AOH :: FREENRG2.TXT|
The Final Secret of Free Energy (ASCII) 2 of 2. T. Bearden
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
March 12, 1993
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Tom Bearden.
We at Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet consider this to be one of the most
important documents we have yet seen from Mr. Bearden.
We urge you to make disk copies as well as hard copies and
distribute to all those interested in or researching Free Energy.
For systems that cannot read .ZIPs
FREENRG1.ASC - Part one
FREENRG2.ASC - Part two
For systems capable of .ZIPs
FREENRG.ZIP which contains - FREENRG1.ASC
FREENRG3.ZIP which contains - FREENRG1.ASC
FREENRGA.GIF - figure 1
FREENRGB.GIF - figure 2
FREENRGC.GIF - circuit concept
FREENRGD.GIF - equation clipart
(NRGD when available)
Also, due to the ASCII nature, the following conventions apply :
1) Bibliographic references are enclosed in parentheses ()
2) Formula/math is in brackets 
2) In some of the mathematical terms, I have had to make an
ASCII "equivalent" to what is in the actual paper, however,
it should not detract from the overall grasp of the paper,
and the file FREENRGD.GIF will show the actual terms used
when it is complete.
What Is Energy In An Electric Circuit?
Energy in an Electric Circuit: Here's the principle loud and clear.
Energy in an electric circuit involves only the potentialization and
depotentialization of the electron carriers in that circuit.(21) It
involves only the potential gradient (the joules per coulomb)
collected by the circuit to potentialize its electrons, and the
number of coulombs of electrons that are potentialized during the
Electric circuits simply utilize electrons as carriers of "potential
gradients," from the source to the load, where these gradients and
the activated electrons constitute excess trapped EM energy. In the
"shocking/scattering" occurring in the load, the jerking
(acceleration) of the electrons causes these activated (trapped-
energy-carrying) electrons to shuck off their potential gradients by
emitting them as scattered photons (heat).
If one is thoughtless enough to allow the primary potential source
to remain in the circuit during the "work" phase, then one is using
the potentialized electrons to also go back into the primary source
and scatter energy from its internal resistance (in ternal load),
thereby disorganizing the organization that was producing the source
potential and energy in the first place.
If one does that, then all the while one is getting some work
(scattering of energy) in the load, one is also steadily getting
some work done inside the primary source to steadily destroy it!
Literally one is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Continued Operations: But back to our circuit. After we complete
one full collection/discharge cycle, we wish to continue producing
work in the external load. So we simply switch the collector back
away from the load and onto the primary source, collect some more
current-free potential, and again independently switch the collector
with its repotentialized free electrons back across the load.
We can repeat this two-cycle process to potentialize the external
load and power it as long as we wish, from a battery or other source
of potential, and never take any power at all from the primary
battery. We do not need to drain the battery or source at all, in
order to power a load, unless we attempt to power it directly.
Powering the external load is always free!
Nature has been most kind, and we have been most ignorant. You can
have all the trapped electrical energy you wish, from any source of
potential, for free. You can power all the external loads you wish,
for free, by using a collector as a secondary source, and simply
shuttling potential between the primary source and the collector.
(22) But you cannot have power for free from (in) the potential
source. If you allow current flow in your collection cycle, you are
depleting the separated charges inside the battery that are
furnishing the source potential.
The Coal-Fired Locomotive
Rigorous Analogy of a Coal-Fired Locomotive. Now here's an exact
analogy, to assist in understanding. Imagine a coal-fired train,
and a fireman shoveling coal. He has an external load/scatterer of
energy (the fire in the firebox under the boiler).
He has a primary source of potential/energy (the coal car). No
fireman in his right mind would ignite the coal in the chute of the
coal bin, to try and get some heat energy into the firebox! [That
is, he would not attempt to extract power from the source. Yet
that's exactly what all we engineers are trained to do at present.]
Instead, the fireman takes out (collects) a finite amount (a
shovelful) of coal (trapped energy). Coal per se (the potential
gradient) has a certain energy density per unit volume (trapped
joules per unit volume of coal) and the shovel (collector) has a
certain volume. Accordingly, the shovelful of coal contains a
certain amount of trapped joules of energy.
