Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter



Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:49 am.

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

by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor



:Maxwell's Equations: Confirm The Book of Genesis


Hebrews 11:3 makes one of the most profound statements regarding the Creation. Paul the Apostle clearly and undeniably declares: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." The reason why this statement is so profound is because Paul made this statement more than two (2) thousand years ago in an epistle written to the followers of Jesus Christ. Today we know that the quantum vacuum of space-time is a seething vacuum of virtual particles having immense power and creative ability sustaining the very structure of the fabric of the Creation itself and all that is contained therein.


Quantum Awakening: Have Scientists Found God?



Only recently have our own modern physicists dared to venture out and declare the same exact statement as St. Paul, careful not to invoke the wrath of our ‘science community.’ We can permissively state ‘observable’ facts that can be measured and calculated, but venturing to the ‘vacuum’ and the ‘non-observable’ is taboo academically. Venturing to the Zero Point – [ Bernard Haisch and Hal Puthoff is academically risky business, primarily because you have now entered the realm of ‘virtual state’ fluctuations where ‘measurement’ is impossible and effectively ‘non-observable.’

To understand what is being stated, it is important to know something about ‘electrodynamics’ and its structured history.

On the Problem of Excessive Effects on Local Spacetime and Local Vacuum by Powerful Overunity COP Processes [T. E. Bearden 1997]




James Clerk Maxwell upon first understanding Michael Faraday proceeded to codify his discoveries. Without benefit of a computer, Maxwell succeeded in presenting the first [partial] unified field theory that significantly attempted to explain how the world and ultimately the known Universe functioned. He was one of the most significant originators of classical thermodynamics, for it was his understanding of the ‘electromagnetic’ wave and its properties that enabled him to unify ‘light’ ultimately discerning significant properties inherent in the actual creation of ‘space-time.’ He did all of this painstakingly, writing all of his discoveries by notation and in a higher group symmetry known as ‘quaternion algebra.’ It was from these two magnificent pillars [Faraday, Maxwell] that Nikola Tesla ultimately deciphered the ‘wheelwork of nature’ enabling him to formalize the modern industrial age of computers, communications, and information via his concept of electrification, utilizing his magnificent ‘rotating magnetic field’ and the four (4) tuned circuits necessary for the transmission and reception of radio waves. Tesla, fundamentally, had the priority in the discovery of radio [waves] and their transmission and reception capabilities and its many benefits, currently used by mainstream society, such as cell phones, ipods, and remote control devices. His alternating current is used for power transmission because of its ability to be stepped-up and stepped-down via transformers for ultra long-range power transmission.

But then everything came to a distinct conclusion. Humankind was not allowed to proceed further. Tesla upon his attempt to provide worldwide power transference ultimately providing ‘free energy’ with his magnificent ‘magnifying transformer’ was stopped cold and banished from the history books as a non-person. His occasional pronouncements were ‘respected’ but viewed with ‘cognitive dissonance.’ He was erased from history, banished to the past, ultimately, relegated to the dustbin of forgotten heroes.

It is interesting to note that in similar fashion Maxwell himself was curtailed via the truncation and curtailment of his actual (partial) unified field theory, first by Oliver Heaviside, then Josiah Gibbs and ultimately Hendrik Lorentz.


A Dynamical Theory of The Electromagnetic Wave


Maxwell’s Equations were originally written as a higher group topology and in quaternion format, later curtailed by Heaviside who disliked ‘potentials’ and saw no need for them. Then Lorentz, believing in the mathematical beauty of symmetry, arbitrarily symmetrized Heaviside’s curtailment, thereby discarding, the most important aspect of the ‘energy from the vacuum’ itself. For it is from the ‘potentials’ that we derive all of the available energy from the very fabric of space-time. What they didn’t know then was that there were no force fields within the vacuum. Tom Bearden explains Maxwell’s original theory is 20 equations in 20 unknowns. The theory was later truncated by Maxwell himself on the insistence of his editor, and then particularly by Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz after Maxwell’s death. They were further symmetrically regauged by Lorentz, resulting in greater limitation and discard of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Thus seriously flawing the path of classical electrodynamics, and depriving this planet of an abundance of energy directly from its ultimate hidden source, the very vacuum of space-time itself.


