Latest topics
» ZAP - TIRED BUT HAPPY (to rake in donations as an Internet Panhandler)
Today at 2:12 am by RamblerNash

» Office Of PROOFness - ZAP/Jerzy "The Next Lame Excuse"
Today at 2:09 am by RamblerNash

» E-mail from ZAP: A TREE WITH NO PARTRIDGE (Wait until you get a load of what they are shoveling now!)
Today at 12:56 am by RamblerNash

» #89 in Holistic Doctor Series Shot 5 Times In Front of Family (World Famous Healer)
Yesterday at 7:11 pm by PurpleSkyz

» #88 Doctor Dies Unexpectedly, Holistic Prominent and Outspoken
Yesterday at 7:08 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Bringing Awareness to Domestic Violence
Yesterday at 6:35 pm by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 6:21 pm by PurpleSkyz

» The Manipulation of Human Consciousness, Cellular Regeneration and Space-Time
Yesterday at 5:39 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Max Igan on The Power Hour with Dr Joanne Conaway
Yesterday at 1:47 pm by PurpleSkyz

» POOFness for APR 22: When The Ships Come In I will be at the airport eating a ketchup sandwich
Yesterday at 1:35 pm by RamblerNash

» There Were No Commercial Plane Crashes on 9/11
Yesterday at 11:05 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Vatican/Jesuit Satanic/Luciferian Agenda
Yesterday at 11:05 am by Consciousness Of Economic

» The TWO Unions -- Our Dominion and Order By Anna Von Reitz
Yesterday at 10:56 am by PurpleSkyz

» Benjamin Fulford 4-23-18
Yesterday at 10:52 am by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 10:25 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ Black UFO Shoots Past Paddle Boarder In Waikiki, Hawaii plus MORE
Yesterday at 10:19 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Middle East Explained - David Icke - Part Two
Yesterday at 10:11 am by PurpleSkyz

» POOFness for APR 18: MIDWEEK BY ZAP the Lying Internet Panhandler
Yesterday at 2:19 am by RamblerNash

» This will be Jerzy's next excuse!! LOL
Yesterday at 2:17 am by RamblerNash

» Hey Purps...We should have a "What Will Jerzy/ZAP Beg For This Week" Poll!
Yesterday at 2:14 am by RamblerNash

» Jerzy/ZAP And The Saga Concerning "Mary" - FOUND!
Yesterday at 1:38 am by RamblerNash

» Office of PROOFness - Zap/Jerzy "Damage Control"
Yesterday at 1:15 am by RamblerNash


You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » SCIENCE » Tom Bearden: Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum 2012 SEPTEMBER 12

Tom Bearden: Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum 2012 SEPTEMBER 12

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Tom Bearden: Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum
Posted by Steve Beckow

Tesla Statue in Niagara Falls

Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum
Tom Bearden, Jan. 2002

A bit of “empty space” the size of a sugar cube contains enough “seething electromagnetic energy” to power all the electrical loads on earth for millions of years.

A System Continuously Extracting Energy from the Vacuum Can be Made for a Dollar

Nature readily provides bountiful sources of unending EM energy, free for the taking and using — anywhere, anytime. They are called “charges” and “dipoles” — and often, source charges and source dipoles. As an example, simply place an electret or charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the electric field of the electret or capacitor and the magnetic field of the magnet are at right angles to each other.

That silly thing will sit there and pour out EM energy in all directions, at the speed of light, so long as you just leave it alone and do not destroy it. One year after you create it, its outpouring of energy will have reached a radius of one light year — out beyond the solar system — in all directions. It will have changed the energy density of that vast volume of surrounding space of one light-year radius. And it is still pouring out energy at the same rate, steadily changing the energy density of still more space.

Even the “conventional” electrodynamicists agree that a flow of EM energy is continuously emitted from that arrangement {[xx]}. However, the conventional electrodynamics is resoundingly silent on where that steady outpouring of EM energy comes from and how it is input to the charge or dipole. There is no detectable input of EM energy to the charge or dipole, but there is a detectable and continuous output of energy from it.

Seemingly, every charge and dipole is creating energy out of nothing, which of course totally destroys the conservation of energy law if true {[xxi]}. Since classical electrodynamicists have not been able to solve it, their textbooks have remained very silent on this fundamental problem and its implications. By their resounding silence, classical electrodynamicists implicitly assume that every source charge and source dipole in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely and continuously creating energy out of nothing.

Either one rejects the energy conservation law entirely, or one explains the source charge problem. There is no middle position, because the source charge is real and it ubiquitously exists. And it ubiquitously pours out that energy.

So we point the finger right back at the self-appointed critics and ask in their own terminology, “Who are the real perpetual motion nuts here? You cannot logically consider and implicitly accept every charge and dipole as a perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy out of nothing at all, and then protest that there can be no such thing as a COP>1.0 EM system!”

All the EM energy in any EM circuit or device comes from those same source charges and source dipoles. If one cannot explain where and how those charges obtain the energy to keep pouring it out, then one knows absolutely nothing about what truly powers every electrical circuit. Since the energy being received is nonobservable, it must be received in some peculiar and normally unusable form. The charges must then transduce the received energy into usable and observable form, and re-emit it in that new form, so that the circuit can catch some of it and be “energized”.

The source charge problem focuses one’s attention on the real problem. Either we must discard energy conservation altogether, or we must admit that every charge and dipole is already a COP>1.0 Maxwellian EM system, freely changing the form of some unusual received energy. It is continuously doing “free” work, since work is the changing of form of energy, and every charge and dipole is freely receiving virtual EM energy and changing its form to observable EM energy, continuously.

The quandary of the source charge and its continuous outpouring of real EM energy has been called “the most difficult problem in classical and quantum mechanics” {[xxii]}. Until 2000 there did not appear any classical solution to that long-vexing problem of the association of the fields and potentials — and their energy — reaching across all space, with the source charge that produces them. But the basis for the solution was already present in particle physics since the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957.

In 2000 the present author proposed a formal solution {[xxiii]} consistent with quantum field theory {[xxiv]}, particle physics {[xxv]}, quantum electrodynamics {[xxvi]}, and re-interpretation {12} of Whittaker’s biwave decomposition of the scalar potential {[xxvii]}. We used the term “giant negentropy” since the charge and dipole continuously and freely absorb, cohere, organize, and re-emit energy from the vacuum.

Since every charge in every circuit is already continuously negentropic, then our building of entropic circuits using these negentropic charges must involve some characteristic of circuit design where we kill the negentropy. We will explain that aspect shortly.

Our universities should — but do not — focus on the main problem: How does one then intercept, divert, and collect some of that freely flowing EM energy so easily evoked by every charge and dipolarity, and use it to freely power loads, without disarranging and destroying the actual “power source”? No university seems to be working on that problem, nor is the Department of Energy, nor are any of the great national laboratories. Nor are any of the great scientific associations.

Yet that single problem is the only fundamental electrical power problem. All the rest of the “recognized power problems” are just so much psychological displacement activity so as not to have to disturb the comfortable Lorentz-regauged and crippled classical electrodynamics.

There is no problem at all in obtaining great rivers and gushers of EM energy from the ubiquitous vacuum — cheaply, easily and enduringly. Every charge and every dipole already does that. There is no problem in producing the free “electromagnetic energy winds” needed to power even the greatest loads, any place in the universe, any time.

Instead, the only problem is in building a proper “electrical windmill” to divert, collect, and use some energy from such a steady electrical wind — without destroying the broken symmetry source of the wind (the source dipole) — and using (dissipating) that collected energy to power our desired load.

All our present closed-current loop circuits are designed {[xxviii]} to use half their freely collected energy to destroy the source dipole (in the generator or battery). The other half of their collected energy is used to power the external circuit’s losses and loads. So more of the freely collected EM energy is used to destroy the “wind” source than is used to power the load. We then have to continually input at least as much energy to restore the source (the dipole) as was used to destroy it.

So we must continually input more energy to restore the dipole — that the engineers unwittingly design and build the circuits to deliberately destroy — than the circuit provides to power the loads. All our engineers design and build electrical power systems that destroy their free electrical wind sources faster than they power their loads. Such inane power systems obviously provide COP

It is akin to building a magnificent but flawed sailboat, which — once it starts to move in the wind — rapidly and continually lowers its own sails faster than the wind can propel the boat. To keep the boat going, one thus has to continually pay to keep raising the sails that the boat itself keeps lowering. Our electrical engineers and electrical power scientists are busily engaged in perpetuating an analogous electrical power technology, and our scientific community is busily assuring us that they are practicing “the most advanced electrical science”.

We actually pay the power company to engage in a giant sumo wrestling match inside its generators, and deliberately lose.

The Modern Vacuum: Empty Space Has Unlimited EM Energy

“Vacuum” is what we usually think of as the empty space left after all the air is removed. However, in modern physics it is well-known that space is not such an “emptiness” at all. Instead, it is filled with energetic particles that appear and disappear with extraordinary speed. Hence “the vacuum” in physics is more like a seething cauldron, boiling fiercely {[xxix]}. The energy density of this boiling is so great that it literally boggles one’s mind {[xxx]}.

A bit of “empty space” the size of a sugar cube contains enough “seething electromagnetic energy” to power all the electrical loads on earth for millions of years. Obviously, if we can extract just a tiny fraction of this energy in electromagnetic form, we can use it to power our loads for free or nearly so. We need only power the “gating” or “switching” of the flowing energy, and thus cause a great deal of work to be performed, even though we ourselves input little or no energy.

Can the EM Energy of the Vacuum be “Tapped” and Extracted for our Use?

It’s widely believed that it is impractical to try to extract very much usable energy from the seething, highly energetic vacuum. Oh yes, the tiny little Lamb shift {[xxxi]} of the orbit of one electron in a certain atom is admittedly due to vacuum energy interaction. Well, although the Lamb shift is a very small effect of a single electron in a single atom, the energy density of that interaction is greater than the surface energy density of the sun {[xxxii]}!
And, oh yes, the Casimir effect {[xxxiii]} — a vacuum-induced attraction of two conducting plates when separated but close — also is due to vacuum energy interaction, but it too is a very small effect and not practical to consider {[xxxiv]}.

Then the assertion is often made — particularly by electrical power engineers, who normally are not well-acquainted with modern physics — that thermodynamics prohibits extracting and using vacuum energy. That is quite untrue, as we have explained, and as Cole and Puthoff have rigorously demonstrated {[xxxv]}. Thermodynamics does not explain how to do it practically, but it does permit it technically.

The principle of superposition of charge and the field effects of charges, ubiquitously assumed and verified in countless classical experiments, also tells us a magnificent thing: The source charge production of its associated fields and potentials is additive and coherent as the source charge is increased . Within reason, doubling or tripling the amount of energy-collecting and transducing charged particles (source charges) at a given point will give double or triple the resulting potentials and fields (gathered EM energy and local EM energy winds) produced by that source charge collection, and so on.

So the proven broken symmetry of opposite charge collections — such as on the ends of a dipole or dipolarity — need not be a small effect at all! We can use as many unit charges as we wish in each one of those “separated opposite charges” in a dipole, so long as we hold the charges apart with a proper restraining dielectric.

In a normal electrical circuit (as between the terminals of a generator or battery), we can have many positive and negative charges involved, so that the EM energy extracted from the vacuum can be very powerful. In other words, the dipole can readily be made essentially as powerful as we need for our usual specific purposes. We can easily produce a megawatt or even 1,000 megawatts of energy flow per second, by making a bigger dipole consisting of more separated charges.

All we have to do is pay to make the dipole once. Then leave it alone and do not allow it to be destroyed by the inane way that engineers normally build their circuits and power their loads.

The latter problem — which is the only real problem preventing the engineers from easily producing all the cheap, clean electrical power they wish, without burning fuel, consuming fuel rods, building pipelines, building dams, etc. — is not being furiously funded and worked on as a national Manhattan Project. Indeed, the very notion continues to be castigated and ridiculed by the “defenders of the faith”. And that is perhaps the greatest scientific travesty of our times. It simply reveals the “soft underbelly” of our present energy science, which does not even include what powers its circuits.

Can an Electrical Power System Output More Energy than We Input to It?

