From Tom Bearden 's recent correspondence section: (http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030206.htm)
Tony, (Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:27:07
We are just beginning again to rebuild another MEG demonstrator, for testing and then funding to complete the program.
We have a very hard year to a year and a half of work on the MEG, before it is out of engineering development and ready for production engineering. At that time, with successful conclusion of ED we will hopefully be in condition to place the system on the market.
From a recent correspondence between Tom Bearden and Leslie Pastor
(New Energy Congress) on the operation of the MEG and the diference with the Flynn Parallel Path
From: Leslie R. Pastor
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:05 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Are you familiar with Joseph Flynn's Device?
Good Evening Tom,
I came across http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology It appears to act somewhat like a transistor [excuse the analogy] with a small amount of energy quadrupling the gauss of the magnet...
Can you explain the differences between the MEG v. the Flynn Parallel Path Technology?
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
Reference is made to a MEG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electrical_Generator that claims to be yours.
But there appears to be a significant discrepency. Research: http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/joeflynn.pdf
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Flynn_Parallel_Path_principle_device http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Flynn_Parallel_Path_proof_sq_95x95.jpg
John Bedini's Website:
----------------Tom Bearden writes:
Yes, I did
get the E-mail and appreciate
your efforts and information.
device works on a totally different principle, and I wish them every
success with their patent(s)
and unit. A solution to the energy crisis is needed desperately,
by anyone who can help contribute to solving it and get overunity COP
units out there on the market and on site.
e.g., uses a novel materials
effect freely furnished by the nanocrystalline core and its structure
(some of them, not all of them!) wherein the B-flux curled portion of the
magnetic vector potential A is sharply localized inside the core (recall
that the B-field is merely the kurl of A, hence it is the curled component of A). Such localization
of the curled or “field” component of A, of course, is known as the
Aharonov-Bohm effect, whereby a curl-free magnetic vector potential then
freely appears OUTSIDE the core in space, where the B-field would normally
have appeared had its localization
So the MEG
has thus conditioned the IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING SPACE, so that
extra EM energy density has appeared OUTSIDE the core, in space itself but
in the form of the curl-free A potential energy. Since in general relativity
the increase in energy density in spacetime is a curvature
of spacetime a priori, then the MEG’s nanocrystalline core materials
have provided an extra EM ENERGY RESERVOIR in outside curved spacetime.
that this completely violates
the standard CEM/EE model, which arbitrarily assumes a flat
local spacetime and an inactive vacuum. In the MEG, the local spacetime is
curved and the local vacuum is now active (the virtual particle flux of
the outside spatial vacuum has
been altered). This violates
the standard assumed Lorentz asymmetry (more on that
later), which is necessary if
one would have a COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum system.
A-potential consists of two components: one curled and the other uncurled.
Usually the uncurled component is rather
much “hidden” by the curled component, and thus not usually considered.
Now note that,
in the AB effect, the uncurled A-potential extends from INSIDE the core on
out to the space outside. The AB effect only localizes the CURLED portion
(the B-field) of the total magnetic vector potential A.
when we perturb that B-flux
inside the core, an additional effect occurs. We also perturb the “inside
front end” of that curl-free A
potential component extending on out into the outside space, and that
perturbation of the inside end
of the uncurled A propagates
passes outside the core and on through the uncurled field-free A potential
in outside space. In short, that
part of the perturbation
travels outward outside the core and out into the surrounding uncurled A.
equation dA/dt = - E then tells
us what happens outside the
core. The perturbation
spreading radially outwards just outside the core, is a dA/dt perturbation
and that perturbation
is directed out and away from the MEG core. In the little formula the
resulting E field produced by that
spreading perturbation has a
negative sign on it, so the
E-field created in outside
space by that outward-traveling
uncurled A perturbation is
directed FROM THE OUTSIDE SPACE BACK INTO THE MEG CORE ETC.
that the magnitude of the – E
produced, is controlled by the sharpness of the rise time and decay time
on the input pulses the operator
feeds into the MEG’s normal input coil. One can easily produce sufficient
return voltage to destroy the insulation
on the windings on the coils. Every coil and every wire is now an “input
coil and input antenna” for the MEG’s receiving of that
returning E-field energy.
every wire or coil in the transformer section receives a part of that
E-field energy radiating back
into the transformer from space just outside the core, and each receiving
wire and coil also then re-radiates
energy to all the others. The result is a dense set of E-field signal
energies (in pulses form) but of varying phases.
adjust things (the method is proprietary!) so that
a reasonable “phase addition” condition exists in the dense signal
environment of the MEG. Once that
is done, the return energy received from the returning excess free
E-fields is largely coherent in the MEG. We then have the following situation:
the MEG acts in part as a very efficient standard
transformer, courtesy of its modern nanocrystalline core structure. With
the normal transformer part of its operation
alone, the MEG would get about 90% efficiency and – without any other
energy input – it would produce something like COP = 0.9.
But there is also a great
deal of extra, free EM energy coming into the MEG from the altered
spacetime outside the core, due to dA/dt = - E and the Aharonov-Bohm
effect. Indeed, there is easily more E-field energy coming back into the
MEG from the outside space, than the input energy we ourselves placed into
the “input” coil.
The MEG thus has TWO energy input reservoirs/sources: (a)
energy input by the operator
and paid for by him, and (b) lots of excess free environmental E-field
energy received from the altered external space and the perturbed AB
thermodynamic operation is now
similar to that of a common
home heat pump. The
of the home heat pump is only
about 50%, and so – if all its input energy were only what
the operator pays for and
furnishes – that would allow a
COP of only 0.5. But the heat
pump ALSO receives a lot of excess free heat
energy from its environment. It in fact receives so much extra free energy
from its environment that it
outputs three to four times as much useful energy and work as the operator
himself had to input and pay for. In short, its COP = 3.0 to 4.0, even
though its overall efficiency is always less than 100%.
Which is why we use home heat
pumps in the first place.
EFFICIENCY of the MEG is always less than 100%, because it rigorously
obeys the conservation of
energy. Total energy input to the MEG from all sources, minus total energy
dissipated in its losses, gives
the amount of usable energy or work output by the MEG. Since – contrary to
any ordinary transformer – the MEG receives an
extra, free, and appreciable
input of pulsed E-field energy from its environment, the MEG’s operation
is directly analogous to that
heat pump, and its COP is
permissibly COP > 1.0.
completely complies with physics and thermodynamics, but with the
nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
thermodynamics. That is, with
Prigogine’s thermodynamics of dissipative
note that certain areas and
effects have long been accepted and accounted in NESS thermodynamics,
which allow violation of the
second law of thermodynamics (i.e., allow the production of negative
entropy). Strong gradients (as used in the MEG in pulsing) and materials
memory (as exhibited by the materials
freely initiating the AB
effect) are two such recognized and proven areas. See
Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines
to Dissipative Structures, Wiley,
New York, 1998, reprinted
with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law are given
on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in the MEG) and another
is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core
materials and structure).
easily get the AB effect with a good toroidal coil, as is well known. But
there you have to PAY for it in terms of voltage x amperage.
that made the MEG possible was
our discovery that certain
nanocrystalline core materials
and construction then freely evoked the AB effect, and we did not have to
pay for it. Immediately that
tells us that we have a FREE
and extra EM energy reservoir in the MEG’s self-modified external
spacetime environment, and that
modified environment is feeding excess electrical energy right back into
the MEG for its use.
Now for the
rigor. In 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already-reduced
Heaviside equations (much
limited version of Maxwell’s theory) just to get still-simpler equations
that would be easier to solve
algebraically (thus eliminating
much of the labor of the numerical methods required so often). In short,
Lorentz thereby arbitrarily excluded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems!
And today’s CEM/EE model taught to and used by all our electrical
engineers is still that
horribly crippled old Lorentz symmetrical theory. Further, our engineers
are taught to build only systems that
self-enforce that same symmetry
(usually by leaving the source of potentialization
connected to its own external circuit as a load, while current is flowing.
Such a SYMMETRICAL system uses half its freely collected energy to do
nothing but destroy its own source dipolarity. Hence we have to keep
cranking the shaft of the generator,
NOT to power our external circuits, but to continue to forcibly restore that
dipolarity inside the generator
that the inane closed current
loop system (with source in the loop) keeps destroying faster than it
powers its loads.
In the hard
physics literature, rigorous
proof that eliminating
the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional
energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical
Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the
Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.
real systems can theoretically produce continuous negative
entropy is given by D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the
Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States,"
J. Stat. Phys.,
109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. With publication
in 2000 of our solution of the long-vexing source charge problem, we have
since nominated the lowly
charge and the dipole as the first known physical examples of that
permissible operation. Every
charge and every dipole already exhibits a steady and free outpouring of
real, usable, observable EM energy, with only a virtual state
fluctuation input of energy
from the vacuum. The source charge continually integrates
its absorbed virtual state
energy to the next quantum level, decaying abruptly and emitting a real
observable photon. The operation
iterates continually, so the
source charge is a Feynman ratchet
freely absorbing and integrating
virtual energy into the observable state,
and emitting it.
fields and potentials (and their energy) come from their source charges
and dipolarity. Contrary to CEM/EE, in modern physics the “isolated
charge” polarizes its surrounding vacuum. The charge is actually an
infinite bare charge (having infinite charge and infinite energy)
surrounded by an opposing charge in the virtual state
vacuum. This opposing charge is also infinite and has infinite energy. Our
instruments, peering through the external “screen” of the polarized
vacuum, see only the finite difference between these two infinite charges
– and that is the “classical value of the isolated charge” that all our
textbooks contain in electrical engineering. But one is actually dealing
with a dipolarity – opposite charges – and in 1957 Lee and Yang were
awarded the Nobel Prize for predicting broken symmetry in physics. One of
those broken symmetries is that
of opposite charges! In Feb. 1957 Wu and her colleagues experimentally
proved Lee and Yang’s prediction, and the revolution in physics due to
broken symmetry was so great that
with unprecedented speed the Royal Academy of Sweden awarded the Nobel
Prize to Lee and Yang – in December of the very same year, 1957!
As Lee puts
it, a broken symmetry (such as the common dipolarity) means that
“something virtual has become observable”. Hence their broken symmetry
solution actually includes the ability of the source charge (its
dipolarity, considering the polarized vacuum and the interaction between
that vacuum and the charge) to
continually consume positive entropy of the virtual state
fluctuations of vacuum,
coherently integrate them to
the observable excitation
level, and then re-emit that
energy as real, EM energy (real observable photons radiating
at light speed in all
So all EM
fields and potentials are actually ongoing flows of real EM energy, freely
extracted for us from the vacuum, by the source charge and dipolarity!
Actually Whittaker in 1903 and 1904 published two papers establishing that
any EM potential and field decomposes into sets of ongoing energy flows.
So the notion of “static” EM
fields and potentials must be altered to realize Van Flandern’s analogy.
“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the
term ‘static’. One meaning is
unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness
from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can
visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall.
A frozen waterfall is static
in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall
is static in the second sense.
Both are essentially the same
at every moment, yet the latter
has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities
…So are … fields for a rigid, stationary
source frozen, or are they continually regenerated?
Causality seems to require the latter.”
[Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What
the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998,
EM energy is free, free, free for the taking!
joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been extracted from the
seething vacuum by its associated
source charges. A charge, once assembled, will freely pour out real,
usable EM energy in all directions, forever, so long as we do not allow
the charge to be dissipated or
destroyed. And the charge and its input and output form an asymmetric
system – precisely of the kind so arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz and
still discarded by all our EE departments, professors, and textbooks.
is that we have all been deeply conditioned to consider, design, build,
and use only those symmetrical systems permitted by Lorentz. Solving the
energy crisis forever is merely a matter
of unleashing our sharp young university grad students on the problem in
this area. And in getting that
hoary old CEM/EE model – so long fouled – corrected so that
scientific ethics are again established and scientific truth is being
taught as best it is known.
together a listing of the major terrible falsities in the CEM/EE model
used in electrical engineering, in my paper
“Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model”.
Most of these falsities have previously been pointed out by eminent
scientists such as Nobelist Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau (a noted foundations
scientist), Bunge, and many others. But to no avail. The scientific
community is controlled by those controlling its funding. And those who
control that funding do not
wish to see the horrid old 1880s EE model upgraded and corrected.
leadership of the organized scientific community has not and will not
upgrade the electrical engineering departments, teachings, and texts.
Nature does not discard those
asymmetrical Maxwellian systems!
Else Lee and Yang could not have predicted the asymmetry of opposite
charges, and they would not have been awarded the Nobel Prize. So two
opposing charges separated a
bit, already comprise an asymmetrical EM system proving that
such do exist in nature and are
permitted in nature, whether or
not Lorentz preferred them or not.
discarded these asymmetrical “free energy” systems totally arbitrarily,
and all his followers continue to do so today. Every electrical
engineering department, most EE professors, and every EE textbook continue
to do so.
And in so
doing, they arbitrarily exclude the permissible asymmetrical Maxwellian
circuits and systems that could
otherwise receive excess free energy from the seething vacuum environment,
and then USE it to produce COP>1.0. Permitting and reinstituting these
discarded asymmetrical circuits and systems, of course, would quickly
resolve the world energy crisis forever.
for more than a century – starting with Stubblefield’s work and Tesla’s –
the powerful economic cartels who do not wish free energy (no meter on that,
can’t sell it, so it’s gotta go!) have suppressed all the inventors and
inventions that did succeed in
developing a prototype asymmetrical COP>1.0 system. Some were killed, some
were jailed, some disappeared, and some were just “parked” and then died,
so that the thing they had
discovered how to do died with them.
the NSF, NAS, NAE, DoE, and our universities would fund and release some
sharp young doctoral candidates
and young postdocs to work in this
energy from the vacuum (EFTV) via broken symmetry and asymmetric
Maxwellian systems area, then in two years there would
never again be an energy crisis anywhere in the world, in deep space, or
wherever. But as you can see, that
is apparently not going to happen. Presently any young student who tries
to address COP>1.0 EFTV electrical systems for his doctoral thesis or
postdoctoral work, is warned severely and then his career is simply
destroyed if he does not heed the warning. By a sheer miracle, I did get a
decent review of my paper, “Errors and Omissions …”, by the NSF, but
instead of taking my recommendation
that they pick up the
asymmetric CEM/EE baton and run
with it, they merely suggested I might wish to submit a proposal. I’m long
since out of the proposal business; I can stand only about two minutes,
walk only about 150 feet, etc. and I also care for my beloved wife 24/7,
since her stroke in 2003 and her congenital heart failure a few months
back. If it is going to be done and the energy crisis is to be solved
without wars and massive national
economic collapses in the Western World, it will have to be done by folks
like the young fellows coming along and by folks such as the Congress
members. My own race is already run; I just have to laboriously add a few
things to it in one more book or a few papers and that
will be that. I do wish to
spell out how to obtain and use negative
EM energy (dark energy) and Dirac sea hole currents (dark matter),
and will do so if I have sufficient time to finish that
book. Bedini has been using both of these in his circuits for some years.
The characteristics of negative
EM energy are particularly of interest; using that,
eventually one will be able to power
New York City from a single
flashlight battery, PLUS the
triggered extra huge inputs of free negative
energy from the environment. Bedini and I have also filed a provisional patent
application (PPA) on the
processes and techniques for evoking and using such energy flows in real
Moore and I
have filed a PPA (provisional patent
application) on an asymmetrical
process which, once developed, could be applied to most presently existing
electrical power plants to reduce their consumption of fuel or fuel cells
by about 75%, while continuing to maintain the full electric power output
of the generators. The
follow-on development about ten years from now would allow any power plant
with the process already installed, to cease all further burning of fuel
or consumption of nuclear fuel rods once the plant was up and running and
on line stably. The plant could continue to power its grid in its
fuel-free stance until necessary to shut the plant down for maintenance,
for an emergency, etc. But absolutely no one is interested, even though
the fundamental asymmetrical physics process it uses has been in the hard
physics literature since 1967,
and has been validated
experimentally many, many times as published in the hard literature.
I also know a few other inventors who have working overunity COP processes
and systems, who could be heading for market given funding and scientific
support. Instead, every kind of suppression known to man falls upon them.
Let me urge
the Congress to please, please look into the breadth of physics and not
just the very hoary old CEM/EE!!! Please look into higher group symmetry
electrodynamics (Yang-Mills theory, SU2 X SU2, O(3), etc.) that
have been developed in physics because the hoary old
Heaviside-Lorentz-Maxwell theory cannot and will not adequately
describe nature. As an example,
there are no force fields in space – which is completely contrary to
standard CEM/EE theory in university and the teaching of every EE
department. Instead, force and force fields only exist in matter
(and so EM force
only exists in charged
matter). The real force-free
(precursor) EM field in space is just a condition of space itself, as
pointed out by Nobelist Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics,
"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that
the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of
the most important characteristics of force is that
it has a material origin…"
[Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew
Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates
a "condition" in space, so that
when we put the negative charge
in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is
called an electric field."
[Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew
Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].
"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that
would be experienced
at the time t by a charge located
at (x, y, z), with the
condition that placing the
charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all
the other charges responsible for the fields."
[ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]
who is a hero of mine because of his clarity –
at least has the courage to
point out that EM force
requires interaction of field and charge, although he joins his colleagues
in not correcting it. Quoting:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that
the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that
physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product
of charge and field."
[J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley,
1975, p. 249].
is that the EM force-free field
exists in the vacuum, and physically measurable EM quantities such as
force involve the ongoing interaction between the precursor force-free EM
field and the charges.
CEM/EE has never rid itself of the hoary old material
ether, falsified in 1887. To this day, not a single
was ever changed to eliminate
the assumption of that material
ether, and both Faraday and Maxwell assumed one.)
field is created in and on
charged matter by the ongoing
interaction of the precursor “condition of space” field as was spelled out
In the MEG,
we stumbled our way into a bit of precursor engineering, via the free
Aharonov-Bohm effect that can
be evoked by certain nanocrystalline cores in layered form.
group has started rebuilding another MEG demonstrator
(the three we had have all been destroyed now). We will continue to try to
get the MEG finished in its Engineering Development (another year of very
hard work, once we get the required funding), and then get it into
production and onto the world market.
fairness, several other inventors also have legitimate
COP>1.0 devices, in one stage of development or another, and so if funding
attention were focused on these
areas and on those inventors, the energy crisis could indeed be resolved
forever – and cleanly and rather
cheaply, once the sunk development costs are eliminated.
One additional point. As you can see from the various participants in discussions and comments (even in the wikipedia comments etc.), most of them still do not know the difference between COP and efficiency. Nor do they understand what "energy from the vacuum (EFTV)" or "energy from curved spacetime" actually means.
Most refer to overunity system EFFICIENCY, which of course is a mistake. The thermodynamic efficiency of a system is never more than 100%, else one really would be creating energy from nothing and violating the first law of thermodynamics.
But if sufficient, extra, free environmental input of useful energy is also involved in the overall energy input to the machine, then that machine's COP is permitted to be greater than 1.0, even though the overall efficiency of the machine is still less than 100%. In our previous write-up to you we gave specific examples such as the common home heat pump, with its efficiency of only about 50%, but its COP = 3.0 to 4.0.
This is why Ken and I are working on the paper now, to straighten out such misconceptions and misunderstandings of basic thermodynamics. We hope to have the paper finished in a few days (more like two weeks), and then we will place it on my website, etc. and get you a copy also. It will have the simplified but very clear diagrams needed for understanding of the precise difference between COP and efficiency, with concrete and well-known system examples in ordinary systems (windmill driven power system, solar cell array power system, waterwheel-driven power system, home heat pump, sailboat, etc.).
Because of the thermodynamics involved, an EFTV researcher with a COP>1.0 system has to wrack his brains OUTSIDE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, going much farther and deeper into physics itself to find mechanisms that do allow excess energy input from the active vacuum environment. Since we are interested in EFTV systems, the researcher must (1) find known mechanisms that do violate EE and particularly violate Lorentz symmetry; i.e., they must be asymmetric EM systems, of the kind arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in 1892, and (2) insure that his instrumental measurements and experiments with his COP>1.0 device do strongly indicate or show that the asymmetric EFTV mechanism he has found as a candidate, is indeed occurring in his system's reaction with its local active vacuum/curved spacetime environment.
The very best thing I can do for a contribution to the overunity EFTV community is (1) help Ken finish that paper we are struggling with, and get it out there and available, and (2) then I must go into writing and completing the "Bare Bones Vacuum Energy" book I've outlined and will be working on.
Meanwhile, the old bod is slowly cranking down more and more, and it's getting increasingly harder to do things and get about physically. But we will continue as best we can until that book gets born. It is desperately needed and I will try to get it done even if all else fails.
The confusion of efficiency and COP is of course one of the errors that was often in my own thinking in the early years, until back there some time ago Gene Mallove set me on the correct course. Gene knew thermodynamics and understood what it took for overunity systems taking their excess energy freely from the vacuum environment. After his prompting, it took me two years of reading into fundamental thermo (particularly of nonequilibrium systems) before Gene's guidance set in for good, and I finally understood the exact difference between efficiency and COP, just as Gene had informed me.
So we want to get the information out there as simply as possible, with lots of diagrams etc., so the present young researchers will not have to spend so many years of their lives getting to that information. Hopefully we can lay it out for them very exactly and simply, and they can then understand and go get EFTV systems developed and born and on the world market.
We also have to lay out (in that same book) both positive energy and negative energy, the difference between using them for power, etc. Again, we will do that as part of our highest priority.
So it isn't going to be easy and I will be very slow, but I'll do my very best to get it done.
Very best wishes,