Anastasovski, P. K T. E. Bearden, C. Ciubotariu, W. T. Coffey, L. B. Crowell, G. J. Evans, M. W. Evans, R. Flower, S. Jeffers, A. Labounsky, B. Lehnert, M. Meszaros, P. R. Molnar, J. P. Vigier, S. Roy, "Classical electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition: Extracting energy from the vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

Abstract: It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations, indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell's displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and current.


The Lehnert Equations

Bo Lehnert


The Alpha Institute For Advanced Study


"One often notes another coincidence: All this severe emasculation of Maxwell’s theory occurred during the same time frame that Nikola Tesla was being suppressed so that he would not be able to offer the world a free or nearly free energy system. Isn’t it "accidental" that, in the same time frame, even the truncated Heaviside theory – which still retained those asymmetric "free energy systems – was further truncated and crippled so that all those bothersome "free energy" Maxwellian systems were arbitrarily eliminated!" [ Tom Bearden (January 14, 2007) ]


In a recent email [January 10, 2007] Tom Bearden explains how the 'refinement' of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory by Lorentz hindered our advancement towards free energy from the vacuum.



He arbitrarily discarded all the Maxwellian asymmetrical systems. This arbitrarily discarded all those Maxwellian systems capable of receiving excess EM energy from their vacuum environment exchange, and using it to power loads without using half of it to kill the source dipole inside the generator or battery.

Here’s a recent write-up that will soon be going on my website, and that hopefully explains it in some detail.

Hope this helps. Cheers, Tom


Thermodynamics of Internal Work and a $10 Free Energy Flow Device

The professional skeptic who chuckles at energy-from-the-vacuum and gives an immediate "pseudo-science" answer, cannot or will not believe that there are actually no EM force fields in space – because it is erroneously taught in every university electrical engineering department that such force fields do exist in space. E.g., as Nobelist Feynman points out in his three volumes of sophomore physics in 1964, EM force fields only exist in charged matter. Quoting Feynman:

"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin…" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].

"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Ibid., Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].

"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [Ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]

Summarizing, the ongoing interaction of the precursor force-free EM field in space, with charged mass, may be defined as an EM force field existing in that interacting charged matter.

He pointed out the force-free field in space to no avail, however, even though many universities have used his texts over the decades. The scientific community simply will not change that flawed, symmetricized CEM/EE model.

For a listing and short discussion of the falsities in the CEM/EE model, see "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model," .

For a National Science Foundation Letter confirming successful review of the "Errors and Omissions…" paper, see

Lorentz's symmetrization of the Heaviside equations in 1892 arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – and such asymmetrical systems are the most interesting and useful Maxwellian systems in nature. As one example, symmetrizing the model automatically discarded all EM systems that can receive and use excess energy from their active vacuum environment, without using half the energy to destroy their own source dipole. Such systems are asymmetrical a priori. Symmetrical EM systems do receive their energy freely from the active vacuum, but they use half of it to destroy the source dipolarity inside the generator or battery. Cranking the shaft of the generator does nothing but continually restore the source dipole inside the generator (and thus its proven broken symmetry which – by the very definition of broken symmetry – converts absorbed virtual energy from the vacuum into real, observable EM energy (photons) continually emitted from the source dipole. So see how an EM system is actually powered, and how the standard symmetrical system kills its own source dipole, see Figure 2. Operation of a Symmetrical Electrical Power System in “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B, available at link .

So presently we pay the power company to deliberately engage in a giant wrestling match inside its symmetrized systems, and always lose!

And that's the real reason for the world "energy" crisis. We have no energy crisis whatsoever and we never have had one. Instead, we have an "energy from fuel" crisis because (1) we insist on burning fuel to get energy for our deliberately symmetrized electrical power systems, and (2) we are faced with a world "fuel" crisis.

We already recognize "renewable" energy from the ordinary environment – such as wind energy, water flow energy, solar radiation, etc. But all those "ordinary" energy forms are not universal and they are not steady or 100% dependable.

Meanwhile, modern physics for decades has absolutely substantiated – both theoretically and experimentally – that the vacuum/spacetime is very interactive continually with any and every EM system. Indeed, in quantum field theory, we cannot deal just with the charged particle itself, but must always deal with the charge and its ongoing interaction with the seething active vacuum. Quoting Aitchison:

"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].

So the interacting vacuum is a universal environment, steady as a rock and always there, interacting with every charge in the universe and waiting to be tapped and give us all the free EM energy flow we need – anywhere, anytime, and very cheaply. Just assemble some charge or make a dipole, and then let it remain and not be molested. The broken symmetry of the opposite charges of that silly thing – made so easily, quickly, and cheaply – will just sit there and freely pour out real, usable EM energy extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum fluctuations, literally until the end of time.

The problem is not in easily and cheaply evoking an unending free flow of EM energy from the vacuum! Instead, the problem is in how to build a proper asymmetrical system to (1) intercept and collect the energy, and then (2) separately dissipate that freely collected EM energy to power the loads.

All we have to do is quit building those inane symmetrical systems our engineers are universally taught to build – systems which use half their freely intercepted and collected energy from the vacuum that is steadily poured out by the source dipole (formed inside the generator) – to do nothing but continually destroy that source dipole faster than they use the other half to power their external losses and loads.

Electrical engineers, e.g., do not even know how the external circuit is powered! They are taught that it's because of their cranking the shaft of the generator and inputting mechanical energy – well, that is an easily proven falsity. The rigorous definition of work is "change of form of energy". That's why you cannot have free work without extra energy input from somewhere! To assume you can have free work without energy input from somewhere, assumes that there is no energy available to have its form changed, yet suddenly there is some energy appearing from nowhere that changes its form to produce the work. In short, free work without the required energy input assumes creation of energy from nothing, since the assumption of work is the assumption of change of form of energy.

But you can still get lots of work totally free, by the laws of thermodynamics and physics and by considering internal work rather than external work. Consider this. Suppose you start with 100 joules of energy, that you yourself will pay to input once. Clever devil that you are, you have built a system that has two subsystems, A and B, each with 100% efficiency. Subsystem A takes energy input in the form (1), and converts all of it to form (2), thereby producing 100 joules of work, but still outputting 100 joules of energy – just in form (2). Subsystem B, on the other hand, takes energy in form (2) and converts it into form (1), thereby producing 100 joules of work, but still outputting 100 joules of energy – just in form (1).

So you input 100 joules of energy into Subsystem A in form (1), where A feeds its output to B and B feeds its output back to A. And you completely switch away the input source, so that now this "systems of two interacting subsystems" is on its own.

And completely obeying thermodynamics and conservation of energy, that silly system will sit there and produce 200 joules of work in every cycling of the energy, and it will continuously cycle and produce an additional 200 joules of work in each cycle. It will produce internal work from now till the end of time, absolutely complying with the laws of physics and thermodynamics. And you never have to input anything except that original 100 joules.

In the real universe, in the smaller parts of our macrosystems each joule of observable energy extracted from the vacuum usually then interacts again and again, doing work after work. These systems are not 100% efficient, however, and they have losses so that some of the internal energy escapes the system (is "dissipated"). But the remaining real systems can have COP>1.0, of internal work, by repeated re-use of the changed-form energy while it is slowly being lost (dissipated) from the system.

