Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Site:LRP:Tom Bearden Answers The New Energy Congress

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:57 am.

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

Posted by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor


In a recent email dated Monday, June 3rd, 2008, Tom Bearden answered my FYI regarding

Robert Pritchett's posting: {Rethinking Biofuels)

Robert Pritchett acknowledges the frustration of using a scarce resource such as Biofuels derived from limited resources, such as 'food from seed,' thereby posing need and necessity against the nutritional necessity of the entire planet. This becomes a dilemma and an exercise between morality and ethics regarding the importance of food and fuel as a scarce commodity. Who decides, which is more important? Ultimately the individuals confronted by such decisions. And the poor are least able to survive when challenged by such realities. Not to mention that there are significant hazards apparently associated with the manufacture and maintenance of Biofuel systems.


From: Leslie R. Pastor

Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:07 PM

To: Tom Bearden

Subject: FYI

Good Morning Tom,

Robert Pritchett, just released this data: (Rethinking Biofuels)

As you can see.....Energenx is very important right now.....

We need those selfpowering batteries to run in electric cars, trucks and trains.....

Now is the time.....or we are finished as a nation.

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor


From: Tom Bearden

Sent:Monday June 03, 2008

To: Leslie R. Pastor

Subject: FYI

Hi Les,

Right on!

And it’s sad and eerie at the same time.

Every joule of EM energy in the universe is or has been extracted directly from the seething virtual-state vacuum by the broken symmetry of its source dipole. A normal "isolated charge", e.g., isn’t isolated at all. Modern physics shows us that it polarizes its surrounding vacuum in a charged manner but of opposite charge. So even an "isolated charge" is part of a stupendous dipole. Hence it can and will sit there and freely pour out real, observable, usable EM photons from now till the end of time.

Also, modern physics already affirms that the actual "isolated" charge (the physicists use the term "bare" charge) is an infinite charge having infinite energy. And its surrounding polarized vacuum is also an infinite charge having infinite energy. But our instruments, peering through this outer "screening charge" at the infinite bare charge in the middle, sees only the difference between the screening and internal infinite charges. And that difference is finite, which is then is the "measured" charge and is written down as the "classical" textbook value of the charge.

But every charge – even a single electron -- already involves two infinite charges of opposite sign (an infinite dipolarity) and two infinite energies.

So yes, that "little classical finite charge" can and does sit there and freely pour out a finite rate of EM energy, for any finite time no matter how long, simply by the definitions of its available "infinite charge" and "infinite energy".

So there’s no problem at all in getting enormous, free, and continuing "outflows" of real EM energy, extracted freely from the seething vacuum. Every charge in the universe already does this process, and will continue so long as that charge exists.

Ahem! This means that we have unlimited numbers of free sources of "EM energy wind flows" already in the universe, everywhere, anytime. Every charge and dipole is freely pouring out real, usable EM energy continuously.

The so-called "static" field of a source charge is not "static" at all. It is a nonequilibrium steady state system, continually receiving virtual energy from the seething virtual state vacuum and transducing it into emitted observable EM energy. In short, it is a steady outflow (emission) of real, observable photons. Quoting Van Flandern’s beautiful summation of a static field actually being made of finer 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].

So obviously the only problem is to build a proper "EM windmill" to intercept some of this free EM energy wind flow, collect it, and then dissipate it separately in our loads to power them freely except for possibly a little switching and control costs.

But that requires an asymmetric intercept-collect-dissipate-separately-in-the-loads system.

A normal windmill does not seek to connect to the source of its free wind, or to destroy that source! That would be insanity! If we wanted to build a windmill on our farm to power a generator and the electrical loads, then any windmill engineer seeking to do it that way (continually kill the free wind faster than he powered the loads) for us would be a total idiot, and we would run that joker right off our property!

Imagine that this "idiot windmill engineer" built you a very nice windmill, but had two equal generators geared to the output shaft. And one of these generators is connected to your external loads on the farm to power them, while the other generator is connected to electric motors on the windmill itself, connected to the vanes to rotate them. In short, this silly engineer builds a system where half its output power is fed back to motors on the vanes to rotate them parallel to the wind, so that the windmill stops rotating in the wind.

And suppose he then puts additional motors on those vanes to rotate them, and give you the connecting cables to go and continually pay the electric power company to furnish you some energy to rotate those vanes again at an angle to the wind, so the windmill will again rotate. But you have to keep right on feeding those "paid for motors" because the silly system keeps rotating the vanes back to stop the windmill’s rotation!

I think we would immediately run that stupid joker right off our farm.

Yet that is precisely what we teach all our electrical engineers to do in trying to build an "EM energy windmill" to catch some of that all-pervasive free EM energy wind. They are taught to think, plan, build, and deploy only SYMMETRICAL systems – systems which, among other things, take half their collected free EM wind energy (collected in the external circuit of the generator with its dipolar source) and then use that half of the collected free energy to pump spent electrons back through the back emf of that generator (back through its internal source dipole furnishing that free energy flow from the vacuum) and scatter the charges of that dipole, killing it and chopping off the FREE EM ENERGY WIND we are trying to tap in the first place.

