Text: Leslie R. Pastor posted for the NEC forum the following message from Tom Bearden: Les, The last working overunity MEG demonstrator (we originally had three) was destroyed - and yep, by an "EE". Let me give a simple analogy. A working model COP = infinity system is the common solar cell array powered electrical system, even though its efficiency may be only 21%. There the environmental source of energy is already understood, so one has no problem in accepting such a system, without all the usual stuff and nonsense about "perpetual motion machines" etc. In this area, the legitimate researchers are seeking merely to tap an additional though a bit unusual source of environmental energy - usable EM energy extracted from the seething virtual-state vacuum. The extraction and output of real usable EM energy is already done by every charge in the universe; but presently the exact mechanism by which the charge extracts all that energy (in a purely negative entropy operation) is not solved or understood. We have proposed a testable solution, but of course it remains to be established clearly by experimental demonstration and proof. Indeed, the experiments are already in the literature, if one knows where to look, but have not yet been "accepted". Nonetheless, we are very close to finalization of the needed funding agreement needed to get on with the MEG. That's the best way to go, because this particular funding group we will be working with is excellent, and we will also be working with an excellent university. Meanwhile, a word to the New Energy Congress. Your efforts are very necessary, and they are sorely needed! Please do not follow the trail of so many other organizations that have formed in the very loose-knit "free energy area" I've seen over the last 35 years. Most have just used and propagated standard electrical engineering concepts and jargon, set up "pundits" who pronounce without citations or real understanding of physics beyond EE, and to no avail. Most such organizations which originally were scientifically serious were also rather shortly penetrated and redirected by actual agents determined to keep such things forever off the market. Keeping most all the activity and discussions and orientations directly in the sad old EE model arena is the major method used to suppress nonequilibrium electrical power systems freely receiving and using excess energy from their vacuum environment. The Congress should be meticulous in how the area is viewed theoretically, and in the foundations experiments that are done and reported properly. In short, there are two main aspects of any new research project struggling with a "new phenomenology area". One aspect is in the theoretical foundations arena, and the other aspect is in the experimental phenomenology area. But in interpreting the phenomenology experiments, a blend of experiment and theory outside EE must always be used, else there is misdirection of the experimental phenomenology as claiming it is already something in EE that is well-understood. Some words in the theoretical foundations area: First, please, please promote extracting and stating the assumptions of a given theoretical model and then evaluating those assumptions in view of modern physics. We've seen almost none of that by the overunity community at large, particularly by those who set themselves up as "judges" of whether a proposed system is "valid". In this arena, anyone who is not discussing the specific foundations assumptions in the CEM/EE model isn't validly working in the overunity field, because that EE standard model absolutely prohibits extracting and using excess EM energy from the active vacuum/curved spacetime environment. Now, if something is possible after all, but the standard model forbids it, then obviously the standard model has some errors somewhere that must be found and corrected. And when one discusses one or more of the invalid assumptions found in the old model, it is important to give the technical citations where physicists have dealt with that, if they have. If it's already proven in the hard literature, so much the better. Another example is the source charge problem. Since all EM energy occurs as freely flowing streams of photons from their associated source charges, and there is no observable energy input into these charges, then this is the fundamental problem in overunity systems and in the entire area (and in fact, in all of electrodynamics). The lowly charge continually produces negative entropy, totally in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That violates all the CEM/EE model assumptions. So one has to be able to deal with the problem of a real system that produces continuous negative entropy. If one does not know that nonequilibrium thermodynamics already recognizes several areas that allow violation of the old second law at will, then one knows little or nothing of the basis for overunity systems taking their excess energy from the vacuum environment. Well, how many people in the overunity community have said anything at all regarding the source charge problem? How many have or are discussing the terrible known flaws in the CEM/EE model? How many have listed those flaws? Very, very few. Indeed, most of the community unfortunately doesn't know the precise difference between thermodynamic efficiency and thermodynamic coefficient of performance. They are two very, very different things, even when their numerical values are equal. So one of the things in the theoretical field that is required, is a very careful and deeply penetrating lexicon. In short, if we are ever to have a legitimate overunity field, we must have some sharp young fellows (preferably grad students working on their doctoral thesis and some young post docs) digging into these areas. In the absence of standard funding for such, it behooves the serious researchers in the overunity area to fill in the gap until the orthodox scientific community bends and gets on with it. And one must be very wary of the insidious errors planted in one's mind by the conventional EE education process. E.g., everyone talks about "drawing power from the source". Now put on a rigorous foundations hat and think about that stupid statement. Power is rigorously the time rate of performing work. Work is rigorously the change of form of energy (note how difficult it is to pull that rigorous definition out of the morass). Work and energy are totally different aspects: The amount of energy that is changed in form at some place, and in some way, is equal to the work done at that place, obviously. And since there will be a rate of doing that work (energy form changing) there, then there is a "power" being "produced" there. But not many of the overunity community clearly understands that only energy and energy flow are drawn (received) from the source, because "power" is the time-rate of changing the form of some energy, and so all power obviously occurs only at that place where the energy form is being changed (which produces what we call "work"). Further, there are absolutely no EM force fields in empty space - who says that? Feynman says so in his three volumes of sophomore physics, Wheeler says it, the foundations scientists such as Margenau say it, etc. So one must get away from the force fields (in charged matter) limitation since they are not the primary EM fields as produced in space. How many persons in the overunity field are tangling with that part of the overunity problem? Very few indeed. So since we are all embarked on a novel voyage demanding a new model to adequately explain and capture it, in the theoretical area we must struggle fiercely with foundations and the errors in the old 1880s foundations of the CEM/EE model we were and are all taught. Finally, one must range widely into modern physics (most of which was not even born yet when the old 1880s CEM/EE model was stuck together and finalized) to find the keys to how the present "electrical power model" errs and what changes must be made. Here one of the shocking things is that Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the equations circa 1892, thereby arbitrarily discarding all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. All the university EE departments, professors, and textbooks continue to arbitrarily symmetrize those equations and thereby arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems in nature. And here we are, in the overunity community, and we are actually seeking to build asymmetrical systems, which are the only kind that accept and freely use additional EM energy from the vacuum/spacetime environment. It means that our very first requirement is always how to break (and use the breakage) Lorentz symmetry so artificially imposed on the present EE model. Some words in the phenomenology area. Here one seeks careful measurements, and always a good knowledge of what is being measured. A couple examples will be given. Since we seek to violate the old second law of thermodynamics, then one real clue is to hold in mind those areas pointed out specifically by the nonequilibrium thermodynamicists that do allow such second law violation at will. Since one of these areas is sharp gradients (which are not well understood at all, either experimentally or theoretically), then in using sharp gradients and evaluating the resulting phenomenology that results, one must simultaneously (and theoretically) examine what a "sharp gradient of energy density" does across a small region of space/vacuum. One of the things one can likely and very easily get is a sharp lifting of electrons from the Dirac sea (made of holes filled with electrons), so that a surge of excess electron current momentarily occurs in the direction the current already was going before we attempted to change it with that sharp gradient. That electron current surge is detectable - e.g., in the magnetic Wankel engine's killing of its back mmf - and usually called the Lenz law effect. What is not known or usually examined experimentally is that the emptied holes can and often do exist for awhile, and they are negative-mass-energy electrons. (They are the so-called dark matter, being produced by sharp gradient processes in the cosmos, that the astrophysicists are so strongly pursuing and seeking). They move as a current in the opposite direction from the normal electrons. As source charges, these holes produce negative energy EM fields and potentials also - the so-called dark energy that the astrophysicists are so anxiously seeking. Hence the Sweet device, which produced mostly negative energy output and Dirac sea hole currents, could be "pushed" to produce practical antigravity on the bench. If one is not careful, one will use a symmetrical circuit so that these hole currents wind up back at the input section, thereby swallowing up many incoming electrons in the flow of current input by the external source of energy to the device. In the improper EE vernacular, the arriving holes "eat incoming power" (ugh!), so that electrons and holes combine to form just empty Dirac sea vacuum again. But that appears to the external source as an extra load directly in the input section, and it will wipe out the overunity operation (the asymmetry) one might otherwise obtain, since it re-symmetrizes the circuit. So anyone experimenting with sharp gradients can find them very useful, but one must be very cautious as to how he handles the grounding etc. Otherwise, the relatively unknown Dirac sea hole current will always wipe out his best efforts. Here the conventional literature also contains an assumption that is erroneous. It is widely assumed that a Dirac hole is a positron, which is absolutely false. The truth is that Dirac hated negative energy, and much of his work was an attempt to get rid of it. He failed, hence buried the negative energy in his Dirac sea hole. (As a source charge, the Dirac hole produces negative energy EM fields and potentials, while a positron produces positive energy EM fields and potentials). He steered physicists away from considering the negative energy and negative mass aspects, by pointing out that the hole will be filled or move away, leaving an excess positive charge in the lattice, which will be observed as a positron. That is not at all the hole which moved away or ate an electron from the Drude electron gas. As can be seen, the phenomenology experiments need much theoretical study outside normal EE, to even know and understand what is really occurring in some of the most useful but least understood phenomena. Those who wish to share and help their fellow researchers, and who strive mightily to understand such phenomenology from a more advanced physics standpoint than the EE model, should try to share it as straightforwardly as possible. And we wish to point out that there is a vast "extra" EM phenomenology in physics, scattered everywhere, that is beyond the old standard EE. Some of it deals directly with excess energy in or from the active environment - as does the Aharonov-Bohm effect used in the MEG. There are some 20,000 papers in the literature on the AB effect, its generalization to the Berry phase, and its further generalization to the geometric phase. Some of that vast literature - and all those experiments and the phenomenology - has to be understood by anyone who would build a MEG. In the MEG, one does not have to worry about the production and availability of excess energy from the uncurled A-potential in space just outside the B-field localization area. Indeed, one has to worry about the surplus of excess E-field energy that is received by dA/dt = - E , radiating into everything in the MEG from that surrounding environment once perturbed. This yields a great variety of multi-phase energy pulses input to the MEG, and re-radiated from point to point in the MEG itself. It is the control and additive synchronization of these excess free multi-phase signals that is the engineering research problem remaining. It is certainly doable, but developing it is very expensive, uses measurement equipment outside the normal EE category, and demands the use of some real AB specialists and specialists in the Russian system of control. It's a straightforward but highly expensive nonlinear R&D problem. Anyway, my hat is off to the fellows who try to organize all this "overunity" area - a field that is not yet a developed scientific field - and do it properly and scientifically. That is a formidable job in itself. But it is absolutely necessary, if we are to progress along a scientific road rather than "pronouncements" from self-appointed persons who never even cite (and appear not to have read) the physics literature, and who most often do not even know the difference between COP and efficiency. Very best wishes in all your stringent and laborious efforts, and may the Creator reward you with great success. The organization work is absolutely necessary, and it is very warming to see it starting and progressing. We really don't care who does it or who does it first, just as long as it gets done and into production, and out there on the world market. It will almost certainly only get done long after this old dog is dead and gone. But it is very important to give the best advice and insight possible to the young researchers coming along. Sincerely, Tom Bearden

See Also:

Source: