| Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:17:40
-0500
Dear Dr.
Sylvain,
I'm very
touched by your letter, because the terrible conditions in Africa for
its peoples has been one of the driving motives in my long search for
COP>1.0 systems and cheap clean energy. These conditions are
intolerable, and simply must be alleviated. Cheap energy is of course
the basis for modern economies of most nations. Without cheap energy,
no impoverished nation ever gets a chance to build up its
infrastructure, because the economy stays downtrodden also.
In trying
to do something such as the MEG, one is confronted by a veritable maze
of laws, requirements, practices, etc. that one must successfully
negotiate if ever one is to get a unit on the world market.
First, what
we have with the MEG is a series of successful laboratory
experiments. We certainly do not have developed units ready to go, and
ready to be mass produced and sold. The MEG system is highly nonlinear,
uses four areas of physics (one exotic, the geometric phase as
represented by the Aharonov-Bohm effect), in addition
to electrodynamics. However, U(1) electrodynamics --- as you know --
does not include the interaction of the active vacuum nor does
it include the interaction of the local curvatures of spacetime back
upon the system. That is, present electrodynamics has not modeled the
supersystem, which is comprised of three interacting components: (1) the
system and its dynamics, (2) the active vacuum and its exchange
dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their
interaction dynamics.
Notice that
components (2) and (3) comprise the ACTIVE ENVIRONMENT of the EM system
component (1).
By failing
to model the active environment of the system, U(1) electrodynamics
effectively assumes a flat local spacetime (falsified since 1915 and the
advent of general relativity) and an inert vacuum (falsified for decades
in particle physics).
Further, to
have a partially or totally self-powered EM system, the system must
act partially or totally as an "electrical windmill in a free electrical
wind from its environment". In other words, for COP>1.0 the environment
must input part of the energy used to power the system loads and losses,
and for self-powering or COP = infinity operation the environment must
input all the energy used. Further, this reception and use of input
energy from the environment must be stabilized and regulated so that
stable operation can be had with changing loads.
So the
inventor or inventing group for any would-be COP>1.0 electrical power
system has a formidable task. First, a patent or patents have to be
secured to protect intellectual property rights, or the group has
nothing of value at all, even after years of work and expenditure. Then
foreign patents (very expensive) have to be filed as well, or there is
no protection past the shores of one's own country. Then to finish the
research and development, one is looking at a "sheer vertical cliff" of
appreciable funding required, plus a quite advanced laboratory
(including the physics, not just the electrical aspects). Given that
one gets the funding for that and the properly selected laboratory team
(specialists in four different physics discipline, specialist in higher
group symmetry electrodynamics, specialists in simulation and modeling
in order to fit together a mathematical model, necessary for design and
stage-up), specialist in control of nonlinear and chaotic oscillations,
etc. Given the lab and team, then a solid year of very hard work is
required before production prototypes can be arrived at for mass
production.
All that
prices out to about $20 million in the U.S. So we have arrived at that
"sheer vertical cliff" that so far has successfully defeated every other
previous COP>1.0 system that attempted to go into final development for
production.
In the face
of that, one is also subjected to a tirade of insults, suppressions,
libel, etc. from misguided members of the scientific community, who
"already know that all such systems are perpetual motion foolishness".
Sadly, these same misguided scientists do not even realize that the U(1)
electrodynamics and electrical engineering they so blandly accept,
already implicitly assumes that every charge in the universe is a
perpetual motion machine of the worst kind, freely creating energy from
nothing and continuously pouring it out in all directions. In short,
they have not even realized or come to grips with the hoary old "source
charge problem", well known to be the "most difficult" problem in both
classical and quantal electrodynamics. But it is certainly hidden from
the electrical engineers, and I know of no electrical engineering
department anywhere that informs its students of that tremendous and
fundamental problem that devours the electrodynamics models presently
used.
The basis
for the solution to that source charge problem is of course the broken
symmetry of opposite charges --- such as on the ends of a source dipole,
or such as exists for an "isolated charge" when its clustering virtual
charges of opposite sign are accounted. It is well-known and fully
recognized in physics (not in electrical engineering!) that the bare
charge and bare mass of a charged particle is INFINITE! So is the
charge of the clustering virtual charges of opposite sign. The
DIFFERENCE between these two infinite terms gives the observed finite
value in the textbooks and handbooks for the observed charge of that
charged particle, through the clustering shielding. Here is a nice
little quotation on that from Nobelist Weinberg:
"[The
total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare
charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the
equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions
and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are
always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass
and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as
the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of
elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed
values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the
electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The
total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite:
the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare
mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it
receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."
[Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random
House, 1993, p. 109-110.].
So by modern physics
(not Tom Bearden!) every charge in the universe already involves (1)
infinite energy interactions, and (2) polarization of the active vacuum.
None of this appears in electrical engineering, but it is true
nonetheless.
So our MEG problem is
to obtain the necessary major funding partner to get on with setting up
the necessary laboratory team to finish the research and development of
scaled-up units. We have three processes for close-looping and
stabilization, one of which has been proven on the bench in simplified
form. One faces a situation where, if the MEG buildup is relatively
simple, the close-looping is highly complex, or if the MEG buildup is
made complex, the close-looping is simplified.
Anyway, you will note
that we do not sell stock to the public, and we are not "fleecing" the
public. We have to date funded the development of the MEG (for about 10
years) ourselves.
We are confident,
however, that we will eventually be able to secure the necessary
capitalization, and get on with finishing the MEG system and putting it
into production.
If we do succeed, we
also will set aside 10% of all profits for directly doing something
about the terrible conditions in undeveloped nations. That is our goal,
and that humanitarian side of it is always stated to would-be investors
as non negotiable.
God bless you, and we
shall do everything within out power to get this system finished and
onto the world market. If we fail, we also will be getting out all the
information we can, in my forthcoming book.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Lomé le 30/06/2000 To : Tom BeardenDear Sir
I have discovered your Web Site
and its contents just few months ago ; |