Tom Bearden - A Critical Examination of His Claims

Tom Bearden’s MEG device Randi’s info, the full Randi Bearden archive, and my info also info from Shawn about Bearden’s math. Note: all the main email lists about Bearden are carefully censored, the following is not: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nut_meg. 

The following is a post from Shawn about Bearden’s math

Tom Bearden is today known as the self styled expert on over-unity physics. That is to say, electrical systems that put more energy out than goes in. However, this position of pre-eminence, has been achieved not by the conventional means of publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, attending mainstream scientific conferences, or even providing working demonstrations, but rather by playing to the crank fringe audience on the internet, with a sustained and substantial publicity effort that now exceeds 10 years in duration.

What has made the rise of Mr Bearden possible, has been the general absence of critical discussion of his methods and concepts. This is not surprising, since Mr Bearden has consistently kept away from those who are qualified to evaluate his claims, and prefers instead to keep company only with those who are uncritical in accepting his statements of knowledge.

Hence, the purpose of this document, is for the first time, to undertake a critical evaluation of the claims made by T.E. Bearden, to place them in a context, and evaluate whether there is any intrinsic value in any of the work undertaken by Mr Bearden.

I want to state the amount of nonsensical material Mr Bearden has produced over the years is simply too enormous to possibly be covered, and I have had to leave out gems such as claims Tom Bearden has provided a physical mechanism for re-incarnation, among numerous other absurdities.

 

The Beginnings of the Bearden’s Over-Unity Career

Tom Bearden’s over-unity ‘career’ as such, seems to have begun in the late 1960s, when he apparently learned that the control circuitry in the Minuteman missile was over-unity. Supposedly the engineers had been told to pull out all the stops and produce the most efficient possible circuit, and eventually derived one that produced an excess of electrical energy. This excess energy was then removed from the circuit for the production version, and quietly covered up. There is no independent collaboration for this claim.

Another aspect of military research that appears to have sparked Tom’s fertile imagination, was the opinion popular among a certain segment of the CIA analysts in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that the Soviets had developed exotic particle bean weaponry based in part upon concepts and ideas Tesla had put forward later in his life. This appears to have led Tom towards the historical enigma of Nikola Tesla, as an avenue to over-unity, from which he developed the opinion that electromagnetic waves in fact have a ‘longitudinal’ transmission, the same as sound waves. This opinion is of course contrary to accepted scientific wisdom for the last 100 years.

Over this period, Tom appears to have put together a corpus of ideas and concepts about over-unity, many of them taken from friends and colleagues, and brought them together to form a new literature. The launch of this new literature began in the mid 1980s, with Tom doing one off small conferences, and trying to lecture and consult on his alleged expertise. At this time he was President and CEO of CTEC, Inc., supposedly a private R&D corporation, supposedly engaged in research on free energy devices, and the mechanisms for interaction of EM fields and radiation with biological systems.

The above formed the basis for what happened in the mid to late 1980s, that is to say Mr Bearden having assembled a body of information and concepts he considered to be of some inherent value, started trying to launch this material upon the world, trying to ‘get the message out.’ To this end, Tom quickly realized his best response, was always through the use of the alternative internet discussion groups that began to spring up in this period, as he was assured of star treatment from such organizations.

 

The Keelynet Period.

Keelynet started in 1988 as a private bulletin board system (bbs), but later moved onto the internet, where during the 1995-2000 period was highly influential, for a time. Run primarily by Jerry Decker, it adopted Tom Bearden, and consistently gave updates on Tom’s work, as well as giving priority to Tom’s work, above everyone else. Dissenting views were generally suppressed, and Mr Bearden enjoyed a honeymoon period of easy acceptance. In this period a variety of crackpot theories were put forward by Tom, that failed to receive the total derision they really deserved.

In so far as I can tell, the below was the first Bearden file to be uploaded to the Keelynet bbs system. In it, Bearden modestly claimed to have finally unified all the major forces of physical science, using an overlooked paper publish in 1903. While many would consider that kind of claim the high point of a career, for Tom it was only the beginning, as many other equally preposterous grand claims were shortly to follow.

‘ON A TESTABLE UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETICS,

GENERAL RELATIVITY, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

February 22, 1992, T.E. Bearden

Abstract

Unrecognised for what it was, in 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker (W) published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bi-directional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.’

Bearden went on to develop his grand unified theory of everything, and came to the considered opinion in Sweet3.asc that:

‘THIS "NUCLEUS AS A PUMPED PHASE CONJUGATE MIRROR" MECHANISM IS THE FUNDAMENTAL SECRET OF ALL LEGITIMATE OVER-UNITY DEVICES THAT TAP VACUUM ENERGY.’

Having thus successfully unified physical science, and released the underlying secret of all free energy physics, Bearden then released FREENRG1.ASC, dated March 12, 1993, in which he disclosed, for the very first time, the Final Secret of Free Energy. Yes, he had just given out the ‘fundamental’ secret of over-unity, and now it was the ‘final secret’ also!

