Thomas E. Bearden, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired). Born Dec. 17, 1930, Cheniere, Louisiana. BS mathematics with minor in electronic engineering, Northeast Louisiana University. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. Graduate of Artillery Officers' Basic course and Artillery Officers' Advanced Course. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace and Guided Missile Engineering). Numerous electronic warfare, missile, and electronic counter-countermeasure courses. Experience included several field artillery and air defense missile system assignments. Served more than 20 years in the active Army, including in Korea and in Vietnam, in Missile Intelligence, in re-entry heat shielding of re-entry space vehicles; and served in production of two National Intelligence Estimates.
After retirement from the active army, served 20 years in aerospace engineering and command and control, employed first by Computer Sciences Corporation and then by Colsa, Inc. Had extensive field experience and extensive technical development experience in Nike Ajax, Nike Hercules, Hawk, Patriot, SHORADS, nuclear warheads, Command and Control systems, Guidance and Propulsion, War gaming, technical intelligence, and threat assessment. Performed a National Threat Estimate in the 1990s for Saudi Arabia, our ally.
For more than 35 years also involved in the study of paranormal phenomena, energy-from-the-vacuum systems and inventions, antigravity, etc. including what physics is just now discovering and proving as teleportation of energy (for nearly 20 years, Fogal's patented charge-barrier semiconductor has accomplished this instantaneous energy travel and communication between widely separated points in the universe via use of multiply-connected spacetime, but it has been ruthlessly suppressed). Worked with a variety of new-energy inventors such as John Bedini, Frank Golden, Floyd Sweet, Bill Fogal, and others. Also one of the five co-inventors of the patented motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG). Website is www.cheniere.org.
Is President of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS), a life member of the Alabama Academy of Science, Emeritus member of the American Association of Physics Teachers, and has served on the Board of Directors of several associations and corporations. Also was a former country-western guitarist and singer in the early 1950s, and is a retired third-degree black belt aikidoist (Sandan, Yoseikan style). Taught aikido in Huntsville, Alabama and in Quebec, Canada.
Tom and his wife Doris live in Huntsville, Alabama where Tom is retired from aerospace and continues private research with respect to (1) extraction of usable energy from the virtual state vacuum, and (2) use of patterned Dirac sea vacuum "tickling" of the vacuum in which a physical object or process resides, in order to alter and change at will the ongoing creation process for the physical object or process. The Dirac process explains the fundamental mechanism of (1) the Kanzius' watergas process, (2) Kanzius' cancer cure, (3) the little jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula that circa 1990 became immortal against death by aging and has now spread through all the oceans, (4) the Scenar-Cosmodic portable battery-powered healing unit released to Soviet physicians to treat and heal their patients, and (5) Bedini's negative energy battery charging process which "unhappens" accumulated sulfation in batteries so that they last much longer. Tom is physically debilitated (33 years of being eaten inside by biological warfare modified mycoplasma developed by a joint U.S./Canada program, and a heart attack in 2001). He is handicapped, can stand and walk only with difficulty, and can drive locally but cannot travel. He also cares for his beloved wife who is also handicapped and very constrained for travel, walking, etc.
Bearden's writings in this wiki (not a complete list) (items beginning with numbers are accessible for subscribers only) Bearden on Klimov Bearden on Tesla and EM Source Charge Cause Chaos Charge Electricity Ether Free Energy Heaviside Component Heaviside Energy Flow Component Latency Latent Force LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS Laws Useful in Sympathetic Vibratory Physics Lyndon LaRouche Principle of Regeneration Bearden Principles Scalar Scalar Electromagnetics Second Law of Thermodynamics Spacetime Standing Wave Standing Waves Sympathetic Vibration v Newtonian Physics Static Nikola Tesla Tesla - Electricity from Space Tesla Coil Tesla Messages The Final Secret of Free Energy Vacuum Vacuum Energy 1.11.5 - Syntropy a Sketch 2.25 - Regauging or Control of the Neutral 3.15 - Modern References to Polar States 3.22 - Quantum Leap Delta equivalent to Locked Potentials Delta 7B.21 - Electricity 10.01 - An Overview 13.03 - Voiding Polarization 13.06 - Triple Currents of Electricity 14.35 - Teslas 3 6 and 9 15.15.05 - Progressive Association 16.04 - Nikola Tesla describing what electricity is 16.07 - Electricity is a Polar Exchange 16.10 - Positive Electricity 16.16 - Negative Electricity - Russell 16.17 - Negative Electricity - Tesla 16.29 - Triple Currents of Electricity
From: Tom Bearden To: Leslie R. Pastor Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:43 AM Subject: RE: Which camp do belong in: The future or the past?
Our intention is to just put the material out there on the website, along with the hard physics references for the real principles and concepts of overunity systems taking their excess energy from the active Vacuum. That way, the young grad students and post docs will be able to just start where several researchers have finally arrived (after 30 years of very hard work), and then go much farther. They will get it done, if we do not succeed.
By the way, Heaviside never even attended university, but was entirely self-taught. It is Oliver Heaviside's equations that are taught in University as Maxwell's equations. Of course later Heaviside was awarded an honary doctorate, etc.
There are much better systems of electrodynamics already available in physics than what electrical engineering teaches and uses (i.e., than the Maxwell-Heaviside equations).
Some of the major flaws of the standard electrodynamics model used in electrical engineering are:
1. It still assumes the material ether, more than a century after the material ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments. James Clerk Maxwell assumed the material ether from the beginning, as did everyone else at the time, and not a single equation was changed after the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed that luminiferous ether. One day they just said, "Well, there is no ether so we are not using one" and kept right on using the same equations unchanged. The assumption of force fields in mass-free Space is where that ether assumption is maintained. There are no force fields in Space, contrary to everything in the electrical engineering books and curriculum, and this is quite well known in physics. As Feynman put it, there is only the potential for the force field to be created upon some charged mass, if some should be inserted. But before the insertion of the charged mass, there is absolutely no force field, never has been, and never will be. Even Jackson (superb electrodynamicist and one of my heroes) avoids the issue by this statement:
"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." That quote is from p. 249 of the second edition of his rightfully famous Classical Electrodynamics.
2. Contrary to popular opinion, the EE model does not use or even specify the E-field or the B-field themselves, but only their point intensities as determined by the diversion of energy flow by an assumed unit point charge (charged mass) at every point in Space occupied by the field or potential. The actual electromagetic field and potential themselves are in fact sets of EM energy flows, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904, and involve both the active Vacuum flux and the curvature of spacetime. What is calculated and represented erroneously as "the" potential or "the" electric field is actually what is diverted from the field or potential by a unit point static charge assumed at every point in space. As an analogy, a fixed "standard" rock in a river will diverge some of the water flow around it - but that diverged flow from the river's flow is certainly not the river itself. Further, if the same rock is churning violently to and fro, it will obviously diverge much more of the energy flow, and thereby give a greater "field intensity" or "potential intensity" than the same charge in static form. 90% of the electrical engineers do not realize the difference between field and field intensity, nor the requirement that the intercepting charge be absolutely static. Nor do they realize that the very definition of "field intensity" changes when the intercepting unit point charge is in particle resonance, as compared to being a static charge (assumed in the definition). [see Keely's Law of Force]
3. The EE model erroneously assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges. That assumes a total violation of the conservation of energy law. Thus either electrical engineering model is falsified, or the conservation of energy law is falsified. Further, few electrical engineers even realize their model contains that assumption. Most EE professors just get very angry when it is pointed out to them.
4. The EE model assumes a flat spacetime (that assumption has been falsified since 1916 whenever the potential energy or the field changes at any point in a circuit), and it also assumes an inert Vacuum (that has been totally falsified since 1930 or so).
5. The model ignores the fact that the "isolated charge" polarizes the Vacuum (as shown by quantum field theory and particle physics), and thus any "isolated classical charge" is an intense (essentially infinite) bare charge surrounded by clustering virtual charges of opposite sign. Both the bare charge inside and the screening virtual charge outside are infinite! The difference is finite, and is the textbook value of the "classical charge". The difference is what our instruments see through the outside screen, of the inner infinite charge showing through that screen, and that is the textbook "value" of the classical charge.
6. Since it ignores Vacuum polarization, the model thus ignores the proven asymmetry of opposite charges that applies to every charge. Since 1957, it is well-known and proven that the asymmetry of opposite charges causes the "isolated charge" ensemble to continuously absorb disordered virtual energy from the Vacuum, coherently integrate it into observable size, and then re-emit the integrated energy as real observable EM energy in all directions, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing the associated fields and potentials. In the nearly half century since the proof of the asymmetry of such opposite charges, and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, that has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department, nor has it convinced the EE professors to change their seriously flawed and hoary old obsolete model.
7. Hendrik Lorentz circa the 1890s discarded the giant Heaviside nondiverged "curled field" component of the energy flow vector. The magnitude of that discarded component is often a trillion times greater than the magnitude of the little Poynting vector component that is accounted. Very few persons today even realize that such an extra anomalous, usually nondiverged energy flow component exists around every circuit and EM device. Most will not believe it when it is pointed out to them. If one analyzes the area of "negative resonance absorption of the medium", considering curved spacetime and also the active Vacuum aspects, then one finds that such experiments actually prove the existence of the Heaviside component by diverging and using some of it experimentally. (The vector divergence of the curl is not zero in a curved spacetime, but only in flat spacetime). So there is experimental proof, if properly assessed. The scientists in that field of "negative resonance absorption", however, never speak of COP, but only of the change in the reaction cross section. Anyway one cuts the cookie, the experiments in the IR and UV result in 18 times as much energy output from the re-radiating medium as the operator input in his Poynting energy flow component input.
8. Hendrik Lorentz also (arbitrarily) symmetrically regauged the James Clerk Maxwell equations, thereby discarding that entire class of Maxwellian systems that are nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems in the Vacuum flux, and are continuously extracting extra usable energy from the Vacuum and outputting it. In short, he discarded all the permissible COP>1.0 EM systems taking extra energy from the Vacuum and using it to power loads. Instead, he assumed that the potential energy of the system is indeed freely changed (twice), but only so that the excess energy is "bottled up" and used only to produce additional stress in the system. Specifically, he assumed that none of the free regauging energy could be used to translate electrons as current, so that one could freely power loads with the Vacuum energy actually added freely to the circuit or system. One need not point out how utterly inane that practice is, if one is interested in electrical power engineering using energy from the vacuum. The very first thing that must be accomplished, in an overunity circuit, is for it to violate the closed current loop function for at least a significant fraction of its operational cycle.
9. The EE circuit model, particularly in electrical power engineering, calls for the standard closed current loop circuit as "standard practice". Such an inane circuit self-applies and self-enforces that symmetrical self-regauging, thus carrying out Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the system and forcibly preventing COP>1.0 systems that take excess energy from the Vacuum and using it. This stupid circuit equalizes the back emf and the forward emf, thus assuring that we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and always lose.
10. Electrical engineers are taught lots of non sequiturs. E.g., "power" is rigorously the rate at which work is done. Work is rigorously the change of form of energy. So power is the rate at which some energy is changed in form. Power only exists right where the change of form of the energy is being accomplished, in the component doing it. Engineers speaking of "drawing power from the source" are speaking a total non sequitur. But that sort of mistake has become universal and deeply ingrained, and it keeps them designing and building only COP<1.0 electrical power systems.
To bring in a couple errors in other pertinent models: 11. The present first law of thermodynamics is mistated because it defines the change of magnitude of an external parameter (such as the potential or the field) as work a priori. That is false; rigorously work is the change of form of some energy, not mere change of magnitude of some energy. Change of magnitude of potential energy in the same form is mere regauging, and that is guaranteed work-free by the well-known gauge freedom axiom. Every electrodynamicist uses gauge freedom to regauge the equations (implying freely changing the potential energy of the system being described), so that closed analytical solutions can be obtained. Not one of them specifies where and how the excess energy is furnished to the system to change its potential energy. But the present statement of the first law of thermodynamics does exclude free regauging, which if true would falsify much of present physics and electrodynamics. The first law simply needs restating correctly, and I have a fact sheet which will shortly be posted, explaining the correction.
12. The present statement of the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the known time asymmetry of thermodynamics itself, because it erroneously excludes negative entropy processes. Every charge in the universe continuously produces negative entropy, and Evans and Rondoni have shown theoretically that a NESS system can permissibly do that (but felt that real systems probably could not). Fact is that every charge does it. So every charge in the universe already totally falsifies the present statement of the second law of thermodynamics. We have a fact sheet which points that out, and restates the second law so that it is consistent with (1) experiment, (2) the proven violation of the second law in experiments such as shown by Wang et al., (3) the known temporal asymmetry of thermodynamics, and (4) Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry, extended group symmetry methods, and extension of Klein geometry to object-oriented geometry.
13. Further, there are several areas already known and recognized to violate thermodynamics (the second law in particular). E.g., Konepudi and Prigogine, in their Modern Thermodynamics, 1999 corrected printing, point these areas out on p. 459. One of those areas is sharp gradients, and as Kondepudi and Prigogine point out, not much is known about such gradients either theoretically or experimentally. We have previously proposed a straightforward explanation of why sharp energy discharge gradients produce violation of the second law, and experimentally the violation can indeed be proven and has been. Our upgraded fact sheet on our website, dealing with the source charge problem, includes some discussion of what happens in spacetime itself when one has such very sharp gradients or sharp discharges.
So as you can see, the present electrical stuff taught in university still leaves a great deal to be desired, and it still contains many horrendous errors.
The above types of facts are what are extremely valuable to young researchers just starting out in overunity systems. If they are introduced to these things at the outset, then much of the confusion we old dogs had to wade through can be dispelled. That's why I'm confident that free energy devices will eventually make it onto the market. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but it will happen because this kind of information and that from other colleagues is now made available openly, in terms of actual physics.
Best wishes, Tom Bearden
Bearden on Tesla and EM Source Charge Cause Chaos Charge Electricity Free Energy Principle of Regeneration Bearden Scalar Scalar electromagnetics Second Law of Thermodynamics Spacetime Standing Wave Standing Waves Static Nikola Tesla Tesla - Electricity from Space The Final Secret of Free Energy Vacuum Vacuum Energy Vacuum Exchange 2.25 - Regauging or Control of the Neutral 3.22 - Quantum Leap Delta equivalent to Locked Potentials Delta 9.2 - Wave Velocity Propagation Questions time reversal 16.04 - Nikola Tesla describing what electricity is 16.17 - Negative Electricity - Tesla