Dear Greg,

These days, due to my seriously deteriorated physical condition and caring for my beloved Doris 24/7 after her stroke and heart problems, I’m very restricted in what I’m personally able to do etc.  I could see you for awhile and talk with you as a personal visit by you, but that would be it, I’m afraid.

The rights to the MEG are assigned to Magnetic Energy Ltd., and its CEO, Lee Kenny, handles all matters on the MEG. We are in a (hopefully) critical final set of negotiations right now for funding, but also we have some hardware problems from a former agreement gone awry, costing us a great deal of time and trouble and severely damaging our MEG demonstrator.

The permissibility of COP>1.0 and also self-powering electrical power systems is easily seen, in spite of the limitations of the EE model and in spite of the cur dog attack skeptical community which really knows little physics. Simply examine the little EE equation W = Vq, where W is the energy collected on charges q from potential V flowing over them. From any source of V, you can collect as much energy as you wish, given sufficient collecting charges q (for a single collection). If you use serial iterative collections, then from a given source V and with a given set of charges q you can still eventually get as much energy collected as you wish. That equation would be something like W = nVq, where n is the number of iterations. Pick values of W, V, and q and as you can see you have just determined the value of n.

If you will collect the energy while the charges are pinned and dq/dt = 0, then rigorously you can furnish and collect all the energy you wish, from any source V, without power or work, and without deteriorating or reducing source V at all. Once the energy is collected in the circuit with zero current, then just switch away the source V, and re-complete the circuit there with a diode and a resistor. The freely potentialized circuit will then discharge its energy into the loads, once the charges q are unpinned and current can flow as dq/dt>0. Then reiterate the cycle, to get some more free powering of the loads, except for paying for just a little tad of switching. Any electrical engineering department that cannot build such a system should be dissolved. Simply turn loose a few sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists on it, and it will rather quickly be done. The switching is well within the standard state of the art; the only bit of development and design is to develop the charge-pinning method that will be used. Several are available in the literature.

So one straightforward way to get free energy is to always potentialize the receiving circuit (i.e., the “external” circuit in EE jargon) without current being drawn or allowed. Then switch away the undiminished source of potential energy flow V. Then recomplete the circuit and allow current to flow, so that the excess energy collected in the circuit can dissipate as some free power in the load. Then iterate the process, over and over. If you wish continuous power, then first use the discontinuous switching process to first charge a bank of capacitors, then switch off those capacitors to power the external circuit, while an additional set (or a dozen more sets) of capacitors are being charged in the free mode. By simply switching in new powering caps to the external circuit being powered, as the old caps get quite a bit discharged, the external circuit can essentially be continuously and smoothly powered. COPs of 3.0 to 4.0 are readily achievable by such process, and with some meticulous care and a bit of extra engineering COP = infinity (self-powering) systems can be built. Again, any electrical engineering department that cannot understand that process and cannot do it, should be disbanded.

All EM energy in the entire universe is and always will be free, because it occurs in freely flowing observable photons emitted by the associated source charge(s), thus establishing and continually replenishing the associated EM fields and potentials spreading at light speed from the charge or dipole, from the moment of its formation. The charges and dipoles in the original matter of the universe have been steadily pouring out EM energy for some 13 billion years, and they are still going strong.

Modern physics already tells us that a “bare charge” is an extraordinary thing. First of all it is infinite, and It polarizes its surrounding vacuum, producing an infinite surrounding charge of virtual charges of opposite sign. That second charge is a Faraday screen surrounding the bare charge in the middle. The external instrument sees only the DIFFERENCE between the infinite bare charge in the middle and the screening virtual charge around it. The difference turns out to be finite, and is the classical textbook of the “observed value” of the charge.

So modern physics – not the more than a century old and terribly obsolete CEM/EE – already tells us that we can take energy from a charge forever and never run down, because we are already dealing with infinite charge and infinite energy. Actually, here’s how Nobelist Weinberg said it:

"[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.].

Now contrast this “true picture” from modern physics, with the hoary old mechanical picture from classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering”

The CEM/CE model still:

(1)     Assumes a material ether, which was falsified in 1887.

(2)     Assumes force fields in mass-free space, which is false. Force and force fields occur only in matter, since mass is a component of force by the simple definition F º d/dt(mv). Simply substitute m = 0, and one sees that the force field is zero (nonexistent) in mass-free space. This of course is pointed out by many eminent scientists such as Feynman, but it has not yet migrated across the campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

(3)     As a consequence of (2), there is not now and there never has been an EE department, professor, or textbook that teaches how to calculate an E-field in space (as it actually exists, as a force-free and mass-free precursor field, and as a set of energy flows associated with a source charge). All purport to do so, and all are totally wrong. Most of the electrodynamicists just ignore this problem, disposing of it as does Jackson. Quoting Jackson:

"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 249]. Note how subtly the unspoken mass of that charge is “slipped in there”.

