Subj: Fw: Serious Technical information for solving the energy crisis
Date: 4/1/01 3:30:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Are you folks on Tom Bearden's distribution list?  If not, here's an interesting letter to the National Science Foundation.  If you received your own copy, my apologies for the duplication. 
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:19 PM
Subject: Serious Technical information for solving the energy crisis

Dear National Science Foundation technical staff,

This is a serious communication, backed up by both theoretical and
experimental work in the published literature, explaining how to solve the
energy crisis.  Please bear with the time required to read and study it; it
is rigorous.  We do cite some scientific papers in the hard literature which
you can check at will.

You have a nice professional website, with certainly quite a bit of work
devoted to it.  Nonetheless, considering your highly influential and leading
position in the scientific community, and particularly with respect to
influencing or determining  the scientific research funded and accomplished
in the nation, I honestly find too much of a "we're a government
organization so we must have a website" approach.  That of course is true,
but in its  unique position the National Science Foundation is looked up to
as the rightful leader of research, to including driving the forefront of
that scientific effort.

Sadly, in the energy field, it does not appear that this vital leadership
role is being vigorously exercised by the NSF.

E.g., we are already into a very seriously escalating energy crisis that
will only get worse.  California was just a wake-up call; wait till this
summer and then this winter.  We are looking at an escalating crisis that
will rather shortly -- in a few years -- lead to the economic collapse of
the United States and the Western world, along with many of the other
nations of the world.  I need not emphasize the strategic importance that
effect could play in inducing more numerous and more serious conflicts,
including the unleashing of all the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
acquired by some 25 nations, and more all the time.

As an example, the NSF has no separate website "front page"  category for
"energy", and in fact it seems to be doing little really innovative in the
energy field.  I see no indication of interest in the fact that the present
electrodynamics used to design and build electrical power systems is 136+
years old in its foundations, riddled with errors, or that it really should
be corrected.

Particularly I see no realization at all of the enormous nondiverged energy
flow already in the immediate external space surrounding every circuit and
transmission line -- a mind-boggling energy flow discovered by Heaviside in
the 1880s, never even suspected by Poynting, and arbitrarily "buried" by
Lorentz since no one could explain the source of such a vast energy flow
from the terminals of every generator and battery.   I challenge you to
fully examine the total energy flow from the terminals, including what gets
intercepted by the circuit and used, and what misses the circuit and is
totally wasted.  You will not find that calculation in any textbook.  But
you will find an illustration of the external wasted energy flow in Kraus,
Electromagnetics, 4th edition. More on that in a moment.

Let me give you a "for instance" of the lack of NSF innovation and
"rethinking" the energy problem from the ground up.

None of the shaft power input to a generator adds one watt to the power
line.  All the hydrocarbons burned, the dams built, the windmills erected,
and the nuclear power cells consumed, does not furnish one single watt of
the actual electrical power that flows along the external circuit lines,
filling all space around them.  None of that energy input to the generator
shaft  is transduced into energy output from the terminals!

Is that insane?  No it is not!.  All you have to do is deliberately  track
the actual energy transductions.  First, the mechanical shaft horsepower
input forces the rotation of the rotor against resistance, creating a
magnetic field.  For an assumed perfect generator, that transduces 100% of
the mechanical input energy into internal magnetic field energy.  So far so

So what does the magnetic field expend its energy upon?  Quite simply it
forces the positive charges in one directions, and the negative charges in
the other, separating them and forming the source dipole.  All the magnetic
field energy is expended to that and nothing more.

So what powers the external circuit, if it isn't the input shaft energy

Quite simple, if you will bring in a particle physicist and fire the staid
electrical engineer!  Since the discovery of broken symmetry in the 1950s,
we know that (see T.D. Lee's Nobel Prize) opposite charges such as in a
dipole form a broken symmetry in the fierce energy exchange between the
dipole charges and the active vacuum.  Now please notice that the classical
electrodynamics model used by those power system designers doesn't even
include the vacuum interaction, much less a broken symmetry in it!  In
short, forget the electrical engineers, they don't even know what powers
their own power lines or circuits.

Anyway, what is the importance of that broken symmetry of the source dipole?

Well, rigorously it means that something virtual has become observable.  In
other words, those dipole charges continuously absorb virtual photon energy
from the active vacuum -- well known for decades.  But not all the absorbed
energy is re-radiated as virtual photons!  Broken symmetry requires that
some of this absorbed virtual energy is transduced into real, observable EM
energy by that dipole. So the dipole excitation "decays" by emitting real,
honest-to-God EM energy right out of the generator terminals to which it is

That is the actual source of the energy that pours from the generator
terminals, filling space around the attached external power line and

Well, here again the NSF is sleeping on its hands.  For God's sake, go check
the original papers by Poynting and by Heaviside, the independent
discoverers of "EM energy flow through space" -- a concept which did not
exist in physics until their work in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already
dead.  If you will check the actual original papers, something remarkable
emerges.  Poynting never considered anything at all except that small energy
component that (in today's knowledge) strikes the surface charges in the
conductors, and gets diverged into the wires to power the Drude electrons.
Heaviside, on the other hand, also discovered that the tiny component that
gets diverged into the wires to power the circuit, is a very tiny portion of
the overall EM energy flow through space around that transmission line.
Indeed, he pointed out that the diverged component hardly alters the angle
of the remaining flow that misses the circuit entirely and is wasted.

Why do we not have a single textbook or paper calculating (at least
examples) of how much power is in the external "Heaviside component" that
misses the circuit altogether, passes on beyond it into space and is wasted?
Reason is simple, and it is what frightened Heaviside so he would only speak
cautiously of it.  The component that is just wasted is to very much larger
than the component that is intercepted, diverged, and used that it boggles
the mind.  My own "back of the envelope calculation" for a particular simple
little case shows about 10 trillion times as much energy wasted as is
actually caught and used.

Enter the greatest electrical scientist of the day, Lorentz.  He understood
Heaviside's additional nondiverged component, but in the 1880s there were no
electrons, atoms, nuclei, active vacuum, Feynman diagrams, etc. in the
scientific literature.  No one had the foggiest notion of any possible
source for a little 100 watt generator actually outputting 1,000 trillion
watts of power, if it were all intercepted and used.  Anyone actually trying
to point this out then, would instantly have been labeled a total lunatic
and perpetual motion nut.

So not able to solve the problem, Lorentz eliminated it, as do all
electrodynamicists since then.  Lorentz reasoned that, well, since this
bothersome enormous energy flow component did not power anything, it "had no
physical significance" (Lorentz's term).  so he simply integrated the energy
flow vector itself around a closed surface assumed around any volume element
of interest.  Voila!  That neatly and quite arbitrarily discards Heaviside's
nondiverged energy flow component, while retaining Poynting's diverged,
collected, and utilized component.

Also, the Poynting component will agree with "circuit measurements".  We
essentially measure by dissipation from the circuit, and all the energy that
is dissipated from the circuit must first have entered the circuit, hence is
the Poynting component.

And with that neat trick, and the continued adamant universal use of
Lorentz's trick, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. scientific
community have guaranteed the present escalating energy crisis.

Not a single university in the U.S. teaches how a circuit or powerline
system is ACTUALLY powered from the broken symmetry of the source dipole in
the "power source".  Everything we ever built, was and is powered by EM
energy freely extracted from the seething vacuum by the source dipole in the
generator or battery.

And not a professor or national research organization has the gumption to go
after that long-neglected fierce Heaviside energy flow component, to
intercept it, collect it, and use it.  Not a textbook even shows its
magnitude (although at least Kraus, Electromagnetics, 4th edition does show
the energy flow around the conductors, that is missed, and shows the
contours for how many watts/meter squared can be intercepted at each point
by one unit point static charge.

Please register the following!  At each of Kraus' contour points, if you put
1,000 unit point static charges, you will collect precisely 1,000 times as
much power at that single point as Kraus shows on the labeled contour.  And
you can intercept such energy at every surrounding point.

