet a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. That is because additional heat energy is received freely (or almost freely) from the external environment, in addition to the operator’s paid electrical energy input.

For the NRAM process, my colleague Ken Moore and I solved the "source" problem of where and how the excess energy is input in non-Poynting form, so that more Poynting energy emission occurs than is in the input Poynting component. We also obtained (in October 2005) a provisional patent application on the adapted NRAM process, particularly for application to steam boilers of current on-line electrical power plants (and other applications). That covers most of the hydrocarbon-combustion plants and also the nuclear power plants (which are just glorified heaters, providing heat to heat the boilers to make the steam that powers the steam turbines that power the generators).

It appears that a reasonable COP = 4.0 or so could be obtained in a real power plant steam boiler by the less-than-optimum adapted NRAM process.

In that case, were the adapted process successfully developed (which would cost probably about $40 million), it could be applied to most of our present electrical power plants, to reduce their consumption of hydrocarbon fuel (or nuclear fuel rods) by about 75%, while providing the normal heat to the boilers, thus furnishing the normal steam and so the normal electrical power to the grid. One notes immediately the huge economic advantage of using and retaining present power plants, but just making them much more productive, and also dramatically reducing the fuel or fuel rods consumed.

Further, the adaptation can be "staged" to increase the amplification (the COP) past COP = 4.0.

Also, a simple additional change allows the use of controlled feedback with a staged unit, so that – once the improved power plant is on line and smoothly powering its grid and its loads – the controlled feedback can be switched in. At that point, all further consumption of fuel (or fuel rods) can cease, and the system will become "self-powered," taking all the required input heat energy directly from the long-neglected Heaviside component (of the modified vacuum).

Since Ken and I are a bit long in the tooth for any vast new projects and all the hassle involved, we then just placed the PPA on my website, and freely donated it to the public domain – to everyone. So anyone worldwide, who wishes to develop and use the process, is quite free to do so. We were hoping that some of the giant electrical power companies and large labs in a foreign nation (our own DoE and national labs obviously are not going to do anything at all fundamentally to permanently solve the energy crisis) would take an interest and get it done. To many of them, spending $40 million a year on a new big research project is peanuts.

The PPA is T. E. Bearden and K. D. Moore "Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component," October, 2005. It is available freely for downloading at .

Let’s hope someone picks up the NRAM heat amplification ball and runs with it. The process also could of course be added in to modified home, office, and building heat pumps etc., and to a number of basic heating processes and heating needs. One should even be able to make the steam car viable again, with nearly unlimited range, etc.

By passing the PPA and its adapted process into public domain, anyone who wishes to can pick it up and run with it.

I also suggest they check into the literature on this area, listed in the PPA. Ironically, one of the scientists in the field titled a paper very provocatively: It’s Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. The abstract states that, under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. [Comment: That obviously is false, since it would contradict the conservation of energy law. The correct statement would be: “Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the Poynting light component incident on it. That is because the long-unaccounted giant Heaviside curled component is also incident on it.] Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. For independent replication, see also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The [optimized] Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18. In other words, for IR one uses a medium comprised of certain sized dielectric particles, that are charged. One feeds that medium with a laser, and the particles of the medium go into self-resonance at the frequency being fed. These self-resonating particles absorb 18 times as much energy as was in the normal Poynting energy flow input, so that the self-resonating medium now emits some 18 times as much IR Poynting energy flow as was in the Poynting component fed into it.

The original papers in the NRAM field – that in fact stimulated the field itself – appear to be Russian they are:

(1) V. S. Letokhov, "Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption," Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p. 1442.

(2) V.S. Letokhov, "Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption," Sov. Phys. JETP, 26(4), Apr. 1968, p. 835-839.

(3) V. S. Letokhov, "Stimulated emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative absorption," ZhETF Plasma, 5(8), Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265.


Tom Bearden explains [via email dated August 8, 2006],

"as you can easily see from just F = ma, once an object is placed in motion [v] in a straight line, e.g., so long as there is no intervening [F], there is no acceleration [a] whatsoever. And so, in the absence of any external intervening force, there is no change in the state of motion. That beast [m] will remain in [a] motion at steady velocity in a straight line, forever.

Also, in all major technical universities of the world, sophomore solid state physics students routinely perform real perpetual motion experiments in their laboratory classes, by setting superconducting current into motion in a closed superconducting loop. The life expectancy is essentially forever the best estimate on the inverse exponential decay of that superconducting current to half value is some 10exp23 years, right out of the standard solid state physics text. That is many, many orders of magnitude longer than the present age of the universe, which is about 1.3x10exp10 years.

One can also purchase one’s own kit to perform such perpetual motion experiments from several supply houses e.g., from Colorado Superconductor.

Feynman simply and eloquently states the perpetual nature of such a persistent superconducting current:

“First, there is no electrical resistance. There’s no resistance because all the electrons are collectively in the same state. ... A current once started, just keeps on going forever." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Third Printing 1966, p. 21-08].


The typical "objection" to wrongfully defined perpetual motion machines may be taken as Planck’s statement of it.

Max Planck stated it this way: "It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing."

Now let us do a simple logical analysis of that statement. It contains two premises, which are (1) It is impossible to obtain perpetual motion, and (2) it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.

The first premise is false, since it contradicts Newton’s first law of motion and is also universally refuted by closed loop superconducting currents. The second premise is true if an engine produces continuous work or energy output, it must receive the necessary energy input also. The reason is quite simple: the rigorous definition of work is "change of form of energy." Without the energy available to have its form changed, there is no work [a priori].

Then Planck equates the two premises, with the "i.e.," implying that false premise (1) is identically equal to true premise (2). That assumption is false. He falsely assumes the identity of opposites, which violates Aristotle’s third law of logic.

So the standard objection to "dirty old perpetual motion machines" is a logical non sequitur. In short, it is so much "hot air," and not even logical since it contains a logical non sequitur.


Very best wishes, Tom [Bearden]


An Atlas of the Universe


Perpetual Motion

Rotating Magnetic Device Wins 'Perpetual Motion' Contest

Perpetual Motion Energy Device


An Explanation of Perpetual Motion by Tom Bearden


The Russians Built A 'Perpetual Motion Engine' Prototype


OSEN: Bedini's School Girl Motor


Venturing To The Zero Point [Bernard Haisch]


A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field by James Clerk Maxwell


Engineering The Active Vacuum