'Abstract: Utilizing fundamental new definitions for energy, potential, and scalar potential, the mass of the atomicnucleus may be considered a powerful electrostatic scalar potential, referred to as the mass potential. The Whittaker EM biwave structure of the scalar potential then becomes a new and universal internal EM structure for mass, including the atomic nucleus. This structure can be directly manipulated electromagnetically, which allows direct EM alteration of the mass potential, and the nucleus itself. This totally new class of nuclear interactions is briefly explored, and several hypothesized mechanisms advanced for neutralizing or processing nuclear wastes.’

This paper was uncritically prefaced by the Keelyet thus:

‘We at Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet consider this to be one of the most important documents we have yet seen from Mr. Bearden.’

The paper contained a variety of bizarre claims, and the following are selected to give the reader an idea of the content of the paper. The way Mr Bearden assumes almost everything taught in standard textbooks is wrong, is among several points, highly amusing, and a fascinating insight into the mentality of the man:

‘Nearly everything fundamental that we've been taught about EM energy is wrong or incomplete. Even the definition of energy in physics is wrong.’

‘Energy is normally defined as "Energy is the capacity to do work." That's totally false.’

But the real guts of the paper, aside from the fact Tom claims he can now simply and easily deactivate radioactive materials, is Mr Bearden’s discovery of how one extracts large amounts of energy from the vacuum. The basic theory is that current is not required to extract electrical energy. That one can turn on a source, and recover energy without having to expend any energy.

The idea current flow is not required to gain energy is most certainly an interesting one, but is unlikely to win over many electrical engineers, for whom, the importance of current to power loads, is a fairly widely accepted concept. In optimizing for this non current form of energy extraction, Mr Bearden gives out a number of optimization details:

‘Most of these inventors got their successful effect (and possibly erratically) when they were struggling with inferior, usually old, usually corroded materials. Actually, the more inferior, the better. The more contaminated, the better!

The moment you wire up your circuit with good copper wire connected between the battery or primary source and any kind of load including the distributed circuitry loading itself, you can forget about over-unity!’

Essentially, Mr Bearden is arguing over-unity is only possible with antiquated second rate equipment, in poorly equipped labs. Any attempt to use modern scientific equipment, accurate sensors, proper wire, measuring apparatus, or other standard lab equipment, will ruin the effect. The reader is left to ponder the consequences of this, as Mr Bearden’s stubborn belief that functional modern equipment kills off over-unity performance, may have relevance in terms of understanding his later researches.

In the conclusion, we are offered another fascinating and at the same time highly disturbing insight into the mind of Tom Bearden. Now, keep in mind, the above paper was total nonsense. No working product, or anything even remotely resembling a working product was ever developed using it, however, Mr Bearden ends his paper thus:

‘Well, there you have it. I've given you the benefit of what required most of my adult life to discover. The definitions advanced in this paper are rigorous. It took years of sweat and tears to come up with them. They're simple, but they will change your entire understanding of electromagnetics, power, and energy once you grasp them. Please read them, and ponder them, several times. One or two readings will not be sufficient to fully grasp what is said here.

Also, hopefully by this time the reader is beginning to experience the same emotions as I experienced when I finally discovered how simple it all really was. First one wants to laugh for about two hours at how truly ignorant we've all been. Then one wants to cry for about two hours for the same reason. This could all have been done a century ago, if we had ever really understood electromagnetics.’

It is hard to avoid any other conclusion, except that this man is almost certainly delusional, and quite possibly bipolar. That is to say, is prone to moods of depression and elation, in equal measure. For good measure, a follow up paper was promised, in which Mr Bearden modestly proposed, having solved the riddle of how to extract unlimited amounts of energy from the vacuum, and deactivate radioactive materials, and successfully unified physics, he would also solve the problem of cancer once and for all.

‘The paper will also present an entirely new definition of cancer, give its exact long-term cumulative mechanism, and give an exact, scientifically proven mechanism for eliminating cancer, leukemia, and other debilitating diseases such as AIDS.’

So far as I am aware, despite the fact Tom Bearden figured out all the details of how cancers form and can be treated over 10 years ago, the condition remains a significant medical challenge, and no medical apparatus has ever been developed using any of his theories.

 

On Trying to Reason With Tom Bearden

POLARIZE.ASC By Rick Andersen, April 5, 1993

The distinguished Mr Anderson was to the early Bearden publicity attempts, what Shawn Bishop was to the MEG. Thorough, thoughtful, and probing. He wrote a file about his experiences of dealing with Mr Bearden, that for some strange reason, was actually uploaded to the Keelynet archives. Since the file was freely released into the public domain, I can do no better, that quote some of Mr Anderson’s comments, probing the claims being made by Mr Bearden in the period in question as fact, that contrary to the taught scientific wisdom of the last 100 years, electromagnetic waves were in fact longitudinally transmitted, in exactly the same fashion as sound waves. As late as 2002, Mr Bearden continued to repeat these claims on his website - they have never been retracted. Please note, in the following 10 years since Mr Bearden claimed electromagnetic waves are identical to sound waves, no evidence whatsoever has been found to support this quackery. The idea electromagnetic forces are akin to sound waves, is nonsense now, as it was nonsense then, as it was known to be over 100 years ago.

I noticed that he tended to talk so much that it was sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise …… A few days later I decided to press my luck and call again. This time I had been thinking hard (I thought) on just how and why we traditionally believe in the transverse EM wave, whereas Bearden and Tesla say, no, there is only a longitudinal wave in the vacuum.

Specifically, I was thinking about polarization in an EM wave. How does Bearden's Scalar EM account for the observation that EM waves can be polarized, if polarization is due to the orientation of the E field which Bearden denies even exists outside your antenna? I wanted an honest answer to this problem; I was not pursuing this with an ulterior motive, such as to disprove Bearden. Not at all. I really wanted to understand. Remember, our model must satisfactorily account for all observed phenomena. If another model can explain it better, then "more power to it!" But any Ham radio operator can verify the fact that something we call polarization does indeed affect the transmission and reception of EM waves.

WHY DOES THE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION OF THE RECEIVING ANTENNA WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, AFFECT THE RECEPTION OF THE TRANSMITTED SIGNAL AT ALL? A longitudinally oriented wave CONTAINS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD "TELL" THE RECEIVING ANTENNA THAT IT OUGHT TO BE ORIENTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, yet that is precisely what we find in the real world! Does Tom Bearden deny this?

About 3 days later, feeling just a little bit like a pest, I dialed Bearden's number again on Sunday evening, April 4th. Bearden answered the phone. As politely as I could, I announced who I was, and that I just had one more question that I needed help with, and that I'd promise not to call too often after that. Not that Bearden had indicated that I was becoming a nuisance; just that I'd talked to him for a half-hour the previous week, and maybe three days after that, I'd called him again, only to have him tell me he was too busy to talk - he was in a meeting at the moment. So here I thought I'd try one more time on this fine Sunday evening to ask Tom Bearden how he would reconcile the phenomenon of radio wave polarization with his view of a solely longitudinal wave propagation through the "vacuum" between a standard radio transmitter and receiver.

Bearden began by asking me if I knew what Newton's Third Law was. I answered that I thought it was the 'action-reaction' law, which he agreed that it was. He then began saying that the present electromagnetics is flawed because it violates that Newtonian law. That we do detect transverse waves, but only in the electron gas of our antennnas and instrument probes. That 'not one of the equations attributed to Maxwell were actually written by him' etc., etc. Having read three of his books and all of his papers as downloaded from the BBS's, I'd heard these phrases many times before. I understood the phrases. Bearden knew who I was by now, and therefore didn't need to keep parroting them every time we talked. What I wanted to know was, how does the longitudinal propagation theory account for the known fact that EM waves are polarized one way or another, and so your receiving antenna's polarization (or, ORIENTATION) must match that of the transmitter for optimum reception.

That's all I wanted to know. I just wanted Bearden to explain polarization in terms of his longitudinal model. Evidently I pissed him off. He told me that I was just regurgitating what "they" had taught me in the standard electromagnetics courses. That I shouldn't believe them. That I should read and re-read his books to get straightened out on these points.

I felt he was evading my question. I was asking about polarization. If he didn't know the answer, or if he hadn't considered the question before, or even if he didn't feel like talking to me about it, he could have politely told me so. I would have accepted that. Everyone who has a theory is allowed to develop it. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Next, Tom Bearden was attempting to tell me that polarization itself was "a bunch of bullshit"! Trying to get a word in edgewise, while trying to remain polite (after all, I was making the phone call, intruding on his time), I reminded him that his books didn't deal with polarization. He said he didn't have to, because it was all bullshit. That I needed to think (emphasis his), and that if I were really paying attention to what he was saying, I would understand and wouldn't be asking these illogical questions!

Still hearing no attempt to answer my question about polarization, I tried to define what I meant by it. I tried to use the illustration of a TV station, whose antenna is usually horizontally polarized -- and thus your home TV antenna on your roof is also horizontally polarized. But Bearden doesn't let you finish most of your sentences. Instead, he is parroting more phrases such as you find throughout his books.

By this point, he was actually telling me that, sorry, but when a caller such as myself constantly repeats the same question over and over, or from a different angle, then he must get tough with the caller and tell him point blank that his questions are bullshit questions. And that I was not going to get him to 'ADMIT' to there being such a thing as wave polarization, as if doing so was to 'surrender' to those people who hold to the transverse EM wave theory. God forbid!

Now I was beginning to wonder if this guy was paranoid. I thought of ufologist Jacques Vallee who would try and try to ask simple, polite but firm questions of people like Bill Cooper or Bob Lazar. When they would begin to squirm, he would press them just a little bit more. Not to be an S.O.B., just to cut through the fluff and get to see if there was really anything to the whole thing. Vallee recounts how he would sometimes be accused afterwards, of working for the CIA or some other "government" group hated by the UFO 'true believers'.

So now, here I was, being informed by Tom Bearden that I was attempting to get him to 'admit' to a 'doctrine' of classical EM, which he would not. I was a Roman Catholic Inquisitor trying to get Galileo to recant his position and admit that the heavens do revolve around a stationary earth. No way!

Feeling exasperated, I paused for a moment. Bearden paused, too. I then said, "Mr. Bearden, I am not trying to get you to 'admit' anything. I'm just trying to understand how to fit polarization into your longitudinal view..." "It's NOT just my view. Nikola Tesla himself held to 'sound waves' in the ether..."

"I didn't mean that it was just YOUR view, Mr. Bearden..."

"It is the CORRECT view..."

Now I was thinking of my boss at work. He never lets me finish what

I'm saying, either. Finally I asked him, "Mr. Bearden, may I make a request of you then? In your future writings, would you please at least address this problem of how polarization is explained in the longitudinal model..." "No I will NOT!" Bearden said with some conviction. "I get letters all the time from people with fifty questions and who want all their questions answered..."

I interrupted him this time: "Yes, and when you go public as you have and write books that challenge the present 'system,' and encourage a new generation of bright young physicists to embrace this Scalar EM and thereby "overturn the present Physics", you had better expect to answer some questions to back up your assertion when people call or write, asking for more detail..."

He told me once more to read his books again, because he would not answer anyone's questions if (like mine) they were repetitions of an illogical question to begin with. There was no more to be gained by pressing this conversation. I said, with a sigh, "Thank you for your help, Mr. Bearden", and hung up the phone.

Obviously, I won't be 'pestering' the honorable Mr. Tom Bearden with my silly phone calls again, unless he decides to lower himself down to my humble intellectual level and, in his great mercy, throw me but a crumb from the table on which sits the bounteous feast of Beardenian Electromagnetics.

 

How the Russians Keep Shooting Down the Space Shuttle

Bearden claimed the Russians shot down the space shuttle in both instances, 1986 and 2003. It has almost become a tradition now. Any kind of accident, and 'its them darn Ruskies.' Nothing whatsoever to do with frozen 'o' rings, debris at launch damaging heat tiles, or anything like that.  My favorite extract is this one:

'… At the time of the launch, anomalous electromagnetic phenomena occurred in nearby restaurants '

Like what? Spoon bending? So Bearden was having bacon and eggs in a cheap diner, and his spoon bent while he was eating or something, therefore, the Russians shot down the space shuttle? You can not physically write material this absurd.

 

The Tom Bearden Website

Historical Background of Scalar EM Weapons

Beyond any doubt the Soviets destroyed the Challenger, and killed the seven brave astronauts aboard the spaceship.

 

The Fake Ph.D - Anonymous Source, Posted by Eric Krieg

Based on his own e-mail and the time frame (around 1999 to 2000) when he began claiming a Ph.D., Tom Bearden apparently received (or more accurately purchased) his bogus Ph.D. degree from Trinity College and university in the U.K. Until April 2000, you could find this diploma mill at http://www.trinityuni.org, after which it vanished from the web. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine web archive (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.trinityuni.org) still contains the old web pages from Trinity College and University.

Looking at the home page on the Sept. 1, 1999 archive you can plainly see the statement "Degrees awarded based on prior experience and learning" for www.trinityuni.org. Clicking on the "Contact Us" button brings you to a page pointing to phone numbers and addresses in the U.K.

After April 10, 2000, Trinity College and University apparently "vanished" from the U.K. However, for more than a year afterwards the old web site redirected visitors to www.internetuniversity.cc, a site that sells pre-packaged e-learning courses under the name of Degree Consultants, Inc.

Now it gets interesting. Who is the registrant for internetuniversity.cc? It turns out to be:

Albert Wainright
2601 S. Minnesota Ave
Suite 105-103
Sioux Falls, SD 57105
US
605-330-8622
Email: albert@predacon.com

And just where is Mr. Wainright's address in Sioux Fall, SD? It turns out to be Mail Boxes, Etc., Store #2125 (www.mbe.com).

Apparently Mr. Wainright has decided to concentrate his current efforts in the U.S., because in 1999 a "new" version of Trinity College and University appeared at www.trinity-college.edu. Again, this new "university" promises "college credit for what you know." And who is the registrant for www.trinity-college.edu?

Registrant:
Trinity College & University
2601 S. Minnesota Ave. Suite 105-103
Sioux Falls, SD 57105
UNITED STATES

(That's one busy Mail Boxes, Etc., isn't it?)

Administrative Contact:
Albert Wainright
Private
PO Box 7743
Delray Beach, FL 33482
UNITED STATES

(561) 736-2963
albert@predacon.com

Note that the "new" Trinity College and University has branches (i.e. P.O. boxes) in Pakistan, Venezuela, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Jordan, and Lebanon. Apparently they do a booming business selling fake degrees to people throughout the world. According to sources I've read, the U.K. address was just another P.O. box placed in Great Britain in order to take advantage of possible confusion between their diploma mill and Cambridge University's Trinity College.

Below are a few other web sites that discuss famous diploma mills, and cite Trinity College and University as a classic example.

www.degree.net (An authoritative web site on distance education. You can find all sorts of gems about Trinity College and University here.)

www.degreefinders.com/news.html (There's a link to a Trinity "graduate" who posted his 4,224 word doctoral dissertation on the web. Unfortunately, the dissertation now seems to be gone.)

http://www.adn.com/24hour/nation/story/600189p-4642228c.html

http://courses.dsu.edu/cet749/unit3.htm (This story tells how South Dakota became a haven for diploma mills, and how Trinity College and University created its own accreditation agency to make itself look more legitimate.)

http://www.thisismoney.com/20011125/si40887.html (This article discusses the original Trinity College and University in the U.K. before it was shut down.)

Finally, it's important to note that many legitimate universities have the word "Trinity" in their names. Legitimate Ph.D. degrees granted by such institutions require actual graduate course credits, at least one year of residency at the university itself, and an oral defense of a dissertation in front of a qualified faculty examination committee. On the other hand, there isn't a legitimate university in the U.S. or the U.K. that will give a person a doctorate based on "lifetime achievement" and the submission of a dissertation by mail, particularly when that person doesn't even live in the same country!

 

An Actual Solicitation Received by Email

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:40 AM

Subject: Life experience earns your degree!

U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A ' S

Obtain a prosperous future, money earning power, and the admiration of all.

Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities based on your present knowledge and life experience.

No required tests, classes, books, or interviews.

Bachelors, masters, MBA, and doctorate (PhD) diplomas available in the field of your choice.

No one is turned down.

Confidentiality assured.

CALL NOW to receive your diploma within days!!!

1-773-604-1999

Call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including Sundays and holidays -

 

The Motionless Electric Generator (MEG)

Post Mortem Analysis

The forum Bearden choose to disclose his device was JLN labs. A well known internet website, run by Jean Louis Naudin. As the most popular over-unity website, it was a logical choice. But Mr Bearden was not trying to be charitable by this act, in fact it was all part of a carefully calculated hype campaign, spanning multiple media outlets, designed to enable Mr Bearden to win massive venture capital backing for the ‘MEG,’ so that research could be taken up to the next level. In this respect at least, Mr Bearden appears to have been extremely successful, and did indeed win millions of dollars of funding, to launch a multinational research effort, that in time, truly spanned the globe. His every wish was granted, and the MEG team had at a their disposal, all the funds the could reasonably have wished for. In this respect, it is impossible to claim the device was ‘suppressed.’

 

JLN MEG 3.0 Data - Declared by Tom Bearden to be an Authentic Replication

'a "conditionned" RLoad (100 Kohms, non inductive carbon, 5Watts) or a MOV (Metal Oxide Varistor) is REQUIRED for getting the output datas measured above,

- the working frequency and the output voltage must be high ( about 20kHz and >1KV peak-to-peak loaded) ,'

Comments: MEG 2.1 is the proper authentic ‘Bearden’ type MEG. We seen a 100 Kohm resistor introduced on the output windings, and an absurd number of turns continue to be used on the output windings. The result of the conditioned resistor, is the efficiency moving from 175%, up to a claimed 700%. However, a simple analysis shows this claim to be nothing but a basic measuring error.

 

Power Calculations - A Basic Guide

Power calculations were worked out in the 19th century, and are today understood by most reasonably capable schoolboys. The basic equations are as follows:

(1) V = IR

Ohm’s law - one of the most basic laws of electrical science.

Power calculations are not much more complicated:

2) P = VI (rate of electrical energy transfer)

P = V2 / R = I2R (resistive dissipation)

There are certain special case scenarios for these equations, and for alternating current circuits, we need to know the average power output over a single cycle, where voltage is constant but current alternates. This involves the following simple modification to the above equation:

(3) Pave = V (I0/Ö2)

If voltage output is sinusoidal, its average value over a cycle is V0/Ö2. Inserting this derived value into equation 2, gives the following result:

(4) Pave = V20 / 2R

If both voltage and current are sinusoids, then average power over a single cycle is thus:

(5) Pave = (V0 / Ö2) (I0 / Ö2) = V0I0 / 2

Now armed with basic 19th century electrical science, let us examine the MEG data, a claimed exotic scalar wave vacuum energy pumping system.

 

MEG 3.0 Data

Input: The given oscilloscope charts suggest a constant input voltage of 28v. The current is ac, whose amplitude I0 is about 0.125 A.

Output: Sinusoidal 500v (peak to peak divided by two), 0.044 A.

Since the input is ac, we need to select equation 3, to learn the net power input:

(3) Pave = V (I0/Ö2)

Pin = 28 x 0.125 /Ö2

= 2.47 Watts

Since the output is voltage sinusoidal, we require equation 4. The only points to note, are that it was measured across a 100 kohm resistor, and this must be allowed for in the calculation, and secondly, there are two output coils, so the final result should be doubled.

(4) Pave = V20 / 2R

Pout = 5002 / 2 * 1000000

= 1.25 Watts

= 2.50 Watts

Final efficiency calculation for MEG 3.0

= 2.50 / 2.47

= 101%

Some people have questioned Shawn Bishop's analysis on the basis of the claimed 'exotic' properties of the 'conditioned' resistor. 

Shawn Bishop has replied on this subject thus:


'I received this from Mark, and thought I would share it with the group. When I read the section where Mark describes the "bad connection", I was remined of Tim Harwood's expose of Bearden's admonishments that old corroded equipment is better suited for getting OU results! Little wonder! --Shawn

Hi Shawn:

I see that now the jeebers are leaning heavily on the "conditioned" resistor red herring. Although Naudin's page on this "conditioning" seems to have gone where the woodbine twineth, I remember enough about it to have some ideas about what's going on in this particular form of component abuse.

The salient points are:

1. It is done by zapping a high-frequency electric arc to one lead of the 100k 1W resistor.

2. When completed, the static resistance as read on a digital VOM is increased to around 300k or so.

3. The resistor gets hot enough to discolor the yellow color code  band.

While it was impossible from the description to tell if this process passes enough current through the resistor to over-dissipate it, I suspect that this is what's going on:

An electric arc is a pretty hot thing- as any welder will tell you. I once built a cigarette lighter from a 15kV neon sign transformer- when it was energized, an arc about 1/2" long jumped between two wire electrodes which was more than hot enough to ignite a cig, or other flammable material held in the arc.

So, my hypothesis is that:

The arc heats the resistor lead wire which forms one of the  electrodes. The lead wire conducts heat up to the body of the resistor, where it  damages the connection between the lead and the resistive element. This poor connection is why a digital VOM shows an increase in resistance.

Bad connections are strange and nonlinear things. A semi-broken connection, such as (in my experience) a worn, oxidized or contaminated switch or relay contact, or a cracked solder joint, can behave like a high resistance or an open circuit, until a high enough voltage stress is applied across it. It can then "break over" and start conducting normally. This condition might last only until the current is interrupted, when the whole process beginsagain (like the behavior of a gas discharge lamp) or it can last for hours. I once had to deal with a recording console module which would refuse to pass signal until the input signal voltage was increased to a certain point, when it would suddenly start working normally and continue to do so for the rest of the day. This made troubleshooting very frustrating, since the transient voltages produced by pulling the module and then powering it up on a bench test jig were enough to kick it into normal operation. I eventually found the problem by inspecting every solder joint in the thing with a magnifier until I found a cracked one.

I've seen this kind of behavior enough that I now recognize the characteristic sound of a bad switch or solder joint right off the bat.

Digital VOMs in ohmmeter mode generally apply only a very low (typically 0.2VDC maximum) voltage across the device under test. This is intended to allow in-circuit measurements to be made without errors caused by semiconductors in the circuit providing parallel current paths (0.2V is not enough to forward-bias a Ge or Si P-N junction into conduction).

Consequently, it's possible for the "conditioned" resistor to read 300k or more on a DVM which doesn't stress the bad connection enough to break it over, but when hit with the high voltages present in the MEG output circuit the connection gives way and the "conditioned" resistor reverts to behaving as a normal 100k.

There's no reason to expect this "conditioning" to significantly increase the reactive component of the resistor's AC impedance, save in the area near zero volts where the connection is still behaving as a high resistance or open circuit. Broken connections and wires do exhibit capacitance across the break, a fact which adds another item to the Master Audio Geek's bag of troubleshooting tools.

A V-I plot of a "conditioned" resistor ought to settle the hash of its behavior once and for all. Since the maximum effective (RMS) voltage one can apply across a 1W 100k without exceeding its dissipation limit is about 316V, a meaningful plot ought to be done up to a peak voltage of 450V, along with one using a peak voltage of only, say, 10V or so, to show the details near the zero-crossing. Both could easily be done using a transistor curvetracer.

In fact, Naudin's own rig could have been used to do the high-voltage curve, simply by putting the scope in X-Y mode and using one channel to measure voltage across the MEG secondary with the other measuring voltage across a low-value current-sampling resistor.

What output voltage and current traces he has published show (if his current measurements are accurate, which is very unlikely) a load which behaves like a resistor having a value of around 10k and no appreciable reactive component. There also doesn't seem to be any major nonlinearity reflected in these traces- if there were there would be visible distortion of the voltage and current waveforms with respect to each other, while both are visually clean sine waves, save for some switching transients coupled to the secondary by stray capacitance. To a practiced eye (and after 20 years of doing performance measurements on pro audio equipment my eye is VERY practiced), enough nonlinearity to produce 10% total harmonic distortion is visible, and this is not seen in Naudin's scope  captures. If there is nonlinearity in the "conditioned" resistor's V-I curve, it's hidden near the zero-crossings and would  require "zooming-in" to see.

Dobbs-on-a-stick, this stuff @#$%es me off. Had I the means, I should absolutely love to fly to France, sharpen my elbows, clear some space at Naudin's workbench and, in the words of the immortal Frank  Zappa, "took it all away from him, and showed him how to do it right".

I hope you'll forgive the length of this rant.

Regards,

Mark

 

Conclusions

It is obvious Tom Bearden, JLN, and everyone involved in the MEG project, do not understand basic textbook physics. This is not especially surprising, when one considers Tom Bearden has repeatedly stated everything in standard textbooks is wrong. But without any real understanding of how to perform basic power calculations, the MEG project was essentially flying ‘blind.’ Quite literally millions of dollars were spent following flawed optimisation strategies, borne of simple measuring errors.

If there is any argument about this fact, the clearest indication that this is true, is that by his own admission, JLN was unable to close the loop. If the real output as claimed exceeded input by a factor of 7, then closing the loop ought to have been fairly simple, even with step down transformer losses accepted. The economical charging of quality lead acid batteries is not especially difficult for anyone trained in the scientific method, and this was clearly not possible. So experimental fact, would appear to validate the theoretical analysis presented.

I want to kindly thank Shawn Bishop for making these issues clear, and taking the time to release a pdf document, summarizing the basic errors in the Bearden / JLN labs research claims. It is sad, but not entirely surprising, that millions of dollars were raised, articles accepted for publication in the peer reviewed literature, all on the basis of simple measuring errors, that were obvious all along for anyone who could be bothered to inspect the data presented.

 

The 'Peer Reviewed' MEG Papers

Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics
Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001

Explanation of the Moionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sach's Theory of Electrodynamics
Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001

I've been trying to email some of the people named on those papers as 'authors,' and of only two presently valid email addresses I could find, one of the claimed 'authors' of the paper replied the following, which is given to the public as an authorized statement on the matter:

'Dear Tim Harwood,

As for the MEG thing, I have had a hard time living that one down. Before the disastrous paper on MEG was published I had continualarguments with Tom Bearden over the physics claimed to operate with it. The physics is just completely wrong. I requested that my name not be included in any paper intended for publication on this stuff. I was later informed that I was included in the paper and that it had been published. I probably should have written a retraction of it, but never got around to it.

Myron Evans brought him into the AIAS group and within a short period of time it was clear to me that there were serious problems with his ideas about physics. I will also state that Dr. Evans has also taken things in spurious directions as well. I am no longer active in these areas of research.

The initial idea of the nonabelian electrodynamics is basically phenomenological. It is a useful device for deriving equations fornonlinear optics with photon bunching and solitons. It also has some connections to squeezed states of the vacuum and other matters.However, in the last few years the trajectory for these ideas has gone into territory that I find at best highly problematic.

I never supported Bearden's physics, and in fact had arguments with  him over his ideas. His idea with the the over unity circuit is an inverse resistor, which apparently is a device that converts ambient  heat or vacuum energy into an electrical current. This is clearly wrong. Bearden also claims that vacuum energy is obtained by an  electric dipole, since the field has to propagate outward in space. First off this is clearly wrong since the energy in the field that defines the dipole is from the energy input to set up the dipole. I also mentioned to him that the dominant mode of photon production by excited atoms are dipole transitions. Thus if he were right every atom in the universe would be spewing out photons endlessly. Bearden has a litany of spurious claims.

I think that I need to set the record straight on a lot of this. It is amazing how much damage somebody like Bearden can cause. I have for some time distanced myself from the electromagnetic claims by the 
AIAS.

Best,

Lawrence B. Crowell'

Brief Summary of Research Claims Made by Tom Bearden

·         He revealed the ‘fundamental’ secret of over-unity

·         He revealed the ‘final secret’ of free energy

·         He unified physics

·         He cured cancer

·         He proved electromagnetism is a longitudinal sound wave phenomena

·         He proved all the fundamentals of modern EM theory are wrong

·         He proved only ‘corroded’ or ‘contaminated’ materials are suitable for over-unity research 

·         He demonstrated good quality modern lab equipment destroys over-unity effects

·         He invented a device that outputs 7-100 times input power, that on closer inspection, did no such thing

·         He deserves ‘more than a Nobel prize’ for his work listed above

While one could go on, that represents a considerable list of claims for any one man to make, over a period of just a few years. Most especially when one considers, there is no real experimental data to back up any of those claims, and a mass of data to suggest he is wrong. What type of person makes such claims, over an extended period of time?

The Following is a Reply From Tom Bearden to the Above:

'Dear Mr. Harwood,

You continue to reveal yourself for the weasel you are.

I never heard of you until you started a hate campaign and cur dog attack on me. So don't pose as any kind of reasonable human being; you're not.

Apparently you are unaware, or choose to be blithely ignorant of the fact, that elementary "inverted circuits" have long been known and used in certain amplifier circuits and elsewhere, fairly widely. Are you capable of doing a simple Google search on the web for that term? And now you are taking credit for all that? I'm sure the audio engineers of the last three or four decades will be happy to learn they were infringing on your important work before you even did it. Bedini and other audio engineers have been using inverted circuits for more than 25 years. Where were your inverted circuits in 1978, when Bedini was using them in successful COP>1.0 EM systems and in his audio amplifiers, openly sold on the commercial market? And so were other audio engineers and engineers in many other fields.

Besides, the puerile thing you consider an "inverted circuit" is not at all what we are talking about. If you really knew what an inverted circuit was, then where is your discussion of the Heaviside energy flow component, shown in the 1880s and then arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in the 1890s? My, my, I did not realize you were alive and inventing before Oliver Heaviside, and that he must have stolen his novel energy flow theory from you, way back there in the 1880s,and that he was guilty of plagiarism from you in his publications in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London and elsewhere. And you convenientlym (sic) seem not to understand or mention that there have been patents in this area since the 1880s and 1890s, some of it preceding Tesla's work. You seem to completely deny Stubblefield's work, and would imply that he "ripped you and your great discovery" off, way back there. My goodness, EVERYBODY seems to have ripped off whatever they knew and did, from you, the self-proclaimed fount of all wisdom. If you have done such things for so long, you really should shareyour (sic) secret of such astounding longevity.

Hopefully even you might be able to understand that I worked for more than 8 years with Floyd Sweet, who had an inverted circuit and device par excellent. And his device outputted mostly negative EM energy -- which you prattle about, but do not know what it really is. Again, where was your own negative energy and inverted circuit effort in the early 1980s? How many successful antigravity experiments did you design back then, using that negative energy and very highCOP (sic)? I designed the successful antigravity experiment that Sweet did, and personally wrote the paper that we published on it in a formal proceedings. And I put Sweet's name first, because he was the inventor of the vacuum triode amplifier. Long before you were active and knew anything about anything.

As long as you are the conniving weasel and liar that you are, then please do not further contact me. Go peddle your poison somewhere else. Either do something on your own, with viable experiments, and patent it, develop it, and market it, or just shut up and go prattle your idiocy somewhere else.

Tom Bearden'

 

Tim's Response to the Above

'So the man is copycatting my work, intends to sell a book about my work, make money off my work, and for objecting to this fact, I am a liar, fraudster, weasel, jerk, asshole, etc, etc, spreading poison. As Eric says, it's the messiah complex. Bearden really does think he is God. As such, he can do anything the hell he wants. It's just too pathetic for words, really.'

 

The following is also from Tim:


Bearden's extreme arrogance about the MEG device, is all the more remarkable, when one examines the history of flux core research, and his lack of honestly when declaring prior art. Under patent office guidelines, certain procedures must be properly followed:

'This section should also contain a description of information known to you, including references to specific documents, which are related to your invention. It should contain, if applicable, references to specific problems involved in the prior art (or state of technology) which your invention is drawn toward. In the past, this section may have been titled "Description of the Related Art" or "Description of Prior Art." '

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utility.htm

Bearden knows all about Joe Flynn - we can prove this, he has openly referred to Joe Flynn in the recent past on a number of occasions. Joe Flynn was also granted a patent for the 'MEG' as a minor subsection of his comprehensive 6,246,561 flux core US patent - see the 'Power Conversion' section. The Flynn patent is the most comprehensive and important flux core prior art in the whole American patent database, yet Bearden refuses to openly reference it.

http://www.flynnresearch.net/our_patent.htm


If Bearden wants to file supplemental patents for the MEG, as he claims, he has two main choices.

  1. Admit Joe Flynn holds the patent rights to the MEG
  2. Lie to the American patent office, and claim he is unaware of the Flynn prior art

Either way, it's bad for Bearden. If it works, Joe Flynn holds the patent rights. If it does not work, he has nothing. Either way, Bearden should fess up and admit his precious MEG patent is worthless. Anyone who pays Magnetic Energy a single cent in royalties is a a fool - there is no need to pay them anything. They have no viable intellectual property that would stand up in a court of law.

May 2003 v.1.02

Tom Bearden’s MEG device A rational review of meg claims  and Randi’s info and  very good skeptical information on Bearden

free energy scams   T

back to Eric's main Dennis Lee page    what about Joe Newman? Also, Amin, Mills (who may be legit?) Tilley, Perendev, Bearden Lutec and Tewari Greer’s offer

Discussion of Bearden’s 20 year old theory promising free energy

A closer look at some of Bearden’s theory  http://www.tinaja.com/pseudo01.html - a look at psuedoscience on the web

  my $1000 prize for proof of free energy of     Carl Tilley’s free energy scam EXPOSED

·  The Museum of Unworkable Devices  a great overview of them

·  INE Free Energy Devices Database -  - another great list of FE claims
 his skeptic pages and crack pot pages
 Milt's discussion of Free Energy and Ceti
A excellent history of perpetual motion machines from an Australian skeptic

 Free energy FAQs

·  how to become a Free Energy con man

what about 300 mpg carburetors?

·  Eric's discussion of real forms of free energy

·  A more believing history of free energy claims

·  Another good overview of Free energy claimants Crank Dot Net | free energy

·  Bob Schadewald claims to have invented a Perpetual motion machine - but will the big conspiracy stop him?

·  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!

·  . FREE ENERGY FAQ

Click to subscribe to free_energy email list
or or subscribe to victims of Free Energy Scams