Dear Peter,

It may surprise you to know that the United States DOES have work going on in some of these areas, but at a classification level nearly unprecedented. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss that part of it at all.

SecDef Cohen was well-briefed on much of this, but apparently the regime since then is not, or else the entourage has suppressed it once again.

These days my own physical condition is quite deteriorated, since the heart attack, and my wife also had a stroke in 2003 and I also care for her 24/7. So I don't have very much time to do anything. What little time I do manage to take, I work on the energy etc. and occasionally on special projects which hopefully help contribute to the security of the nation. And that is all I can do.

I'll give you a counter suggestion. The real problem is with the sad old electrical engineering model, which is horribly antiquated and riddled with errors. Until you can penetrate out of that model in your thinking, the effects and weapons I refer to cannot be understood at all.

Here are some of the things wrong with that EE model, and with every EE text, department, and most EE professors.

The model assumes:

1. A flat local spacetime environment, falsified since 1916.

2. An inert local vacuum environment, falsified since at least 1930.

3. A static material ether filling all space -- falsified since 1877.

4. That every EM field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the universe is and has been freely produced by its associated source charges. So far okay. But it assumes that this steady outpouring of real photons and thus real EM energy from every charge or dipolarity, occurs without any input of energy at all from the external vacuum environment or the external curved spacetime environment, because of assumptions one and two, and indeed there is no OBSERVABLE input of energy detectable by any instrument as is well known.

5.  Therefore that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the universe is freely created (by the source charges) out of nothing at all -- in total violation of the conservation of energy law.

6. That Lorentz symmetry exists and is continuously maintained in the dynamics of its circuits and systems, so that Lorentz invariant equations (much simpler equations) can be used to describe the systems and their dynamics. That assumption excludes all permissible Maxwellian systems that violate Lorentz symmetry and thus cannot be described by Lorentz-invariant equations. Hence if implemented in the circuits and systems, this enforced assumption guarantees that the COP<1.0 because it makes the back emf of the circuit equal to the forward emf. The forward emf powers the external loads and losses of the system, so some of that "half" of the available power is lost in the system losses. That means that less than half the available energy gets out as power in the loads, even if the loads themselves are 100% efficient (which they are not). The other half of the available energy collected in the external circuit is dissipated to force the current backwards through the back emf inside the generator and between its terminals. That is work inside the generator to power the scattering and destruction of its dipolarity, thereby cutting off the free flow from that dipolarity of the extracted real EM energy from the vacuum. Consequently, to resume operation, we have to restore the dipolarity, and in a 100% efficient generator that requires as much shaft energy input as was used on the dipolarity to destroy it. So the operator always has to input more shaft horsepower, to power restoring the dipolarity that he also builds the stupid circuit to destroy. If X is half the total energy that was collected in the external circuit, the operator has to input at least X energy to keep restoring the dipole, while the external circuit has Y other internal losses, meaning that X-Y energy is furnished to the load to power it. If the load and generator are 100% efficient systems, this guarantees a system whose overall thermodynamic COP = (X - Y)/X. Since Y>0 in any practical system, then COP<1.0. And that is due to the arbitrary actions of CEM/EE engineers in design and building of systems. It is NOT due to any law of nature or law of physics or law of thermodynamics. In short, we pay the present power companies to engage in a fruitless wrestling match inside their generators and LOSE.

7. Uses the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit, with the source of freely flowing potential (and thereby potential energy) from the vacuum wired into the external circuit as a load while the current in said circuit is flowing. That rather stupid practice implements the entire severely limited and arbitrarily restricted operational regime described briefly in assumption #6.