If you collect that available energy flow already there around every line,
using a switching-collector arrangement in a totally separate circuit (after
all, this is transmission from one station (the source dipole in the
generator) and a distant receiver (the intercepting point and system), and
there is no need for that separate system to have any connection with the
generator dipole than just its own antenna intercepting energy.

So if all the generator in our power systems does is just make a dipole, why
do we have to keep powering up that shaft?

Again, its because of the insanity of engineers.  In the prevailing
closed-current loop circuit all our power systems are designed and built to,
every "depotentialized" electron in the ground return line is forcibly
rammed back up through the source dipole in the generator itself.  It is
simple to show that precisely one half the EM energy the external circuit
does feebly catch in its Poynting component, is thus dissipated to forcibly
do work on those dipole charges against the back emf, scattering the charges
and destroying the dipole, thereby stopping the energy flow from the vacuum.

The other half of the energy intercepted by the external circuit in its
Poynting component, is used to power the external loads and losses.  That
means that less than half the collected energy gets to power the load, while
a full half is used to destroy the dipole.

So the stupid circuit simply guarantees the destruction of its source
dipole -- and cutting off the extraction of energy from the vacuum -- faster
than it powers its load.

Well, it requires as much work on those scattered charges to RESTORE the
dipole again, as it took to scatter the charges and destroy the dipole.  So
we have to forcibly turn that generator shaft some more, to make the
magnetic field again, and to force the charges separation into a dipole
again.  Even in a 100% efficient generator, we have to therefore input more
energy to get the dipole restored, than we got out in the load.

Is it any wonder that this stupid system has a COP<1.0?  The thing is
diabolically designed to kill itself faster than it powers the load!

Isn't it insane to (1) go to all the trouble of burning hydrocarbon to burn
and heat water in a boiler, to make steam and run a steam turbine to crank
the shaft of the generator, to form a source dipole which has a broken
symmetry in the vacuum, and therefore establishes the system as an open
dissipative system freely receiving energy from its external vacuum
environment, and then (2) continually destroy that disequilibrium and
extraction of vacuum energy, by destroying the dipole faster than any of the
free energy from the vacuum is used to power the load ?

Is that the best the National Foundation of Science is capable of
conceiving?  Don't you  even believe the proven results of all that research
in particle physics, where the broken symmetry of that source dipole has
been known for nearly a half century?

Why have you not mandated the correction of the hoary old classical EM model
used by "modern" electrical engineers, so that the vacuum interaction and
the source dipole's broken symmetry in it are explicitly included and
modeled?  And why do you not commission some "example" calculations by
experienced physicists to show how much energy can be freely caught from the
long-neglected Heaviside nondiverged energy component surrounding every
electrical power line?

If you are at all interested in this, please check my website,, to see some papers dealing with these problems.  See my
paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole", to show precisely how that
energy (in classical EM rather than in QED) is directly extracted from the
time domain.  For a rigorous new look at the problem, I also suggest some
excellent papers by M.W. Evans and the AIAS theorists: Specifically, see
M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden, et al., "Classical
Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the
Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; ------ "Runaway
Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy
from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; ----- "The Effect of
Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000,
p. 289-296; ------ "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator
with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.

The AIAS also has more than 90 very serious scientific papers, many dealing
with energy and extracting EM energy from the vacuum, on a Department of
Energy website.  These are in O(3) electrodynamics, which is a much-extended
higher symmetry electrodynamics far superior to the standard U(1) model.

Respectfully, the energy crisis can be totally solved, with rather cheap and
very clean solutions, in two years for about $40 million.  Every power
system we ever built, was only a system to extract the EM energy from the
vacuum via the broken symmetry of a source dipole once formed.  Yet also, in
the appalling lack of understanding of the engineers, every one of those
systems deliberated self-enforces Lorentz symmetry in the system's vacuum
interaction during the system's excitation energy discharge, by using the
closed current loop circuit.

The desperate needs of the energy-badgered citizens of the U.S. are for a
new and innovative scientific examination of the entire energy problem, from
ground zero up.  And that particularly means a thorough and immediate
revision to the 136-year-old seriously flawed electrodynamics.