This of course is a strong violation of the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. That is no big deal! Simply potentializing a current-free circuit is a production of negative entropy and a total violation of the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics! Well, even Maxwell – who was also a thermodynamicist of note – knew that this sad old second law (it’s an oxymoron assuming its own contradiction has first occurred but not been accounted) was continually violated in the "small constituent parts" of any macrosystem. Quoting Maxwell:

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, "Tait's Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

The point is, when you do 100 joules of work from 100 joules of energy, you still have 100 joules of energy remaining, just in a different form! If all that remaining 100 joules of "energy in a different form" is dissipated and escapes the system, then obviously the system can no longer enforce use of that energy to do additional work. But if some of the energy is not dissipated, but merely used in its altered form to produce more work on another subsystem, one can get internal subsystems work W greater than the energy one inputs to the system.

One must think very clearly as to what the conservation of energy law really means. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed you can only change its form. And you can do that, if you are clever, over and over repeatedly, to do as much "work" (changing energy form) as you wish. Or you can do it several times in the interacting subsystems of a system.

There is no "conservation of work" law of nature, and there never has been. The combination of energy input and work out is conserved, only if all the "changed form" energy is dissipated from the entire system, and is not reused once output. That's really what "dissipation" of energy to do work means: the energy is input, and its form is changed to do some work, but the changed-form energy passes completely out from system control and use. The "passes out from system control and use" is an assumption, and a usual way we sloppily build our systems, but it is not a law of nature.


Here's a little trick to immediately assess a professional skeptic, to see if he really understands anything at all, and here's how easy it is to evoke a steady and unending flow of EM energy from the vacuum for peanuts ($10 dollars and two minutes):

Lay a charged capacitor or electret on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field of the electrical component is at right angles to the magnetic field of the magnet. By standard Poynting energy flow theory as taught in EE, there is a steady Poynting energy flow S coming from that silly contraption all the time, by the little equation S = E X H. Usually the electrodynamicists and electrical engineers get no further with this puzzle that the statement by Buchwald. Quoting:

"[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44].

We will address this problem shortly, and explain how a “static EM field is actually an ongoing energy flow. Specifically, a static EM field is actually comprised of internal photons moving at light speed. It is thus a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system.

There are two major positions that can be argued regarding that silly little gadget and whether or not it has a steady flow of EM energy coming from it.


POSITION 1: Well, if there is a steady energy flow coming from it – and indeed there is, because we have two dipoles (broken symmetries) changing input virtual state vacuum energy into emitted observable energy – it means we simply have not learned to build an asymmetric system to intercept, capture, and rather freely use some of that freely flowing, real, usable EM energy.

So all our EE textbooks need to be revised, to remove that inane 1892 Lorentz symmetrization so that once again we restore Nature's asymmetric Maxwellian systems and then finally learn to build and use such systems. This means that, for the first time in history, we will learn how to properly use a common dipolar source without draining it and without destroying it! That is starting a century late, but it is better late than never – particularly considering the increasing "energy from fuel" problem that so besets the Western World, and may eventually threaten the catastrophic economic collapse of Western Civilization itself.

When we do develop an asymmetric system to keep collecting and using some of that steady energy flow from that silly "Poynting free energy flow" device to freely power our loads, we are doing the same kind of thing we do in a windmill-driven power system to tap the flow of wind energy, or in a solar cell array driven power system to tap the flow of EM radiation energy, or in a hydroelectric power system to tap the flow of the water’s energy. We are just doing it by tapping and using Nature's "universal, dependable, always-there" active vacuum energy source, instead of the environment’s more familiar ordinary energy flow sources. You see, we can easily and cheaply just "turn on the EM wind of steady free EM energy flow" from the vacuum anytime and anyplace in the universe that we wish. For peanuts, and laughably easily and cheaply. It is 100% certain, dependable day or night, 100% reliable – and 100% free once we pay to assemble the silly little "energy flow generator" once.

Yet not a single one of our electrical engineering departments realizes this, or has ever realized it. Most do not even wish to see it proven true! They've blindly continued to apply that inanely symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz model, and they have continued to build only collection and dissipation systems which use half their freely collected energy to destroy the source dipolarity inside the generator or battery.

Another thing the EE departments do not realize is that – since it is comprised of a steady flow of internal parts – any "static" EM field from a source charge or dipole is actually a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamics system. It's actually a free flow of real, observable photons, steadily emitted by the source charge or dipole, with the necessary energy extracted and coherently integrated from the virtual state energy input from the vacuum. Thus it is not a familiar observable energy input from our conventional "familiar" natural environment. Van Flandern gives us a beautiful analogy to comprehend this. Quoting Van Flandern on the static field as comprised of parts in continuous motion:

"To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter." [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity – What the experiments say," Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9]

Once we really learn how to design and build those long-missing asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, then free usable EM energy from the seething virtual state vacuum is easy because we can intercept and collect some of the freely flowing EM energy from an ever-present and ever-active simple source, and dissipate it to power loads, without using half of it to deliberately destroy the source dipole inside the generator or battery.

The "static" potential also already is known to be comprised of bidirectional EM energy flows in the form of longitudinal EM waves, as shown by Whittaker. [See E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.].

Anything (any source charge or dipole) that is a source of an EM "field" or "potential" is automatically giving us a steady set of real EM energy flows, for free. Note that a so-called "isolated charge" polarizes its surrounding vacuum with charge of the opposite sign. So the charge together with its polarized vacuum form a dipolar ensemble. Hence the ensemble exhibits the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges.

Consider a single "electron" (classically regarded as "isolated" and a tiny finite charge). In modern physics, the bare charge in the middle is infinite, and it also has infinite energy. The polarized vacuum charge of opposite sign, surrounding it, is also infinite and has infinite energy. The difference between the two infinite charges, however – as seen by an instrument peering though the polarization screen at the bare charge in the middle – is finite. And that finite difference is the "classical textbook value" of the "electron". But since we are dealing with infinite charge and infinite energy, it means that the pairing (the dipolarity) can furnish a finite amount or rate of energy flow, for a finite amount of time no matter how long. Hence it can sit there and pour out EM energy freely from now to whatever specific time-length from now we wish to consider. Quoting Nobelist Weinberg with respect to atoms:

"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

None of that, of course, has made it to electrical engineering yet. It certainly applies to every circuit, but the sad old 1880s/1890s CEM/EE model has not been corrected and updated.

The trick then is to potentialize the collecting external circuit statically (without current flow being allowed in the collecting circuit, which if allowed would mean dissipation of energy). Then switch the external collecting circuit away the source dipole, and reform the now-freely-potentialized collecting circuit into a complete new circuit (e.g., add a dipole and a resistor in series) that then dissipates that collected potential energy to power the load usefully, without having the source dipole of the generator or battery connected during dissipation so as to be dynamically and intentionally destroyed.

In short, collect statically (potentialize statically) with the primary source connected, and dissipate the freely collected potential energy in the external load dynamically after the primary source has been disconnected.

Simply increasing the potential and potential energy (i.e., increasing the voltage only of a collecting circuit, in the total absence of current) does not involve work! It does no work at all on the potentializing source, which thus can furnish such static repotentialization indefinitely. That procedure will not "drain the primary source" at all. The "static voltage source" then can be used again and again (in the perfect case, indefinitely) and continue to freely furnish the energy necessary to continually power a real load or loads.

One may also "shuttle" the freely collected potential energy around in an overall circuit, so to speak, at will. In so doing, one will merely rediscover something that Nikola Tesla already knew and in fact patented. E.g., see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett in fact improved some of these effects for use in communications systems, and patented the improved processes. [See Terence W. Barrett, "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. This is a signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. See also Terence W. Barrett, "Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation," U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691, Feb. 20, 1996.].

