Bearden on Tesla and EM Source Charge
From Tom Bearden:
This is the background of how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude COP>1.0 electrical power systems taking their excess EM energy directly from their interaction with the active medium? (the active vacuum or spacetime). The ruthless suppression of Nikola Tesla also set the stage for the major cartels continuing to suppress subsequent overunity inventors from the 1890s to the present day.
James Clerk Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer, and at the time his own theory had not been accepted very much at all. Immediately the vectorists – notably Heaviside, Gibbs?, and Hertz – began emasculating James Clerk Maxwell’s 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns, into the present highly simplified vector algebra of much lower group symmetry. (Quaternions also have a much higher group symmetry than tensors?, for those who believe tensors? are the answer). This occurred in the 1880s and 1890s. Heaviside’s equations were tentatively selected as the basis for the new electrical engineering, just being created and being slowly placed into our universities.
To see a glimpse of what can be done in quaternion EM, see T. W. Barrett?, “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett? – one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar – shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this sort of deliberate “shuttling” and control of the potential energy, quite contrary to what is thought possible in our present regular circuits and theory.
Barrett? was so impressed by the novelty of Tesla’s discoveries in this respect, that he extended Tesla’s methods and obtained two patents of his own – on processes still used in various special communications systems. (See Terence W. Barrett?, “Active Signalling Systems,” U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. 14 U.S. patents cited. 22 claims, 37 drawing sheets. See also Terence W. Barrett?, “Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation,” U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996.). About nine years or so after James Clerk Maxwell’s death, Hertz performed some experiments which proved the speed of light in vacuum was essentially as predicted by James Clerk Maxwell. That started the gradual acceptance of Maxwell’s theory (i.e., particularly of the new highly truncated version of it).
Meanwhile, Nikola Tesla – the most important electrical scientist at the time – had discovered that the “medium” was active and that EM energy could be freely extracted directly from the active medium? itself. He was hell-bent on doing just that and freely giving it to humanity. J. P. Morgan and Thomas Edison were associates, and Morgan was backing Edison. The two later took Edison’s electric company component and formed General Electric Company? from it.
The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Nikola Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium? (the active vacuum or spacetime itself). The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities, beginning in the 1890s, was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heaviside’s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow? component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow? in every EM system or circuit. Following the decimation of Nikola Tesla around the turn of the century, similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market. The suppression continues to this day, as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups. For more than a century there has indeed been a giant, unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth, to continue the curtailment of the electrical engineering model and practice, and to continue to suppress overunity inventions and inventors.
J.P. Morgan Recognizes Nikola Tesla As a Mortal Enemy
Backed by Westinghouse, in the “electricity wars” Nikola Tesla had essentially annihilated J.P. Morgan and Edison on Edison’s intended DC electrical power cartel (a DC power plant every 20 miles!) by winning the contract for electrification of Niagara Falls and by installing the much more practical and much cheaper Nikola Tesla AC power system. J.P. Morgan, who was determinedly building up a giant financial empire, was also a very ruthless man who brooked no opposition. J.P. Morgan was funding Edison, and – after the destruction of their intended DC power empire by Nikola Tesla – J.P. Morgan recognized Nikola Tesla as a dangerous arch foe, and he was determined to destroy Nikola Tesla completely and remove him as a threat. He also realized that, if Nikola Tesla were permitted to give the world free EM energy extracted from the active medium? and needing no fuel consumption, then much of J.P. Morgan’s own ambitions (which included future forays into the emerging giant fuel industry) would be totally thwarted. So Nikola Tesla had to go, and he had to go completely.
Economic Paralysis of Westinghouse
Westinghouse – a decent man who had liked Nikola Tesla and backed him (when Nikola Tesla, at the time) was using a pick and shovel to dig ditches to pay for his daily food – then fell on bad times, and was headed for bankruptcy. He had signed a contract with Nikola Tesla to pay Nikola Tesla very nice royalties on the AC power systems, and this represented several hundred millions of dollars. Westinghouse affirmed to Nikola Tesla that, even though he went bankrupt, he would pay Nikola Tesla as long as he, Westinghouse, had a dollar in his pocket.