In an open system far from equilibrium with its active environment,
classical equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply.  Instead, the special
thermodynamics for open disequilibrium systems apply.  As is well-known in
the science of such systems, they are permitted to (1) self-order, (2)
self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than the operator must
input (the excess is freely received from the active environment, in this
case the active environment, (4) power itself and its load (all the energy
is freely received from the active vacuum), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

The source dipole does all five functions, once formed.  It also extracts a
truly enormous energy flow from the vacuum.  The puerile power systems we
build, however, continue to ignore the vast component of that energy flow
that does not strike the circuit, hence does not get diverged into the wires
by the surface charges, and is just wasted.

Since every electrical system ever built already is powered by vacuum energy
via the source dipole's broken symmetry, it follows that we ourselves have
been unconsciously building those same systems in such fashion as to destroy
their own vacuum energy extracting function (their source dipoles) faster
than they can power their loads.

How can we possibly continue to justify "scientific understanding" when the
basis for all the above has already been in physics for 50 years in all
parts of it, and for over 100 years in some of the parts of it?

Why do you not have some sharp young grad students and post-docs funded to
thoroughly go into these matters?

The Maxwell-Heaviside equations, BEFORE Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical
regauging, do include electrical power systems far from equilibrium with
their active vacuum environment.  As such, they do allow electrical power
systems that perform those five magic functions.  Since Lorentz's regauging,
every electrical power system is designed and built to be fully in accord
with those symmetrically regauged equations -- which arbitrarily discard all
that class of Maxwellian systems exhibiting COP>1.0 and conforming to the
laws of physics, laws of disequilibrium thermodynamics, conservation of
energy law, and the Maxwell-Heaviside theory before further "tampering" to
get easier equations!

Simply check my paper on Bedini's process whereby a negative resistor is
formed in a common lead acid storage battery.  Bedini has been building
little laboratory demonstrations of legitimate COP>1.0 little power systems
for more than 20 years.  He does it by utilizing the (relatively) enormous
momentum of the lead ion current between the plates, and the electron
current between the outside of the plates and through the external circuit.
By deliberately dephasing the internal ion current from the external
electron current, and using a self-forming overpotentialization of both, the
battery ion current can be overpotentialized and in charging mode, at the
same time the electron current into the external circuit is
overpotentialized and in powering mode.

Check it out, it's easy to see if one takes into account what is discussed
in my paper explaining the principles of the proven Bedini process.  The
process can easily be demonstrated by Bedini.

As my close colleagues and I  have shown here in our motionless
electromagnetic generator (a successful proof-of-principle laboratory
experimental device), the Aharonov-Bohm effect alone can be applied in
deliberately opened transformer-type systems far from equilibrium in the
vacuum exchange, so that the system permissibly outputs more EM energy than
the operator inputs.

Every electrical power system out there already outputs enormously more
energy than the operator inputs, if you will but fully account the output
energy flow to include that Lorentz-discarded Heaviside nondiverged energy
flow output!

I would challenge you to send me a calculation of that TOTAL energy output
flow, in both the Heaviside and Poynting components, for an assumed simple

Let me put it simply.  The Poynting diverged component is what enters the
circuit, and what all the textbooks account.  The Heaviside nondiverged
component is an extra, known energy flow component in addition to the
Poynting component.

A priori, every circuit already outputs more EM energy flow than the energy
that the operator inputs to the shaft of the generator, or the chemical
energy residing in the battery.  Check it out, try it and see.  Simply try
to find a text or paper calculating BOTH those energy flow components.

So on behalf of the long-suffering U.S. taxpayers and consumers, this note
is to urge you to give serious attention to these matters discussed, to
quickly resolve the energy crisis forever.  It's eminently doable.  We need
it.  The world needs it.  The strategic survival of the United States of
America requires it.

We simply need the National Science Foundation to rise to the challenge ,
and take a very positive and vigorous leadership  in innovative rethinking
the entire electrical power generation problem and presence of a ready

Most respectfully,

T. E. Bearden, Ph.D.
Dir., ADAS
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
2311 Big Cove Road
Huntsville, AL 35801
(256) 533-3682