Jim,

 

I think your experimental results are entirely consistent with the theory of antigravity I advanced in one chapter of my new book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002 (available from my website on www.cheniere.org.  I had that notion in 1971 while finishing a Master's Degree in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech, but could do nothing further with it until about two decades later.

 

The key is in your words "negative ether".  There you need to be more specific; I highly suspect you are dealing with the temporary formation of Dirac sea 4-dimensional holes (negative energy 4-electrons) before they interact with mass and produce positive energy positrons.  While in the negative energy electron (4-hole) form, the fields from the negative energy 4-electrons are negative energy fields, causing a reverse curvature in the immediately local spacetime surrounding the source unit (vehicle).  This in turn adds an antigravitational force to the normal gravitational force, and this AG force can be changed in direction by manipulation of shapes, separations, etc. --- so that it appears as unilateral thrust or partial unilateral thrust.

 

Depending on the exact device and its configuration, thus there are optimizations of the various parameters.  Further, the duration or lifetime of the 4-holes also varies as those optimizations.  Hence one varies the 4-hole lifetimes and their effective AG force directly, by changing such parameters (as separation of the plates).

 

Bedini has a process for converting negative energy into positive energy, and has done it for more than two decades.  With his permission I also included his conversion method in my book.

 

Scientists basically do not like negative energy, even though it arises in Dirac's theory of the electron, and usually they do everything they can to convert it first to positrons, thereby losing the antigravity extra force. Positrons will produce a little more gravitational force, not antigravity.  Indeed, physicists still debate over negative energy, and opposing theories exist as to what attracts or repels what, etc.  So there exist "interpretations" and "positions" on the subject, not hard firm experimental data.

 

I was never able to do anything with the idea from 1971 until I worked with Sweet in the mid 1980s and early 1990s.  Using the approach that negative energy Dirac Sea 4-holes (negative energy electrons) are produced under certain circumstances, I was able to design a highly successful antigravity experiment, which required an overunity power system with very high COP to even be performed. I was working with Sweet at the time, and the COP of his vacuum triode amplifier was 1,500,000.  Its output was predominately negative energy; e.g., if you shorted its output leads, ice froze on them instantly from the moisture of the adjacent air.  By pushing Sweet's power unit to double its output, that put it in the necessary range.  So I convinced him to perform the experiment, building a special output unit to do so, and the experiment operated surprisingly close to my "back of the envelope" estimate beforehand.  The unit smoothly reduced its weight on the bench, as the power output was increased to double, in 100 watt increments (its normal output was 500 watts). At full 1,000 watts output, the machine's weight was reduced by 90%.  Sweet performed the experiment in California, reading the instrument readings to me in each case, over the phone (I was here in Huntsville, as I could not get off work to go to California). I plotted a very pretty little results curve, as you can see in my book.

 

We got a publication of the results of that experiment in Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.  I included those results in my book also.

 

Other processes also can produce negative energy, and for that reason they violate present classical thermodynamics.  One area that does that, is sharp gradients (e.g., sharp discharges).  Kondepudi and Prigogine in their book Modern Thermodynamics, list that as one of the research areas violating present thermodynamics, and also state that -- regarding such sharp gradients --- not much is known, either theoretically or experimentally.

 

Best wishes,
 

Tom Bearden

---

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:07:57 -0800
 
Dr. Tom Bearden:
 
In your various writings, which I discovered six to eight weeks ago, you speak of establishing a "Dipole" as a precondition to drawing energy from the "seething vacuum". 
 
In the attached I describe crude tests of mine conducted last Fall, the results of which intrigued me and that, in retrospect, seem to bear on your Dipole hypothesis.
 
Any comments?
 
Jim