In the fireman's shovel (the collector), the energy remains in total
ly trapped form, as coal not afire and without its trapped energy
being dissipated as work. [He doesn't act like a fool and ignite
the coal in the shovel either!] He then throws that shovel of coal
(collected trapped energy) onto the fire (scatterer), completely
separately from the coal bin/source. He continues to repeat his
shoveling cycle, and each shovelful of coal added to the fire
dissipates additional energy, powering the load.
The Free Energy Principle
All potential gradient (trapped excess energy density) is free for
the taking.(23) The potential is due to the violent VPF exchange
between the vacuum and the separated bipolar charges furnishing the
source potential gradient. The energy of the entire universe is
flowing through that source potential. You can have as much of this
internal VPF flux energy (potential) as you wish, as often as you
wish, so long as you don't demand current (which is power, or the
rate at which the energy is being freed and dissipated.). It's
really simple. You can have all the trapped energy you wish, from
any source. You cannot connect to the source and start to dissipate
the energy as power, however, without starting to close the "gate"
from which your free trapped energy is coming.
In other words, here's the iron rule: If you draw current, you kill
the bipolarity gate furnishing the potential gradient (source of
energy density). In that case, you kill the source. If you do not
draw current, you do not kill the bipolarity gate and you do not
shut down the source. In that case, you can continue to "use" it
and extract trapped EM energy from it forever.
Definitions: I'll put down some simple equations, that may help to
explain it more exactly. First we repeat some definitions.
Energy is any ordering imposed upon the virtual particle flux of
vacuum. EM energy is any ordering imposed upon the virtual photon
flux of vacuum. Static energy is an ordering (a template) which is
stationary with respect to the external observer.
Dynamic energy is an ordering (a template) which is stationary with
respect to the external observer.
Potential: Any ordering imposed upon the virtual particle flux of
vacuum. Scalar potential is an ordering (template) that is not
moving with respect to the external observer. Vector potential is
an ordering (template) that is moving with respect to the external
The scalar EM potential is any static (with respect to the external
observer) ordering imposed upon the virtual photon flux of vacuum.
Note again that energy and potential have exactly the same
definition. Potential is in fact trapped energy. Scalar EM
potential is static EM energy (to the external observer) or trapped
(collected) EM energy. In other words, if one takes off a
differential of potential onto a fixed number of coulombs, one takes
off a certain magnitude of trapped EM energy. In other words, one
takes out a shovelful of coal from the coal car.
Importance of Separation of Charges
We Must Not Dispel the Separation of Charges In Our Source: The
difference in our coal-fired train analogy and our electrical
circuit is that, in the coal train, the coal in the coal car is not
automatically and continually replenished. Also, the coal in the
coal car has already been collected by the mass of the coal car, so
it is not infinite.
In the electrical circuit, the potential gradient in the primary
source is continually replenished, automatically, and it is infinite
(though it has a finite energy density). The reason is simple. EM
potential (in the normal sense) is actually a virtual photon flux
exchange between the vacuum (the entire vacuum, all over the
universe) and a charged particle or collection of charged
Thus the potential (gradient) is a powerful energy flux, pumped by
the vacuum and the entire universe, that continues automatically, so
long as we do not allow the collected charges in our bipolarity
source to be dissipated.
In terms of a battery, we achieved separation of charges inside the
battery by chemical action, and we paid for that initially. Once
separated, the charges essentially stay separated (because of the
chemistry) unless we foolishly do something to dissipate them, such
as upsetting the chemistry, so they are no longer separated positive
So if we don't do anything to these separated charges, they continue
to be driven by their fierce exchange of virtual photon flux with
the vacuum/universe. If we then simply extract some of that flux
exchange, without moving the charges, we are directly "gating"
trapped EM energy from the vacuum/charged particle VPF exchange.(25)
The Potential Is Infinite And So Is Its Energy Content
You Can't Dip The Ocean Dry With a Spoon: Let's say that another
way. The charged particles in our potential source are in a
constant, seething, equilibrium exchange of trapped EM energy with
the entire universe. That energy exchange is so enormous that, if
we gate some of it out to collect on some other "temporarily frozen"
charges and potentialize/activate them, the vacuum flux doesn't even
miss it. It's like dipping a spoonful of water out of the restless
ocean. The hole is instantly filled, and the water replenished. We
can dip with that spoon as much as we wish, and the ocean will never
run dry, but will simply continue to furnish us water, spoonful by
The same is true in our electric circuits. We can have all the
potential (trapped EM energy density) we wish, for free, from a
single source, so long as we do not allow work to be done inside the
source to close off our "gate" and kill our primary source.