(4)     Assumes that a static field from a static charge is truly “static”, which is false since it consists of photons in space, and photons in space are moving at light speed. So this “static EM” approach hides the fact (shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904) that every EM field and potential is in fact a harmonic set of internal longitudinal EM wave energy flows, continuous and ongoing. These flows are emitted by the associated source charges. The point is that EM energy occurs as a freely and continuously flowing set of real energy flows, that are inexhaustible and will continue forever if one does not molest the dipolarity of the source charges and their polarized vacuum. No electrical engineer is taught this, and so none (including the professors and textbooks) teach how to intercept and use part of the freely flowing EM energy from a dipolarity, without destroying the dipolarity.

(5)     Assumes a flat spacetime, falsified in 1916.

(6)     Assumes an inert vacuum, falsified since at least 1930.

(7)     Assumes that every EM field, potential, and joule of energy in the universe is and has been freely created out of nothing at all, by the associated source charge, in total violation of the conservation of energy law. Since CEM/EE does not contain the solution to the source charge problem a priori, then the professors have just scrubbed that problem out of all the textbooks and course curricula. Try to find a single book or class in the EE curriculum that simply advances the EE math model’s assumptions and discusses which ones are flawed or erroneous in light of modern physics.

(8)     Selects only a highly restricted set of Maxwellian systems which obey Lorentz symmetry and therefore are described by Lorentz invariant equations. This makes the equations very much easier to solve, eliminating most of the need to use numerical methods, but it is a horrible limitation that throws away all Maxwellian asymmetrical systems which would produce COP > 1.0 and even COP = infinity (i.e., self-powering via energy furnished freely from the vacuum environment).

(9)     Uses the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit with the external source of potential energy flow just inanely wired into the circuit as a load to be continually destroyed. Indeed, the circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetry, allowing description by those Lorentz invariant equations. It also insures that circuits will not be COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum circuits, nor will they be self-powering, but will always be COP>1.0 circuits into which the operator must feed more energy than the useful work he gets out in the load.

(10)    Essentially does not deal with negative energy EM fields and potentials, hence has no application to circuits and systems which deliberately invoke and use such negative energy EM fields and potentials. The advantages of creating and using negative energy in one’s circuits are so staggeringly great that eventually such circuits and systems will power the world. Indeed, as the technology develops it will be possible to take a single AA flashlight battery and power New York City. The beginning of all that is now working on the bench in Bedini circuits, and Bedini and I have filed a fantastic provisional patent application on the uses of negative EM energy in circuits and systems. We still have at least two more patent applications to file.

Anyway, as you can see, if one is going to work on overunity electrical power systems taking their energy freely from the vacuum, one is going to be working well beyond classical electrical engineering because of its severe and improper limiting assumptions. You have already read my book, Energy from the Vacuum, so you are aware of that requirement. One has to become aware of these important failings of EE, and also must understand just what it is in EE that must be changed in the development of COP>1.0 EFTV electrical circuits and power systems.

Anyway, I will pass your request on to Lee Kenny, but just now he and the MEG are so strung out in the negotiations etc. that it will not be possible to meet with him. I am not a bench person, of course, so meeting with me will just consist of conversation. I can give you the benefit of insight gathered over many years, if you are interested. But I build nothing myself; that is why I work with other inventors.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden

P.S. The simplest COP>1.0 EFTV system for an electrical engineer to understand (and build) is the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine, diagrammed in my book. Any EE can see exactly how the back mmf is momentarily killed at the critical moment, using the suddenly induced Lenz law effect. By having reduced the back mmf region to a very short distance, the rotor is able to slide through this region while its back mmf is temporarily zero. This automatically means a self-powering motor, that will power its load and itself since Lorentz symmetry and Lorentz invariant equations describing the system are rather thoroughly violated.

Thermodynamicists also agree that one can indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics (see references in my book). Specifically, any sharp gradient in energy density across a little region of space can allow violation of the second law. Rigorously that means that, by using the sharp break of a tiny trickle current in the extra field coil, one really can momentarily create negative entropy rather than positive entropy. Since in the Takahashi motor most of the positive entropy comes from that very back mmf region while the rotor is crossing it, this means that the Takahashi motor is indeed permitted to make negative entropy, restoring the energy it has dissipated in the load up to the region of the back mmf. A very solid reference for that permission to violate the second law is given by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, Reprinted with corrections Oct. 1999, p. 459. Quoting: “We then have the case of strong gradients, where we expect the failure of linear laws such as the Fourier law for heat conduction. Not much is known either experimentally or theoretically. Attempts to introduce such nonlinear outcomes into the thermodynamics description have led to ‘extended thermodynamics’ … already mentioned…”.

As you can see, the leading thermodynamicists themselves have been struggling to understand why, and are still working on it. But they recognize that such can and does violate the old second law.

Any electrical engineering department worth a hoot can build a magnetic Wankel engine if they wish, and they can understand its operation in terms of killing the back mmf. But they will not understand where and how all the excess energy is furnished freely to the Wankel system from the vacuum, because of their severely restricted and inadequate mathematical theory.

T.E.B.