Use that "shuttling" process (first potentialize the collecting external circuit statically, and then dynamically power the external load separately from the disconnected primary source dipole). Then for a 100% efficient process one could in theory power all of New York City from a single flashlight battery, by making New York and the battery two separate subsystems of the "same asymmetric shuttling system".

One can do it anyway if one uses a flow of negative energy rather than a flow of positive energy, and feeds a small initial little negative energy current through a series of impedances – because all impedances encountered serially by a flow of negative energy act as true negative impedances where the external environment freely inputs additional negative energy into each and every impedance. In that manner, a flashlight battery powering a tiny little negative energy generator can produce a small little negative energy current into a series of normal impedances (e.g., resistors) so that in each resistor the environment will freely converge excess negative energy into that flow of negative energy. Hence the output flow of negative energy from a normal resistor is larger in magnitude, for free, than the negative energy flow into it. Each impedance thus acts as a "free energy amplifier" and, in series, the final amplifier gain is the product of all the individual gains of the individual resistors in series.

One could also power vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc. in similar manner (negative energy is easily changed into positive energy if need be).


POSITION 2: If there is not a steady energy flow coming from that silly electret-crossed-on-a-permanent-magnet gadget, then all the EM textbooks still need to be revised, because all the Poynting energy flow theory contained in all of them is wrong.

The key to the problem, of course, is to solve the source charge problem – the one that has been pushed out of all the textbooks (even Jackson does not mention it). And most EEs have never even heard of it, and they don't believe it when it's explained to them. But here are some quotes that deal with it:

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii].

"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated." …. "The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?" [B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].

The reason is simple: Every EM field and potential has its source dipolarity (considering an isolated charge and its polarized vacuum as a dipolar ensemble) that produces it by steady emission of real, observable photons. Its input, however, is virtual photons from the seething virtual state vacuum. It is thus Maxwell’s Demon that absorbs one individually ordered virtual particle from the vacuum at a time, repeatedly in serial order. These totally ordered virtual bits of energy are then coherently integrated to quantum level, whereupon the intense zitterbewegung of the jittering of that charge or those charges knocks out an observable photon. The process iterates over and over, in Feynman ratchet fashion.

We state very strongly: The present silly 1880s EE model needs also to be revised to incorporate the incredible ramifications of broken symmetry. Lee and Yang were given a Nobel Prize in 1957 for predicting broken symmetry, strongly in 1956-57. It was such an incredible revolution in physics – if it were true – that major experimentalists leaped on it immediately during and after Lee and Yang's predictions. In Jan. and Feb. 1957 Wu and her colleagues experimentally and resoundingly proved it, and – so great a physics revolution was it – the Nobel Committee moved with unprecedented speed to award the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, Dec. 1957!

A pointed out by Nobelist Lee, a broken symmetry means that something previously virtual becomes observable. So the broken symmetry of opposite charges – of a common dipole – rigorously absorbs virtual state EM energy from the vacuum and converts it to real, observable, usable EM energy. This proven fact thus represents a giant change and correction of our present CEM/EE model – if it is ever incorporated by our very sluggish scientific community!

In the 50 years or so then, the impact of the broken symmetry of every dipole (and of every charge and its interacting polarized surrounding vacuum) upon CEM/EE (which discards all those broken symmetry systems arbitrarily) has not made it across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

Ironically it is just as Max Planck stated. Quoting:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

Thus the real progress of science moves at a snail’s pace. There are so many falsities in the present hoary old 1880s/1890s EE model – all pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Tesla and many others – that continuing to promulgate it now questions the ethics – or lack thereof – of the entire scientific community.

Sadly, they knowingly teach glaring falsities in all our electrical engineering departments and textbooks, and they have done so for more than a century.

