Dear (correspondent):

To give you an update:

We already had the first action with the U.S. patent office on our first patent for the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator.  Many of our claims were recognized.  We then entered a strong refutation of the stated reasons for declining the other claims. That refutation has been upheld, and now we have received notification from the patent office that our first MEG patent will be issued with all 30 claims recognized.  In addition, a second patent application has been filed, on other aspects of the MEG device, which in the latest embodiment variation is called the TGEN (transformer-generator).

Also, we have now secured an agreement with the National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of Science in a friendly foreign country, to do the necessary advanced research to finish the MEG for scale-up and commercial production. The first commercial units should be rolling off the production lines in about one year, and we expect them to be closed-loop self-powering systems of about 2.5 KW output, but modular.  So -- say -- four of them can be arrayed with a synchronization unit (under development simultaneously) to produce a 10 KW output.

Two papers on the MEG have been published in Foundations of Physics Letter, after -- to put it mildly -- vigorous refereeing.  A high-ranking board member of the corporation owning that series of journals personally objected to these papers on extracting EM energy from the vacuum as "perpetual motion" nonsense.  I wrote a very strong rebuttal, also containing my solution to the long-vexing source charge problem and its agreement with quantum field theory and particle physics, so hung him on his own petard unless he could explain why and how every charge and dipole in the universe is already known to be continuously outpouring EM energy in all directions at the speed of light, and has been doing so for some 14 billion years.  Based on that paper, the referees of the second paper rejected the formal protest by the member of the board, and recommended publication of the paper.  Whereupon the journal published it.

A marvelous and very rigorous review by Myron W. Evans, who has some 600 papers in the hard literature, will be in the forthcoming second edition of Modern Nonlinear Optics, Wiley, 2001.  I also have a paper on the MEG in one of the three volumes, and a second paper on the principles for extracting EM energy from the vacuum.

As stated, in 2000 after about three years work I also solved what has been called the most difficult problem in electrodynamics: the association of the fields and potentials with their source charge.  This year I found very strong support for my solution in Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chapter five.   The solution is also strongly supported by the known broken symmetry of opposite charges -- such as the two ends of a dipole -- in particle physics.  Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in 1957 for the prediction of broken symmetry, which was experimentally proven by Wu et al. in early 1957.  So revolutionary was broken equilibrium to all of physics, that the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year, in Dec. 1957!   So it appears the solution is rock solid and will hold up.  It also is what really allows EM energy to be easily extracted from the active vacuum.

Further, at least three other inventors have working overunity systems as well.  Recently one of these inventors -- a close colleague of many years -- and I solved another formidable problem: the problem of close-looping an overunity electrical power system.  Contrary to prevailing opinion, this is not a trivial task at all, but is a most formidable one involving some very novel physics indeed.  We have now filed a patent application upon that process -- for stabilizing, locking, and close-looping an overunity system into stable disequilibrium COP>1.0 operation.

I also will have a book published by World Scientific, early 2002, giving the complete concepts and principles of overunity electrical power systems freely extracting their energy from the vacuum.

 With Evans' magnificent paper, we shall have put EM energy from the vacuum very solidly into the scientific literature.

 The energy crisis can be completely solved and self-powering (powered by the vacuum) generators and power systems quickly developed, whenever the scientific community will allow the work to be funded.  It can also be solved in a way that will make the environmental community very happy, because nuclear power plants, burning of hydrocarbons in power plants, a great variety of hydrocarbon-burning small engines, etc. can be replaced eventually by energy from the vacuum-powered systems.  In one year or so, we ourselves will be introducing our first commercial power plant on the world market, as stated.

 For your personal information, there are several Japanese COP>1.0 systems that have been removed from the market by the Yakuza.  One -- the Kawai system, can be built directly according to the patent if one starts with a high efficiency Hitachi magnetic motor of 0.7 or 0.8 efficiency.  Kawai, his company, and his system were taken over in 1996 by the Yakuza, right here in Huntsville Alabama, in my physical presence, and in the presence of the members of my Board of Directors.

 The broken symmetry of opposite charges -- such as on the ends of a source dipole, e.g., -- has been well-known in particle physics for nearly a half-century, as we stated.  Simply see why Lee and Yang was awarded the Nobel Prize.  Also, please check out what "broken symmetry" means in particle physics, and what it rigorously says about a dipole or dipolarity.  It means that the dipole continuously absorbs unusable virtual photons from the seething vacuum (actually from the time domain; see my Giant Negentropy paper and Mandl and Shaw's book), transduces that energy into real observable energy, and re-emits it in all directions as real, observable energy in 3-space, flowing away in all directions continuously at the speed of light.  A charge does the same thing (I simply treated the isolated observable charge with its concomitant clustering virtual charges as a set of composite dipoles).  If you suddenly make a little dipole, and wait one year, the energy pouring out from that dipole will have changed the energy density of space in a sphere of one lightyear in radius.  And it will still be pouring out the energy at the speed of light.  The dipoles (and charges) in the original matter in the universe have been doing this for some 14 billion years.  This is a true giant negentropy process, and hopefully it will initiate the engineering of negentropy instead of always negentropy, using stabilized disequilibrium COP>1.0 systems.

 Yet heartbreakingly, the vacuum interaction has not even been added into the 137-year-old classical EM model used to design and build our electrical power systems.  Needless to say, neither is a broken symmetry in that interaction present in the model.  Check this with a particle physicist skilled in broken symmetry, not with a classical electrodynamicist.  Or read T.D. Lee's work, to establish the broken symmetry of two opposite charges (the dipole).

 Every charge and dipole in matter, has been pouring out energy from the vacuum (it actually comes from the time domain, and is time-energy converted to 3-spatial energy) for some 14 or so billion years.

 In other words, it is extraordinarily simple and trivial to provide "electromagnetic winds" of gushing EM energy from the vacuum, at will, anywhere in the universe.  Just produce some charge or make a simple dipole, then leave it alone.  It will pour out energy indefinitely and freely, so long as the charge or dipole exists.

 It follows that it is simply a technical problem to (1) intercept some of that freely outpouring energy flow once we make the dipole and pay for that, (2) dissipate the collected energy in a load to do useful work, and (3) do this without using half the collected energy to destroy the dipole and stop the free flow of energy from the vacuum.

 The present ubiquitous closed-current loop circuit, containing the source dipole itself, as used in electrical power engineering guarantees that half the EM energy collected in the external circuit is used to forcibly ram the spent electrons in the ground return line back through the back emf of the source dipole, knocking the charges apart and destroying the dipole.  That process self-enforces the re-institution of the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition, and the equilibrium condition.  It absolutely guarantees that such a self-killing circuit cannot produce COP>1.0.  That is not nature's prohibition nor the prohibition of physics and thermodynamics.  It is merely the prohibition in the classical Lorentz-regauged model and the foolishness of the manner in which we build all our circuits to be equilibrium circuits vis a vis any exchange with the active vacuum.

 In other words, our engineers universally "put the windmill in a closed barn", so to speak, so that no  net winds can get to it to turn it freely.  In that case, it is not surprising that we ourselves have to input the energy to keep the darn thing turning and powering its load!

 Generators do not power their external circuits by any energy transduced from the shaft energy input.  The mechanical shaft energy furnished to the generator is transduced into internal magnetic energy inside the generator, which in turn is totally dissipated on the generator's own internal charges to continuously reform the source dipole -- that the engineers diabolically design the circuit to destroy faster than the load can be powered.  That is the reason and the only reason that present power systems are COP<1.0.  All the Poynting energy to power the external circuit -- and all the Heaviside nondiverged extra energy flow missing the circuit and wasted -- is extracted from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of the source dipole.  Every system we ever built is vacuum-energy powered, not powered by hydrocarbon combustion, spillways on dams, windmills, solar cells, etc.  No university in the Western world even teaches -- or knows -- what actually powers the electrical circuits they so confidently teach and utilize.

 Frankly, the environmentalists have been "had" now for quite some time.  It would be most desirable if they actually did some foundations work and examination of electrodynamics, and particularly of the broken symmetry of the dipole.  For that, they will have to go to the appropriate particle physicists, not the electrical engineers or the classical electrodynamicists.

 All the hydrocarbons ever burned, hydroturbine generators ever tapping water from a dam, windmills using the wind energy, and nuclear power plants heating water to make steam to run the steam turbine turning the generator, have accomplished one thing and one thing only: they have continuously restored the dipole that the diabolically designed external power line and closed current loop circuits continuously destroy faster than they power their loads.   All that horrendous destruction and contamination of the biosphere has never added a single watt to the power line.  It has only remade and remade and remade the needlessly-destroyed dipoles countless times.

 Needless to say, in my opinion that horrible mangling of the biosphere, destruction of species, pollution of the planet, and insane way of designing electrical power systems is -- to borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla -- the most inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind ever recorded in history.

  It would be wonderful if the environmental community would in fact hire some leading particle physicists skilled in symmetry and broken symmetry, to prove to them the truth of the above statement.  The shaft horsepower delivered to the shaft of the generator does not power the external power line.  It only remakes the source dipole.  The dipole, once made, freely extracts the energy from the vacuum and sends it out of the terminals and through space outside the conductors.  A small component of that energy flow in space is diverted into the conductors to power the electrons.  All the rest of the energy flow just misses the circuit entirely and is wasted.  The existence of the Lorentz-discarded Heaviside nondiverged flow component is demonstrated decisively by the Bohren experiment.

 The Bohren experiment, e.g., simply resonates the intercepting charges instead of leaving them static.  The definition of the "magnitude" (actually, the local point intensity and NOT the magnitude!) of a potential or field is defined purely as its reaction cross section presented in its interaction with an assumed unit point static charge at any point.  By resonating the charge, it sweeps out a greater geometrical area, thus simply increasing the reaction cross section by the charge also penetrating outside the Poynting static reaction cross section and into the usually nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component.  Thus the resonant charge simply intercepts some 18 times as much energy as is in the Poynting static cross section region of interception, by increasing the region of interception.  So it intercepts more energy from that component not normally intercepted by a nonresonant charge, thereby proving that the extra (usually nondiverged) Heaviside component is physically present. 

 The Bohren experiment outputs some 18 times as much energy as the experimenter inputs, since the input calculation ignores that "nondiverged" component discovered by Heaviside in the 1880s, and discarded very shortly thereafter by Lorentz.  Poynting never considered anything except the energy component that actually enters the circuit.  Heaviside considered it all, both that component that is intercepted and the huge remaining component that lies outside the Poynting flow component.  Simply check the original papers cited below.

I also urge you to check the AIAS paper in Physica Scripta, cited below.  It gives more than a dozen mechanisms to explore for the design and development of overunity systems that extract EM energy from the vacuum.

 Very best wishes,

 Tom Bearden, Ph.D.

 REFERENCES:

 

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

2.                   Heaviside, Oliver, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887.

3.                   Heaviside, Oliver., "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480. Discusses the Faraday-Maxwell ether medium, outlines his vector algebra for analysis of vectors without quaternions, discusses magnetism, gives the EM equations in a moving medium, gives the EM flux of energy in a stationary medium. On p. 443, he credits Poynting with being first to discover the formula for energy flow, with Heaviside himself independently discovering and interpreting this flow a little later by himself in an extended form.

4.                   Poynting, J. H., “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 175, Part II, 1885, p. 343-361.

5.                   Lorentz, H. A., Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186.  Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element.  This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component striking the surface charges and being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" Poynting energy flow.  Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the vast Heaviside energy transport component which does not strike the circuit at all, and is just wasted.  Lorentz did this circa 1886, but I have not yet obtained the paper where he first did it.  The present author has proposed this real but totally unaccounted Heaviside nondiverged EM energy flow, associated with every EM field/charge interaction, as the generatrix of the excess gravity holding together the arms of the spiral galaxies.

6.                   M. W. Evans, "The Link Between the Sachs and O(3) Theories of Electrodynamics," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001, 3 vols. (in press), comprising a Special Topic issue as Vol. 114, I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, ongoing.

7.                   M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.

8.                   M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with  the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393 (in press).

9.                   M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equation: Elimination of the Lorentz Condition," Foundations of Physics, 39(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130.

10.               M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296.

11.               M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409. 

12.               M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

13.               Bearden, T. E., "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 699-776.

14.               Bearden, T. E., "EM Energy From The Vacuum: Ten Questions With Extended Answers," restricted DOE Website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ , September 2000.  Also on http://www.cheniere.org website (Bearden's website).

15.               Bearden, T. E., Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002) (in process).

16.               Bearden, T. E.  "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 639-698.

17.               Bearden, T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly," ADAS Position Paper, June 2000. http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ .  Also on http://www.cheniere.org.

18.               Bearden, T. E.  "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  On DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and www.cheniere.org.

19.               Bearden, T. E.  "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38.  Also carried on DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on http://www.cheniere.org.

20.               Bearden, T. E.  "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.

21.               Bearden, T. E., "EM Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM Waves," Journal of New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28.

22.               Bohren, Craig F., "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.

23.               Lee, T. D., "Can Time Be a Discrete Dynamical Variable?", Physics Letters, 122B(3, 4), Mar. 10, 1983, p. 217-220.

24.               Lee, T. D., "Questions of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, Vol. 104, 1956, p. 254.

25.               Lee, T. D., Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Physical Review, 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.  Also in T. D. Lee, Selected Papers, Gerald Feinberg, Ed., Birkhauser, Boston, 1986, Vol. 2, p. 251-256. 

26.               Lee, T. D., Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood, New York, 1981. On p. 380-381, Lee shows how there is no symmetry of matter alone, but only of matter and vacuum.  Quote, p. 184: "...the discoveries made in 1957 established not only right-left asymmetry, but also the asymmetry between the positive and negative signs of electric charge."  Quote, p. 184: “Since non-observables imply symmetry, these discoveries of asymmetry must imply observables.”

27.               Wu, C. S., E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.  Reports the experimental proof that the weak interaction violates parity (spatial reflection).

28.               Bearden, T. E., "On Permissible COP>1.0 Maxwellian Systems," response to Board Member.  A strong rebuttal of the charge that COP>1.0 EM circuits and systems would be perpetual motion devices.