Nikola Tesla deeply appreciated Westinghouse’s warm friendship and Westinghouse backing him when no one else would. In a remarkable gesture of profound gratitude, Nikola Tesla simply tore up the contract, freeing Westinghouse and saving him from total financial ruin. But financially Westinghouse was unable to further fund large projects. This put Nikola Tesla right where J.P. Morgan wanted him.
How J.P. Morgan Trapped Nikola Tesla and Destroyed Him
Accordingly, to finance his dream of capturing free electrical energy from the active medium? (from the vacuum or spacetime), Nikola Tesla had to turn to J.P. Morgan for financing. J.P. Morgan cynically agreed to finance Nikola Tesla (and the free energy project), but only after Nikola Tesla agreed to sign over 51% controlling interest in all his (Tesla’s) inventions. Nikola Tesla signed the agreement, and J.P. Morgan gave him about half of the money needed for the project at Long Island.
But J.P. Morgan had put Nikola Tesla in an iron trap from which there was no escape. He now controlled all Tesla’s inventions and their use, so he had Nikola Tesla paralyzed in that respect. And then later he simply refused to give Nikola Tesla the rest of the money needed to finish the project. Consequently Nikola Tesla was halted. He declined financially and went totally bankrupt. He became totally destitute, reduced to living in a hotel room on the good graces of the hotel and a small patron or two. He never recovered from this absolute destitution until his death in 1943.
Thus J.P. Morgan totally crushed Nikola Tesla with an iron hand, thereby permanently removing Nikola Tesla as an unacceptable threat to J.P. Morgan’s empire and removing Nikola Tesla’s threat of producing and giving away free energy from the active medium?. All the above is well-known. But there is another part of the story that has escaped recognition. And that strange part of J.P. Morgan’s actions has profoundly affected all humanity and this entire planet and biosphere for more than a century.
The Rest of the Story
J.P. Morgan was not only ruthless but extremely thorough. When the “new” Heaviside equations? were tentatively accepted as the new “Maxwell’s theory” to be taught in the electrical engineering just beginning to be set up in some universities etc., J.P. Morgan also directed his close scientific advisors to assure that this new “electrical theory” was harmless and did not contain or teach any of Tesla’s “energy freely from the active medium?” systems. In other words, not only was it essential to suppress the present Nikola Tesla, but it was essential to suppress all the future “Teslas”.
At the time, scientists did not have scientific jobs waiting all over, as they do today. A scientist at the university was not really too well paid, and a really good scientist would often seek and obtain a job as a consultant to one of the rising industrialists such as J.P. Morgan. Indeed, Edison’s UK group already had an electrical scientist consultant of the highest caliber – Dr. John Ambrose Fleming? in England. Fleming? became consultant to the Edison group in 1881 and continued as such for 10 years. Fleming? was an honorable and ethical man, and of course would not personally engage in skullduggery.
But all J.P. Morgan/Edison had to do was assign a sufficiently good scientist of their own to have a personal conversation with Fleming?, since Fleming? had studied directly and extensively under James Clerk Maxwell himself. Fleming? was thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of ((Maxwell’s theory)), and he was also thoroughly familiar with Heaviside’s emasculated vector algebra? subset. The conversation would just be a group theory conversation, pleasant but adroit, and it would draw out from Fleming? (who was of highest character and ethics) the exact technical characteristics of the Heaviside model? – particularly with respect to any potential EM system taking excess free energy from a hypothetical active medium?.
Modern group theory? was founded by the brilliant teenager Évariste Galois?, whose work was later published and developed after Galois?’ unfortunate quick death on May 31, 1832 from being fatally wounded in a duel the previous day. The brilliant but erratic Galois? was only 20 years old when he perished. But later his work was to profoundly affect mathematics, electrodynamics, physics, and all other sciences.
In April of 1830, Galois? (1811-1832), a student at the École Normale, had published “An Analysis of a Memoir on the Algebraic Resolution of Equations” in the Bulletin de Ferussac. In June, he published “Notes on the Resolution of Numerical Equations” and “On the Theory of Numbers.” These and a later memoir make up what is now called Galois theory?. Galois’s manuscripts written just before his death in a duel, with added annotations by Joseph Louiville?, were published in 1846 in the Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. In 1870, with the publication of Camille Jordan?’s Traité des Substitutions, group theory? became a fully established and very important part of mathematics and science.