8. Arbitrarily discards all accounting of the giant Heaviside curled energy flow that accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow, but usually does not interact with anything and does nothing (so long as the local spacetime is nearly flat). The magnitude of the UNACCOUNTED Heaviside energy flow component is on the order (roughly) of a trillion times the magnitude of the ACCOUNTED Poynting energy flow component. That means that an automobile battery actually outputs enough energy flow to power New York City, were it all captured and interacted and utilized. To the contrary of opinion, it is possible to force part of the Heaviside energy flow to interact after all. Without understanding the thermodynamics of the mechanism that occurs, the scientists working in "negative resonance absorption of the medium" since 1967 are doing just that. At IR or UV, standard experiments produce 18 times as much usable energy radiated FROM the absorbing medium, as the operator puts into it with his accounted POYNTING energy flow component. Of course he also unwittingly inputs that enormous Heaviside component, and that gives him plenty of extra available energy. The scientists cannot explain it except in terms of "increased reaction cross section" and "negative resonance absorption", because the standard definition of the E-field is the force field created in STATIC charged matter (with nondynamic unit point charge -- with mass -- assumed at every point in space). By simply inputting the energy at a given frequency (say, IR), onto a medium that has charged particles (in this case, charged dielectric particles) cut to size so that they go into self-oscillation at the IR frequency, that OSCILLATING charge sweeps out a greater GEOMETRICAL reaction cross section in the set of energy flows that comprise ANY EM field in space (Whittaker 1903 and 1904). Hence the same charge now intercepts and diverges MORE EM energy than that charge would do in static condition, and so the medium ABSORBS 18 times as much energy as the operator (with the puerile static charge collection assumption) assumes he inputs. As you can see, there's a real foundations mess spread across physics in the "electromagnetic interactions" area.

9. That EM force fields exist in mass-free (empty) space (note that this "logically follows" from the false assumption of a thin material static ether filling all space, but is still false because it reasons from a false premise). That is false, and no EM force fields exist in space, as has been pointed out by eminent physicists (e.g., Feynman, who points out in his three volumes of sophomore physics that only the POTENTIAL to make a force field exists, should some charged matter be made available and interacted with). Mass is a component of force. Since a definition requires an identity statement rather than an equation, take the identity equation of F => dp/dt = d/dt(mv) where I use the => as an identity symbol due to the plain text. By expanding d/dt(mv), one has a mass component existing in both terms. Hence that demonstrates that mass is a component of force. Forces exist only in and of mass system dynamics. They cannot and do not exist in the presence of mass. Instead, a PRECURSOR of that force that will be created in charged mass, once the massless and force-free field in space interacts with it. That precursor, e.g., is merely a change in the local virtual particle flux of the vacuum (if you prefer the particle physics view), or a change in the local curvature of spacetime (if you prefer the relativity view). In short, we hopefully have also answered Feynman's complaint that we really do not know what "energy" is. Now, if we are careful and follow the example shown by the Soviets, energy can ultimately be defined as a change in the local curvature of spacetime or as a change in the local virtual particle flux of the vacuum.  The EM force field can now be accurately defined as the ongoing interaction of the precursor EM field in space with charged mass. Voila! Now the nature of the behavior of that interacting mass also affects the total "magnitude" of the EM force fields (and their dynamic energy) resulting.

10. That "static" EM fields and potentials exist and are associated with static charges and dipoles. That is false if we mean "absolutely static", since all EM fields and potentials are dynamic sets of energy flows (Whittaker 1903 and 1904, as augmented by modern scientists such as Ziolkowski). Any so-called "static" EM field is actually a NESS (nonequilibrium steady state) system, continually created and replenished by the steady outflow of real observable photons at light speed, from the static charge or dipolarity. Easily shown experimentally. For the word "static" one must use Van Flandern's analogy of an unfrozen waterfall, where every molecule component is in continuous motion through the waterfall pattern or volume. The pattern in space appears static, but nothing in the system is static. If we think the waterfall is frozen, that is NOT what a "static" field is. That "unfrozen waterfall analogy" of course is a good analogy of a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system -- which is what an EM field or potential actually is.

That few (there are many more) of the errors and limiting assumptions in CEM/EE should show the nature of the model-updating problem facing us. This is the problem that the best nonlinear scientists in the world -- the Russian nonlinear scientists -- tackled and rather quickly solved, under Stalin's boot, shortly after WW II, producing their highly classified weapons science of "energetics" -- an old name they adopted again, focusing attention on the energetics of the EM model's foundations assumptions.

Meanwhile, there is not now and there never has been a CEM/EE professor, department, or textbook in the Western world that actually calculates the EM field in space, prior to its interaction with matter, though all purport to. Jackson -- one of my real heroes, by the way -- disposes of the problem by a neat 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." [Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., p. 249].

Feynman elaborates on it with these statements:

".in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present. One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin."

".the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field."

"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. . If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!"

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Van Flandern states his waterfall analogy thusly:

"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. .... Causality seems to require the latter."