Hopefully, by now the reader will exclaim, “Of course! Just pay to make a source dipole.” Prepare a suitable interception and collection external circuit which will dissipate its collected energy in a load, without destroying the source dipole faster than it powers the load. That’s all there is to it. The only remaining problem is in that single phrase, “without destroying the source dipole faster than it powers the load”.

Since that is the problem and the only problem preventing a total solution to the energy crisis forever, every university, every power company, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, and every major research lab should be working on it. But of course none of them is working on it, interested in it, or funding it.

The problem calls for “out-of-the-box thinking”, to use a prevailing buzzword.. Simply consider a charged capacitor or a permanent magnet. That beast is freely extracting and pouring out real EM energy, from the active vacuum, continuously. So how do we intercept some of the energy flow, convert the intercepted energy to, say, oscillating EM energy, and then use that energy to power a load — all without destroying the magnet or killing the charge in the capacitor?

This is the problem, and work on it by our sharp young graduate students and post-docs is something which the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences should fund as the highest priority. They do not even recognize the fundamental problem, much less fund work on it.

These agencies’ lack of recognition of this, the primary electrical energy problem, is a sad commentary on our present scientific acumen.

Why Don’t Present EM Systems Power Themselves?

By now the reader hopefully will be able to see that our systems don’t power themselves because our engineers specifically design them so they cannot. The mindset of the scientists and engineers themselves is the greatest foe to cheap clean electrical energy, a clean biosphere and a decentralized power system using no fuel. The closed current loop circuit for power systems is considered to be hallowed, as if Moses had brought it down from the mountain with him, carved on those stone tablets. It isn’t and he didn’t.

To quote Nikola Tesla, who made practical generators and motors possible with his discovery of the rotating magnetic field: “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Understand, a good model is essential to technology. But if the model is inadequate, then it should either be corrected or a new model should be substituted that is adequate. However, our electrical power engineers and most of the scientific community have developed a mindset where the closed current loop circuit, Lorentz symmetrical regauging and COP

We should always remember one succinct statement by Evans {[xxxvi]}: “No theory can falsify a successful and repeatable experiment, but a single successful and repeatable experiment can falsify any theory.”

We borrow a quote from Tesla on another subject {[xxxvii]}and hope that it comes true with respect to the present dogma that only COP<1.0 electrical power systems are possible: “… in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.”

[xx]. As an example, quoting Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44: “[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static.”

[xxi]. The key is in that word “detectable” — or as the physicist would say, “observable”. The experiment rigorously demonstrates that, if the law of energy conservation is valid, then the charge and the dipole must be continuously receiving energy (from its external environment) in nonobservable (virtual) form and integrating it into observable form. And so it is, as has been known in particle physics for 45 years. In the case of the dipole, it is due to the known broken symmetry of the opposite charges comprising the dipole. In the case of the charge, when one accounts for the clustering virtual charges (from quantum electrodynamics), then the charge is actually a set of composite dipoles, each exhibiting the required broken symmetry. Hence charges and dipoles freely absorb (receive) virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum (particle physics proves this), integrating the absorbed “disintegrated” energy into observable form, and re-emitting real, observable EM energy in all directions, continuously. That this has not yet appeared in the electrical engineering model is strictly the fault of the leaders of the scientific community who have not enforced its inclusion. Consequently, the electrical engineers do not even understand what powers an EM circuit or system. It is energy from the vacuum, extracted and integrated by the source charge and the source dipole.

[xxii]. E.g., see D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

[xxiii]. T. E. Bearden, “Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole,” Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Also carried on and the DoE restricted website

[xxiv]. F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Chapter 5.

[xxv]. With the broken symmetry of unlike charges and with the Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang in 1957.

[xxvi]. With the fact that virtual charges of opposite charges cluster around an “isolated” observable charge. One differential piece of the observable charge and one clustering virtual charge of opposite sign comprise a composite dipole. The “isolated source charge” may thus be treated as a set of composite dipoles. The broken symmetry of opposite charges solves the problem for any dipole, and thus for the “isolated” charge as a set of composite dipoles.

[xxvii]. E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.

Thanks to:


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum