Help support the research

Hi Joel,

Nice to hear from you.

The very first thing you must determine, is whether you will be adhering to physics (even if it's forefront physics) or taking off into all sorts of "nonscientific systems" and theories.  I advise hanging in there with particle physics and quantum field theory, and with higher group symmetry electrodynamics, and also adding a little reading and study in the FOUNDATIONS of physics (what the stuff really means and says, and what it doesn't).

On your radionics question: Radionics may be thought of (simplified) as electronically-assisted dowsing.  There is indeed a science there waiting to be born, but the average radionics operator has no inkling of it. the notion of the "witness", e.g., is based on the fact that, between any two objects that have interacted with each other's photons, there is a weak quantum potential established between them -- and that's an instantaneous connection, completely distance free.  But we have no open science instruments which measure such; hence the operator uses his own nervous system (the human body uses a higher group symmetry electrodynamics, not just the shallow electrical engineering  stuff).  Hence the "rub plate", etc.

The quantum potential area has actually been highly weaponized, by five nations (two others are closing fast), and QP weapons are also the most powerful weapons on earth today.  With some of them, it would be possible to kill every human being on the planet, very quickly.  But in radionics, the state of the "art" depends on two things: (1) the ability and knowledge of the builder in how to amplify the effect (most cannot do much there, thank goodness), and (2) the ability of the operator himself or herself.  A really good radionics operator will often outgrow the need for the machine (which just helps him tune his own inner higher EM functioning). So the area is a "mixed bag", consisting of some science, some practical techniques or trade secrets, lots of arm waving and conjecture, etc.  It's probably the best thing that it remain that way, with human beings in their present state. And yes, there are indeed some very secretive and special groups that do use the machines for assassination or attempted assassination.  Some very spooky groups with very shady characters have succeeded in forming integrated circuits for the basic radionics machine.  Even with medium to low gain, one has no "truly lived" until one has been hit with 1,000 of such massed machines (integrated circuits) focused on him.  Really curls the old toes, and can put one in jeopardy very quickly.  There are certain defenses --- usually consisting of extraordinarily powerful machines and extraordinary operators. We obviously do not discuss the details of such; too many kooks out there would then be using it or trying to use it to hurt or harm people.

The best way is to zero in on one main area of primary interest, which --- let us say -- is energy, where we are speaking of useful electrical energy extracted from the vacuum.

Conventional power system science (and particularly electrical power system engineering, which does not even model the active vacuum, or its exchange with the system, let along an asymmetry in that exchange) doesn't directly recognize extracting EM energy from the vacuum, although particle physics (and quantum field theory) do deal with it for small things such as a charge continuously absorbing virtual (subquantal) photons, integrating the absorbed energy into real (observable) photons, and then re-emitting the observable photons to create the associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, spreading across the universe at light speed.

As we said, electrical engineering doesn't model the active vacuum, hence has nothing in it to describe the charges and dipoles and dipolarities (a scalar potential is a dipolarity, e.g.) absorbing virtual photons (which freely bubble away furiously in the highly active vacuum and are continuously absorbed and interacted.  So the EE model just assumes the source charge freely creates all its fields and potentials and their energy out of nothing at all, in complete violation of the conservation of energy (energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form).

Sadly, there has not previously been any texts or direct theoretical papers dealing with extracting usable EM energy directly from the vacuum, but just a lot of sarcasm and nonsense that it cannot be done.  Fortunately some papers do exist in the area, e.g., a series of rigorous scientific papers by the AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, led by Dr. Myron Evans).

Anyway, you have to decide whether you will take the rigorous scientific approach (but remain open-minded; our entire science is still only a snap of the fingers long with respect to  the age of the universe, so we're still only just beginning).  Otherwise, you will just be confronted with an unending stream of mysticism, conjecture, pronouncements, arm-waving such as "It's resonance!" etc.  But you also need to realize that physics is only just recently extending into the necessary forefront areas to allow adequate description and thinking of such "energy from the vacuum" systems and their principles and operation.

My book, Energy from the Vacuum, can give you a lot of the necessary physics references, a summary of the concepts and what it all means and how it works, etc.  You can start from there and, with a bit of work (not the 30+ years it took me!) you can get the gist of what I've been able to uncover and put together, and then you can just go on much farther.  By checking the references, you can make up your own mind as to whether I described it correctly or not.  If you find an error, just correct it and go on much further than I have.  The point is not to have to take 30 years of your life just to get to where I've arrived, or think I've arrived.

Also, to be scientific you will have to pay attention to definitions.  They are far more difficult than one would casually assume.  We really don't know what energy is, e.g., as pointed out by Nobelist Feynman.  One does not actually calculate a "field' or a "potential", e.g., one actually calculates the point intensity of it, as determined ("measured") by a  unit point static charge.  In short, one calculates what a unit point static charge, placed at each point in the potential, will diverge FROM the potential (and the same for the field).  And physics frequently substitutes the 3-d effect for the cause --- is does mechanics when it assumes a separate force acting on a separate mass. Actually mass is a COMPONENT of force, as is apparent from F = d/dt(mv).  There is no forcefield in the absence of mass, so there is really no E-field (as a force field) or a B-field (as a force field) in massfree space.  Originally they assumed a thin material ether, so that there was not a single point in the universe --- they assumed --- where mass was absent.  Hence the assumption of a forcefield in the ether (thin material filling all space, they thought). With the destruction of the material ether in the 1880s and 1890s, a great change was actually made to Maxwell-Heaviside equations, but it was never carried out.  The equations still assume a material ether, more than a century after its abolishment. There is an ETHER, all right, but not a material observable ether. In modern physics it's a bubbling fiery cauldron of virtual particles, fiercely appearing and disappearing rapidly at every point in space.  Ironically, "empty space" (i.e., space that is empty of OBSERVABLE mass), is the most energetic thing in all the universe.  There is more pure raw disintegrated energy in one cubic centimeter of the vacuum (about the size of the tip of one's little finger) than in all the matter in all the stars and planets and asteroids and whatever in all the observable universe.

So certainly the modern vacuum is a sufficiently energetic medium to power anything and everything!  And it does.  The exchange of virtual particles in fact generates all the forces in the universe, in everything, including in every generator and physical system and electrical power system. That is not electrical engineering, of course, but it is good physics.

You will have to face and learn to deal with (and how to think about and approach) questions such as this:

"Presently electrical circuits do not produce more useful energy out than the operator inputs, which would be COP>1.0.  So all our present circuits exhibit COP equal to or less than 1.0.  Yet a windmill puts out useful energy (and does useful work) without the operator inputting anything.  What are the exact differences (principles) between the practical operation of a windmill and the operation of a normal electrical circuit, that allow the windmill to give COP>1.0, but restrict the practical circuit to COP<1.0?"

"If all EM fields and potentials and their energy are created by their associated source charges (and they are), then (1) what is the source and form of the input energy to that source charge, and (2) what does the generator actually do or furnish, since all the EM field energy and EM potential energy in the external circuit comes from the source charges there?"

If one wishes to fundamentally understand COP>1.0 and COP = infinity EM systems, then one must learn to ask fundamental questions and seek out fundamental answers to them.  That is what it is not "easy" and cannot be done by just going down to Radio Shack, getting a few parts, and whipping the old COP>1.0 system together.  At least at this stage of understanding (or really of lack thereof), it isn't that simple.

You have to learn to FORMULATE AND ASK the questions correctly and exactly in the first place.  Lots of times you will see folks just providing "answers".  Your immediate reaction should be, "So what is the exact question that each answer answers exactly?"  You will be astounded that most do not have the foggiest notion of that connection. And most of the "answers" are not exact either.  Many are just sheer conjecture.

Also, you will find gobs and gobs of arm waving and shouting about how "easy" it really is.  Just get some Radio Shack parts and whip them together.  My, if it were that easy, those hundreds of thousands of sharp young graduate students and post doctoral scientists we've produced would have done it ages ago!  They didn't.  Because it isn't that easy after all.

The other thing is to also start with some things in physics that ARE providing COP>1.0, learn what they are, and then WHY they work that way. E.g., anti-Stokes emission always outputs more energy than we input to the medium.  Negative resonance absorption of the medium (a painful phrase originally enforced on researchers to prevent them saying "excess emission of the medium") also does it.

Now check out and read and study the Bohren experiment (I cite the reference in my book).  If you don't understand how it works, read it again and also read some of Letokhov's work etc.

Go into particle physics and find out what "broken symmetry" really is.  Go into quantum field theory and find out what an "isolated charge" really is, and what it really consist of when vacuum polarization is accounted.

There is a basic set of principles and concepts involved in overunity systems, whether they are heat pumps, windmills, waterwheels, the solar cell, or a Bedini overunity system.  The first principle is that, to obey energy conservation, if you are not inputting all the energy that is coming out and doing work, then something else has to be inputting it (the environment has to input it).

So the chase for "free energy" where you get it started and then you do not have to input any energy at all, is the chase to understand how to build and EM circuit or system analogy to the windmill.  The solar cell already does it, since it's COP is infinity. You don't have to input anything, yet it continuously outputs real usable EM energy, which in an external circuit attached to the solar cell array will light lamps and run motors, etc. (do useful work). So you CAN INDEED build an electrical windmill.  Note that the environmental input of energy (normal radiation) is well understood in that case.  In the case we are trying to build (using the external but local vacuum environment as the source of input energy), the environment (the active vacuum) is more esoteric and not so widely understood. But it IS THERE in particle physics.

So if you really wish to pursue COP>1.0 EM systems taking their energy from the vacuum, you will have to learn some  particle physics, or at least the gist of it.  You have to understand what the vacuum is, what form the energy is in, how that peculiar form of energy interacts with charges and dipoles, etc.  That is the very first step.  Until you learn something about that, then all the books in the world are meaningless to help you in your quest.

Read on two levels, as best you can.

(1) read on the technical summary or overview level (New Scientist, Science News, Scientific American, etc.).  But learn which ones are biased and even dogmatic (Sci. Am. doesn't even realize that Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion, once a thing is placed into motion, until or unless an intervention is made by an external force.  Their editorial staff also doesn't seem to recognize that COP>1.0 does not mean forbidden perpetual work without energy input at all.  It means that you have tricked the environment into providing some or all of the input energy energy that must be dissipated to do the work, as e.g. we do in a heat pump, or as the windmill does.

(2) Then read the detailed scientific or technical report(s) involved.  That way you gain an overall understanding first, and learn to spot its details in the technical report.

(3) Make a list of the important references that you uncover, that are useful to you.  Do it right, with complete citation, put in a little abstract, add any necessary comments in a separate section, and put in some key descriptor words.

(4) Also make a file or files of those important references, in hard copy or in easily obtainable hard copy (as, e.g., pdf files on your computer). Include patents you are interested in, as well.

(5) Maintain a contact list of people, their exact addresses and phone numbers, cell phones, E-mail address, website, etc.  The more relevant information you organize, the better equipped you will be in your research and study.

If you are interested in building stuff and testing it, that is another matter which you must also thoroughly address. Learn about different kinds of oscilloscopes, probes, multichannel data capture scopes which integrate under the curve, etc. You will need to know all the instrument and test measurement science you can master.   The more the better. Also pay attention to the specific limitations of each kind of instrument, as well as its capabilities.  Be prepared to ask such questions as, "Suppose I am trying to measure negative energy, or a mix of positive and negative energy. What are the principles and precautions necessary?  How does one transduce negative energy into positive energy?"  I give an overview of the negative energy area in my book; that's at least a legitimate start for you, and removes most of the standard arm-waving.

That way you get organized for your own research, and your research will be methodical and productive.

You will also be confronted with that totally knee-jerk hysterical reaction that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible because they would be systems that do perpetual work without any energy input.  That's important enough for you to understand the sheer stupidity of such a charge, so I reproduce the charge and its logical examination and refutation here.

-------------------------------------------

Interestingly, the charge of "perpetual motion is impossible" is totally false!  Newton's first law prescribes that an object, once placed in a state of motion, will remain in that state of motion perpetually, unless and until interacted with and changed by an external force (Newton's second law).  So Newton's first law actually requires that any state of motion --- including at rest or in nonzero motion -- in an inertial frame will perpetually remain so in the absence of forcible intervention.  An example in physics is a superconducting electric current once launched in a closed loop superconducting circuit. Such currents have maintained themselves in the laboratory for years.  The cosmos of course is filled with objects obeying Newton's first law, that have been obeying it for some 13.7 billion years.

Usually the professional skeptics assert that a "perpetual motion device" implies a 'continuous working machine with no energy input".  This is an old saw easily demolished with simple logic, although it has largely come to be a "knee-jerk reaction" in much of the scientific community, for more than a hundred years (since even before Heaviside and Poynting originated the notion of the flow of energy in space, in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead).  To show the total violation of logic, let us use Max Planck's statement of it, which is typical of the ubiquitous error.  Planck stated:

"It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing." [Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.]

Let us now analyze Planck's statement. It contains two major clauses, therefore two major statements, and with the "i.e." connector it asserts that these two statements are equivalent.

The first statement, that perpetual motion is impossible, is refuted by Newton's first law. Hence it is a false premise, as written.  An object in simple continuous motion with no interruption, does not have to have any energy input nor does it do any work.  Any rotary device, once set in motion, would turn forever if it had no external force that acted on it to change its state of motion (such as friction, air drag, resistance of a load via Newton's third law, etc.).  It would do no work, and need no input energy.

Planck's second statement says that no machine can do continuous work without the necessary energy input, which is a true statement.  Else the machine would be creating energy from nothing at all, and that violates the conservation of energy law (that energy can neither be created nor destroyed).  [Eerily, the standard Maxwell-Heaviside theory and electrical engineering assume that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges. So the greatest unwitting advocates of perpetual working machines with no energy input, are in fact the present electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks].  Work rigorously is the change of form of energy; no machine can continuously change the form of energy unless the energy to be changed is fed into it and is therefore continuously available for continuous changing!  So Planck's second statement is perfectly true.

But what has Planck's second statement got to do with his first statement?

 Nothing at all!

They are totally different statements.  In the first statement, for perpetual motion under Newton's first law, no work is done and no energy need be input. In the second statement, work is done (the form of energy is changed), which requires energy input so that the input energy can be changed!).  The second statement merely admonishes that, without inputting the energy, work (change of form of energy) cannot be done. Of course!  If there is no energy available, there is no energy available to be changed in form.

Thus the assertion in Planck's connector "i.e.", that the two statements are equivalent or identical, is a logical non sequitur.  One cannot equate a false premise to a true statement, and then claim that the equating constitutes a proof of the first (false) statement!  Yet at least about half the scientific community and scientific editors do precisely that.

Hence Planck's statement (and the usual variations in the statement of the prohibition of perpetual motion machines as if such were perpetual working machines performing work without any energy input at all) is false. Technically it is false because it contains a false premise and a logical non sequitur.

 -----------------------------------------

Anyway, that should give you the gist of the methodology and approach that I recommend. If you are going to do building, then I also recommend you get the very best instruments that you can afford, particularly in the area of multichannel oscilloscopes with data capture and integration under the curve.  And the probes are as important as the oscilloscope itself!

So good luck and happy hunting.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Subject: Thanks for Lunch!

Dear Dr. Bearden,

Thank you for your time and for the nice lunch while I was visiting Huntsville.

Three questions:  If you have limited time, skip the following paragraph to the numbered questions below.

I still haven't finished reading your book, but meeting you rekindled my interest in free energy.  I guess before I invest time or money into something, I like to look at all the options and feel like I understand the underlying concepts and then correlate the concepts so I can  compare the different options.  Boy, there are a lot of possible options for free energy.  A simple search on the internet pulls up new possibilities every time and I have trouble understanding the terminology, much less the underlying concept.  As a writer, every story whether valid or con job has enough intrigue and mystery to make a wonderful story.  All the deception, counter deception, paranoia, and just plain weirdness makes for interesting reading -- but it is a bit confusing and unsettling. I may just have to give up researching all the possibilities and start experimenting with the few that I'm sure will work.  I just hate to reinvent the wheel. 1.  How do Radionics, scalar waves, and EM engines compare?  Are they the same, overlapping, or mutually exclusive.  The fellow that we bought our water treatment device -- the ESP (ElectroStatic Precipitator) got me really curious about his work -- so I spent many hours on the phone with him both before and after we bought the machine.  Only after we had bought it did I discover that the only way he could measure the effectiveness of the machine was by touching a rubber membrane and sensing resistances and that deterred me from flying him up here to figure out why it wasn't working as expected.  (Basically his machine consists of 6 "boxes" which appear to be radiofrequency generators each tuned to a  differing frequency.  All outputs are connected to a stainless steel electrode in the center of the flowing water.)  Ok  enough preamble.  He said a lot in our phone conversations but said he couldn't explain more because his technology could be used for evil as well as good so he didn't want it to get into the wrong hands.  He said he'd done experiments with growing plants in the dark, making tomatoes mature and ripen from a flower in hours, treat water in such a way that it would not freeze at any temperature, heal people of various diseases, and of course, treat water such that minerals dissolved in it seemed to be present in greater or lesser quantities (to the plants) than they were by analysis.  Some of these things sound similar to your descriptions of the effects of scalar waves and EM engines.    So are the same effects due to the same underlying physics or are they "different ways to skin the cat" both conceptually and on photon level?