We have the sharp young doctoral candidates and young post docs necessary to quickly correct this sad old model, already attending our best universities. We just need to fund them to work in this area, and allow them to do so without having their careers and lives destroyed as a result if they dare to try.

Science is supposed to depend upon scientific method. In short, if our model or our favored theory is refuted by experiment, then we are supposed to change our model. That is the entire point of "progress in science" and the real meaning of the "scientific method".

So far, our scientific community has flatly refused to do that, with respect to the terrible errors known to exist in CEM/EE. Instead, any doctoral candidate or post doctoral scientist that starts serious questioning of that dogmatic old model is chastised vehemently and his career is destroyed.

The source charge experiment demonstrates conclusively that real, observable, EM energy already streams freely and continually from any and every charge or dipole in the universe. Nature has been most kind in giving us a vast array of common little free energy generating systems everywhere, which continually absorb virtual energy bits from the seething vacuum, coherently integrate these bits into quantum size, and then freely and continually emit streams of outflowing real quantized EM photons – real EM energy.

So for heaven’s sake, let us stop building and teaching only those Lorentz-symmetrized systems that deliberately destroy their free "source gusher" of free EM energy from the vacuum, faster than they power their loads! Instead, let us quickly restore those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded in 1892, and restore them again to the theoretical CEM/EE model. Let us also quickly correct the other glaring falsities still being taught to all our electrical engineers. And then let us rapidly develop the new asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that will solve our steadily increasing world energy crisis forever – quickly, cheaply, permanently, and cleanly.

We have only scientific ethics and humanity itself to save.


Clean Electrical Energy From The Active Vacuum


Cancer & The Unresolved Health Issues


The Energy Question & The Order of Time


'''Tesla's Fuelless Generator & The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Site:LRP:Energy From The Vacuum


'Excellent article by Hank Mills:'

Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current? - Could it be that the flow of aether in the form of electric field is the true "electric current", and electron flow is only a byproduct? Some researchers, including potentially Nikola Tesla, seem to think so! (PESN January 27, 2012)'''

Pretty much sums up what I've been presenting to the New Energy Congress via my research papers, along with my collaborated research with Tom Bearden and demonstrated via my applied research via the 30 coil monopole system, designed, engineered and built by Renaissance Charge LLC and paid for by me personally. John Bedini has effectively vindicated Nikola Tesla via the 30 coil monopole system, licensed by him, and paid for my myself, giving Rick Friedrich the right to build it for me.

Tesla’s radiant energy was Dirac’s ‘negative’ energy captured via the mechanism of the ‘monopole.’ Eliminate the current flow within the circuit and the ‘negative’ energy which Tesla termed as radiant energy will flow within the circuit. Structure the circuit, so that the negative energy can be captured, stored within a capacitor (battery), so that it can then be redirected as ‘static’ voltage. Then, re-structure the circuit converting the ‘static’ voltage into alternating current flow.

For those who are not aware of it, the 30 coil monopole system is the upgrade to the original Jim Watson machine from the 1984 Conference at Colorado. Site:LRP:The Thirty (30) Coil MONOPOLE System

I elected to have Rick Friedrich build the 30 coil monopole at Renaissance Charge LLC because of the close proximity to Energenx and John Bedini. I knew that those two gentlemen would effectively permit the construction of my device, under absolute and rigorous protocols of quality control. Since my device contained thousands of parts and involved significant protocols, pertaining to magnetism and timing protocols involving movement, I knew the serious difficulty that could be encountered, which at any time could derail the project. Because of the tenacious persistence of Renaissance, and Rick Friedrich's dogged desire to provide quality results, I knew that eventually they would succeed in providing the result hoped for by myself and Tom Bearden. My hopes were not in vain, they were successful and as a result they have literally vindicated Nikola Tesla regarding his claim of Radiant Energy and the 'wheel-work of nature' Site:LRP:James Clerk Maxwell

All the Best,

'Leslie R. Pastor'

John Bedini - Radiant Electricity