The Twisted Concept of Voltage
Before We Develop Some Pseudo-Equations: In the equations we wish
to develop, we have one problem, due to the lack of insight of
conventional electrical physicists. That is, they have insisted
upon "measuring" and expressing both the infinite potential
(nondissipated) and a certain quantity of potential (dissipated) in
So they say "a potential of so many volts." That's nonsense, and
totally erroneous. Rigorously, a voltage is a drop or a dissipation
of so much (a finite amount of) collect ed excess potential/energy.
You "measure" the voltage in a voltmeter by impressing a potential
gradient upon the electron gas in the circuitry, wherein you collect
or get in your voltmeter so much [(joules/coulomb) x coulombs].
A tiny current (coulombs/second) from this internal collection then
flows for a finite time through the resistance of the voltmeter. So
you dissipate (joules/coulomb) x (coulombs/second) x (seconds),
which gives a certain amount of energy dissipated as work in moving
the needle of the voltmeter.
The voltmeter is calibrated so that it effectively indicates the
collected energy per coulomb that was dissipated, and it calls that
entity voltage. It involves a finite amount of energy that has
already been dissipated as work, and it's a measure of the local
energy density of the potential in terms of joules/coulomb. It is
not a measure of the potential proper.
It's after the fact; the extracted (collected) potential gradient it
actually refers to existed in the past, before the work (dissipation
of the collected trapped energy) was done. To refer to the
potential before its dissipation as "voltage" is precisely the same
as confusing the future with the past. A "potential (difference) of
so many volts" is actually a statement that "a potential difference
of so much energy per coulomb" could be dissipated in a load, if it
were connected to the load so that a finite amount of energy was
collected, and this finite load-collection was allowed to dissipate
as power (volts/coulomb x coulomb/sec) for a finite time, yielding
work. It's even worse, but it would take a textbook to straighten
out this one error in EM theory.
So we'll leave it at that, and we'll adapt the notion of potential
the way it is corrupted in electrical circuit theory. There it's
used not really as energy, but rather as excess energy per coulomb
of potentialized charge. I apologize for that difficulty, which is
not of my own making, but I must use the conventional notion if we
are to greatly clarify the pseudo equations.
The Equations of Free Energy
The Pseudo-Equations: Let us use the following subscripts and
letter convention, and develop the nomenclature needed:
T = trapped d = dissipated or dissipating
m = translated (moving) K = energy
V = volts = potential drop (potential dissipated) = previously
collected potential radiated away as heat in a load, doing work
on the load in the process. Unfortunately we shall also have to
speak of a potential gradient that is not being dissipated, so
we shall have to speak of "trapped volts" which is erroneous,
but complies with the common usage.
0 = electrostatic scalar potential. Coul = coulombs
i = amperes = Dissipating potentialized coulombs per second
flowing, so amps are something translating, always. Amps are
excited coulombs, per second, that are dissipating their
excitation. With superconductivity excluded, you only have
amps when you have a potential drop across a load. So we will
speak of amps as "dissipating," meaning that potentialized
electrons are traveling through a load, dissipating their
activation (gradients) in the load by radiating scattered
n = number of electrons in a coulomb = 6.3 x 1018electrons/coulomb
Here are the pseudo equations (superconductivity is excluded):
ampm = could/sec = n electronsm/sec = n electronsd/sec 
delta0 = VT (as conventionally referred to. It would be 
volts if all of it were dissipated, but it is not yet
dissipated, so it is sort of "trapped volts". Erroneous, but
the common use. So we will speak (somewhat distastefully) of
"trapped volts" and "dissipated volts."
