The Tom Bearden
|To: "David Crockett
Subject: RE: Energy Solutions Briefing Info [Sacramento followup]
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:13:53 -0500
Thanks for keeping me informed of these important developments.
You are quite correct in that the energy crisis can be solved quickly and
permanently, whenever the scientific community and other powers will allow
it to be done, and will fund its development. The cost of a single large power plant will solve the entire world energy crisis forever. Due to the now well-known shenanigans of using national security classification improperly to steal and hide technology from independent inventors, it is also necessary to place strong shackles on the various government organizations just willy-nilly doing this. For that reason, I previously recommended a Presidential Decision Directive, or some such, which would thus chain those who engage in under-the-table dealing with favored contractors, becoming tiger sharks in the sea rather than those who would assist the innovative small inventor. Simply check out Larry Fullerton's inventions here in Huntsville in spread spectrum type technology, and the efforts made to deprive him of it.
Presently I'm slowly recovering from a heart attack, so am on a more leisurely work pace, but steadily improving. On my website I am also trying to put up good technical information on permissible COP>1.0 electrical power systems, and the theory and principles by which they work. That effort will continue unabated. The website is graciously furnished pro bono by Network Innovations Inc. and is also being maintained by Mr. Tony Craddock.
Working with advanced theorists of AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for
Advanced Study), the AIAS has published one excellent scientific article on
our experimental device and how it is able to extract EM energy from the vacuum. This paper was published in one of the leading physics journals.
The article is M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94. A second AIAS paper on the MEG, by the same authors, showing the unified field theory aspects, has been approved and will be published in August. It is: "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393 (in press). Some other very important AIAS papers with respect to energy are (same authors): "Derivation of the Lehnert field equations from gauge theory in vacuum: Space charge and current," Foundations Of Physics Letters, 13(2), APR 2000, p.179-184; ---- "Classical electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition: Extracting energy from the vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; ---- "On Whittaker's F and G Fluxes, Part III: The Existence of Physical Longitudinal and Timelike Photons," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 68-71; "Representation of the Vacuum electromagnetic Field in Terms of Longitudinal and Time-Like Potentials: Canonical Quantization," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 82-88; ---- "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equation: Elimination of the Lorentz Condition," Foundations of Physics, 39(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130.
With regard to disbelief in permissible COP>1.0 electrical systems, one of
the difficulties in the academic community is that the standard classical U(1) electrodynamics used to design and build all conventional electrical power systems has two highly simplifying and erroneous assumptions: (1) that the local spacetime is flat, and (2) that the local vacuum is either inert or the system is in equilibrium with it. As is well-known in thermodynamics, only an open system in disequilibrium exchange with its active environment is permitted to exhibit COP>1.0. All systems in equilibrium are covered by classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics and are limited to COP = 1.0 or less. So the type of electrodynamics -- U(1) -- being taught to all our nation's electrical engineers, already arbitrarily and erroneously discards the special active environment of the electrical power system, that "active environment" being comprised of two parts: (1) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics, and (2) the local
active vacuum and its exchange dynamics.
In short, none of our universities and power company scientists consider the
supersystem, which consists of three components: (1) the system and its dynamics (this is what is taught in university), (2) the active vacuum and its exchange dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics. All three components of the supersystem interact with each other.
No analysis of any COP>1.0 system can be adequately made unless a higher
symmetry electromagnetics is used to analyze it in what is essentially a unified field theory approach. U(1) electrodynamics eliminates the entire "active environment" portion of the supersystem, thus covers only systems in equilibrium and thus limited to COP<1.0. On the other hand, when the active environment is included, the supersystem then permits "free electromagnetic winds" entering the system and consequent COP>1.0 operation. In short, it permits "electromagnetic windmills" with steady and free winds, while U(1) permits the windmill but eliminates the wind.
In fact, such open systems far from equilibrium (i.e., "electrical windmills with steady winds, so to speak) are well-known to permit five "magical" functions. Such a system can (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate of self-rotate, (3) output more energy for work in the load than the operator has to input (the excess energy is freely received from the active environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the active environment, and (5) exhibit negentropy.
It is indeed strange that every conventional electrical power system is still designed on the basis of 137-year-old Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz regauged theory, which erroneously assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime. The active vacuum has been proven and used in particle physics for decades, and in fact the broken 3-symmetry of the source dipole in every generator has also been in particle physics for nearly a half-century. Yet it does not even appear in U(1) electrodynamics, even though Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for, among other things, predicting that broken symmetry. Lee and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956, and it was experimentally confirmed by Wu et al., in early 1957. So important and profound a change to physics was this broken symmetry discovery that Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in latter 1957, the very same year it was experimentally proven! Yet the broken symmetry of the source dipole (and every charge; see my Giant Negentropy paper) has not yet even been incorporated into electrical engineering, or considered in the design of electrical power systems.
Electrical engineering departments are still completely unaware that all 3-space EM energy comes from the time-domain, and that cranking the shaft of the generator separates the internal charges to make the source dipole between its terminals, but does not add a single watt to the power line.
The dipole, once made, freely extracts EM energy from the vacuum in unusable
form, transduces it into usable form, and outputs it in that usable EM energy form. Every electrical circuit and every electrical power system is and always has
been powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum. And even though the rigorous basis for that has been in particle physics for nearly a half century, it has not yet made it into the electrical engineering curriculum, or the electrical power company's lexicon.
One can extract all the EM energy one wishes, cleanly and easily, from the vacuum -- anywhere, anytime, inexhaustibly. The problem is not getting out the energy, but in intercepting it and using it without destroying the source dipole that is doing the extracting. All our engineers are taught to design in and produce entropy in their systems, when in fact it is simple to design continuous negentropy (the fifth function that any open dissipative system is permitted to do, and that every charge and dipole already do).
In the year 2000, after a three-year struggle I finally solved the long-vexing problem of the source charge, recognized as the most difficult problem in electrodynamics (see D.K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii). For the solution, see my paper (available on my website, www.cheniere.org ): "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. The solution required correcting Whittaker's misinterpretation of the phase conjugate wave half of his phase conjugate longitudinal wavepair, in his 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential. After publication of this paper, I also discovered very strong theoretical support for that reinterpretation, in F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, in Chapter 5. This standard textbook gives a deeper coverage of the photon polarizations in quantum field theory. Mandl and Shaw strongly argue that the longitudinal and scalar polarizations are not directly observable, but only in combination, where they manifest as the "instantaneous" Coulomb (i.e., electrostatic) potential. My comment is that this strong argument,
translated from particle terminology to wave terminology, directly fits and powerfully supports my re-interpretation of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition
of the scalar potential. However, Mandl and Shaw fail to account for their assumed interaction of the detecting/observing unit point charge (which is what does the "combining" of the scalar and longitudinal photons), and thus fail to account for the absorption of the incoming time-polarized wave or photon, the transduction of that excitation energy of the charge into longitudinal EM wave/photon energy, and the subsequent emission of that excitation energy as a longitudinal EM wave or photon in 3-space. Thus Mandl and Shaw missed the time-excitation charging via absorption of the "coupled" time-polarized EM wave/photon, and the decay by emission of the 3-space longitudinal EM wave/photon. This novel but extraordinarily fundamental interaction has been erroneously omitted in physics prior to our belated recognition of it. So Mandl and Shaw do not account for photon (or wave) polarization transduction, where the "causal" time-polarized EM wave or photon comes in and is absorbed by the detecting charge or dipole, then re-emitted as the longitudinally polarized EM wave or photon in 3-space.
There are indeed mathematical physicists and electrodynamicists, such as Evans, Barrett and others, who readily handle non-Abelian electrodynamics with higher group symmetry such as O(3) or SU(2)XSU(2). Only such higher symmetry electrodynamics can directly model COP>1.0 EM systems, because the lower symmetry models such as U(1) arbitrarily destroy the active environment, the source of the excess energy, and the interactions that produce it in the system. Nonetheless, an engineering science is perfectly possible and can be developed, given the proper funding and carefully selected theorists to do it, and anytime the scientific community will allow it to be funded.
In addition to some of the successful units you mentioned, our own MEG development (presently a successful laboratory experiment) can be readied for commercial production in about a year of further research and development.
We have moved our research overseas to a foreign laboratory, because we could find no U.S. laboratories, universities, or government national laboratories willing to undertake or fund such research in a nondisclosure, non-circumvention manner. U.S. universities, e.g., are also quite intensively pressuring their scientists and professors to file patents. So do the U.S. national laboratories, including those under the U.S. Department of Energy. DARPA, e.g., is wont to use nearly piracy in its phrase of the government reserving "march-in rights" anytime it declares the inventor is not getting his invention to market "fast enough". It was a
distinct pleasure to find that there are indeed highly capable foreign scientists in very modern labs, who are already fully aware that the U(1) electrodynamics cannot be applied to many areas such as COP>1.0 EM power systems, and in fact already teach in their universities the higher symmetry electrodynamics which in the U.S. is largely confined to use in particle physics, not the electrical engineering departments.
Anyway, I appreciate you keeping me informed, and look forward to your success in your own negotiations and research. California and its experiences should serve as a wake-up call to what is in store for the rest of the nation, unless more than lip service is given to the favorite buzz phrase of the day: innovative out-of-the-box research -- such as legitimate research in higher symmetry electrodynamic power systems.
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:42 AM
Subject: Energy Solutions Briefing Info [Sacramento followup]
[please excuse renegade line spaces inserted by my webmail]
From: "David Crockett Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Energy Solutions Briefing Info
Date: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:50 PM [faxed ~5:05PM]
David Crockett Williams
General Agency Services
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Thursday, August 2, 2001
Scheduling Office of Governor Gray Davis
Dear Ms. Parrish:
Thank you very much for your efforts trying to get Governor Davis' representative to attend our Energy Crisis Solutions Summit session earlier this week and for your kind offer to follow up on the information we left in the Governor's office lobby on Monday with the Governor's Staff Assistant Sherri Herlinger who said she would deliver it to the appropriate person in the Governor's office for review and consideration by Governor Davis' Senior Energy Advisor, David Freeman, and his Energy Advisor Kellan Fluckiger.
As you suggested I will phone you again next week to see if there is someone on the Governor's staff with whom by then we can continue to followup on this information which we hope will be well received there to help solve the energy crisis in California and the Country.
This note is to offer additional information, some of which has come to light since our visit Monday to your office and the California Energy Commission with "new-energy technologies" experts Dr. Brian O'Leary, Hal Fox, Dr. Fred B. Wood Sr., and Mark Comings. We were glad to meet with Dr. Surles and Mr. Kukulka at the Energy Commission after we left your office.
Mr. Freeman may remember Dr. O'Leary in his position as Senior Energy Advisor to Morris Udall when he ran for US president, and in the mid-1970's
when in a similar capacity Dr. O'Leary assisted Congressman Udall in hearings of the Congressional Environment and Energy Subcommittee when they called Mr. Freeman as a witness before hearings of that subcommittee in Washington DC.
Should Mr. Freeman want to meet with him, Dr. O'Leary will be back in California and available to meet with Governor Davis and his advisors September 6-7, before leaving on his two month European tour to promote his newest book, "Re-Inheriting the Earth -- Awakening to Sustainable Solutions and Greater Truths".
Dr. O'Leary co-authored, with Steve Kaplan, an excellent 1999 overview article on these new-energy technologies [Miracle in the Void] which is posted at http://www.connexion.org/kaplan/home.html Mr. Kaplan will be in the Bay Area for a few days soon and would like to come to Sacramento and meet with California energy officials on Friday, August 17, to offer suggestions on how they might help utilize this information to resolve the energy crisis and to discuss research and development funding ideas.
Dr. O'Leary's previous book, "Miracle in the Void" about these new-energy technologies related to the Zero-Point Energy Field of the quantum vacuum flux, overviews some inventors he visited and provides a "psychological guidebook" for mainstream physicists coming to grips, as he did, with the reality of new physics behind these "fuel-less" power technologies. O'Leary also wrote the foreword to Jeane Manning's book, "The Coming Energy Revolution", a copy of which I left in our pile of papers with Ms. Herlinger on Monday and with Rob Schlichting at the Energy Commission last Friday.
In that book, on p.163, there is reproduced the text of a federal law by which the author claims many of these new-energy inventions are classified as secret, patents denied or confiscated along with the inventors' equipment, and inventors threatened with prison if they talk about their work in this area. In the preceding pages the case of Adam Trombly is discussed in this regard. New information on this case has come to me recently which has a direct bearing on the immediate situation where a representative of what the San Jose Mercury News calls "the leading industrial family in San Jose" wants to build a power plant now in San Jose, utilizing the best available new-energy technology, on one of the several
parcels of land they have purchased since March of this year for power plant
constructions in San Jose area. One such new-energy technology under consideration for this purpose seems fatally encumbered by suppression related to Manning's claims, the Trombly-Farnsworth technology.
I first heard of Trombly's work in the early 1980's when he determined the existence of what is now called (see DOE letter of May 12, 1998, reproduced at http://www.prop1.org/thomas/peacefulenergy/980512.khan.htm with related attachment at http://www.prop1.org/thomas/peacefulenergy/casimir.htm mentioning the harnessing of this energy source as "...the 'Holy Grail' of energy research") the "Zero-Point Energy Field of the Quantum Vacuum Flux" from anomalous NASA planetary energy measurements. Trombly had been a NASA consultant and was the person who in 1991 headed the team that utilized a new technique to extinguish the oil well fires in Kuwait after the Persian Gulf War, which began eleven years ago today with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The Federal gag order against Trombly mentioned in Manning's book related to the Trombly-Kahn closed path homopolar generator that he developed as an improvement on Bruce DePalma's "n-Machine" and was a result of Trombly's visit to the US Naval Submarine Laboratory where he saw that they were working on this kind of generator for submarine propulsion. He overcame that gag order by court action and went on with David Farnsworth, whose father is credited with the invention of television I believe, to develop the Trombly-Farnsworth solid-state oscillating electromagnetic zero-point energy extraction device which Trombly told me on the phone in May 1997 that they had operational for six years producing usable "fuel-less" electric power. I recently learned from someone who is now in day-to-day contact with Trombly and Farnsworth that in 1996 Federal Marshals with chainsaws and sledge hammers completely destroyed Farnsworth's $20 million electronics laboratory along with this device. In 1997 Trombly explained to me on the phone that he had proposed in 1989 the retrofitting of the Four Corners coal-fired electric power plants with their ZPE device, at a cost he estimated which I later learned approximates the cost of installing smoke scrubbers, with the result of additional threats on his life. During our recent visit to Sacramento my contact told me of an incident involving President George H.W. Bush in 1989 when Trombly and Farnsworth had scheduled a demonstration of this ZPE device for members of the US Senate and President Bush flew into a tantrum about it, throwing things around his office saying "we can't let them demonstrate this", after which was scheduled on the same date as this demonstration the only occasion during his presidency when President Bush invited Senators to the White House to "discuss the environment". The audience for this demonstration was thereby successfully diverted and no Senators attended it, instead going to this White House meeting.
I mention this information as some of many such "suppression stories" which many inventors in this area have experienced, and of which I am aware, over the past 25years of my interest and involvement in this field.
Hal Fox, who with Dr. O'Leary founded the Institute for New Energy, left you
two excellent papers prepared specially for Sacramento briefings ("New Energy Devices that will Change the World" and his specially prepared brief for the Governor and Energy Commission) -- for consideration of his advice as editor of the Journal of New Energy -- including mention of Thomas Bearden's recently developed solid-state ZPE device reported in his paper on a DOE website (since removed pending patent) based on his understanding of the overlooked original quaternion form of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.
Dr. Wood, who also understands these original equations and Bearden's work, submitted to your office, and the Energy Commission via Mr. Kukulka, Dr. Bearden's June 24, 2000, paper on how to solve the energy crisis quickly.
As Dr. O'Leary related to Dr. Surles on the steps of the Energy Commission
offices Monday, not all of our suggestions relate to these "new-energy" technologies and many relate to little known advances in current energy science. Mark Comings discussed with Dr. Surles and Mr. Kukulka the "lumeloid" new solar electric technology in final stages of development by the inventor of polarization film processes, who is now 90 years old. This process utilizes a coated organic nanotechnology dipole matrix that produces electricity from sunlight with efficiencies increased on order of 10-fold and production costs reduced nearly 10-fold compared to current silicon based photovoltaics. This process is based in part on an understanding that more sunlight can be converted to electricity by solar cells after first polarizing the incident light. This also means that present silicon-based photo-voltaic systems can be doubled in efficiency by simply coating their light absorbing surfaces with a polarizing film also developed by this inventor, Dr. Marx.
I will be happy to help in any way to facilitate future communications with these and other scientists and inventors in this new-energy field with whose work I am acquainted.
At your service,
David Crockett Williams
Ronald W. Kukulka, Assistant Deputy Director for Energy Technology
Development, California Energy Commission (www.energy.ca.gov), 1516 9th
Street, MS 44, Sacramento, CA 95814-5504, 916-654-4628, fax 916-654-4676,
Terry Surles, Ph.D., Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program Manager,
Technology Systems Division Director, California Energy Commission,
Sherri Herlinger, Staff Assistant, Office of Governor Gray Davis, Sacramento
David Freeman and Kellan Fluckiger at presumed email addresses