So in 1881, Fleming? most certainly would have been well aware and conversant in group theory? and the group symmetry? of a given algebra?, and thus of the characteristics of the systems that were included in a given algebraic model. The necessary knowledge to assess the Heaviside vector equations? was already there when J.P. Morgan’s need (to suppress Nikola Tesla and to render the reduced Heaviside equations? harmless) became paramount in the late 1880s.
The news about the group symmetry characteristics of Heaviside’s equations? was not good. Those Heaviside vector equations? still included some of Maxwell’s asymmetrical systems. And any EM system that freely receives energy from its active environment, and uses it to freely power its loads, is an asymmetrical Maxwellian system a priori. Hence engineers who were taught such a theory would be able to eventually design and build some of Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium?” systems.
J.P. Morgan’s response would have been short and direct: “Fix it!” Obviously the fix was to simply remove the remaining asymmetry of the Heaviside model’s equations. It is not too hard a job to convince mathematicians to change asymmetry anyway, since they tend to worship “the beauty of symmetry” and asymmetry is considered “vulgar”.
Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations?
H. A. Lorentz was the man who was elicited to do the necessary “symmetrization” with ease, thereby accomplishing exactly what J.P. Morgan decreed to his own advisors that must be done: Get rid of those Nikola Tesla systems capable of taking and freely using EM energy from the active medium?. H. A. (Lorentz (with the “t”) simply lifted and used what L. V. Lorenz? (without the “t”) had already done.
For the deliberate “fixing” of the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations?, see H. A. Lorentz, “La Théorie électromagnétique de James Clerk Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,” (The Electromagnetic Theory of James Clerk Maxwell and its application to moving bodies), Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. (Also in H. A. Lorentz, Collected Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, vol. 2, pp. 168-238, esp. p. 168.) This is the work that Lorentz cites later (in 1895) for his proof of the symmetrical regauging? theorems (the two equations of symmetrical regauging?).
This is the “symmetrization” (at the direction of J.P. Morgan of the Heaviside equations? that arbitrarily discarded all remaining asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – thus discarding all systems that receive excess EM energy freely from the “active medium?” (active vacuum) and could use this free energy to power loads and themselves. With this “fix”, J.P. Morgan was assured that Tesla’s discovery of the active medium? – and that EM energy could be extracted from it – would never be taught.
Electrical engineering was just beginning to be formed and started in those days, and so almost from its inception electrical engineering has used these “fixed” Heaviside equations? (erroneously calling the resulting crippled model “Maxwell’s theory” which was and is a blatant falsity). Hence our electrical engineers – almost from the beginning – have thought, designed, built, and deployed only that subset of Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum, hence self-preventing having COP>1.0 and self-powering EM systems taking their excess input energy directly from the active vacuum.
It also prevented electrical engineers from realizing how their circuits are actually powered, and where the energy actually comes from. It does not come from cranking the shaft of the generator! For a clear exposé of how a symmetrical electrical power circuit and system kills its own source, and also to see what actually powers the external circuit in a generator-powered system, see “Figure 2. Operation of a Symmetrical Electrical Power System,” in T. E. Bearden, “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B.”
For an excellent paper adroitly pointing out Lorentz’s propensity for using other people’s work but taking or receiving credit for it himself, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance?,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. For the Lorentz symmetrical regauging? as used by our present electrical engineers and classical electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell’s (Heaviside equations|Heaviside’s equations)) reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6/11 on p. 246. The Lorentz regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p. 240.
Elimination of Heaviside’s Giant Curled EM Energy Flow Component
Lorentz also was apparently impressed a second time, in 1900, to further reduce the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations?, in order to specifically eliminate the newly discovered giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow? that – unknown to our present electrical engineers – accompanies every Poynting energy flow? component (which is diverged into the circuit to power it), but is itself (the curled component) not diverged and thus is just wasted because it normally does not interact. The giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow? component is more than a trillion times greater in magnitude than the accounted Poynting diverged EM energy flow? component. Thus the Poynting energy flow? theory in our present electrical engineering textbooks and curricula is only a pale shadow of the actual energy flowing in conjunction with an electrical system or circuit.
