Part II
Additional Comments and Information
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
March 12, 1993
The present classical CEM model prescribes closed,
energyconservative type systems. If any electrical device works
totally according to the accepted CEM model, it cannot and will not
ever produce overunity. Simply put, you have excluded any hidden EM
source that is freely replenished, and you have assumed continual
killing of all energy input sources utilized. On the other hand, if
one takes the view that the overunity electrical machines are
possible after all, then  whether one is consciously aware of it
or not  one has implied that classical CEM must somehow be
substantially flawed. If it's flawed, then  being a model  some
of its primary assumptions (postulates) and/or fundamental
definitions must be in error. The proper place to go after "free
electrical energy" is to rigorously examine CEM, over and over,
until flaws are uncovered which allow a hidden, freely replenished
source of input energy. In other words, one must find a way to
"open" the electrical system to an inflow of energy from this
source, without closing off the source. Until one finds such an
"extension" of CEM, one has no model or concept which can reasonably
be expected to provide overunity electrical energy output. Note also
that, while the majority of the EM circuitry of an electrical
overunity machine may obey CEM, at least one section  where the
source is freely tapped and the excess energy extracted  must
violate CEM.
I have spent many arduous years in this very process, right or
wrong. The bottom line of my search is this: the only verified (by
Whittaker and Ziolkowski) (WZ) "freely replenished river" of EM
energy, that can act as the required "free energy" source for input
to the wouldbe overunity electrical system, is the potential. But
to understand the potential, completely new definitions are required
for many entities, among them being energy, electrical charge,
electrostatic scalar potential, voltage, etc. The present socalled
"definitions" of these entities in CEM are either nonexistent,
entirely wrong, or quite unsatisfactory.
So far, the search has uncovered two major ways to tap the
continuallyreplenished EM energy in the scalar EM potential:
(1) use of the inner WZ
internal biwave structure of the potential as pump waves on/to a
nonlinear material (such as the atomic nucleus), so that the
nucleus becomes a pumped phase conjugate mirror. Then, by normal
phase conjugate optical theory, simply inputting a small signal
wave will produce an amplified phase conjugate replica (PCR)
wave emitted from the mirror material, and this PCR will
precisely backtrack the original input signal wave's path (see
the distortion correction theorem) back out of the nucleus, out
of the atom, and into the external circuit. There, the amplified
PCR wave can be "filtered off" and sent to the external load, to
power the load. The Floyd Sweet vacuum triode works precisely by
this mechanism. Note particularly that Barrett has shown that
higher topology EM (such as the original quaternion EM theory)
can accomplish such "optical functioning" without the use of
optical materials. To do Sweet's vacuum triode type process is
thus theoretically possible with electrical circuitry alone, but
one must have more than the current understanding of CEM, as
Barrett pointed out. In other words, one can "open" any 4space
system by adding hyperspace (or subspace, if one insists on
retaining Minkowski 4space). One can thus have a hyperspatial
source. Indeed, Ziolkowski and others have already pointed out
that the WZ type decomposition of the scalar potential is
essentially equivalent to having complex sources.
(2) The second way is to "trap the electron gas
electrons" in a separate collector, feed "currentfree
potential" to the collector from a primary battery or other
source of potential, and collect a bunch of excess energy
(potential) in the collector's "penned up free electron
'horses'" waiting to carry the excess energy to the load and
dissipate it there, once they have been released. Then, one
switches the primary potential source away from the collector,
while the "energyloaded horses" are still trapped and straining
at the bit, so that no work can be done  by those agitated
horses when they stampede out of there  on the internal
resistance of the primary source, to destroy or reduce it. In
the same switching action, the collector with its "snorting but
still trapped electron horses" is switched across the load to
form a totally separate circuit with it, having nothing at all
to do with the original primary source of potential. Then, the
agitated horses are released, and thunder out through the load,
scattering their riders (excess energy) in all directions in the
load, producing work/heat and powering the load. They will also
charge on around to the reverse side of the collector, and kill
its charge separation (kill its potential) as well, just as does
any ordinary circuit.
The major disadvantage of method 1, as
we presently have seen it done (however, check Barrett's
demonstration that Tesla's patented circuitry is capable of doing it
by circuitry alone), is that timereversed electrical energy is
produced. So Method 1 has some serious drawbacks. "Timereversed
energy stuff", which should stay in the atomic nucleus as Newtonian
3rd law reactions and 3rdlaw energy exchanges, is dragged out.
Unusual effects on biological systems can occur. Antigravity effects
can occur. Other hidden processes in the universes, that affect the
atomic nucleus, can be gated into the external circuitry, causing
disaster. Monopoles can be deposited in the magnets, causing them to
explode like hand grenades. Most of the new "massive timereverse
energy" phenomenology is still unknown. One cannot at this stage of
ignorance adequately guarantee human safety. I presently don't see
just how this kind of energy can pass an Underwriter Laboratories'
testing and certification, until a lot more exhaustive work is done
to understand the new phenomenology.
Method 2, however, yields ordinary, gardenvariety, positivetime
electrical energy. The method presented in the paper is my own
discovery. No unusual timereversed phenomena are involved. It would
appear to be eminently practical to produce and certify power units
based on Method 2. The phenomenology and risks are the same as for
ordinary, timeforward power systems.
Method 2 has another unique characteristic: as a system, all the
subsystems are already in the literature and validated. They have
just not previously been put together in this fashion. So
development of the system really represents an "integration" problem
only, after one first does a little development of a proper
degenerate semiconductor material (DSM). In other words, one first
develops (and tests) the exact doping materials and percentage, to
get a DSM material that is still a good conductor but has a
relaxation time of  say  one tenth of a millisecond. One builds
the wires from the battery to the collector out of this new DSM
material. If one uses a capacitor for the collector, the plates must
be made out of the new DSM material, not out of normal "pure
conductor" material. Then one develops a switcher that switches in
one tenth (or less) the relaxation time of the DSM, or in this case
in one hundredth of a millisecond. That switching time, of course,
is easy for any decent electronic technician or electronic engineer.
One also develops a timing circuit that will,
(1) sense the status of
the discharge of the collector energy through the load
(2)
trigger the switching at the correct times so that a smooth
twocycle (collect, discharge) process results
Note that the
lengths of cycle one and cycle two are not necessarily equal at all.
One may use multiple collectors/loads simultaneously, cascaded
collectors/loads, etc. Hundreds of variations are possible and
feasible.
It is not possible to do anything with this discovery in a normal
manner. I would dearly like to be economically independent, so I
could work full time in my efforts on free energy, antigravity,
extended EM healing, cancer, etc. Many orthodox scientists will also
fiercely resist this upstart notion of "overunity" electrical
machines to the bitter end. When powerful economic interests realize
one has such thing for real, one is certainly going to be stopped,
jailed, or killed, or he may just "mysteriously vanish" and never be
seen again.
So I just freely released and distributed my discovery of method 2,
in the paper "The Final Secret of Free Energy". It is deliberately
targeted toward technicians, junior engineers, and educated laymen.
(The principles and definitions raised, however, can be debated to
the nth degree by knowledgeable foundation scientists). The paper
has already been distributed worldwide. Now the principles and
definitions are available to everyone. If they are in error, shortly
that will be proven in spades. If they are correct, that will also
be established shortly.
Anyone who wishes can develop and patent a particular application.
There's no longer any way to stop this information from being
disseminated and utilized. I hope that a flurry of development and
patenting activity will result around the world. Get cheap, clean
electrical energy to everyone. Bring on the electric auto, clean up
the noxious auto exhausts, get rid of giant oil spills, and clean up
the biosphere.
Tom Bearden
Additional
Information  Update 15
February 1994
On The Final Secret of Free Energy
1994 by T.E. Bearden
Introduction
My associates and I have filed
the first patent application on two electrical overunity processes
and devices; one similar to what is outlined in The Final Secret of
Free Energy ^{[Ref 1]} and an additional variation utilizing, as
collectors, standard stepcharged capacitors rather than degenerate
semiconductor materials. In 60 to 90 days, we will have a very
enlightening paper (more likely a book) ready on that. We also plan
to file several more extremely fundamental overunity patent
applications from additional phenomena and mechanisms that we have
uncovered.
In this paper, it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the
content of The Final Secret of Free Energy. Figure 1 shows the
invention schematically, and we briefly summarize it as follows:
Summary of the
Invention
A method and apparatus for
extracting bidirectional EM wave energy from the vacuum through the
scalar potential gradient across the terminals of an electrical
source, collecting the excess energy in a collector without entropy,
then separately discharging the collected energy through a load to
perform work, without sending the load current back through the
primary source against its potential gradient; i.e., against its
back emf. Removing the load current from the source thereby
substantially reduces the production of work inside the source to
dissipate its bipolarity; said internal dissipative work being
wellknown to be the cause of exhaustion of the source's ability to
continue to furnish emf to the external circuit.
By reduction of its internal
dissipation, the source is enabled to furnish more energy for
dissipation in the external load than is utilized to dissipate the
source internally. Hence the source is enabled to operate with an
overunity operational efficiency. The system permissibly operates as
an "open" system, and extracts and utilizes excess EM energy from a
freeflowing external source (the flux exchange between the
surrounding vacuum and the bipolarity of the source), hence it can
operate at an efficiency greater than unity without violation of the
laws of physics, in a manner analogous to but entirely different
from a heat pump. In this invention, it is not the purpose of the
primary source to furnish current and dissipative power to the
external circuit.
The bipolarity of the source is utilized
primarily as a dipole antenna to receive the bidirectional EM wave
energy flow from the vacuum, and direct it without entropy through a
switching unit to the collector. Conduction electrons in the
collector are temporarily restrained while being overpotentialized
by the excess energy being collected upon them. The collector and
its overpotentialized electrons are then switched away from the
primary source, and connected across the load as a separate circuit
and closed current loop. The electrons in the collector and their
excess energy are then automatically released to flow as current
discharge through the load, releasing their excess energy to perform
useful work in the load.
The collector is then switched away from
the load and back across the primary source, and another collection
cycle is initiated. Iteration of the collection and discharge cycles
provides power to the load. Additional collection and smoothing
capacitances for smoothing the iterations and furnishing steady
power to the load may be added as desired. The invention violates
the closed circuit practice of powering loads, but does not violate
the conservation of energy law, the second law of thermodynamics, or
any of the other known laws of physics.
Figure 1a. Type
circuit utilized for rampup charging of a capacitor without work,
and separate discharge of the collected energy in the load without
substantial depletion of the primary source.
Figure 1b. Type circuit for single pulse charging of a degenerative
semiconductor collector without appreciable work, and separate
discharge of the collected energy in the load without substantial
depletion of the primary source.
Use of StepCharged Capacitor
as the Collector
Fulfilling our search for a special material with the extended
