The Tom Bearden Help support the research

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).

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".

These virtual bubbles appearing and disappearing in the

vacuum are quite real. The reactions of lots of them with
mass is what creates all the forces of the universe. Any
and every kind of force.

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), and (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 9x10exp16 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 9x10exp10 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 facinated 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,