In J.P. Morgan’s view, it would simply not do to have all the future electrical engineers taught (and understand) that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy output as the mechanical shaft energy input we crank into the generator shaft! If they were to all know this, then inevitably some very sharp young doctoral candidates or post docs would figure out how to freely tap some of that available giant Heaviside curled energy flow? component. And they would extract some of that giant energy flow and freely use it, thereby ushering in Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium?” after all.
Here again, J.P. Morgan would simply have ordered the problem “fixed”. And again, Lorentz “fixed it” for him very easily, by introducing the standard little surface integral trick that retains the diverged small component (the Poynting component) but discards the huge nondiverged curled component. In other words, Lorentz altered the actually-used energy flow vector by throwing away that giant Heaviside component quite arbitrarily. Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow? component is no longer accounted or even recognized in electrical engineering, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow? component in every EM system or circuit. (To see the dirty work, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, “Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld,” p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit — specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it — and then treats that tiny component as the “entire” energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.)
NOTE: Notice the similarities between the abundant energy possible in both Bearden’s and Keely’s statements.”The dominant is electricity luminous or propulsive positive. The harmonic, or the magnetic, which is the attractive, with its wonderful sympathetic outreach, is the negative current of thetriune stream?. The enharmonic, or high neutral, acts as the assimilative towards the reinstatement of sympathetic disturbance?. In electric lighting, the velocity of the dynamos accumulates only the harmonic current – by atomic and interatomic conflict – transferring one-two hundred thousandth (1/200,000) of the light that the dominant current would give, if it were possible to construct a device whereby it could be concentrated and dispersed. But this supreme portion can never be handled by any finite mode. Each of these currents has its triple flow?, representing the true lines of the sympathetic forces? that are constantly assimilating with the polar terrestrial envelope?. The rotation of the earth is one of the exciters that disturbs the equilibrium of these sensitive streams. The alternate light zone being ever followed by the dark zone, holds the sympathetic polar wave? constant in its fluctuations. This fact may be looked upon as the foundation of the fable that the world rests upon a tortoise. The rotation of the earth is controlled and continued by the action of the positive and negative sympathetic celestial streams. Its pure and steady motion, so free from intermitting impulses, is governed to the most minute mathematical nicety by the mobility of the aqueous portion of its structure, i.e., its oceans and oceans’ anastomosis. There is said to be a grain of truth in the wildest fable, and herein we have the elephant that the tortoise stands on. The fixed gravital centers of neutrality, the sympathetic concordants to the celestial outreach, that exist in the interatomic position, are the connective sympathetic links? whereby the terrestrial is held in independent suspension. We cannot say that this corresponds to what the elephant stands upon but we can say “This is the power whereby the elephant is sympathetically suspended.” The Snell Manuscript
Justification for Removal of the Giant Heaviside Curled Energy Flow Component
To justify getting rid of the giant curled (and usually nondiverged) Heaviside energy flow component, Lorentz smoothly and slyly stated that “it does nothing and so it has no physical significance.” And that same smooth statement is used by our scientific community to this day to justify the emasculation of the actual energy flow vector and to use only the feeble Poynting component of it. E.g., quoting Jackson?: “…the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice …” (J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237).
Jackson?’s statement (as is Lorentz’s statement) is correct only in a special relativistic situation, where vector analysis? holds and the divergence of the curl is zero. However, if we deliberately introduce a general relativistic? (GR) situation or subset, with synchronization of the output of that GR? section and the input of the special relativistic section, then vector analysis? fails and the divergence of the curl is not necessarily zero at all. So Jackson’s statement is correct only part of the time (which is usually most of the time since with rare exceptions most electrical power situations are special relativity? situations!
Indeed, Jackson?’s statement (and Lorentz’s little closed surface integration trick) can be deliberately violated at will, and it has been so violated since 1967 by the NRAM? (negative resonance absorption? of the medium) process in optical physics. We leave analysis of that process and where the excess energy comes from and how, for another day and paper. (See Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, “Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component”). This is a Provisional Patent Application, filed and obtained in Oct. 2005. It is now released into public domain and freely given away to the public domain.
