Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Site:LRP:Supporting Documentation:Deliberate Curtailment of Tesla's Primary Energy Source

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:39 am.

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

'Supporting Documentation: Deliberate Curtailment of Tesla's Primary Energy Source by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor'


In a recent email (May 11, 2008) Tom Bearden provided further documentation regarding the suppression of Nikola Tesla's Primary Energy Source. It has taken over 100 years to uncover these facts regarding the suppression, primarily due to the necessary understanding of the physics involved.

Quoting Tom Bearden:

Hi Les, Thanks for the clear statements!

We have a very peculiar problem in the deliberate crippling of electrical engineering, in 1892 at its very formation, by Lorentz (at the instigation of J. P. Morgan). One readily cites the actual reference where Lorentz did the dirty work, and he did it by deliberately using the previous symmetrization work of H. A. Lorenz (without the "t"). Also, the great classical electrodynamicist

J. D. Jackson and Okun finally "blew the whistle" on Lorentz’s deliberate use of other scientists’ work, and his taking credit for it. See J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Jackson states that symmetrization of the Heaviside equations was "miss-attributed" to H. A. Lorentz (with the "t") as being first (because Lorentz deliberately used Lorenz’s original work to revise those Heaviside equations and get rid of all the remaining asymmetric Maxwellian systems). This paper by Jackson and Okun is a polite but excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it.

Lorentz is also the man who – only eight years later – in 1900 also introduced everyone to a totally spurious "integration of the energy flow vector" (containing both the Poynting diverged and the Heaviside non-diverged components) around a closed surface arbitrarily assumed around any and every volume of interest. That neatly discards Heaviside’s giant (and very embarrassing) curled energy flow component, accompanying every accounted little Poynting energy flow component, while retaining the much, much smaller Poynting diverged energy flow component. Morgan’s reasoning was that, if the future sharp young Electrical Engineers were to be taught the fact that every generator or other electrical power source already outputs more than a trillion times the total energy flow (in its unaccounted giant Heaviside component) as is in the feeble (but accounted) Poynting diverged energy flow component, then sooner or later one of those sharp young future engineers would figure out how to diverge some of that present (but ignored) giant Heaviside energy anyway.

As a result of this skull-duggery, the Poynting component must not be regarded as "the" energy flow! Jackson neatly states it this way:

"...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].

Here Jackson is reproducing Lorentz’s own words, that this strange but tremendous uncurled and normally undiverged Heaviside component has no physical consequences. That is true in all special relativity (fixed frame) situations, but it is not necessarily true for a deliberate general relativity (rotating frames) situation – such as the eerie area of "negative absorption" (a polite acronym for "excess emission") well known in optical physics since 1967.

It is not commonly known that the conservation laws – e.g., of momentum and energy etc. – are special relativistic laws, and they need not hold in a general relativistic situation. This was noted by the great Hilbert shortly after Einstein published his theory of general relativity. Quoting Hilbert:

"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.].

Russian scientists have pointedly commented on it also. Quoting Logunov and Loskutov :

"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately, … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Non-uniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179].

We may turn to the great physicist Sir Roger Penrose for a very clear statement of the permissible failure of conservation laws in a general relativistic situation:

"We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!" [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. "These conservation laws hold only in a space-time for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ?…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…" [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.]

Our comment: This "solution" accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of space-time in a given troublesome case, and the problem of non-conservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, to get rid of the problem, one just separates the space-time itself from the fields, and there is no problem! So one then is postulating that the field does not exist in space or space-time! This avoids the problem by using a hidden assumption that is a non-sequitur. Simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this "solution" itself is in general nearly always untenable.

Toward the end of his life, in his little garret apartment Heaviside himself had noted that his giant curled EM energy flow component must be accepted as a serious change gravitationally. This as a beginning theory of electrogravitation was found in his notes, sometime after his death. For discussion, see Josephs. Quoting:

"…of particular interest were the remains of his [Heaviside’s] efforts to develop mathematically his concept of operational quaternions, which he had introduced in order to facilitate the manipulation of the mass-energy relationships (in space-time) which arose in his unified field theory." [H. J. Josephs, "Some Unpublished Notes of Oliver Heaviside," in Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, Vol. III, Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1971, p. 524.].