electron gas relaxation time for the collector, a material alloy
composed of 98% aluminum and 2% iron is tentatively suggested.
However, production of this alloy is particularly difficult, so we
are still researching for a solution that is more easily
manufactured.
Meanwhile, the necessity for using a special material for the
collector has been bypassed by another procedure we have utilized.
Rigorously one can use a normal capacitor as the collector, if one
stepcharges it in several hundred small incremental rectangular
voltage steps (stairstepcharging). The proof that this can freely
charge a capacitor with energy, without having to do appreciable
work, is already known in the literature. You can charge the
capacitor without entropy and essentially without drawing electron
mass current. ^{[Ref 2,Ref 3,Ref 4,Ref 5]
}
Actually we consider the capacitor to be charged by massless
displacement current flow, which for circuitry purposes we consider
to be d/dl  a flow of pure potential (trapped EM energy) along a
conductor or through the vacuum; i.e., under conditions where mass
displacement current flow does not exist.
^{[Ref 6, Ref 7] }
Massless Displacement
Current Is Freely Available From Any Source
The principle embodied in the invention is that one can extract
all the free EM energy one wishes, from any electrical power source,
as long as it is extracted via massless displacement current and not
by electron mass flow current. [Ref 8] And one can freely collect
this extracted energy from a source into an ordinary capacitor if
one does it correctly, because one can charge the capacitor via
massless displacement current without expending any appreciable work
inside the source to dissipate its dipolar separation of charges.
Every Electrical Source
of Potential Is Already a Free Energy Source
We thus advance a revolutionary concept: all present power
systems already utilize free energy sourceantennas. However, the
standard twowire closed circuitry diabolically utilizes onehalf
the total free energy extracted by the sourceantenna from the
vacuum, to perform work inside the sourceantenna to dissipate its
dipolarity and hence to dissipate the sourceantenna (i.e. the
receiver) itself.
The source already acts as a "dipolar antenna" to continually
receive "scalar potential" current d/dl (massless displacement
current) from the vacuum. ^{[Ref 9]} Previously scientists and
engineers have simply ignored this special massless EM energy
influx. For loadfree (i.e., masscurrentfree) conditions, (d/dl)
is continually received from the vacuum by any dipole (i.e., by any
dipolar sourceasanantenna), and the flowing energy is continually
exchanged back and forth between the vacuum and the dipole.
This free energy exchange with the vacuum is also true of any two
points in our circuit that possess an opencircuit voltage or
potential difference between them. Two such points act as a dipole.
Free energy dipolar antenna sources are everywhere; we just have to
learn how to break the symmetry in their energy flux exchange with
the vacuum, collect some of the freely flowing influx, and
distribute that collected excess energy to an isolated load to
separately power it.
In other words, we simply have to implement circuitry that operates
analogous to the standard heat pump cycle.
Figure 2. Why present
electrical power systems have underunity operational efficiency.
Conventional 2Wire Closed
Circuit Operation
In the conventional 2wire system a load is added to the
sourceantenna, allowing circulation of electron current in a closed
circuit through the load and then through the ground return line
back to and through the dipolar sourceantenna. The only useful
reasons for this "closed circulation" of the electrons are:
(1) it is
simple, easy, habitual, and accepted
(2) all our components,
instruments, and methodologies are developed in accordance with this
usage
(3) one uses the electrons as a working material fluid to
receive, transport, and discharge excess EM energy
(4) forcing
the electrons back through the back emf reloads the spent electrons
again with excess EM energy in the form of little 's (excess trapped
energy density) upon each recycled electron
Some of the excess collected upon the electrons is expended in the
load as useful work, but one half of the total is expended in
driving the spent (without excess Consequently all conventional
2wire circuits, which return all external electronflow current
loops back through the source, are always underunity devices, as is
shown in Figure 2.
Eerily these conventional sources are
already free energy devices, which are unwittingly attached to
circuitry specifically designed to utilize part of their freely
received energy to deplete or destroy themselves, i.e., they are
already open systems receiving free energy from the vacuum, but they
are hooked up and designed in a suicidal manner so as to use at
least half of that freely extracted energy to reclose the system
and shut off the influx of free energy. Since at least some of the
remaining half of the energy is lost in inefficiencies, frictional
losses, etc., less than half the total free energy goes to the load.
So there is always less useful work being done in the load than the
destructive work being done inside the freeenergy sourceantenna to
destroy it.
Operational Efficiency
We define operational efficiency Alpha as the average power
expended in the load to power it, divided by the average power
expended inside the source to dissipate its dipolarity. If Alpha <
1, one has to externally furnish energy to do restorative work upon
the source to replace or offset that amount of destruction being
done inside the source, if one wishes the source to continue to
operate as an energyreceiving antenna. If Alpha > 1, then if the
additional losses are minimal, the device can conceivably run itself
while furnishing some energy to a load to produce useful work.
We Must Excise the
Suicidal Closed Circuit To Achieve Overunity
There is no mysticism in the overunity electrical device. The
device is an open system that extracts excess energy from the
vacuum, collects it, and transports it to the load to separately
power the load. It is simply analogous to the standard heat pump
cycle. It is also directly analogous to presently operating
overunity systems such as windmills, waterwheels, solar cell arrays,
and hydraulic turbines in a dam installation. All that we have done
is to eliminate or dramatically reduce the standard cancerous
mistake in conventional electrical power systems wherein much of the
excess energy freely extracted from the vacuum by the alreadyoverunity
electrical source is then utilized to destroy the source's energy
reception ability!
As we stated, in the conventional electrical device and circuitry,
more destructive work is always done inside the source than is done
usefully in the external load. Hence the conventional operational
efficiency is always underunity.
Legitimate Overunity
Systems Comply With WellKnown Requirements
There are many alternative and wellknown permissible free
energy systems that operate at overunity operational efficiency:
solar cells, windmills, hydraulic turbines, heat pumps, and water
wheels, to name a few. All of these are open systems, receiving an
influx of free energy from a natural energy flow, and collecting and
gating some of that energy to be dissipated in a load to do useful
work.
All of them are permissible overunity
devices, since
(1) they are open systems
(2) they constantly
receive a free energy influx from an external source
(3) they extract and
collect some of this energy without dissipation
(4) they dissipate this
collected energy in a load
(5) the discharge process
is totally separated and isolated from the
"collectionfromthesource" process
No Legitimate Overunity
System Is Intentionally Made SelfDestructive
Not a single one of these open overunity systems foolishly uses
part of its freely extracted and collected energy to reclose the
system and shut off its influx of free energy flow! What engineer
would build a solar array such that, the moment the current started
to flow, it powered a shutter arrangement to gradually close and
shield off the solar array from the sun? Who would build a windmill
so that, whenever the angledblade assembly rotated in the wind to
furnish power, a gearing feedback assembly also slowly caused the
individual blades to rotate into a position parallel to the wind,
thus stopping the windmill?
Yet this is precisely what the conventional electrical power system
does with its external circuit. It deliberately utilizes half of the
freely extracted energy to reclose the system and shut off the free
energy flow between the vacuum and the sourceantenna, by destroying
the receiverantenna!
However, this "suicide circuit" practice is guaranteed to keep the
power meter on your home or business, and to keep the meter on the
gas pump for fueling your automobile. Perhaps one may be forgiven
for suspecting that, at the deepest levels of financial control,
this may be the real purpose in seeing that the existing
interpretation of classical EM stays "as is."
All Electrical Power
Sources Are Already Free Energy Receiving Antennas
All conventional electrical power systems already contain fully
functional free energy systems in their source component. Each
conventionally designed system is, however, deliberately suicidal,
since part of the system's own energy is utilized to work against
itself and destroy itself. This is primarily due to the
preoccupation of engineers with power and work. They do not consider
the source as an energy source, but as a power source. Power being
the timerate of performing work, and work being the dissipation of
energy, they are thus naturally conditioned to think of the
"dissipation of the source" as its natural functioning.
In fact, hardly a single one of them is aware that EM energy itself
is a freeflowing process. Only a finite collector possesses a
finite collection of EM energy. In nature, the potential gradients
of all dipoles are already rivers of freeflowing EM energy exchange
with those dipoles, where the energy density is freely furnished and
is essentially free for the taking. It is mindboggling that we have
all been conditioned to extract this free energy furnished by nature
and the creator, but to always utilize half of the extracted energy
to destroy the receiverantenna and thus strangle the flow!
In our work, we simply have excised this "selfdestructive" cancer
and reworked the circuitry so that only a minimal amount of the
freely extracted energy is utilized for internal destruction of the
sourceantenna.
Thermodynamics and Open
Overunity Systems Not In Equilibrium
In our approach we have an open system during every collection
cycle, with an external source of energy and a continual energy
influx. We have deliberately broken the local symmetry of the
system's energy exchange with the vacuum, by spatially and
temporally separating the energy collection and energy discharge
phases. Overunity operational efficiency is permissible for such a
system without violation of any of the laws of nature. Some of the
influx of excess energy from the vacuum into the dipolar source
antenna is transported without loss to the collector and collected.
The collected energy in the collector is then separately discharged
through the load, without any of it being discharged back inside the
sourceantenna. Note that we have broken local energy flow
equilibrium but not global energy flow equilibrium.
The second law of thermodynamics, e.g., does not even apply to such
an open system not in equilibrium. Classical thermodynamics cannot
even compute the entropy of an open system not in thermodynamic
equilibrium, as is wellknown to thermodynamicists.
^{[Ref 10]}
What classical thermodynamics does have to say, is that such an open
system must contain excess energy when compared to the closed system
in equilibrium, because the closed system in equilibrium is in the
maximum entropy condition. ^{[Ref 11]} Global conservation of energy is
not violated, just as it is not violated in a windmill or in a heat
pump, which are similar open systems. Local conservation of energy
(which applies only to a closed system or to a system in total
equilibrium) does not apply because the system is open and not in
equilibrium.
Permissible Electrical
Overunity Is Not Perpetual Motion
An open system out of equilibrium need not conform to,
(1) the
local (closed system, equilibrium conditions) conservation of energy
nor to
(2) the second law of thermodynamics (which assumes
equilibrium conditions).
It must and does conform to the global
conservation of energy, just as does a waterwheel or windmill. We
strongly stress that the overunity electrical device is not a "perpetuum
mobile." ^{[Ref 12]} The electrical operations and systems we propose
are perfectly permissible by the known laws of physics and do not
violate any of them. We propose a permissible series of overunity
electrical systems.
The Heat Pump Analogy
In one way of viewing it, all we have done is utilize the
potential as a more modern type of quantum mechanical fluid having
hidden bidirectional flowing EM energy.
^{[Ref 13, Ref 14, Ref 15,
Ref 16]} QM already certifies that the potentials, not the force
fields, are the primary causes of all EM phenomena. Contrary to
classical EM theory, the force fields are effects in, on, and of the
charged particles themselves. Consequently, if the potentials are
the primary causes of all EM phenomena, then for free energy to
perform work (free causes to collect and generate desired effects)
we must turn to the potentials.
We have utilized a hookup and switching arrangement so that
