Tom Bearden 1930-2022

[Allcanadian]

https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244
RET Lt. Col Thomas Eugene Bearden 1930 - 2022

Energy from the Vacuum

There is enough energy inside the space in this empty cup to boil all the oceans of the world. 
This is a fact well known to the scientific community, and was, for example,
a favorite quote of Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman.

Bearden will be missed and he was an integral part of my learning curve towards understanding FE technology. The most valuable lesson I learned was that 99% of people have literally no idea what there talking about with respect to energy. As Bearden explained, there is no ambiguity in science and everyone with any credibility agrees there is an unimaginable amount of energy everywhere in everything. In my opinion this message was Bearden's greatest gift to the FE community.

This is classic Bearden...

"The Unnecessary Energy Crisis" in order to understand that all the hydrocarbons ever burned, dams ever built to power hydroturbines to turn the shafts of the generators, and nuclear fuel rods ever expended, have not added and will never add a single watt to the power line.  All that ferocious destruction of the biosphere has done nothing but force the internal charges of the generators apart, to make the source dipoles.  It is the source dipole that powers every electrical circuit and every power system, not the shaft horsepower input to the generator shaft. Isn't it strange that we have all been taught to design and build only closed current loop circuits-which a priori destroy their source dipoles (and thus the inflow of free electrical energy from the vacuum) faster than they can catch some of the free energy from the vacuum and use it to power their loads!  Until it is understood that all EM energy comes from the vacuum anyway, and specifically from the time domain as reactive power (electrical engineering term), then the operation of systems such as the MEG will make no sense to one at all, and in fact the mechanism actually powering every EM circuit and electrical power system will not be understood.

Indeed, the reason our generators require so much energy to be input is because the design is fundamentally flawed. People keep repeating the same mistakes because they don't understand what's actually happening or cannot think of a better way of doing things. As Bearden implies, the only real problem with our generators is that there specifically designed to produce an output proportional to the input.

Think about that, the moment we add a load to our generator the output current increases. The secondary magnetic field of the output current then interacts with the moving magnetic field which induced it creating an opposition to it's motion. We call this generator drag which is identical to another effect we call eddy current drag. In fact many FE inventors called all our conventional generators "eddy current generators" because the output current always moves in circles and opposes the input. All our generators use the same effect as moving a magnet across a conductive plate producing opposition. It's the most counterproductive and ridiculous thing one could do and yet everyone keeps doing it.

Which begs the question... why is everyone building generators based solely on the eddy current effect?.

This questioning of what many consider normal was where Bearden really shined in my opinion. For example, Bearden would always say "do not destroy the source dipoles". What does this mean?, how can the dipole source be destroyed?. Let's look at the process and reasoning behind it. We create a source dipole as an E field which is destroyed when we produce an input current and magnetic field. Thus...

Source dipole/E field >>> source current >>> source magnetic field >>> 0 <<< induced E field <<<induced current <<< opposing induced magnetic field

Ah were right back to square one producing an input/output current and magnetic fields in opposition or an eddy current generator. So in effect Bearden is saying stop doing this, it's stupid and we know it cannot work. Do not destroy the source dipole because we already know the result and it's not what we want...try something else.

Regards
AC

[F6FLT]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I won't miss Tom Bearden at all. He wasted too much of my time.

When a theory fails in science, because it doesn't fit the observations, you have to abandon it, it's a matter of intellectual honesty.

I have never seen Bearden come back to the MEG to tell us that this device never worked, that no one could reproduce it, and that the reason is that the principle he imagined is beyond reason.

Maybe he is in good faith and really believes what he says, but in any case, in science one has to verify theories by experiments, and reject them if their predictions do not match the measurements.
Bearden's theories are fairy tales, blah blah blah, since he does not confront them with observations and measurements, and those who have tried have failed and wasted their time.

https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/02/26/the-jackpot-of-crankery-woo-ph-1

[Bob Smith]

Bearden gave me the conceptual framework for stepping outside the conventional electrodynamic theory box. I appreciated most his affirmation that the aether is constantly seeking equilibrium, and any COP >1 apparatus has to continually disturb the aether with sharp transients, to allow the aether to respond, bringing an ongoing flow of charge into what is essentially an open system. Bearden, as I understood him, saw the futility of so-called closed systems. COP <1 is only possible in open system.
May he rest in eternal peace.

[F6FLT]

And what concrete technology outside the conventional electrodynamic theory box have you produced? At least a small experimental proof of concept of OU that the "conventional electrodynamic theory" would not explain?
Please share with us one of these miraculous achievements as the MEG would be, so that the facts finally demonstrate Bearden's genius hidden in his inconsistent blah-blah-blah.

[Jerry Volland]

Bearden did take at least one of his alternative technologies to the point of commercialisation.  He, along with a partner/co-worker, proved that a Scalar field outside a power line CAN conduct a modem signal.  They had equipment running and were ready to start raking in the revenue.  Unfortunately, the Scalar field added static to normal em signals.  So that submerged into the shadows in the lagoon of situational potentiality.  But he said there are a hundred things you can do.

The thing about Tom Bearden's science is that everyone presumes that you, specifically, or generically, have the fundamental underlying understanding to visualize an exotic concept, AND enough God given talent to try and improvise something you can see.  Even someone else's.  Sooner or later, someone will get their chosen thing right.  And give accreditation.

[F6FLT]

Bearden did take at least one of his alternative technologies to the point of commercialisation....

and he failed just before he died. Really bad luck.   
With him, "God" screwed up. It's funny how people who have never produced anything in their whole life, have a bonus to their memory when they die.
I think it's a malus he must have, considering the amount of time he's wasted on good people, with his delusions.

[Jerry Volland]

That's been a while.  The years do keep going by.  Back then they also suddenly pulled the plug on the MEG production line activities.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't work.  Maybe it was transmitting static?  But if you ask me, if I need some juice in an emergency situation, I'm not going to worry about a little static.  What if it's to the point where there aren't any em signals?  So I don't think he had failure in his life.  Especially the part about sharing enlightenment with fertile minds.  And I can certainly hope to have such a long life myself.

[F6FLT]

... they also suddenly pulled the plug on the MEG production line activities

Urban legend.

...So I don't think he had failure in his life...

Con artists, intellectual or not, do not necessarily have failures in their lives, they even live well but at the expense of those who believe them.

That said, if you have a MEG, so simple to build, for the power supply of your house, well done ! If not, your faith is misplaced.

[Jerry Volland]

Urban legend.

Con artists, intellectual or not, do not necessarily have failures in their lives, they even live well but at the expense of those who believe them.

That said, if you have a MEG, so simple to build, for the power supply of your house, well done ! If not, your faith is misplaced.

Sorry, but I'm putting my faith in Red Mercury, something I never would have heard about from anyone else.

[Allcanadian]

Read a post today on OU.Com which reminded me of Bearden's work.
https://overunity.com/18906/is-free-energy-being-overlooked-hypothesis/msg565202/#new

This reminds me of Bearden's "don't destroy the dipole" concept and I did extensive experiments related to energy transfer and the two capacitor paradox.

It's an interesting concept because almost everyone has the same perspective except for Bearden and a few other inventors who saw things differently. Here is the setup, we have a charged cap A and an uncharged cap B then place various loads between the caps A-B.
1)Charged cap A discharges through a wire to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.
2)Charged cap A discharges through a resistor to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.
3)Charged cap A discharges through a motor doing work to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.

Most generally see only one perspective here which is that the energy lost in the system is always dissipated in the load between the source terminals. However as the poster at OU speculated we could also say no energy was lost to the load only the source not unlike Bearden's dipole concept. In fact both could be seen as correct because the source loses energy in proportion to the energy being transferred through the load. As Bearden explained it seems to be a catch 22 because we cannot transfer energy capable of performing work without destroying the energy of the source dipole in the process.

Here we could ask what is a dipole and how can it be destroyed?. A dipole is a source of energy having two poles with opposite qualities such as more electrons(-) and less electrons(+). The dipole is destroyed when the excess electrons on the negative(-) terminal travel through a circuit to the positive(+) terminal. This balances the number of electrons on the (-) and (+) terminals and the flow of electrons stops.

I disagree with the poster at OU on several points. First energy is not consumed it is transformed or conserved. Second energy cannot be recycled and either it is transformed or it is conserved. So it's not like a windmill or some perpetual motion machine magically recycling energy. They have the right idea however like many they don't have the science or the concepts nailed down yet.

I thought the post was interesting because these are exactly the kinds of concepts Bearden was talking about. Where is the energy, how is it transformed, what is the energy process and where are the losses or gains in the system?.

AC

[F6FLT]

...
1)Charged cap A discharges through a wire to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.

It's physically impossible (infinite current peak). A circuit has a resistance. See point 2.

2)Charged cap A discharges through a resistor to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.

P(t)=R*I(t)². Integrate over the charge time, and you get the 50% of the energy. This is perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics. Keep R as low as possible and put an inductor in series so that the RLC time constant is greater than the charging time, and the second capacitor is charged without loss.

3)Charged cap A discharges through a motor doing work to cap B and caps A-B balance and we lose 50% of the energy.

This is simply not true in the general case.

Energy recovery being the passage from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, which can be seen as a "dipole", to say that not destroying the dipole allows to gain energy is a truism. It is an assertion of type 1 perpetual motion, whereas the only question is "how", and we have seen that Bearden does not give it, his MEG does not work. If Bearden had invented something, for more than 20 years, we would have the techno that goes with it. But no technology comes out of blah blah blah.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT
1)

It's physically impossible (infinite current peak). A circuit has a resistance. See point 2.

I never implied anything other than it was an ordinary wire.

2)

This is perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics. Keep R as low as possible and put an inductor in series so that the RLC time constant is greater than the charging time, and the second capacitor is charged without loss.

I'm not talking about an inductor only a resistor, try and stay on topic. I know fully well an inductor can reduce the losses, that's not the point.

3)

This is simply not true in the general case.

Of course it's true because the motor wires have resistance and motor function/lenz losses which produce the same result.

My point was that is doesn't matter if it's a wire, any value of resistor or a loaded motor we always lose close to 50% when the caps balance.

Here is another example of the 50% rule debated in an EE forum.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/337516/is-the-50-loss-of-energy-when-charging-a-cap-from-a-battery-a-set-rule-in-stone

Energy recovery being the passage from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, which can be seen as a "dipole", to say that not destroying the dipole allows to gain energy is a truism. It is an assertion of type 1 perpetual motion, whereas the only question is "how", and we have seen that Bearden does not give it, his MEG does not work. If Bearden had invented something, for more than 20 years, we would have the techno that goes with it. But no technology comes out of blah blah blah.

I find your response common and many get triggered if they even think a gain is implied, get over it. I was simply showing the same 50% loss problem from a different perspective. That is we can see the 50% system loss as a source loss problem or a transfer loss problem and the result is the same.

As I said...

I thought the post was interesting because these are exactly the kinds of concepts Bearden was talking about

Indeed, Bearden speculated that the cause of any system loss could be due to the source dipole being discharged and anything relating to the flow of current in the circuit simply an effect. In fact the concept has merit and in my two cap experiments the load was basically irrelevant and the result was always around 50% loss. Keep in mind a switched inductor isn't a load more so a efficient means to transfer energy. I learned a great deal not about electronics or circuits but energy and how energy flows is everything.

This is what real science is all about, looking for a cause, answers and learning new things. If your not learning something new your not going anywhere...

AC

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
1)I never implied anything other than it was an ordinary wire.
...

Of course you do, since you distinguish case 2 from case 1, although it is the same thing, the wire having a resistance!

If case 1 is different from case 2, and why shouldn't it be since you distinguish them, then the wire is supposed to have no resistance.

Sorry to be so logical.