We were never able to get wires made of the material, so everything stopped right there.

Probably it could be more cheaply approached by examining some of the new semi plastic materials now becoming available, that act as conductors and also as insulators on different occasions.  What one has to have is a material that has a longer electron gas relaxation time, but does relax and then become a fairly good conductor.  One needs the ability to (1) potentialize the charges in the receiving circuit with potential freely flowing from an external potential source, momentarily connected, without current (or without any appreciable current) flowing.  That way, one uses the simple equation W = (phi)q to potentialize the collecting charges q, with a flow of energy density (phi) over those pinned charges q, so that W joules of energy are collected without doing any work. Technically, this applies the well-known gauge freedom principle, where the potential (and therefore the potential energy) of a system can be freely changed without cost or work.  Once the energy is collected and while the electrons are still "pinned" or nearly so, one then switches away the source of free potential and completes the external circuit with the energy already collected in it, in such a manner that the current can flow in only one loop direction.  That way, when the electron gas relaxes and the electrons are unpinned, current flows and the excess free energy is then dissipated in the loads and losses, giving some "free powering" of the load.  By iteration, one powers the load for only a little switching costs.

Here we also are exploiting a fundamental error in classical thermodynamics. In thermodynamics, the change of an external parameter of a system is a priori equated to work. That is not necessarily true.  E.g., the potential is an external parameter, and so is the field.  So long as one inputs energy to the system in the same form as it is to be collected by simply changing the magnitude of a potential (actually changing the magnitude of its intensity), then no work is required. Rigorously, work is the change of form of energy; it is NOT the change of energy per se.  Energy can be freely changed in magnitude, so long as it is not changed in form, and no work need be done so no costs are incurred (in the real world, one will have to pay a little switching costs, and that is all).

So in a future paper I've been working on now for five months, we will also make that fundamental correction to the way in which the first law of thermodynamics is stated.  Doesn't change conservation of energy, of course, but throws out the mishmash of conservation of work and energy. No such law exists in nature; only the conservation of energy law, and its rigorous statement is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All other statements of it are interpretations.

Of course, we will also falsify the present form of the second law (several regimes of falsification of it already exist in well-known experimental work in the literature, and the source charge together with its associated EM fields and potentials falsifies the second law to any macroscopic size level desired and for any time duration required.  All that will be in the paper, together with a correction and restatement of the second law.

As an example, for rigorous proof that one can extract free electrical energy from Brownian motion, simply do a Google search on Nikulov and "quantum power source" and download a pdf file of Nikulov's paper by that subject.  It has been experimentally proven that an asymmetric little nano loop of wire immersed in Brownian motion sets up a steady DC voltage and DC current on one part of the loop, powering the other part as a "load".  About 10^-8 watts are produced by one loop.  Some 10⁸ loops can, it appears in present nanotechnology, be incorporated on a 1 cm square surface, to provide 1 watt of power.  By then "layering" a hundred such surfaces, one will get a 100 watt power supply that is self contained and never ceases furnishing power.  If the technology, tooling, techniques etc. can be sufficiently developed so that the costs fall sufficiently, then we shall see such power supplies in the future.

Thermodynamics is also headed for an eventual massive overhaul, once the implications of Michael Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry work starts being incorporated.  It seems to perfectly explain, e.g., that totally negentropic behavior of that crazy asymmetric loop immersed in Brownian motion.

I don't think the High Cabal will be able to hold things down in the free energy area too much longer.  The spread of good solid technical information is what will eventually do them in.  Just now, a great deal of material has become available that the Cabal really has not wished to be out there.  And with the Internet, it can be communicated worldwide, easily, even by a common person.  So their resort these days is to stimulate vicious attacks upon those trying to get out the information, and also to intensively sew the net with a lot of garbage and disinformation, obscuring the real information.  Nonetheless, a discerning person who is willing to act as a filter can get at the good information and just filter out the bad stuff.

One good filter is to see whether the message on a website or message contains clear statements of principles and concepts, and is not just conventional electricity and electronics warmed over, with some gobblety-gook thrown in.  Citation of legitimate references is important to the scientific method.  It established, e.g., that supporting work has been independently done in that area being discussed.  It is also useful for one to see if the informant is just attacking those actually trying to do something.  E.g., the charge of "perpetual motion is prohibited" is silly; Newton's first law requires perpetual motion in that anything once placed in motion remains in perpetual (continuous) motion until interrupted and changed by an external force (Newton's second law).  Many such diatribe artists also claim that COP1.0 EM system would be a perpetual WORKING machine freely creating energy --- and they seem to be blithely ignorant of the fact that a lowly solar cell already exhibits COP = infinity.  So one must filter out the flame artists and diatribes and ad hominem attacks.

If such problems as the source charge problem are not being dredged up and discussed seriously, then the thing is suspect.  All EM fields, potentials, and their energy come directly from the vacuum via the source charge.  The energy in the external circuit of a generator does NOT come directly from cranking the shaft of the generator, but comes from the vacuum via the vacuum exchange asymmetry of the source dipolarity formed between the terminals of the generator and inside the generator.  If the person sending or presenting a message engages in name-calling, insults, etc., you are dealing with a cur dog attack, not science. Scientists can and do disagree, including passionately.  But if it's a scientific disagreement, they do not call the other names.  A good scientist already knows that no model is perfect, and none ever will be --- Gödel proved that many decades ago.  So ad hominem attacks are to be avoided; in addition to the ad hominem attack, they are almost always accompanied by pure disinformation, propaganda, "everybody knows that..." etc.

What we try to do is put out the information as clearly as we can, and as exactly as we can.  Understand, all my pencils still have and need their erasers!  Anyone who claims not to make mistakes is deluding himself. Making an honest mistake is human and unavoidable; when one finds it, one simply corrects it and moves on.

If the exchange of information (as on the net) is conducted in proper fashion, then everyone learns and profits by it.  If it is conducted in the fashion of a series of ad hominem attacks and name calling, that has nothing to do with science.

The great thing is that today our universities are producing young post graduates and post doctoral scientists with marvelous technical skills.  So the skill level of our engineers and scientists has, I believe, steadily risen.  Ergo, if a sufficiently clear statement of principles and concepts can be set forth for these sharp young people to consider, then if the notions have worth, many will eventually start to work in them and slowly a "field" will be born and a technology will arise.  If the notions do not have worth, that will quickly be uncovered and made clear.

Anyway, my purpose is to get out everything I can, and I am extraordinarily fortunate that some close colleagues are working very hard to assist in that effort and get it done, to provide the website pro bono, manage it, help me edit the writing, do the graphics and publications, etc.  Behind the scenes, these very hard working and noble persons make it happen.  I assure you that, without them, none of this would be happening.

Hopefully other websites in similar vein, and without the usual diatribes and ad hominem attacks etc., are also emerging (some have). Many excellent scientists now have their own websites, with many of their papers and discoveries there, openly available.  So one of the things that is also being changed, is the old "lock-up" of the scientific and technical information.  Far more of it is now openly available than anything dreamed of in the past.

If we are ever to have a field of this "field that is not yet a recognized field," then that is how it will have to be done: By the free and open spread of scientific and technical information.

It used to be called the "leaky basement" method.  Good ideas and concepts that are not initially favored act like little tiny leaks in a big old basement.  One can never put one's hand right on "the leak", but very slowly the water does trickle in and rise anyway, and the basement slowly fills.

And I'm happy to see that the Internet is playing a "leaky basement" role that continues to enlarge.  As a single example, one can do a little Google search on "Aharonov-Bohm effect, Berry phase, and geometric phase" and suddenly be able to download marvelous papers (some on their authors' websites, with those authors being very prominent scientists) and a great deal of information.  Only a few years ago, nothing was available like this to the general public.  One can rather easily filter out the flame artists, ad hominem attacks etc. and get at the solid scientific material.

So a process of "re-education" is, I believe, ongoing presently because of the web.  There is a faster exchange of ideas and concepts, of what works and what doesn't, etc.

May it continue!

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Hi Tom! 

I hope this gets to you! 

I won't waste much of your time! 

In some of the sections, you talk about a doped material that should be used for the leads and the collector on your ideas of disconnecting the battery from the load so that the battery does not destroy itself.  Have you or anybody had any luck with this, and if so, what is the material?  Can one get this material from some other field that already uses it?  Does this concept really work? 

A lot of your web site has stuff dated from a while ago, except for the MEG. 

I hope your doing well after the heart attack! 

I've done a lot of research on Tesla, Moray, Gray and others.  It sickens me to think that this world is so hell bent on keeping power the way that it is (or money, I suppose!).  These concepts have been around for a long time!  If the wheels of nature can be tapped (much like that of water wheel on a large river), it's truly time the world sobered up, got it's head out of the sand, and started creating a world that the master himself would be proud of! 

Hopefully the big energy interests don't buy all the technological over unity devices only to sell them back to the consumer at exorbitant prices, thus maintaining the status quo! 

If backyard engineers are allowed to experiment with this stuff, then that will deter the money hungry vultures, especially if the numbers of us out there with this technology are huge! 

I'll let you go, I didn't mean to take this much of your time! 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth