The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:12 PM

Subject: RE: Ken Rauen Explains Dr. Mill's Blacklightpower process


Well, if you go deeply into it, it gets very complicated very fast. But there is reason to the rhyme.

E.g.: what is a sub-quantum atom? Sub-quantum normally means VIRTUAL.  And a virtual electron, virtual atom, whatever would normally “radiate” except in the virtual state, subquantally. So the better statement might be that a virtual-state atom has no observable EM radiation.

From where I’m coming, dark matter is an related but somewhat different thing, using the Dirac sea model of the vacuum.  The “electron vacuum” (the normal vacuum) is comprised of negative mass-energy holes, each filled with a positive-energy electron. We know (and nonequilibrium thermodynamics agrees, since it directly allows violation of the second law of thermodynamics almost at will) that a strong gradient across a little region of the vacuum will lift out some of those hidden electrons, providing a sudden real electron current (often encountered in the Lenz law effect where one sharply tries to reverse an ongoing process involving a current; momentarily the ongoing current INCREASES, and of course that is measured many times and long since experimentally shown and validated. What the electrical engineering Lenz law effect “model” does not normally consider is (1) where the excess electrons came from and how, and (2) what was the corresponding effect on the vacuum from which the electrons were lifted? Indeed, that does leave behind – at least momentarily – some “unfilled” Dirac holes (again, which are NEGATIVE MASS ENERGY ELECTRONS). As source charges themselves, these negative mass-energy electrons emit NEGATIVE ENERGY photons which, at light speed, produce and continually replenish the associated NEGATIVE ENERGY EM FIELDS of those negative mass-energy electrons (those holes).

In my view, these negative mass-energy electrons (holes) and their currents are in fact the long-sought “dark matter”, and they produce ANTI-gravity rather than gravity, due to their negative mass-energy which curves spacetime in the opposite direction from the curvature due to positive mass-energy.

The negative energy EM fields and potentials associated with the dark matter holes and hole currents are the so-called “dark energy”, again in my view.

The beauty of this view is that one can readily evoke such dark matter currents and dark energy currents in circuits by special use, and suddenly one has an experimental basis for one’s conclusions.  Bedini has been evoking such dark matter currents and dark energy flows in his circuitry for some years, but just calling it “radiant energy” (as Tesla seems to have also dubbed it). Since there are real experimental results on the bench, and one who works with John for awhile can learn to generate them and replicate them, then the requisites for a beginning science and technology of “dark energy” and “dark matter” – from this viewpoint – has already been laid down by John Bedini. John and I also filed a PPA on evoking and using such energy and matter currents in real EM circuits; when we are able to afford it, we will file a formal patent application.

The peculiar characteristics of EM negative energy flow makes the use of dark energy particularly attractive and useful, since it readily produces free “energy gain” by the environment’s continual insistence on inserting (converging) extra excess negative energy into one’s energy flows, at any impedance encountered by the negative energy flow. Hence when charging a battery with negative energy, one “connects” the battery terminals “backwards” to normal practice – and the impedance of the battery results in the environment freely furnishing three or four times as much negative energy to the charging of the impedance as what the operator has to input himself. The result is a clearly COP>1.0 process, which nonetheless obeys the laws of physics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

Further, with this testable approach to dark energy and dark matter, one can indeed account for the odd gravitational forces that hold the spiral arms of the spiral galaxies together. But the forces are antigravity forces back upon the galactic arm matter, from gatherings and collections of dark matter currents that have cumulated outside the galactic arms. One can also account for the mysterious “drag” forces produced on the Pioneer spacecraft, which of course are known and experimentally measured.  And lastly but most importantly, one can test and examine the odd behavior of such dark energy flows and dark matter currents in real circuits, on the lab bench.

To do a scientific approach, one normally attempts to construct a mathematical model and view that captures and describes the phenomenology being produced in one’s experimental results in the laboratory (or in some cases, observed at a distance in the universe). The combination of the two – a fitted model and the substantiating experimental results – then produces a legitimate theory of the phenomena, at least sufficient for the beginning.  As additional phenomenology is uncovered, either the original model must account for it, or else the model must be extended or changed, as necessary to continue to agree with experiment.

So in my view, we are in the very early stages of beginning a technology of dark matter and dark energy, in our EM circuits and systems and in our electrical power circuits.

Practical antigravity also follows, since the negative mass-energy hole repels normal positive mass-energy matter. So if intense flows of such hole currents (and their associated dark energy fields and potentials) are evoked in one’s circuit, then one’s unit can exhibit practical antigravity.

The Sweet VTA device produced self-oscillation in the tremendously strong binding energy fields of the nuclei of the barium atoms in the barium ferrite magnets used by Sweet. Since binding energy is also “negative” energy, then his device produced very powerful self-oscillation of very powerful negative energy EM fields and potentials directly inside the barium nucleus – in there where the protons and neutrons are! (Note here the touching or possible touching with Mills’ theory. Would not an oscillation of the negative binding energy of these nucleons also involve producing some “lowered state” nucleons, at least temporarily?).

The oscillations of negative binding energy also produced very powerful “unfilled Dirac hole” type currents right in those barium nuclei and outward. The result, due to the tremendous negative energy density being produced, did produce practical antigravity in the Sweet device. I designed the experiment used by Sweet to demonstrate that effect, and convinced him (beyond all reason back then, from a “positive energy” view!) to simply add significantly more impedance to his load, in steps, and then test the device as each increment was added. As the additional impedance was added in steps, the weight of the object on the bench decreased.  Until, with the impedance doubled, the unit had lost 90% of its normal weight on a good scales.  Later Sweet did levitate the device on a tether string tied to a bedpost, and flew it around by tilting it (with another string) so a linear propulsion component developed.  The actual results of the first part of the experiments (loss of 90% of the unit’s weight) was included in the paper I wrote, which is Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. Unfortunately Sweet later died and never fully revealed the activation secret by which barium ferrite magnetic materials could be triggered into sustained self-oscillation at 60 Hertz. Weak self-oscillation of such permanent magnetic materials at higher frequency is known in the conventional literature, of course, particularly in thin films magnetic research.

I also tried very hard to get Sweet to call in leading members of the scientific community and do this experiment themselves, but a very professional attempt was made on his life, frightening him immensely. He was absolutely convinced (and I believe now he was correct) that he would quickly be killed if he ever touched the antigravity aspects again.

Anyway, this view, using basically the Dirac sea theory as an initial starting part, is where I’m coming from with respect to dark energy and dark matter. So far, at least this testable approach is consistent with the observed dark energy and dark matter astrophysical effects etc. A good math model for all this, however, requires the use of higher group symmetry algebra and higher group symmetry electrodynamics, since the “normal” old electrical engineering model falsely assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime (as well as many other falsities, such as arbitrarily exclusion of all Lorentz asymmetrical systems – and we are in fact discussing Lorentz asymmetrical systems!. One gets dark energy and dark matter – at least in this approach – only when the vacuum is active and the spacetime is deliberately curved in a “negative energy enforced” direction. In short, rigorously we are attempting to study those asymmetrical EM systems that Lorentz in 1892 and all electrical engineering departments have arbitrarily discarded since then.

Mills’ theory is more advanced in that he has produced at least sufficient supporting math models for the beginning, and he has an experimental basis behind his demonstrated results. Note that lowering the ground state of the hydrogen ion (the proton) is indeed a negative mass-energy change. Assuming that sufficient lowering (negative energy change) can be induced, then one would in fact be speaking of a sort of “Dirac proton hole” once a proton’s worth of positive energy had radiated away.

One of the problems facing researchers in this area is that Dirac himself hated negative energy, and tried very hard to get rid of it in his electron theory. He failed, so he placed it in his Dirac sea concept of the vacuum. But then, once the positive mass-energy electron is popped out of the hole, leaving the negative mass-energy hole, he did some arduous straining in reason to conclude that the hole would then depart (there are the hole currents!) and in turn be replaced at the original position by a filled hole (a piece of normal Dirac sea vacuum). In short, in Dirac’s view attempting to observe the hole would result in filling it with a positive mass-energy electron in that sense, which is a lessoning of the negative energy of the hole in the positive energy direction and a reversal of the hole’s deeply negative charge to zero charge (i.e., a change in the positive charge direction). In short, he then stated that this change would be observed as a POSITRON, which of course has positive mass-energy and positive energy EM fields – quite different from the isolated hole. This observed positron IS NOT the hole that departed – because that hole has negative mass-energy and negative energy EM fields. Rather, it is the change that occurs in the vacuum when the hole departs. It is a real change, but it is NOT the hole itself, nor is an observation of that change an observation of the departed hole.

Anyway, rightly or wrongly Dirac concluded that “the hole itself” would thus be observed as a positron. That is false, when one examines the process which is for a positronic change in the vacuum when the hole departs. In short, the conclusion should have been that the DEPARTED HOLE itself could not be directly observed, but that the change of the vacuum to ELIIMINATE a hole by replacing it with a filled hole would be observable as a positron.

So the present conventional theory seems very muddled in its treatment of the “Dirac hole”. Due to this, in my view the present researchers have “lost” dark energy and dark matter, by that Dirac-inspired erroneous conclusion that the hole is somehow a positron. It isn’t.

However, Mills has in fact rather extended the Dirac sea ELECTRON theory, to open up the Dirac sea to other kinds of holes and other kinds of negative mass-energy “particles”. I believe if he can get it all together well enough, and iron out any remaining wrinkles, he will have emerged with a tremendous expansion of the Dirac sea concept and its experimental and theoretical treatment. My view is that, if nature makes holes in the ambient vacuum the size of electrons, then it jolly well can also make holes that are some 1800 times bigger.

Out of all this, somehow, I believe there will eventually emerge a rather well-fitted experimentally-based model that finally does allow really practical engineering of the dark matter, dark energy, and practical antigravity.  It will also obviously allow excess EM energy to be taken rather freely from the vacuum, thus resolving our present severe energy difficulties. By use of negative energy flows along a path containing iterative series impedances, in theory one can use a little negative energy generator powered by a flashlight battery to generate enough negative energy to power all the loads in New York City! If we used negative energy and designed our impedance loads to be powered by negative energy, we also would always experience an additional free negative energy gain (and real power gain) in the load itself, for each individual load.

Again, experimentally based work such as Mills work should be highly supported, and young doctoral candidates and post docs in good universities should also be funded and released to study these BlackPower processes, models, experiments, etc.

The real present barrier to a great new science of energy, antigravity, etc. is the strongly dogmatic insistence by most of our conventional scientific community that such a “release” to expand the models and experiments is against the sad old 1880’s CEM/EE model, and thus should be vigorously prohibited and suppressed.

In short, in my view organized science in many ways has now become its own worst enemy, implementing and enforcing old 1880s EM dogma rather than expanded EM science using the scientific method.

Best wishes,


Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:05 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Ken Rauen Explains Dr. Mill's Blacklightpower process

Good Morning Tom,

Thought you'd like to take a closer look at this piece of information 

Ken Rauen explains it beautifully,

His statement: "When an atom at a high energy state (also called an excited state) falls to a lower level, energy is released. This usually occurs as a photon of light. The observed line spectra emissions of atoms corresponds to these transitions." incorporates your 'observable' [photon]

Ken Rauen is referring to the lowering of the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom, thus the release of the [photon] 'observable' energy of the hydrogen atom.

The Hydrogen 'atom' "Since sub-quantum atoms are non-radiative, they are an explanation for "dark matter" that keeps galaxies together by gravity and not flying apart at the high rotational speeds of many galaxies." exhibits the characteristics [dark matter] [The ultraviolet line spectra of the sun are unexplained by classical QM. To explain the UV spectrum of the sun from hydrogen (the primary constituent of the sun), Mills proposed fractional quantum states, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and so on. These energy transitions fit the UV spectrum of the sun, hence the name, Blacklight Power. Since sub-quantum atoms are non-radiative, they are an explanation for "dark matter" that keeps galaxies together by gravity and not flying apart at the high rotational speeds of many galaxies.] of the 'non-observable' when they are in fractional quantum states, 1/2. 1/3, 1/4, 1/5.

Ken further states: "The energy released in these sub-ground state transitions is larger than any known chemical reaction and the Mills process was initially thought to be a cold fusion phenomenon. The energy level is not as great as nuclear reactions; it is intermediate to nuclear and chemical reaction energies. It is in a category by itself."

He concludes: "BLP has a terrific energy producing process that liberates heat in the 1000 degree F range, but it has chosen to first develop the hydrino technology into a new class of chemical compounds, as the hydrino is chemically reactive."

Tom, the point I'm making is that all 'observable' matter is composed of 'nonobservable' energy 'states' that exist within the virtual/nonvirtual quantum state of the 'creation' construct.   Therefore the 'energy' source derived from the 'vacuum' originates also in similar fashion?  It is this kind of 'simplification' that we need to explain, when discussing the MEG, is it not?

All the Best,

Leslie R. P

PS: What you have given me thus far is excellent..........and it is this kind of explanation that I will be piecing together in February.

The key to acceptability.......... to the 'uninitiated' skeptics is to........take their 'language' and arrange it in such fashion as to demonstrate 'viability,' and thus enable them to 'recognize' and thus gain 'acceptability' [in their eyes]  of the process procedure of the MEG operation.  As you can clearly see........Ken Rauen is amenable to 'recognizing' a procedural 'process'......and that is a good thing.