energyfree collection is totally separated from collected energy
discharge in the load. In short, we have done what a normal heat
pump does, when it uses the air with its thermal energy as a working
energycontaining fluid. Consequently, overunity operational
efficiency of analogous electrical devices is perfectly permissible,
and not prohibited by the known laws of physics.
An Electrical Power
Source Is a Dipolar Antenna For Free Reception of Energy
An electrical power source is in fact only a dipolar antenna for
reception of potential (hidden bidirectional Whittaker/Ziolkowski
waves). All the current you run back through the back emf of the
source, to perform dissipative work inside it, is something you
yourself are doing to the source. It is not a priori a
characteristic of the source!
If no work is done inside the source's internal bipolar separation
of charges (i.e., if no electron or ion current is forced back up
from the ground return line against the sourceantenna's potential
and therefore against its back emf), then the dipolar sourceantenna
will last essentially forever, or until something corrodes or breaks
mechanically.
The flow exchange of energy between the vacuum and the dipolar
sourceantenna is freely driven by all the charges of the universe,
in accordance with Puthoff's cosmological feedback loop.
^{[Ref 17]}
Massless
Displacement Current
Technically one is using massless displacement current to charge the
capacitor, rather than electron mass flow current. It is real energy
flow nonetheless; just in workfree, dissipationfree form. As is
wellknown, one plate of a capacitor already charges the other plate
by just this very massless displacement current, transporting real
EM energy across the gap between the plates in the process. The
electrons themselves do not cross the gap.
Displacement current is already wellknown to be "free" energy
transport without any dissipation as power and work. By drawing
massless displacement current only from the sourceantenna instead
of electron flow current, you can draw workfree, dissipationfree
energy as long as you wish, as often as you wish, and as much as you
wish, without ever dissipating the sourceantenna. You just have to
collect it onto some trapped electrons or other charges, such as in
a capacitor's plates, then switch the collected energy (charged
capacitor) separately across a load, in a separate discharge
circuit, to discharge through the load as work.
The real trick is to prevent the electrons in the circuit from
moving and providing mass "energy dissipation" current inside the
source during the collection process. In the original paper, we
explained that this could be done by using as a collector a
degenerate semiconductor material, with extended electron gas
relaxation time. In this paper we have explained how this can be
done by stepcharging an ordinary capacitor as a collector. We have
also included specific references proving (both experimentally and
theoretically) that this is correct. With the requirement for
special materials removed, there is no reason that a competent
researcher cannot develop a stepcharged capacitor device to prove
it experimentally for himself or herself.
Requirement:
Proof of Principle and Independent Test and Certification
My associates and I are proceeding as rapidly as possible toward
fullup "proofofprinciple" circuits for open release and
certification or falsification by the scientific community and
engineers at large. Soon we also expect to release to other
researchers information on the kinds of new electrical phenomenology
one meets in true overunity electrical devices. These are not in the
textbook, at least with respect to electrical power systems. We give
some indication of these phenomena below:
New Circuit
Phenomena Must Be Mastered
One meets unusual electrical phenomena in attempting to perform
overunity electrical operations. For overunity, a priori one must
"slip excess potential" through the circuit essentially without
losses. That is, one must deliberately pass massless displacement
currents through the circuit and at least through some of its
components.
Solidstate switching components in particular exhibit unusual
phenomena, to say the least, when excess potential is introduced
into and through all their internal components inside modern
semiconductors. An ordinary MOSFET, e.g., may have 25,000 separate
internal components. It is as if someone crammed the entire
electronic parts store inside it. Simple switches these
semiconductors are not, when exposed to appreciable massless
displacement current.
When one "slips in" some pure potential, by SWZ decomposition one
has also slipped in some bidirectional EM pump waves. The nonlinear
semiconductor materials will function as phase conjugate mirrors
when suitably pumped, including at nonoptical frequencies.
Consequently pumped phase conjugate replicas, selftargeting,
formation of quantum potentials, and modular variable effects
sometimes begin to evidence. We will address and explain some of
these effects in a future paper. For now, we simply state that they
occur, and there is a host of extra phenomenology the experimenter
may encounter.
However, an iron rule for the experimenter is that, for odd circuit
behavior, first exhaust all "normal" causes before turning to the
extraordinary causes. One will save oneself a great deal of grief by
applying this Occam's razor.
Also in deliberately utilizing displacement current, one is actually
employing an expanded, higher topology EM with additional degrees of
freedom, similar to that pointed out by Barrett.
^{[Ref 18]}
Consequently one encounters a host of additional higher topology EM
phenomenology. In particular one encounters nonlinear optical (NLO)
functioning of the semiconductors at any and all frequencies, not
just in optical bands.
Overunity Electrical
Devices Are Permissible By The Laws of Physics
The overunity electrical energy system is permissible by the laws of
physics and is not in any manner perpetual motion. It simply
extracts excess EM energy from an ubiquitous source, through a
dipole as a receiver, and collects that excess energy, conducts it
to the load, and separately dissipates it in the load to power the
load, without using any of the collected energy to perform work
inside the source to dissipate the sourceantenna. It is directly
analogous to a heat pump, which is wellknown to perform at
overunity operational efficiency under nominal conditions.
In Conclusion
Primarily my associates and I believe we have corrected an
ubiquitous error made in present power systems that prevents these
systems from realizing their alreadyinherent overunity operational
efficiency. We also firmly believe that the permissible electrical
overunity device is an idea whose time has finally come.
Notes and References

T. E. Bearden, "The Final Secret
of Free Energy," distributed over the Internet, Feb. 9,
1993. The paper was also published in Magnets, 7(5), pp.
426 (1993); in Explore!, 4(3/4), pp. 112126 (1993), and in
several other media.

For proof that you can charge an
ordinary capacitor almost without entropy, see I. Fundaun,
C. Reese, and H. H. Soonpaa, "Charging a Capacitor,"
American Journal of Physics, 60(11), pp. 10471048 (1992). A
capacitor can be stepcharged in small steps to dramatically
reduce the entropy required to charge it. In the limit, a
theoretically perfect capacitor can be fully charged without
any electrical current or work at all, i.e., you can simply
transport the excess energy density (the potential gradient)
of the open circuit voltage of the source to the collector,
and couple that to the electrons trapped in the capacitor
plates, without electric current from or through the source.

M. G. Calkin and D. Kiang,
"Entropy Change and Reversibility," American Journal of
Physics, 51(1), pp. 7879 (1983).

F. Heinrich, "Entropy Change
When Charging a Capacitor: A Demonstration Experiment,"
American Journal of Physics,54(8), pp. 742744 (1986).

V. K. Gupta, Gauri Shanker, and
N.K. Sharma, "Reversibility and Step Processes: An
Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory," American
Journal of Physics, 52(10), pp. 945947 (1984).

In most texts the treatment of
displacement current is far from adequate. A better
treatment than most is given by John D. Krauss,
Electromagnetics, Fourth Edition, McGrawHill, New York, pp.
437439, 547549 (1992). Additional useful insight can be
gained from David J. Griffiths, Introduction To
Electrodynamics, Second Edition, PrenticeHall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 304308 (1989). Problem 7.51 on p.
335 is also of direct interest, as is particularly the
comment by Griffiths below the problem. Additional insight
can be gained from David Halliday and Robert Resnick, with
assistance by John Merrill, Fundamentals of Physics,
Extended Third Edition (1988), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
vol. 2, Article 374: Displacement Current, pp. 836837,
839841. The standard notion is to:

retain the continuity
of current, thus modifying and salvaging Ampere's law,

the displacement current is nonphysical, i.e., it does not
involve the transfer of charged mass,

focus primarily
upon magnetostatics as to the results achievable by the
displacement current,

retain the notion of as E, a force
field, thereby focusing the notion of displacement current
upon the change of the E field without the flow of charged
mass, and

retain the confusion between electrical charge
and charged mass that is inherent in the terms "charge",
"current", etc.

On p. 836 Halliday and Resnick point out
that the displacement current is not derived per se, but is
a "fit" based upon symmetry arguments, and it must stand or
fall simply on whether or not its predictions agree with
experiment. On the same page the displacement current is
taken to be a linear function of d/dt. For flow along a
circuit where there is no electron mass current, it seems
appropriate to replace d/dt by d/dl. It is also strongly
indicated that one should clearly distinguish between
charged mass current flow and the flow of massless charge,
which is the approach we have taken.
A final indication of the way conventional scientists tend
to regard displacement current is given by Martin A. Plonus,
Applied Electromagnetics, McGrawHill, New York, pp. 446448
(1978). Here Plonus uses the prevailing notion of the E
field being altered by the flow of massless displacement
current. As can be seen, the displacement current is
relegated almost to a curiosity of capacitors, and not
really too essential except just to "balance the books" and
retain Ampere's current continuity.
We now wish to point out something very subtle but very
rigorous. CEM erroneously uses E = 
equate a massfree
potential gradient with a masscontaining force field. This
"Efield" only exists at a point when there is a
pointcoulomb of electrical charged mass at the point. The
real version of this equation should be E = [()q]/q,
where is the potential gradient coupled directly to the
charged pointmass at the point, q is the number of coulombs
of charged mass at the point, q/q is one coulomb of
charged mass, and E now is properly the force on and of each
coulomb of the collected charged mass at the point.
Viewed in this manner, one can now see that the E field may
be altered by flow of additional charged mass q, or by flow
of massless additional
, or both. This is now in agreement
with the manner in which it is approached in CEM, but more
rigorous. Essentially it states we may increase the total
"charge" (potential) at a point by either

moving in
additional charged masses by use of a conventional current,
or

moving in additional massless charge (potential)
without any additional change in mass, or

a combination
of the above.
However, let us apply this to a single charged particle or
to a fixed number of them. No one seems to have noticed that
the notion of altering the Efield of the collected point
charges at a point via method #2 , i.e. by a flow of
massless displacement current onto the fundamental charged
particles themselves, a priori requires the electrical
charge of each fundamental particle to change. Hence it
falsifies the notion of quantization of charge.
Also, no one seems to have noticed the electric power
implications: if it is known that one can charge a capacitor
purely by displacement current, then one can charge up the
capacitor with energy, without any dissipation of the
source, because only charged mass current through the back
emf of the source does that. So one can then disconnect the
charged capacitor and separately connect it in a closed
circuit with a load, to discharge through the load and
furnish free work in the load (free in the sense than no
dissipation of the primary source occurred in either the
collection of the energy or in discharge of the collected
energy through the load as useful work). Free energy,
overunity electrical devices, etc. should then be readily
apparent and permissible, from the known nature of
displacement current and capacitors alone.