So then – absolutely inanely! – they have to mechanically crank the shaft of the generator some more to rotate the rotor, which – courtesy of Nikola Tesla who invented the rotating magnet field – changes the form of the input mechanical energy into that rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator. The rigorous definition of work is "change of form of some energy", and so changing the input mechanical energy into internal rotating magnetic field energy requires "work". But even when work is done and you change the form of the energy, the energy itself still remains because – in any special relativity situation – the conservation laws apply and so energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.

But the EE is skittish about realizing that, when he changes the form of energy and does some work (as in the loads), all the energy is still left. If he also dissipates that changed-form energy from the system and "loses control" of it, then he doesn’t have the "new form of energy" left in his system to use.

In short, from 100 joules of energy, you can do as many joules of work as you wish (change its form as many times as you wish), if you do not lose control of that energy when it changes into its new form. And EEs flatly do not realize that one can take 100 joules of energy input, and – in theory for this "gedankenexperiment" – change its form over and over and do as much work as one wishes. And at the end, one will still have 100 joules of energy if his system was always 100% efficient in those changes of energy-form and if he did not lose control of any of the altered-form energy in each change.

Yes, in theory you can take 100 joules of input energy and do as many joules of work with it as you wish. It DOES NOT violate thermodynamics nor does it violate the conservation of energy law.

Anyway, once we have the rotating magnetic field energy inside that generator (we paid for it by cranking the shaft and changing the form of that input mechanical energy), then in our standard generators it is "dissipated" to do work right there inside the generator and the "changed form" energy be dissipated and lost from the system. NONE of it pours out of the terminals and through space along the conductors of the external circuit, so none of it is "diverged into the wires of the external circuit" to "power up the electrons".

Instead, the rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator is dissipated in doing work on the opposite charges right there inside the generator, forcing positive charges in one direction and negative charges in the other. This separates opposite charges inside the generator, thereby forming the internal source dipole inside the generator.

Nobelist Lee then very politely and gently tells us that a former virtual thing has now become observable, once we have a broken symmetry. Quoting:

"…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable." [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 18.]

Because of its broken symmetry, that internal source dipole then continually absorbs virtual photons from the seething virtual state vacuum interaction, coherently integrates the absorbed virtual excitations to quantum sizes, and then continually "de-excites" by emission of real, observable, usable photons. And THIS observable, measurable, real EM energy is poured from the terminals of the generator, flowing through space along the external conductors. A tiny, tiny bit of this enormous flow of EM energy can be diverged into the wires to power up the electrons, while in any special relativity situation (the normal case) the remaining gigantic curled Heaviside EM energy flow is not diverged and just roars on off into space and is lost.

(And by the way, Morgan again elicited Lorentz to "fix the problem" in 1900, after Heaviside had discovered the fact that a generator actually pours out of its terminals a vast EM energy flow trillions of times larger than the relatively feeble mechanical energy input one cranks into the generator shaft. Most of that vast energy flow is in curled form, which – in any special relativity situation – does not diverge. Lorentz just taught everyone to arbitrarily integrate the energy flow vector (containing both the diverged Poynting component and the nondiverged Heaviside giant component) around a closed surface assumed around any volume element. That neatly discards the huge and embarrassing Heaviside component (in any special relativity situation) while retaining the diverged Poynting energy flow component.

As Jackson states it, he recognizes there can be the presence of any magnitude of curled component, and the Poynting vector normally will not include it. Quoting 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].

Jackson used the very notion that the sly Lorentz introduced: It can "have no physical significance". That is true in a special relativity situation, but it is not necessarily true in a general relativity situation. In the latter case, both Lorentz and Jackson are wrong. An example is the NRAM (negative resonance absorption of the medium) process known and used in optical physics since 1967. But they so severely constrain those physicists that they are never permitted to say "excess emission" but must use the term "negative absorption". And they are never permitted to discuss the thermodynamics of the process, which outputs (in the ideal case) 18 times as much diverged energy as the diverging energy (Poynting energy) that we input. Actually the rest of the output is divergence of additional curled energy by the general relativity aspects of the self-oscillating charges in the absorbing medium where the input energy is introduced. Each of those charges is oscillating to and fro, hence is "rotating its frame" rhythmically in phase with the input frequency of the input laser Poynting energy flow input. We also unwittingly inputted the enormous accompanying Heaviside giant curled energy flow component accompanying our accounted Poynting component, and now a bit of that Heaviside component is diverged after all due to the GR situation existing.

So in the normal special relativity situation, with the diverged little Poynting energy flow component into our external circuit, we now have "potentialized" the external circuit and collected some potential energy. The amount of energy W collected is rigorously given by W = Vq. It is strictly how much potentialization (of the local vacuum energy activity) occurs and interacts with how many fundamental charges q.