Suffice it to say that NRAM? optical physicists every year regularly perform true COP = 18 optimized experiments, without understanding the true source of the excess energy received from the active vacuum environment. To get their papers published, they are not allowed to use the term “excess emission” (they must use the mind-numbing term “negative absorption?”). They are also not allowed to discuss the thermodynamics of the process (which when optimized in the IR or UV gives COP = 18), but can only point out the “increase in the reaction cross section” because of the self-resonance? of the charged particles of the absorbing medium as compared to more normal static charged particles in a static absorbing medium.
Thus our electrical engineers and scientists today are totally unaware that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy flow from the vacuum, as is in the mechanical energy flow we input to the generator shaft. This even though in our leading universities our own NRAM? optical physicists continue to experimentally prove it, without understanding where the excess EM energy comes from.
This second “fix” by Lorentz then finished J.P. Morgan’s suppression of the “new electrical engineering science” so that it would not contain asymmetrical? Maxwellian systems nor would it contain Heaviside’s giant curled EM energy flow component. With these changes, J.P. Morgan (using Lorentz’s services) deliberately crippled electrical engineering and electrical power systems for more than 100 years, and guaranteed that COP>1.0 and self-powering Maxwellian systems – permitted by nature and Maxwell’s original theory – would not be built by our electrical power engineers.
Tesla’s Statements Showing His Intention
To show Tesla’s intent to give the world cheap clean energy extracted freely from the active medium?, here are some appropriate Nikola Tesla quotations:
“Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels.” (Nikola Tesla).
“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel… We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians… Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.” (Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time).
“We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. …the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium…” (Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.).
“Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material.” (Nikola Tesla, 1900).
Deciphering Energy Flow
“…only the entire surface integral of N (their notation for the Poynting vector) contributes to the energy balance. Paradoxical results may be obtained if one tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energy flow per unit area at any point.” (Wolfgang Panofsky and Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1962, third printing 1969, p.180).
“It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = ExH, and regard it as the intensity of energy flow at a point. This procedure is open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is zero without affecting (the basic integration procedure’s result).” … “…fortunately, we are rarely concerned with the energy flow at a point. In most applications we need the rate at which energy is crossing a closed surface.” (D.S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p. 52, 53.).
“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” (Richard P. Richard Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Richard Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2).
In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Quoting from p. 513:
“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations?, indicating the presence of charge density? and current density? in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations? are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations?. Charge density? and current density? in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential? and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization? which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge? and current? appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations? but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density? and vacuum topological magnetic current density?. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations? are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations? in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge? and vacuum current?.”
One of the authors has remarked:__
“This has led to one of the greatest ironies in history: All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the steam turbines that ever turned the shaft of a generator, all the rivers ever dammed, all the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, all the windmills and waterwheels, all the solar cells, and all the chemistry in all the batteries ever produced, have not directly delivered a single watt into the external circuit’s load. All that incredible fuel consumption and energy extracted from the environment has only been used to continually restore the source dipole that our own closed current loop circuits are deliberately designed to destroy faster than the load is powered.” (Thomas E. Bearden, “Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum,” Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2. Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 119, Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice, John Wiley and Sons, 2001, p. 691-192).
“…(There is) .. an often-overlooked feature inherent in the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Rigorously, work is defined as changing the form of energy. When one joule? of energy performs one joule? of work, one joule? of energy still remains, but in an altered form. If that remaining joule? of energy has its form changed yet again, another joule? of work has been done. And so on.” (M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 515-516).
The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today
As can be seen, from J.P. Morgan’s personal view that Nikola Tesla and the new Heaviside theory? were unacceptable threats to his rising great financial empire, the ruthless J.P. Morgan felt fully justified in having the EE theory “fixed” and crippled, to permanently eliminate all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems from the Heaviside theory?, and later also to eliminate Heaviside’s own giant curled EM energy flow component as well. In this way, J.P. Morgan directly assured the removal of self-powering and COP>1.0 asymmetrical electrical systems receiving and using excess free energy from the vacuum.
Regarding Nikola Tesla as his mortal enemy, J.P. Morgan also felt fully justified in shackling and then figuratively “imprisoning” Nikola Tesla financially for the rest of his life, totally destroying Nikola Tesla from any further open research and development that would ever again challenge J.P. Morgan’s escalating empire and huge cartels. Interestingly, Heaviside also wound up being a near-total hermit, living in a little garret apartment.