Of course, any successful use of some of that giant, long-unaccounted Heaviside curled energy flow component would lead immediately to the development, building, and deploying of Tesla-type "energy from the active medium" systems -- including self-powering systems (using a bit of clamped positive feedback from output to input).

Thus Lorentz in 1900 was again elicited to do some dirty work for Morgan: Teach everyone to arbitrarily discard the giant Heaviside EM energy flow component as having "no physical consequences".

As a result of such machinations, today our electrical engineers (and their professors) do not know what actually powers the electric circuit attached to a generator or other power source – it isn’t cranking the shaft of the generator!

To see it, let’s trace the input MECHANICAL energy when we crank the generator shaft.

That starts the rotor to rotating, and the form of the input mechanical energy is transformed into rotating magnetic field energy (courtesy of Nikola Tesla, who invented it) inside the generator. Well, "changing the form of energy" is the rigorous definition of "work", so that constitutes work. Yet NONE of that rotating magnetic field energy formed inside the generator by the rotation of the rotor passes out the generator terminals to flow through space outside and surrounding the external conductors. Instead, all that internal rotating magnetic field energy is dissipated right there inside the generators, to force internal positive charges in one direction and negative charges in the other direction. That forms the INTERNAL SOURCE DIPOLARITY inside the generator itself.

And that is all that cranking the shaft of the generator does. "Dissipation" of the energy to force apart opposite charges and make the source dipole, means that the dissipated energy escaped from the generator right there and was totally lost.

So what happens, now that the source dipole inside the generator has been formed?

Since the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in Dec. 1957, we have known that (1) any dipole is (a priori) a broken symmetry, and (2) for any broken symmetry, something previously virtual has become observable. That isn’t in electrical engineering at all, but it is perfectly good physics.

So what it means is that the source dipole, as a proven broken symmetry, continually absorbs virtual photons from the seething virtual state vacuum fluctuations (we are NOT talking about observable Casimir zitterbewegung energy "jittering" of the observable mass of the charge), coherently sums these serial virtual (subquantal) excitations to quantal (observable) size, and then re-emits the collected energy as real, observable photons emitted at light speed, forming and continually replenishing the so-called "static" EM fields of the source dipole charges.

And it is THIS "transformed energy from the virtual state vacuum", now in real, observable photon form, that is re-emitted by the broken symmetry (the internal source dipole).

Indeed, a vast amount of "energy from the vacuum" is extracted and poured out in this fashion, if we consider both the feeble accounted Poynting diverged component and also the giant unaccounted Heaviside nondiverged component, which is in "curled" form and thereby does not diverge in any special relativity situation. (A little of it, however, can be diverged in a GENERAL RELATIVISTIC situation, such as so-called "negative absorption", so that the emitted Poynting component exceeds the input Poynting component). Note that, when we account our presently ignored giant Heaviside energy flow input, we actually input far more energy than what we get out in that adjusted Poynting component that exceeds the input POYNTING component, but not both the input components.

So that way, from the terminals of the generator there pours out a gigantic EM energy flow, most of which is in normally unusable (curled) form, so is just wasted and does not interact, but roars on off into space and is lost. Only the small Poynting energy flow component – which gets diverged into the conductors to power up the electrons – is accounted in our present electrical engineering.


So every joule of EM energy pouring out of the generator and (its tiny Poynting component) being used to power the external circuit, comes directly from the seething virtual state vacuum.

If one simply lets the internal source dipole alone, once it is formed and paid for, then it will freely extract real energy from the seething virtual state vacuum and pour it out forever. That would be a primary example of an asymmetrical Maxwellian circuit, and it can permissibly exhibit COP>1.0 and self-powering.

But our symmetrized electrical engineering teaches only symmetrized circuits, ever since Lorentz mutilated them in 1892 specifically to throw out just such asymmetrical systems.

'''So the EE is taught to "wire" the source dipole inside the generator into the generator’s "external circuit", and split the freely collected energy in the external circuit into halves. One half is expended to force the electrons from the (+) side (standard engineering assumption) down to the ground line or (-) side of the external circuit. This powers the loads and also the losses in that external circuit, so that less than half the collected "free EM energy from the vacuum" in the external circuit winds up actually powering the load or loads.