Maxwell assumed a material
ether, which was assumed to be a thin material fluid filling
all space. Hence force (which must have mass as a component
due to its definition F == d(mv)/dt) could be modeled as
existing in the Maxwellian ether, for there was already thin
matter present everywhere. Hence in Maxwell's EM the
incorrect notion resulted that force fields existed in the
vacuum. Oliver Heaviside continued this erroneous
assumption, since in fact he hated the potentials, regarded
them as mystical, and stated that they should be
"...murdered from the theory." Also, electricity was thought
to be a similar thin material fluid. So the material
electric fluid could and did flow through the fluid vacuum
also, giving the notion of the material electric flux
density for D. Consequently, the units of D are coulombs
(charged mass rate of flow) per square meter.
Rigorously,
that material D flux exists only on and of charged mass that
moves; it cannot and does not exist in vacuum. Only
potentials and potential gradients exist in vacuum. However,
after Maxwell's formation of his theory, the
MichelsonMorley experiment destroyed the material ether
(not the ether per se, but its material nature). So
electricians then simply proclaimed that they were no longer
using the material ether, and that such did not exist! Not a
single Maxwell/Heaviside equation was changed. The material
ether is still very much assumed in classical EM (CEM)
theory, and so the theory is accordingly very seriously
flawed. Since CEM also has no adequate definition for either
electric charge or the scalar potential, the problem is
confounded.
To clarify this problem, one must separate the notion of
electric charge from the notion of mass. The electrical
charge of a charged mass is the virtual photon flux exchange
between the surrounding vacuum and that mass. Since a
virtual photon flux is just a scalar potential, the
electron's massless electrical charge is simply its scalar
potential. It can now be seen that, if we forcibly remove
the notion of "mass" from D in the vacuum, or in a charged
material medium where the charged masses cannot move, then
the "material electric flux concept" portion of D turns into
d/dt, a change in the nonmaterial electric flux. However, D
is a vector and hence has a "net flux" spatial directional
aspect which d/dt alone does not possess. It follows that
the value of d/dt at a spatial point actually represents the
result of change of the value of at that point, as a
function of time.
Thus a directional operator must first be
invoked upon
at the point, to provide a direction for the
spatial
current after the d/dt operator is invoked. The
appropriate operator to give directionality to
is
, so that
D in vacuum or in an electroncurrentfree charged medium
becomes a function of d/dt(). Conventionally, the use in
the literature of E =  immediately provides that d/dt() at
a point results in dE/dt, or the time rate of change of the
Efield at that point. If no distinction is made between
charged mass current flow and massless charge current flow,
this would be true in either vacuum or material media.
However, we wish to specifically distinguish between massive
displacement current and massless displacement current. So
we point out that the increase dE/dt in the magnitude of the
Efield at, on, and of a charged particle at a point, can be
due to either

the flow of mass current to build up the
number of point coulombs at that given point, where each
coulomb has a fixed massless charge (potential), or

the
flow of massless current d/dt () so as to alter the value
of at that point, evidenced by a fixed number of coulombs of
charged particles, each of which has altered its individual
potential and therefore its individual massless electrical
charge.
So what "flows" when the charged masses are frozen or absent
is simply a current of scalar potential, resulting in a
change of the potential upon fixed point charges of d/dt.
This is what crosses between the plates of a capacitor,
e.g., which is where the notion of "displacement current"
originated in the first place. (See, e.g., Halliday and
Resnick, 1988, ibid., p. 836, Sample Problem 1, for
expression of the displacement current as d/dt, neglecting
constants of proportionality). This is also what flows when
one connects multiple open circuit pairs of conductors to a
source.
It remains to examine Maxwell's equation
.D = ρ_{v}. If mass
displacement current cannot flow, then there exists no
divergence of the mass current portion of D. However,
massless displacement current can still flow, and there can
exist divergence of that component. There are now three
aspects to that equation:

the case in the vacuum, where
there exists no physical ρ and hence no ρv as such because
of the absence of mass,

the case in a material medium,
which is the normal case already treated in the standard
equation and need not be further addressed, and

the case
in a material medium where, nonetheless, physical charged
masses such as electrons cannot move, but massless charge
currents may still move.
Only cases 1 and 3 need to be
addressed, and they have the same treatment.
We address the one dimensional case, which is sufficient for
circuit current flow considerations. First we replace D with
(D_{ø}+ D_{ρ}), where the first term is the massless displacement
current and the second term is the massive displacement
current. In other words, we account separately for charged
mass flow and for massless charge flow. Similarly, we
express ρv as two components, one massive and one massless,
so that ρv = d/dl(_{} + m_{v}). For case 1 and case 3 we make m_{v} =
0 and D_{ρ} = 0. For those cases, we have
.D =
.D_{ø} = d_{}/dl (since
current along a wire is a onedimensional flow). We
specifically note that _{
},
D_{ø},
.D, and d_{}/dl are not necessarily
conserved quantities, since is mathematically decomposed
into bidirectional EM waves, and is hence a freely flowing
process. When symmetry is broken so that equilibrium
conditions no longer exist, one or more of these quantities
will not be locally conserved.
What has actually been done here is to open the classical EM
model to the free exchange of massless EM energy that is
always ongoing between any charged particle's mass and the
vacuum. We then account separately for the flow of the
energy exchange (of the massless charge flow) and the flow
of the physical receiver/transmitters (i.e., for charged
mass flow). Our switching arrangement to separate the
collection and discharge cycles constitutes a permissible
"Maxwell's Demon" which breaks symmetry, hence breaks
equilibrium and opens the system as required. Since such a
system can continually receive a free influx of energy from
its external source, such a system can permissibly exhibit
overunity operational efficiency without violating the laws
of physics.

Displacement current is already
known to be lossless transport of energy without entropy,
i.e., without work. For a typical confirmation see Jed Z.
Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London, p. 44 (1985). Quoting:

"...no energy transformation into heat occurs for
displacement currents."

