by T.E.B.

November 2001

from IndyBay Website

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:38:06 -0600
Dear William,

Here's a simple explanation of what powers every electrical circuit.

When we crank the shaft of the generator and rotate it, the rotation transforms the input "mechanical" energy into internal "magnetic field" energy. In that little part of the circuit that is between the terminals of the generator and inside it, the magnetic field energy is dissipated on the charges right there, to do work on them. This work (expending the magnetic energy) forces the negative charges in one direction, and the positive charges in the other direction. In copper, for example, for every electron we "push" off an atom into the conductor as a free electron to make "current", there is a "hole" left on that atom. That "hole" is a positive charge.

So the same magnetic field energy, while moving those electrons, also applies forces to those positive holes. The positive charge of each hole, however, is attached to a far heavier mass (the atom) than is the charge of the electron. So the atoms with positive charges (ions) are pushed and rocked back a little.

That's all that rotating the shaft of the generator accomplishes. None of that input shaft energy was transformed into EM energy and sent out down the powerline, as electrical engineers assume. Not to worry, energy does get sent down the powerline. But not from the generator shaft energy or its transduction.

Essentially then, all the energy we put into the shaft of the generator is dissipated inside the generator itself, to push the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other.

 

The separation of the charges forms what is called a "dipole" (opposite charges separated from each other a bit).

 

Diagram of a physical dipole,

with equipotential surfaces and field lines indicated

 

That is all that the generator does. That is all that burning all that coal or oil or gas does.

 

It heats a boiler to make steam, so that the steam runs a steam turbine attached to the shaft of the generator, and turns it - and therefore forcing those charges apart and making that dipole between the terminals of the generator.

Generators and batteries make source dipoles, nothing else.

Let's stop right there and see what happens, once we have a dipole.

In 1957, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of broken symmetry, including the broken symmetry of opposite charges (such as the ends of a dipole, like between those terminals of that generator). Ugh! In lay language, what the dickens is that? What does it mean? Let us deviate a little, so we understand what has been said when we say that "the dipole, once made, is a broken symmetry in the fierce energy flux of the vacuum".

In quantum mechanics, the vacuum (empty space) is not inert at all, but is one of the most active and energetic things in the entire universe. Imagine a giant sea of "energetic bubbles", boiling up and bursting, and with mind-boggling energy. Each little bubble arises and disappears so quickly that it cannot be individually seen; but during the moment that it exists, it has enormous energy.

The vacuum or so-called "empty space" is just a seething sea of such extraordinarily energetic bubbles of energetic particles appearing and disappearing at an incredible rate. Because an individual bubble cannot be seen, it is said to be "virtual" (not observable) as compared to something that hangs around a long time and thus can be "seen" or "observed". An ordinary old electron that hangs around all the time is thus observable; an electron born as a special "bubble" momentarily in the seething vacuum and disappearing again almost instantly, is not observable but "virtual".

Photons (pieces of electromagnetic energy) also come in both "observable" and "virtual" size. An ordinary old photon hangs around a long time and so it is observable. We say it is "real energy" because we can interact with it, detect it, and observe it. A photon born momentarily as a "special bubble" in that seething vacuum does not hang around, and so cannot be "seen" or measured or observed. So it is said to be "virtual".

It turns out that a charge - any charge, either electric or magnetic - is in violent virtual photon energy exchange with that vacuum, continuously. That fierce absorption of energy and emission of energy is in fact "what charge really is".

Let's visualize that as virtual photons (photon bubbles) in the frenzied vacuum continuously interacting by the uncountable zillions with an ordinary old charge (say an electron). All the forces we observe acting upon that electron, are created by the frenzied interaction of those virtual photon bubbles with that electron.

And the same for any other charge.

So a dipole (two opposite charges separated a little) is a broken symmetry in that violent energy exchange between the charges of the dipole and that seething energy bubble sea. That is well-proven, both experimentally and theoretically, in particle physics since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.

It still hasn't made it into the electrical engineering textbooks and curricula yet.

Here's what we mean by that "broken symmetry of the dipole in the fierce flux of vacuum".

The charges on the dipole continuously receive energy in little temporary "bullet strikes" called virtual photon absorptions. So the charge continuously absorbs EM energy, steadily and violently, from the active vacuum at an incredible rate. All the time. Night and day. More in one second than all the manmade power systems on earth have used in our entire history. In other words, it really receives an incredible amount of energy continuously!

So the dipole has to re-radiate (emit) that continuously absorbed virtual energy back to the active vacuum, as fast as it receives it. Else its rapidly increasing stored energy would rise so sharply that it would create a new "Big Bang" and an entire new universe bursting out of the old one.

Obviously the world is not continuously exploding around every dipole or electron. In fact, the dipole and the electron are quite stable. So the dipole or electron has to be re-radiating that absorbed energy back to the vacuum as fast as it receives it.

Now there are two ways the opposite charges in a dipole could possibly radiate that energy back to space.

(1) they could radiate it back as the same kind of virtual photons that it absorbed. In that case, there would exist "mirror symmetry" in the vacuum flux, as if everything hitting the dipole charges from the vacuum were just reflected exactly right back to the vacuum, like light reflecting perfectly from a mirror.

But that's not what happens. What happens is,

(2) a lot of the little bitty momentary photons are "piled up" and added together, to make a bigger "chunk" of EM energy. These "big chunks" of EM energy are the bigger, permanent kind of photons! They are observable. That's real energy, and you can intercept it, collect it, and use it to power real loads.

That reradiating the absorbed virtual photon energy as observable photon energy called a "broken symmetry" in that vacuum "bubble flux". In other words, the dipole charges absorb energy from the vacuum in very tiny momentary bits - as something like "disintegrated" EM energy. But the spin of the charges of the dipole integrates that "disintegrated" EM energy into very much bigger pieces that are permanent and hang around. So part of the energy received from the vacuum in a form that cannot be "seen", is "glued together" into energy that can be and is seen, and re-emitted back to the vacuum in that real EM energy form.

So we "see" the dipole as if it were just sitting there and pouring out real EM energy continuously, in all directions, like a spray nozzle or giant energy gusher. We don't see the input energy from the vacuum at all! But it's there, and it's well-known in particle physics. It's just that electrical engineers - particularly those that have designed and built all our electrical power systems for more than a century - do not know it.

So, according to proven particle physics and a Nobel Prize, the easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy from the vacuum. All you wish. Anywhere in the universe. For free. Just pay a little bit once, to make a little dipole, and that silly thing is like a great oil well you just successfully drilled that has turned into a mighty gusher of oil without you having to pump it. The dipole just sits there and does its thing, and it pours energy out forever, for free, as long as that dipole continues to exist.

So pouring from the terminals (from the internal source dipole) of every generator and battery, there is a stream of EM energy pouring out, once that internal dipole is made. This outflowing EM energy has been extracted and converted directly from the seething vacuum by that dipole's broken symmetry. The outflowing EM energy is not transformed shaft energy one put into the generator! That flow of energy extracted from the vacuum fills all space around the external wires attached to the terminals, and it flows at the speed of light.

The external (attached) circuits and power lines etc. catch some of that available EM energy flowing through space (generally flowing parallel to the wires but outside them). Some of the flowing energy is intercepted and diverted into the wires themselves, to power up the internal electrons and force them into currents, thus powering the entire power line and all its circuits.

However, the power system engineers use just one kind of circuit. In the standard "closed current loop" circuit, all the "spent electrons" (spent after giving up their excess energy in the loads, losses, etc.) are then forcibly "rammed" back through that little internal section between the ends of the source dipole (between the terminals). These "rammed" electrons smash the charges in the dipole away, and destroy the dipole then and there.

It can easily be shown that half the "caught" energy in the external circuit is used to destroy that source dipole, and nothing else.

For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses.

So half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole (kill the free energy gusher), and less than half is used to power the loads. It follows that our electrical engineers are trained to use only those power circuits that kill themselves (kill their gushing free energy from the vacuum) faster than they can power their loads.

Well, to get the energy gusher going again, the dipole has to be restored in order to extract the energy and pour it out again.

So we have to pay to crank the shaft of that generator some more, to turn that generator some more, so that we can dissipate some more magnetic energy to re-make the dipole. We have to work on that shaft at least as much as the external circuit worked on that source dipole to destroy it. So we have to "input more shaft energy" to the generator than the external power system uses to power its loads. Since we pay for the input shaft energy, we have to keep on burning that coal, oil, and gas etc. to do so.