Note that collection of the energy in the external circuit is purely due to potentialization (which is potentializing the actual external vacuum in which the external conductors are embedded). This increases the energy ongoing in that "immediate external vacuum" and thus increases that vacuum’s energetic exchange with the electrons in the Drude electron gas in the conductors, etc.

We strongly stress that we can collect the energy without allowing any current (statically potentialize), simply by momentarily blocking the current.

But the EEs don’t block the current, which flows (usually, unless we do block it a bit) in about 10 to exp (-18) seconds or so (the Drude electron gas relaxation time). If we wish, we can block the current flow for a millisecond, easily potentialize from a static potential source then switch that source away while recompleting the external circuit separately with – say – a diode and resistor, and this now-separated and freely potentialized circuit will start its electron gas to relaxing and the current to flowing. It will dissipate (freely) that freely collected potential energy, in the load resistor we put in and in the normal circuit losses.

Then we switch to static potentialization again. By iterating this process, and tapping just a bit of the output to power our switching and control, we can take any convenient static voltage source and use it to furnish all the free energy we need to power our homes, factories, cars, trucks, ships, trains, whatever.

Since there is a voltage difference between the surface of the earth and the electrosphere way up above us, of some 250 or so volts per meter, we can use cables to two balls – one on the ground and one elevated to the necessary voltage – to furnish our free static potential source anywhere on this planet.

It’s doable anytime we will assign some physicists to solve this energy problem. The solution is in physics, not electrical engineering! For goodness sakes, electrical engineering is responsible for the problem in the first place, and it simply does not contain the solution.

To solve it, one way is to potentialize statically, depotentialize dynamically. Simple as that.

But back to the potentialized external circuit in a normal system. Almost instantly that potentialized circuit is dissipating exactly half its collected potential energy to drive the spent electrons back up through the internal source dipolarity, scattering its charges and destroying that source dipole we just paid to make. The other half of the collected potential energy in the external circuit is dissipated in the losses of that circuit and in the loads to power them.

So we always get LESS than half the free energy that is dissipated to power our loads, while HALF is used to directly destroy the dipole, chopping off the free energy action of the source dipole.

So we have to crank the generator shaft again, to restore that dipole that we STUPIDLY design the external "windmill" circuit to keep destroying faster than we power our loads.

We thus always build a symmetrical COP1.0 electrical systems and thus from using a bit of clamped positive feedback (for the feedback and control circuit power) and have a SELF-POWERING all-electrical system.

We don’t really need solar, the normal atmospheric wind, biofuel, oil, natural gas, water flow, etc. to freely produce all the EM energy flow we need, right from the inexhaustible vacuum. All we have to do is learn to build ASYMMETRIC systems that do not destroy that source dipole, but function directly analogous to ordinary windmills intercepting, collecting, and using energy from that available free EM energy wind from the source dipole.

Again, simply lay an electret on top of a permanent magnet laying on the bench, so that the E-field of the electret is orthogonal to the H-field of the magnet. Then every EE textbook in every EE department in every technical university in the world, over in the book’s Poynting energy flow section, tells us that this SILLY GADGET will sit there and freely pour our a real, EM energy wind – a Poynting energy flow S – given by the little equation S = EXH. And if we don’t bother the little gadget or allow it to be disturbed, it will pour out that free EM energy wind from now till the end of time.

So all we have to do is go back there and undo Lorentz/Morgan’s deliberate sabotage and horrible crippling of all electrical engineering from its very inception.

If we do that, then we still don’t have an ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING problem! What we have is a PHYSICS problem, because the sad old EE does not have the necessary model to even model broken symmetry systems, interaction with the vacuum, etc.

Can we prove what we say? You bet.

Tesla had already discovered that "the medium is active" and that one can extract free energy from the active medium itself. In fact, he had learned how to do it, and he was hell-bent on giving the world free energy – "energy from the active medium" systems. 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].

But can we PROVE it rigorously and mathematically?

You bet.

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 used quaternion electrodynamics (almost exactly Maxwell’s original theory) to rigorously show that EM expressed in quaternions 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. In short, Tesla had discovered how to produce and use asymmetric EM systems.

Note that Barrett is one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar, and is a great electrodynamicist of highest caliber.

Quoting another source:

"Oddly, to power their external circuits and loads, batteries and generators do not use their available internal energy - the shaft energy we input to the generator, or the chemical energy available in the battery. Instead, neglecting its internal losses, each uses its available energy to perform work upon its own internal charges and force them apart, thereby forming a source dipole connected to the terminals. Batteries and generators expend their internal available energy to make the source dipole, nothing else. None of the internal energy is used to power the external circuit." [M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(3), June 2002, pp. 245-261.

Anyway, hopefully one of these days somebody way up there in the political area will get more savvy scientifically, and be briefed on all this.

It’s doable in two years, anytime we will unleash our young professors, doctoral candidates, and post doctoral scientists on this problem and let them do it, without destroying their careers.

Best wishes,