 

Anyway, that will have to be my final response to you. If you wish  to build a true overunity energy-from-the-vacuum system, that will prove to you the energy concepts, then just have any good electrical engineering department build the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine diagrammed in my book, Energy from the Vacuum. Or go look deeply into the field of "negative resonance absorption of the medium". In the case of the Wankel engine, you can indeed build a motor that powers itself while powering a load. The electrical engineer will indeed understand the Lenz law effect that allows the killing of the back mmf in that system, but will be unable to understand where and how the energy input is accomplished. That is because the source charge problem -- how the charge (including magnetic charge called "poles") continuous absorbs disordered subquantal energy from the vacuum, reorders it (by changing each absorbed increment into an increment of unitary mass), coherently integrates it (changes in mass progressively and coherently sum) to the observable state excitation level, and abruptly decays by re-emitting the energy as a real observable photon. Continual iteration of the process results in the continual emission of real observable photons at light speed in all directions from the source charge, without any OBSERVABLE energy input. The energy input is there, of course, but it is disordered subquantal (virtual state) energy input.

The source charge's operation also gives continuous production of negative entropy (consumption of positive entropy of the virtual state vacuum and transduction of it into ordered observable EM energy comprising the spreading EM fields and potentials of that source charge.

The source charge also falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics, which has always been an oxymoron assuming that its own contradiction first occurs but is deliberately not accounted. See my discussion of this problem elsewhere.

I hope that helps you in your search, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to "debate" etc. Here you will have to do your own self-re-education if desired. The bits and pieces are indeed there in physics; they have just not been previously drawn together into one body or theory or set of foundations concepts.

Debating electrical engineering matters is useless, since the entire EE model specifically excludes COP>1.0 EFTV systems a priori. It also excludes energetics a priori. To discuss the electrodynamics, one has to therefore leave the U(1) model and go to a higher group symmetry model, such as SU(1)X SU(1) used by some electrical physicists such as Barrett, or such as O(3) used by Evans. The latter is particularly useful, since Evans deals directly with energy from the vacuum and has already shown the electrodynamics of the theoretical mechanisms involved.

Anyway, I wish you well in your search and in your efforts. If you wish to come and see me personally at my home, we can and will have a private discussion. But I shall not reply again to any sort of "open debate" etc. because I have no time for that, in the short time left. Just now, as I can get to being able to do a little work now and then on it, I'm preparing a paper explaining the solution to the dark energy and dark matter problems and mechanisms, and the solution to the Pioneer anomaly on NASA's Pioneer spacecraft heading away from the sun. The excess drag on those craft is a result of the same dark energy mechanism, just one more local part of it. Indeed, the dark matter actually becomes a sort of "inverse" mechanism from the same dark energy mechanism. And the basic dark energy mechanism can be experimented with in circuits, if you use a variant of the known violations of thermodynamics that Kondepudi and Prigogine list on p. 459 of their "Modern Thermodynamics" textbook.

But as to your interest in the weapons, I would strongly suggest you find out exactly what SecDef Cohen already was briefed upon, that accounted for his public confirmation in 1997 in these words:

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations.It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important." Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

You might wish to inquire through official channels as to that area and that body of knowledge and technology already developed.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

---

Col. Bearden, My name is Peter G*****, and I am a futurist for the Air Force. In my search for "out of the box" ideas, I came across your website. I found the ideas in your brief: http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html <http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html>  quite intriguing, and would welcome further discussion, as the implications, if true would indeed be far-reaching. Applications I expected to see but did not were a discussion energetics applied to propulsion or planetary defense against Near Earth Orbit or Earth Crossing Orbit asteroids. Although my own technical expertise in the area of EM is shallow, your assertions certainly run counter to the dominant paradigms I work with--both in terms of physics and what we and other nations possess.  I am not averse to considering or adopting a new paradigm, but I would like the opportunity to challenge your assertions and would need to see actual demonstrations of over-unity. On your website, you state your briefing http://www.cheniere.org/briefings/DoDPriore/index.html <http://www.cheniere.org/briefings/DoDPriore/index.html>   was "sent by Tom Bearden to Defense Department, National Institute of Health, USAF, National Science Foundation etc. re extended and improved Priore Treatment to counter mass casualties from Biological Warfare <http://www.cheniere.org/briefings/DoDPriore/index.html> " I am very interested to know to whom in the DOD and the USAF you sent this, who reviewed it, and what was their response.

V/R PETER A. ********, Major, USAF Air Force Future Concepts and Transformation