All our electrical power systems are "suicidal" vacuum-powered systems, freely extracting their useful EM energy from the seething vacuum, but deliberately killing themselves faster than they power their loads.

All that the burning of all that coal, oil, gas, etc. accomplishes is to continually remake the source dipole, which our engineers insure will then receive be killed by the system itself faster than the system gives us work in the load.

To borrow a phrase from Tesla, this is probably "the most inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind ever recorded in history".

No electrical engineering department or professor in the United states teaches or even knows what powers an EM circuit, or an electrical power line, even though the basis has been available in particle physics for nearly half a century.

All that wanton and senseless destruction of the biosphere and pollution of the planet, just to get our electrical energy from self-suicidal power system, is insane. There is absolutely no need for it. That hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists have continued this gigantic farce uncomplaining, is absolutely inexcusable. That the leaders of our scientific community continue to propagate such nonsense, is also inexcusable.

There is no problem in getting all the EM energy one wishes, for nearly free, anywhere in the universe, and that follows from the broken symmetry of the dipole. Just make a dipole. You get the energy flow for free, thereafter, so long as you will just leave that dipole intact and not destroy it (or at least destroy it slower than you power the load).

All the universities, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the great national laboratories are completely working on the wrong end of the energy problem. So is the Department of Energy, save one small project to donate a website to the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS), of which the present author is a fellow emeritus (old dog). The conventional power system scientists have got the cart before the horse, have had it that way for more than a century, and are determined to forever keep it that way.

The real and only energy PROBLEM is simple:

• Figure out better mechanisms to intercept that FREE electromagnetic energy flow from the source dipole, once made

• Collect lots of that freely flowing energy in collectors and circuits

• Then discard the stupid closed current loop circuit and dissipate the collected energy in the loads WITHOUT dissipating half of it to kill the dipole and the free-flowing EM energy from the vacuum

In one AIAS paper, we gave some 17 ways to attack that real only energy problem. Several of those ways are doable now, but just require funding and a proper development program. And some engineers who also know some particle physics. I personally know three inventor or inventor groups with overunity EM systems in at least successful laboratory experiment, or in actual prototype. Our own group with its motionless electromagnetic generator using the Aharonov-Bohm effect is one of those three systems that can be developed and brought into mass production within one year, given adequate funding (say, about 23 million per system). The energy crisis can be totally solved, forever, anytime the scientific community will permit it, fund it, and not try to "steal" it from the inventor(s).

The electrodynamics that U.S. electrical engineers are using to design those present electrical power system monstrosities and the accompanying extraordinarily vulnerable and awkward and archaic infrastructures and distribution systems is 137 years old, put together in the time of the American Civil War, for goodness sakes! At that time, the atom, the nucleus, and the electron were not even discovered yet. The classical EM model is known today to be seriously flawed (e.g., Wheeler and Feynman pointed part of it out, and even tried to correct it. They failed because their corrections were not sufficiently extensive). Even so, later even that 1865 Maxwellian EM model was also seriously curtailed in the 1880s (after Maxwell was already dead).

 

It was further crippled, first partially crippled by Heaviside and then permanently crippled (as far as free energy systems) by Lorentz. Prior to Lorentz's changes, the Maxwell-Heaviside equations do prescribe both,

(1) Maxwellian systems that put out less energy than the operator inputs (i.e., the conventional stuff)

(2) Maxwellian systems that put out more energy than the operator himself inputs.

The model (before Lorentz's changes) does include "electromagnetic windmills in a free electrical wind", so to speak. After Lorentz's change, it is as if the further-stripped model now only contains "windmills which are sealed in a barn so no wind can ever get to them".

Let me put it this way. Every electrical system we ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the active vacuum by the source dipole in the system. Always has been, always will be. If one really wants to get serious about it, all EM energy in space comes from the time domain (see my Giant Negentropy paper). Literally we "consume or use a little time, to get EM energy in 3-space. One second of time converts to something like 9x10¹⁶ joules of EM energy. So if we convert one microsecond per second, at one point in space, into EM energy in space, we get something like 9x10¹⁰ joules per second - that's 90,000 megawatts at that single point. Even at a very efficient conversion process, we can get 1,000 megawatts there at that single point or location. And we can simultaneously do that at each and every spatial point or location that we choose.

So how many programs are the National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundations funding for working on the only real fundamental electrical power system problem (how to dissipate the freely flowing EM energy in loads, without ramming the spent electrons back through the source dipole and destroying it)? Check their websites. There is no really "innovative science" going on to solve that problem. The scientific community will spend and has spent billions on the notion of hot fusion, without adding one watt to the power grid, but they will not spend a paltry $40 million to solve the only remaining problem that would allow very cheap and clean electrical energy for the entire world, forever. And that would dramatically and permanently reduce the despoiling of this beautiful biosphere, the strangling of species, and the global warming. Let alone eliminate those nuclear powerplants and eliminate further nuclear wastes from them.

The cost of a single large new electrical power plant for a few years, can solve the energy crisis forever.

Kyoto was a flash in the pan prior to what can really be done with a single well-funded and well-directed research program in 3 years. We could have working commercial power systems, self-powering, going into production in one year from the date such a program is initiated, if we can get something like a Presidential Decision Directive to keep the infuriated scientific community, the Big Nuke Power boys, and the Big Oil and Big Coal boys off our backs. Two years later that that first year, the range of systems will include nearly everything necessary to permanently replace this terribly vulnerable and antiquated centralized power system that is going to require vast billions of new dollars and years of work, just to try to stay up with demand.

Oh, how long will a dipole pour out that EM energy freely, you asked? Let's put it this way. The dipoles in the atoms of all the primary matter in the universe, have been continuously pouring out EM energy freely extracted from the vacuum, for some 14 billion years or so. So as far as we are concerned, the dipole will pour the energy out freely forever, or for at least the next 14 billion years - and that's close enough to forever for government work, so to speak.

All we have to do is take the "electrical windmills" out of the closed current loop barns we have been putting them in for over 100 years.

If the environmentalists really want to save the planet, then it is the scientific community they should be attacking and condemning. To do that, they will have to have some decidedly unorthodox scientific advise. But we do have some extraordinary scientists who can and would do it. They would have to be paid, but they can meet all objections and the deepest scientific criticism.

The global warming, hydrocarbon combustion pollution, nuclear power plant pollution, and dams pollution and degradation of species and the biosphere, are totally unnecessary. The only reason we have an environmental problem now approaching such epic proportions, is because of the abject and total failure of our own scientific community for more than a century. That was excusable for a half century, but since the rise of particle physics - and specifically since the discovery of broken symmetry - it is no longer excusable. Indeed, it so threatens the very survival of the United States (and about 3/4 of the Earth that is going to be destroyed by about 2010 on our present course) that it has become simply inexplicable.

How else can one explain the fact that, in 100 years, we have not produced a single electrical engineering department, university, national laboratory, etc. that even understands what powers an electrical circuit? And still do not, even though the broken symmetry of the common source dipole has been established for nearly a half century?

The organized scientific community --- not the political community --- is totally responsible for the environmental crisis.

Unfortunately, the environmental community and the political community have been very naïve; they have turned for their "expert advice" to those same engineers and scientists and organizations and laboratories that do not even know what powers an electrical circuit. And that have been responsible for the crisis in the first place. And they have naively believed every word they were told by those advisors.

Hey! Those who brought on the problem in the first place, and who so stoutly defend the present mess (destroying the careers of scientists who object and try to change it), cannot be depended upon to properly advise anyone on how to correct it. That is like setting the fox in the henhouse to guard the hens.

The environmental community does a lot of activism, because it is filled with persons sincerely passionate in their urgent intent to save this precious planet. The community has a lot of clout, and it also attracts a lot of money from donors wishing to clean up the biosphere, and to have a clean air and planet once again, with thriving natural species rather that species strangling in the sludge and the mud.

However, sadly the community focuses (understandably!) on the wrong problem, because it receives the wrong scientific advice. The environmental community is led to believe that what is being done by our energy scientists and engineers is the very best that can be done. That is totally false. Both the environmentalists and the politicians are being misled by our scientific community.

Contrary to popular opinion, science does not progress by sweet reason, but by an unending series of cur dog fights. Any historian of science can give dozens and dozens of notorious examples (vacuum energy and cold fusion are two present cases where the innovative scientists are being savaged without mercy). The Big Dogs who hold the upper hand in the present cur dog fights, are irrevocably committed to more of the same systems the environmentalists despise:

• big nuclear power plants

• more hydrocarbon burning

• ever more oil and gas pipelines

• ever more dams, etc.

You cannot power the big cities and the increasing populace with windmills and solar cells. Or with fuel cells either, though that is now the "decision" made by the various cartels that we shall have forced upon us.

 

Reason:

with fuel cells, you will have to keep burning some fuel, and keep that energy meter on your house and some kind of "gas meter" on your car. EM energy from the vacuum is deadly opposed by the cartels because it is total anathema to that desire. By removing that gas meter on your car and that electric meter on your house, some vast financial empires are threatened and will be destroyed eventually. We simply wryly point out that the top dogs did not get on top by placing touch football; they got there by playing very hard-nosed football. They will do whatever it takes to oppose the knowledge and funding of COP>1.0 electrical systems freely taking their energy from the seething vacuum. Including kill the inventors and discoverers as necessary. They have been doing it for several decades already.

So the dispute over eliminating the energy crisis versus saving the environment then becomes artificially limited to the false "either-or" choice between more energy-systems-as-conventional to provide more energy, versus severe curtailment of energy use from less energy-systems-as-conventional to decrease the impact on the environment.

That choice forces one to a choice in the national economy and way of life, when only the conventional power system technology is considered. With conventional technology, to maintain the economy for a decent standard of living for all, we have to have CHEAP AND ABUNDANT electrical energy and more of it every year. With conventional approaches, to maintain the environment we have to have CLEANER AND LESS electrical energy every year.

The real solution is to kill the controversy and cut the Gordian knot, and get rid of that phrase "conventional power system technology" and that phrase "and less". To do BOTH things at once - have cheaper, clean, and more abundant electrical energy and more every year - we only have to turn to proper use of the enormous electromagnetic energy so easily and universally produced from the seething vacuum.

There is a very good and proper science of the type of electrodynamic models that have to be used to develop such new "vacuum powering" systems:

(1) higher group symmetry electrodynamics should be used, such as O(3), which is capable of modeling the vacuum interaction as well as the curvatures of spacetime interactions (both of which conventional classical electrical engineering discards), and

(2) we have to put some sharp but open-minded scientists on working on the real problem: how to dissipate the collected EM energy in a dipolar circuit, without using half of it to destroy its own dipolarity.

We have to fund those sharp young grad students working on their doctorate, and those post-docs working on new energy research, to work in "EM energy from the vacuum". Try finding a single doctoral thesis, candidate, or post-doc working on a funded project in that respect.

The entire solution to the energy crisis and to the environmental problem due to energy is doable, and it's doable in three years. But take an example: To get those two things going via our own proposed COP>1.0 power system (the motionless electromagnetic generator), we have had to move our final year of research to the National Material Sciences Laboratory of the National Academy of Science of a friendly foreign nation.

Which, by the way, has been teaching the higher electrodynamics in its universities now for more than a dozen years.

And which, by the way, does know what really powers an EM circuit.
Hope this fills the bill for you.
Best wishes,

Tom Bearden
 

References for Scientists:

1. Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., edited by M. W. Evans, Wiley, 2001. The 3 volumes comprise a Special Topic issue as Vol. 119, I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, ongoing.

2. M.W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Derivation of the B(3) Field and Concomitant Vacuum Energy Density from the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 589-593

3. ----- "Development of the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 595-600;

4. ----- "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.

5. ------ "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393.

6. ------ "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equation: Elimination of the Lorentz Condition," Foundations of Physics, 39(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130.

7. ----- "Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296.

8. ----- "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409.

9. ----- "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

10. ----- "On the Representation of the Maxwell-Heaviside Equations in Terms of the Barut Field Four-Vector," Optik 111(6), 2000, p. 246-248.

11. "The New Maxwell Electrodynamic Equations: New Tools for New Technologies. A Collection of 60 papers from the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. Published as a Special Issue of the Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Winter 1999. 335 p.

12. T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M.W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 2, p. 639-698.

13. T. E. Bearden, "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3-vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 2, p. 699-776.

14. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, World Scientific, Singapore, 2002, in process.

15. T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Also carried on DoE restricted website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and www.cheniere.org.

16. T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 24-38. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38.

17. 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.

18. M.W. Evans, "The Link Between the Sachs and O(3) Theories of Electrodynamics," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, , 3 vols. Wiley, 2001; vol. 2, p. 469-494.

19. M. W. Evans, "The Link Between the Topological Theory of Ranada and Trueba, the Sachs Theory, and O(3) Electrodynamics," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, , 3 vols. Wiley, 2001, vol. 2, p. 495-499.

20. M. W. Evans, "O(3) Electrodynamics," a review in M.W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 2, p. 79-267.

21. M. W. Evans and L. B. Crowell, Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics and the B(3) Field, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.

22. M. W. Evans and S. Jeffers, "The Present Status of the Quantum Theory of Light," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 3, p. 1-196.

23. B. Lehnert, "Optical Effects of an Extended Electromagnetic Theory," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 2, p. 1-77.

 

 

Subject: Re: RE: Please Forward to Tom Bearden
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:15:20 -0500
Dear Mr. Tom Bearden,

Thank you for your quick and courteous response to my email. I truly appreciate that you are willing to take the time to correspond with those of us who are fascinated with your research, but are obviously not anywhere your level of education or understanding of these concepts.

I have printed out some of the material on your website (especially "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis") and have passed it along to a friend of mine at school. I have also mentioned your website to a couple of my professors. My English teacher is a staunch democrat and an has an intense devotion to environmental protection. I told her that if she wanted to truly know how the environment of this planet could be protected, she needed to read your website. She told me she would take a look at it.

I understand that you would have difficulty writing a paper both detailed, but also generalized. There is a huge amount of information about your concept, and it is not simple at all. But the most fascinating concept in my mind is the fact that *all* of the energy we use today does not come from coal, nuclear fuel rods, gasoline, or other similar sources. It comes from the zero point energy that is released when a dipole is created! Those other products only create the energy to separate the charges in the dipole, the ZPE field does the rest!

That in my opinion is a truly revolutionary concept. And I truly want to share it with other people! But my problem is that even though I grasp the *basic* idea of the theory, the technical aspects are beyond my understanding.

In my opinion someone needs to write a paper, "for dummies" so to speak, that is basically a tutorial on the *basic* theory of electricity, magnetism, and how power generation works. But this paper would also explain, MOST IMPORTANTLY, that all we humans have done is separate the dipoles and that ZPE does the rest. Then perhaps afterwards there could be an additional section with slightly more technical information, references, etc.

In my opinion to get the word out about this, we need such a document that lay people will be interested in reading. I am such a layperson, and I still enjoy reading your papers (even though I do not understand 90% or more of their content). But most people would look at them and cringe with fear, because honestly you are *way* above the rest of us.

If you would be willing to write such a paper I would be more than willing to distribute it at my college and to several of my online friends. And I know of other people on the internet that would be willing to do the same. I believe such a paper, could make a huge impact.

Your website has motivated me to start studying these subjects on my own starting next semester. I am going to try and start from the *very* basics (which I need to seriously study) and work my way up.

Also, I read your paper on the Rife Microscope. One of my more serious interests is biology and anti-aging research. I have been reading about subjects such as

• telomere shortening

• mitochondrial DNA deletions

• free-radical damage

• Advanced Glycation End product accumulation

...and so fourth for a few years now. One reason I went back to school is to eventually be able to find a way to reverse the human aging process, which I believe is the most horrible and cruel disease on this planet.

But if your information is correct, and we can simply reverse aging and disease with some type of ZPE energy, then perhaps I should major in physics instead of biology? To have a better understanding of this, what would be the most appropriate major?

Honestly, I have not yet grasped that concept. I just do not understand how applying some type of "energy" could reverse damage or modify purely biological functions. But if it is true, then basically your website paints the picture of a glorious utopia where energy is free and all disease and aging is a thing of the past.

And if this is all true (you have basically proven your point about ZPE, the biological aspect is just a little harder to grasp) then probably every extraterrestrial species is laughing at or on the other hand crying over us right now.

Again, thank you for your response. I hope you will consider writing up some kind of paper explaining the basic concepts behind magnetism, electricity, and power generation and then introducing the truth about vacuum energy. Such a paper would be *very* useful in sharing with others about this concept.

Take care and God Bless you. I hope you and your family have a fantastic thanksgiving!

Best Regards,