The other half drives the spent electrons from the ground or (-) line back up through the source dipole inside the generator to the (+) terminal, thereby scattering the internal separated charges of the dipole and destroying the dipole itself – along with its broken symmetry that just was freely extracting the real EM energy from the virtual state vacuum.

So we have to crank the shaft of the generator again – in the same process, to '''RESTORE THE INTERNAL SOURCE DIPOLE AND ITS

BROKEN SYMMETRY, that we ourselves just destroyed'''!

So inanely, our engineers only build symmetrical systems and circuits that destroy their own "extraction of free EM energy from the seething vacuum" faster than they use a bit of it to power the loads!

This is the real reason – and the only reason – for the escalating energy crisis worldwide, that will shortly threaten the very survival of Western Civilization. The electrical engineering model was deliberately and horribly mutilated and "set in symmetrized concrete" more than a century ago. And now, even a half century after we know better than all that symmetrizing in our actual modern physics, it isn’t in our EE model at all – and the leaders of the scientific community have no intention of changing the terrible falsities being taught in electrical engineering, even though eminent scientists (such as Nobelist Feynman, etc.) have pointed out these non sequiturs and downright lies in our present electrical engineering model.

So the real "fix" for the energy crisis is to – hopefully – get the scientific community to insist on modernizing and correcting our sad old classical electrical engineering model.

Higher group symmetry electrodynamics models already exist in physics, and one can do things with them that totally defy and baffle the staid old electrical engineering. And indeed Tesla had discovered these asymmetrical systems. For rigorous proof, see a nice but very sophisticated little paper by T. W. Barrett, one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar. 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. Here Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions (hey! almost precisely Maxwell’s theory itself!) allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this.

Tesla’s circuits could in fact deliberately shuttle potential energy around at will, and these circuits did so. Barrett was so impressed by the capability that he saw a way to extend it a bit, and obtained two patents on his extension. They are:


Terence W. Barrett. (1996) "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. 14 U.S. patents cited. 22 claims, 37 drawing sheets.

Barrett, Terence W., "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.


Barrett’s adapted circuits are still used in some aspects of electronic signaling with non-sinusoidal EM waves, and they work as advertised – being proven now for quite a few years.

Tesla himself did indeed realize that all EM energy actually comes freely from the active medium. Quoting Tesla:

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...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." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time].

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].

"We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium..." [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.].

"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].

Tesla – the man who gave us the rotating magnetic field, AC power, and radio – also was aware of the terrible shortcomings in the standard classical EM theory (electrical engineering). Quoting Tesla:

"The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history." [Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless," Electrical Experimenter, May 1919.]

Yet here we are, 89 years after that statement by Tesla, and our own scientific community still refuses to use scientific ethics and eliminate the known lies (such as force fields in massless space) in our electrical engineering, and such as only symmetrical EM systems).

It is ridiculously easy to demonstrate obtaining an unending outpouring of real, usable EM energy continually extracted from the seething vacuum. E.g., simply place an electret on a permanent magnet on the table, so that the E-field of the electret is orthogonal to the H-field of the magnet. Then by the standard Poynting energy flow theory in all our electrical engineering textbooks in all our universities, that silly $10 gadget will sit there and steadily and freely pour out a real Poynting energy flow S, given by the simple equation S = E X H. If we just leave that silly gadget alone, it will pour out that free flow of EM energy – that EM energy wind – until the end of time.

So there is no problem in obtaining a free "EM energy wind" flow anywhere, anytime. For peanuts.

The problem is in how to build a proper ASYMMETRIC "EM windmill" that will separately intercept part of that steady free EM energy flow, collect it, and then SEPARATELY dissipate it in loads to power them.

Since our EEs are trained to think, design, build, and deploy only SYMMETRICAL systems, then they simply cannot and do not build any proper "EM energy windmills".

But if they would go back to Maxwell’s original theory (not the horrible mutilations of it), and turn loose some of our sharp young doctoral candidates, young post docs, and a few sharp young physicists on the problem, then very shortly we could and would be building proper ASYMMETRICAL "EM energy wind windmills".

And then there would never again be an energy crisis anywhere on this planet.

Best wishes,




Site:LRP:Energy From The Vacuum

VYtUL8OU7s4 _on5Xvw1sEY -9anvz_y_Zs