2. Weird thing sometimes happen in unconventional research.  But is experimenting with this stuff on a large scale really as dangerous as the following two men claim?  I would like to have a free energy toy for my desk, better yet a MEG-like device to power my house, but If I can do that, I'd want to scale it up to power the whole village (but not if it's going make big problems).  There's a book and lots of speculation on the web that the Egyptian pyramids were actually power generators or receivers from the vacuum -- one fellow hypothesized that whoever was running them got too greedy and the spacetime warp became too great for the earth to bear and it shifted on its axis and the continents separated and all that action somehow turned what used to be a very fertile productive area into a deserted sand dune.

The Dangers of ZPE by Dr. Jay Garrett, CEO Garrett Technologies  http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/2272/

He offers his version of a "cold fusion" type experiment though he claims it is not cold fusion  here's the warning excerpted from his page Then what's the problem?

Zero Point Energy controls all of our laws of physics. Gravity, EM and nuclear forces, and even time. At any scale reaction, you cannot manipulate ZPE and get free energy without getting a distortion in gravity. The larger the ZPE distortion, the larger the gravity distortion.

James Redfield wrote a wonderful book that tells of the devastating nature of a machine designed to create large scale ZPE manipulations. In the book "The Tenth Insight", the machine was designed to create energy "from space" (read vacuum) and be enough to power an entire region of the country with one powerplant. However, the gravitic and temporal distortions increased as they tried to increase the power generation. No matter what they tried, they could not separate the energy generation from the gravitic and temporal distortion.

And that is exactly the dangers that the upcoming "Free Energy" devices run. Too large of a device and the device will generate enough of a gravitic distortion to affect the delicate gravitic balance between the Earth and Moon, and pull it right into us. Or it could pull oceans over cities. It could collapse continents. It could even pull us out of our orbit into a collision course with another planet.

The problem is, no one knows exactly how much is too much. But as long as there are companies that try to monopolize on this technology and force ZPE to be used in the current "central energy distribution" method, the Earth, mankind, and our solar system will always be at risk.

However, ZPE is perfectly safe if you try to power no more than one single building with it. With small personal or building generators, we can have all of the free energy with almost no negative side effects at all. We just can't get greedy. And the greed of the few can ruin life for the rest of us.

Here's another warning snipped from http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/arkresearch/r otoverter.htm         

"...Warning : System opens (NON standard ) space-time anomaly as time is reversed due to aether energy transform .... Extreme   warning Do not exceed 10KW

Nor use of trans-uranic elements near unit as they may reach critical mass by regressive "inversed"  decay PB 206, U235, U238 Must be maintained as far as possible from unit .

Extreme Warning : Dangerous Toy ,Eldridge ,Event     the gates to Armageddon.          The choice is yours now....          Hector D Perez Torrez"

3.  Do you know of a way to generate excess heat from a process using readily available materials.  You mention in your book that certain materials radiate more infrared than they receive and you theorize that that phenomenon could be applied to current boiler technology.  Our wood fired boiler certainly isn't state-of-the-art but we use a huge pile of woodchips every day -- especially  since it has been -25F and we're heating 3 buildings and two greenhouses.  (Another related question would be -- do you know of an efficient way to transform wood fiber into electricity?  I've seen references to a fellow who claimed to be able to turn coal directly into electricity at nearly 100% efficiency)

Enough questions for today.

Joel F

Alaska