We strongly stress again that
the scalar potential may be mathematically decomposed into a
harmonic series of hidden bidirectional EM wave pairs. Each
wave pair consists of an ordinary EM wave together with its
superposed phase conjugate replica wave. Thus internally the
scalar potential gradient across a source represents a
bidirectional exchange of EM wave energy with the
surrounding vacuum. See notes 13, 14, 15, and 16 below for
references confirming the decomposition of the "fixed"
potential into a dynamic flow process and energy exchange
process.

For confirmation see Robert
Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics,
Dover Publications, New York, pp. 283287 (1963). See
particularly p. 283, which emphasizes that a "field of
force" at any point is actually defined only for the case
when a unit mass is present at that point. See p. 17 on the
limitations of a "natural law"; p. 213 and 215 for
limitation of thermodynamic analysis to equilibrium states;
and see p. 216 for definition of entropy. See p. 217 for the
fact that the entropy for nonequilibrium conditions cannot
be computed, and the entropy of a system not in equilibrium
must be less than the entropy of the system in equilibrium,
i.e., for a system to depart from equilibrium conditions,
its entropy must decrease. Therefore its energy must
increase. Thus the energy of an open system not in
equilibrium must always be greater than the energy of the
same system when it is closed and in equilibrium, since the
equilibrium state is the state of maximum entropy.

Lindsay and Margenau, ibid., p.
217.

The basic notion in the
perpetual motion conundrum is that somehow a closed system
in thermodynamic equilibrium could perpetually provide
external energy to a load outside the system. Such a notion
is an oxymoron; if the system is closed, no energy can
escape or enter, hence the system could not furnish energy
externally to power a load or even just to radiate away. My
associates and I have not in any manner proposed such a
system or entertained the notion that such might exist. But
it is wellknown that open systems not in thermodynamic
equilibrium can freely extract energy from their environment
and furnish energy to power a load, and that is precisely
what we have proposed.

G. J. Stoney, "XLVIII. On a
Supposed Proof of a Theorem in Wavemotion, To the Editors
of the Philosophical Magazine," Philosophical Magazine,
5(43), pp. 368373 (1897).

E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial
Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,"
Mathematische Annalen, vol. 57, pp. 333355 (1903).
Whittaker mathematically decomposes the scalar potential
into a bidirectional series of EM wave pairs in a harmonic
sequence. Each wave pair consists of the wave and its phase
conjugate. (We have pointed out elsewhere that such a wave
pair is a standing electrogravitational wave and a standing
wave in the curvature of local spacetime). To see that all
classical EM can be replaced by interference of two such
scalar potentials (i.e., by the interference of their hidden
multiwave sets), see E. T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of
the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two
Scalar Potential Functions," Proceedings of the London
Mathematical Society, Series 2, vol. 1, pp. 367372 (1904).

Richard W. Ziolkowski,
"Localized Transmission of Electromagnetic Energy," Physical
Review A, 39, p. 2005 (1989). For related material, see
Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave Equation
With Complex Source Locations," Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 26, pp. 861863 (1985). See also Michael K. Tippett
and Richard Ziolkowski, "A Bidirectional Wave Transformation
of the Cold Plasma Equations," Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 32(2), pp. 488492 (1991).

C. W. Hsue, "A DC Voltage is
Equivalent to Two Traveling Waves on a Lossless, Nonuniform
Transmission Line," IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters,
3, pp. 8284 (1993).

H. E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum
Electromagnetic Zeropoint Energy," Physical Review A,
40(9), pp. 48574862 (1989). Presents Puthoff's
selfregenerating cosmological feedback cycle for the source
of the vacuum EM zeropoint energy.
Our comment: Over any macroscopic range, the vacuum
fluctuations ('s) of the ZPE sum to a vector zero
translational resultant. The individual ZPE components ('s),
however, are still present and active, and their energies
are present as well. That vector zero can thus be considered
to be a gradientfree potential, or the vacuum potential,
since it contains enormously dense, trapped EM energy. So
the vacuum potential  pure spacetime (ST) itself 
contains enormously dense EM energy.
One can then apply the Stoney/Whittaker/Ziolkowski (SWZ)
methodology to decompose this powerful vacuum potential,
i.e., the vacuum, and in fact spacetime (ST) itself, into
an incredibly dense flux of EM energy. Spacetime is
revealed to be an incredibly powerful electrostatic scalar
potential. The electrical charge (potential) of a charged
particle is a small potential gradient in the ST potential,
i.e., it is a slight alteration of the local ST potential.
Via Puthoff's selfregenerative feedback cycle, the energy
flowing in this potential is being exchanged between the
local source and all the charges everywhere in the universe.
This "potential gradient" or electrical charge itself can be
decomposed via the SWZ approach, and becomes a bidirectional
EM wave pair exchange of excess EM energy between the
vacuum/ST and the charged particle's mass. The potential
gradient between the ends of a dipole have similar
decompositions, with the additional characteristic that the
negatively charged end of the dipole receives the
forwardtime waves from the SWZ wave pairs, and the
positively charged end receives the timereversed waves.
Our final comment is that Cole and Puthoff have rigorously
shown that, in theory, the vacuum EM energy can indeed be
extracted. See Daniel C. Cole, and Harold E. Puthoff,
"Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum," Physical
Review E, 48(2), pp. 15621565 (1993).

T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's
Nonlinear OscillatorShuttleCircuit (OSC) Theory," Annales
de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), pp. 2341 (1991).
Barrett shows that a higher topology EM model (e.g., EM
expressed in quaternions) allows shuttling and storage of
potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM
functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis
cannot reveal. As an example, one may meet optical
functioning without the presence of optical materials.
Go Back