So eerily, more than a century ago and along with its very birthing, our “modern” classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering science was deliberately mutilated and crippled, specifically so that COP>1.0 and self-powering electrical systems – asymmetrically powering loads extracted from “free EM wind energy flows” from the vacuum or space itself – would never be known or developed by our electrical engineers.
Since then, hundreds of thousands of EEs have been graduated worldwide. Electrical engineering (with its deliberately crippled CEM/EE model) has become a giant part of our science, technology, culture, and society. Everything – from our electric lights to our refrigerators and heat pumps?, radios and television sets, auto ignitions, lights and power for our cities, etc. – is now using this horribly emasculated CEM/EE model. It has directly prevented struggling nations having no oil or gas resources from achieving a modern economy (which is based on cheap energy). This has left those nations impoverished, with their peoples starving and miserable and disease-wracked. Hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation and disease have resulted worldwide. It has “welded into our minds and our very brains” the mistaken notion that – other than a wee bit of wind power, water power, solar power, etc. – we can only have “energy from consumption of fuel”.
So we have J.P. Morgan’s ruthlessness, and the present totally inexcusable lack of insight by our own scientists and engineers (and particularly our scientific leadership) – to thank for the present escalating “world energy crisis” and its resulting world-wide, environmental, and epochal consequences.
What Must Be Done
The straightforward answer, of course, is that our scientists need to rapidly correct and update that horribly flawed CEM/EE model (and the entire electrical engineering technology and science being taught in all universities worldwide) that J.P. Morgan deliberately shaped us into. We must firmly remove Morgan’s dead iron boot from the back of everyone’s neck, reintroduce Maxwell’s actual higher group symmetry EM theory (updated as necessary), and restore and accomplish Tesla’s dream of providing the world cheap, clean EM energy directly from the seething vacuum or spacetime.
If “energy from fuel consumption” is the problem because fuel supply is tapering off while demand is increasing, then “energy without fuel consumption” is the solution. Windmills, solar arrays, and hydroelectric systems can give some relief, but they are only a drop in the bucket. The only complete and final solution (and one that is cheap, clean, and quick) is to shift our main interest to “energy from the vacuum”.
Quantum field theory? already tells us that we simply cannot separate the charge from its ongoing fierce virtual particle interaction with the vacuum. Quoting Aitchison?:
“…the concept of a ‘single particle’ actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory? with interactions, because the interactions between ‘the particle’ and the vacuum fluctuations? (or virtual quanta?) cannot be ignored.” (I. J. R. Aitchison, “Nothing’s Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory,” Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.).
Indeed, in modern physics that vacuum interaction generates all forces in nature. Again quoting Aitchison?:
“Forces, in quantum field theory?, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta?…” (Ibid., p. 372).
Every charge in the universe already totally violates both the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics? and the sad old electrical engineering model. From its very formation, the charge simply sits there and unceasingly pours out real photons – real, usable, observable EM energy – in all directions at light speed. This process forms the so-called “static” EM fields associated with that source charge; the “static” fields are not static at all, but are nonequilibrum steady state (NESS) thermodynamic systems associated with that charge.
Quoting Van Flandern? on the question of a static field? actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:
“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 that propagate. …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, p. 8-9).
We Must Also Recognize the Source Charge Problem and Its Solution
Every charge is continually extracting the necessary input virtual state energy to support its steady emission of observable energy, from its seething virtual particle reaction with the vacuum. This is done without any observable energy input to the charge! Quoting Sen:
“The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics.” (D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii).
“A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated.” …. “The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal??” (B. P. Kosyakov, “Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141).
So there is no “energy” crisis at all, and there never has been! Every charge and dipole in the universe continually pours out real, usable, EM energy, and the original charges of the universe have been doing it for 15 or so billion years, since the formation of the universe. They will freely continue another 15 billion years if the universe lasts that long.
Instead of an “energy” crisis, we have an “energy from fuel” crisis because there is a finite supply of fuel and it is “topping off” and declining in availability, while the demand for energy is escalating. And since we erroneously insist that we can only have “energy from fuel” primarily, then we have an escalating “energy from fuel” crisis because we have an escalating fuel crisis.
Again, the solution obviously is “energy without fuel”. And one must use energy from a part of the external environment that is 100% dependable, never ceasing or faltering, and available at every point in the universe. Energy from the vacuum is indeed that solution.
Because of its peculiar continual interaction with the active vacuum, one cannot regard a solitary charge as a “very small” thing having (access to) only a very small energy. Indeed, the charge polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with charge of opposite sign. So the “charge” must be modeled as two infinite and opposite charges, each having infinite energy. Our instruments, peering through the giant external screening charge at the “bare charge” inside, sees only the finite difference of these two infinite charges. And that difference is the value of the classical charge printed in the electrical engineering textbooks. Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:
“The total energy of the atom depends on the bare mass? and bare charge? of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron’s mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass? and bare charge? are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass? and bare charge? must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy? that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass? and bare charge?, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy.” (Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.).
We can easily show the production of a steady and unending stream of real, usable EM energy from the vacuum, at will. Simply lay an electret? or charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field? of the electrical component and the H-field? of the magnet are orthogonal. Then even according to the standard EE textbooks and their Poynting energy flow? theory, that silly gadget will sit there and freely and continuously pour out a real Poynting EM energy flow S, given by the simple equation S = E X H.
So we can produce all the “free EM energy winds from the vacuum” that we wish. Easily, cheaply, and cleanly. Anywhere, anytime. The only problem then is to learn how to build an asymmetric “EM windmill” that intercepts and collects some of that steadily flowing energy, and then dissipates it in the external loads without dissipating half of it back in the “free energy flow gadget” to destroy it.
Again, In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having usable free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Quoting the abstract:
“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations?, indicating the presence of charge density? and current density? in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations? are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations?. Charge density? and current density? in the vacuum are? defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential? and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge? and vacuum current? appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations? but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density? and vacuum topological magnetic current density?. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations? are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations? in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charg?e and vacuum current?.”
The bits and pieces of a dramatically corrected and extended electrical engineering model and electrical science are already there in the various areas of physics, just waiting to be integrated into a true and “fitted” model of “EM energy freely and copiously extracted from the vacuum”. Indeed, the higher group symmetry electrodynamics models are already generated and available in physics – such as the O(3) electrodynamics developed by Myron Evans? and later extended by him into an elegant ((Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) unified field theory)). Quoting Evans from his earlier O(3) electrodynamics:
“…the acceptance of a structured vacuum described by an O(3) gauge group leads directly to the existence of novel charges and currents in the vacuum. These are conserved, or Noether, currents and charges and are clearly topological in origin. They spring from the fact that the vacuum is a topological space. Four such entities emerge:
(1) A topological vacuum electric charge?, also proposed empirically by Lehnert? et al.
(2) A topological vacuum electric current?, also proposed empirically by Lehnert? et al.
(3) A topological vacuum magnetic charge?, proposed also by Barrett? and Harmuth?.
(4) A vacuum topological magnetic current?, proposed also by Barrett? and Harmuth?. …
Each of these four objects can provide energy, which can be loosely termed ‘vacuum energy’: energy coming from the topology of the vacuum.” (Myron W. Evans, “O(3) Electrodynamics,” in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 Vols., edited by M.W. Evans, Wiley, New York, 2001, Part 1, p. 84).
To save our own nation and the Western world from a giant and impending economic collapse because of the inane “energy from fuel” crisis, we must unleash our very best scientists and researchers – particularly the young and more vigorous ones – on solving this problem. We must quickly correct and update the electrical engineering model that was so deliberately “fixed” at J.P. Morgan’s command. And we must unleash our sharp young professors, doctoral candidates, and post doctoral scientists to quickly research and develop new asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that finally – after more than a century of delay – utilize the full extent of Maxwell’s 1865 quaternion-like theory prior to the 1880s and 1890s mutilation of it after James Clerk Maxwell was already dead.
14.35 – Teslas 3 6 and 9
16.04 – Nikola Tesla describing what electricity is
16.17 – Negative Electricity – Tesla
18.14 – Mind is the Ultimate Scalar Quantity
Figure 16.04.05 and Figure 16.04.06 – Nikola Tesla and Lord Kelvin
Figure 18.13 – Scalar or Undifferentiated Mind Force
Mind Force the hidden Scalar Force
Part 16 – Electricity and Magnetism
Electricity from Space – Tesla
Source : http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bearden+on+Tesla+and+EM+Source+Charge