Vd x ampd x sec = watts x sec = power x time = work = Kd 
Vd x could/sec x sec = (work) = Kd 
In the switching, we switch KT to Kd so
KT -> Kd 
But VT x coulT = KT 
Or VT = [KT]/[coulT] = trapped energy/trapped coulomb 
KT = [VT] x [coulT] = amount of trapped energy, each cycle 
So that's what we were getting at. The amount of trapped energy you
can transfer (in other words, how much coal you get in one
shovelful) depends upon the number of trapped electrons you have in
the trapped free electron gas in the collector, and the potential
gradient you apply to those trapped coulombs to potentialize them.
Relaxation Time and Semiconductors
Relaxation Time: The time it takes for the free electrons in a
conductor (or material) to reach the skin of the wire after
potential is applied, is of course called the relaxation time.
During that time, the free electrons in the gas are "trapped"
insofar as producing current (dissipation of the potential) is
concerned. However, immediately after the relaxation time ends,
current begins and dissipation of the trapped energy begins.
In copper, the relaxation time is incredibly rapid. It's about 1.5
x 10-19 sec. However, in quartz it is about 10 days! So as you can
see, we need to get somewhere in between these two values, and so we
will have to "mix" or "dope" materials.
We must get a sufficiently long relaxation time so that we can
switch and collect comfortably in cycle one, then switch into cycle
two for dispersion of the freely collected energy in the collector.
However, the relaxation time we get must also be short enough to
allow quick discharge in the load, as soon as we switch the primary
source away from the collector. Actually we need a degenerate
semiconductor material instead of plain copper.
Degenerate Semiconductor Material: A semiconductor material is
intermediate between a good conductor and an insulator. It's a
nonlinear material, and doped. A degenerate semiconductor material
is one which has all its conduction bands filled with electrons, and
so it thinks it is a conductor. That is, a degenerate semiconductor
is essentially a doped conductor, so to speak.
As you can see, we can increase the relaxation time in our
"conductors" connected to the source by making them of degenerate
semiconductor material. What we're talking about is "doping" the
copper in the wire, and in the collector, so that we can have plenty
of time to collect, and switch, and discharge, and switch, and
Now in a doped conductor (degenerate semiconductor), we can tailor
the relaxation time by tailoring the doping. We must dope the
copper before we make the wire. Why would we wish to do that? We
want to overcome the single problem that so far has defeated almost
all the "overunity" researchers and inventors.
WHEN YOU CONNECT TO A SOURCE, YOU CAN ONLY EXTRACT CURRENT-FREE
POTENTIAL __ FREE "TRAPPED EM ENERGY" __ DURING THE ELECTRON
RELAXATION TIME in the connecting conductors and succeeding circuit
components. AFTER THAT, YOU'RE STEADILY EXTRACTING POWER, AND THE
ENERGY EXTRACTED FROM THE SOURCE IS BEING PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN
THE RESISTANCE/LOADING OF THE CIRCUIT, AND PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN
THE INTERNAL RESISTANCE OF THE SOURCE. IN THE LATTER DISSIPATION,
YOU'RE ALSO DISSIPATING YOUR SOURCE BY DOING WORK ON IT INTERNALLY
TO KILL IT.
Good Copper Wire: Bane of Overunity Inventors: Many destitute
inventors, tinkering and fiddling with overunity devices, finally
get something (a circuit or device) that does yield more work out
than they had to input.
At that point they usually conclude that it's simply the specific
circuit configuration and its conventional functioning that produces
the overunity work. However, usually as soon as this configuration
is more carefully built with very good materials, boom! It isn't
The inventors and their assistants then desperately bang and clang
away, getting more frustrated as the years pass. The investors get
mad, sue for fraud, or get in all sorts of squabbles. The
scientists who tested it and found it wanting, pooh-pooh the whole
thing as a scam and a fraud, or just a seriously mistaken inventor.
Scratch one more "overunity" device.
Most of these inventors got their successful effect (and possibly
erratically) when they were struggling with inferior, usually old,
usually corroded materials. Actually, the more inferior, the
better. The more contaminated/doped, the better!
The moment you wire up your circuit with good copper wire connected
between the battery or primary source and any kind of load including
the distributed circuitry loading itself, you can forget about
overunity. You will lose it in the copper, after the first 1.5 x
Think of a really good conductor such as copper as an essentially
linear material. Linear means energy conservative. Overunity can
only be done with a highly nonlinear effect. So your "conductors"
have to be made of nonlinear materials. In fact, they have to be
made of degenerate semiconductor material.
For the type of circuitry we are talking about, the copper has to be
doped and then made into "doped copper" wiring. You also have to
utilize the primary battery only to potentialize a collector
(secondary battery/source), and then use this secondary battery
source to conventionally power the load while also killing itself.
The Wiring And the Collector Must Be of Degenerate Semiconductor
(DSC) Material.(26) A good materials scientist/engineer, together
with a decent electrodynamicist, can readily design and tailor some
doped copper wiring so that the material in the wiring is a
degenerate semiconductor material, with a target (desired)
relaxation time. That's what you should use to make the wiring to
connect up your source to the collector with, and that type of
material is also what you use in your collector.
You can use either a coil or a capacitor as the collector, but its
"conductive" material has to be degenerate semiconductor material __
in short, it must be doped to have the proper relaxation time. From
the collector to the load, however, obviously you want to use a good
conductor material. Ordinary copper will do nicely there.
Once you do that, you're in business. When making the DSC material,
simply tailor the relaxation time to something which is easily
switched. For example, take one millisec. With a relaxation time
of that long, switching is easy. In fact, one could even use good
mechanical switching. Or easily use inexpensive ordinary solid
state switching, without having to go all the way to nanosecond
Then in the collector you calculate the number of "trapped coulombs"
you have. Take the "trapped voltage" (current-free potential's
energy density per coulomb) you extract from the source during the
electron relaxation time after the collector is connected. Multiply
the number of trapped coulombs in the collector by the trapped
voltage during collection, and you have the amount of energy in
joules that you extract FOR FREE, without paying for it, from the
source during every collection cycle.
Sources, Collectors, and Power
Tapping Vacuum Energy. You're getting the excess electrical energy
directly from the vacuum, as we briefly pointed out above. The
vacuum will freely replenish all the "trapped voltage" you extract
from the primary source during the electron relaxation time. It
won't replenish a single bit of "dissipated voltage" (power) you
extract from the source.
Note that the same considerations apply in the collector. It's got
to have a somewhat longer electron relaxation time. Its electrons
stay "unrelaxed" during the collection cycle, and allow for some
additional switching time to connect to the load.
The "trapped voltage" across the collector multiplied by the number
of trapped coulombs in it, gives the number of joules of FREE EM
ENERGY you extract and get into and onto the collector (the shovel).
In other words, that's your "shovelful of coal."
You then throw the "shovelful" onto the fire/load __ you simply
disconnect the collector from the primary source and connect it
across the external load. The collector (secondary battery) now
powers the load and its own internal resistance, "killing" itself
while furnishing the energy for powering the external load as well.
The Source Can Be Almost Anything: You can use as a source a simple
elevated wire, to "tap" potential from the 200-300 volts/meter
between earth and ionosphere. Here again, you need to utilize
calibrated, doped wire.
Finally, you must adjust the repetition switching in accordance with
the discharge time through the load. In other words, you have a
serial process as follows:
(1) extract trapped energy (potential) from the source onto the
collector, delta t1.
(2) Switch the collector off the source, onto the load, during
time delta t2.
(3) Wait while the collected energy in the collector discharges
through the load, during time delta t3.
(4) Switch the collector back off the load and onto the
potential source, during time delta t4. That completes one
The serial timing simply is
[delta t1 + delta t2 + delta t3 + delta t4].
If you balance all the doping and the materials design, and
correlate the switching, you can get all the free energy you wish.
Properly utilized, a single car battery can be used to power an
electric automobile indefinitely. Or even to power a battleship.
In the real world, of course, you will inevitably have a tiny bit of
loss as you go, because there's a finite (though high) resistance
between the two poles of your battery. Handling that is a piece of
cake. Simply run a separate little collection circuit to collect a
little bit of trapped EM energy from the slowly leaking source, and
ever so often feed the collected energy back into the battery as
power, to "reseparate" the charges (charge the battery) and replace
the small amount of the primary source's potential gradient that has
been lost. The battery, load, and "trickle charger" then become a
closed-circuit free-energy source that will last for years and
Limited Only By One's Imagination: Of course you can see many
variants; this is just the "master key." You can have multiple
collectors, collecting trapped energy simultaneously or in sequence
off a single source, and pooling their collected energy to more
powerfully power the load.
You can utilize a very high "voltage", such as in the Swiss
electrostatic overunity device, to increase the energy collected per
coulomb in each switching (in each shovelful) in accord with
For a battery , you can set a separate little collector/load device
to trickle-charge the battery, overcoming the small normal "leakage
current" that does occur in batteries and in real circuits and
devices. The opportunities are endless. You can put in a unit to
take mostly only power-free energy from the "power line" feeding
your business or home, reducing your utility bill by __ say __ 90%.
Or you can simply build a small home power unit to do the whole job,
for only a few hundred dollars. This simple secret can be used to
power the world, cheaply and cleanly, and to clean up the biosphere.
Well, there you have it. I've given you the benefit of what
required most of my adult life to discover. The definitions
advanced in this paper are rigorous. It took years of sweat and
tears to come up with them. They're simple, but they will change
your entire understanding of electromagnetics, power, and energy
once you grasp them. Please read them, and ponder them, several
times. One or two readings will not be sufficient to fully grasp
what is said here.
Also, hopefully by this time the reader is beginning to experience
the same emotions as I experienced when I finally discovered how
simple it all really was. First one wants to laugh for about two
hours at how truly ignorant we've all been. Then one wants to cry
for about two hours for the same reason. This could all have been
done a century ago, if we had ever really understood
We've had this electromagnetics around for over 100 years __
Maxwell's book was published in 1873. We got it wrong, starting
right with Maxwell and his use of the material ether, which was
almost universally assumed at the time.
Still, by using quaternions, Maxwell succeeded in packing a great
deal more in the model than even he himself recognized. When the
vector aspects interacted to form a zero resultant translationally,
those active interactants were still in there and still fighting and
interacting. The scalar component of the quaternion remained, and
infolded those struggling vectors and functions of them inside
In short, it captured the case where the electromagnetic energies
are involved in translation actions which nullify each other
translationally (electromagnetically). However, the energies are
still in there in the continuing interactants inside the zero vector
resultant. As such, they are trapped EM energy.
And it is the trapped EM energy inside a mass __ not the mass per se
__ which is responsible for gravitation. In other words, Maxwell's
theory already correctly captured the unification of the
gravitational field and the electromagnetic field in 1873.
Then Heaviside et al forced Maxwell's theory into a vector
framework, throwing out the scalar component, and discarding the
unification of gravitation and electromagnetics along with it.
Serious errors were made and still exist in many of the fundamental
definitions; in fact, many of them aren't definitions at all.
Nearly every engineer and physicist can readily calculate potentials
__ all, of course, on the "dissipation" side where the potentials
are actually the amount of potential that was collected upon a
collector and then dissipated. I could find hardly a single
physicist who really knew what a scalar potential was prior to a
finite amount being collected and dissipated as voltage. Yet 99% of
them firmly believed they understood the potential.
So now you have the results of this researcher's long and arduous
quest for the golden fleece. Please go forward with it, to make
this a better and cleaner world for everyone.
Just remember that the control and use of energy is personal power.
The control and use of absolute energy is the control and use of
absolute personal power. In the old adage, power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Please use it wisely.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. For a good discussion of the modern quantum mechanical view of
the vacuum, see I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's plenty: the
vacuum in modern field theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4),
1985, p. 333-391.
See also T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field
Theory, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York, 1981 __
particularly Chapter 16, "Vacuum as the source of asymmetry."
See Timothy Boyer, "The classical vacuum," Scientific American,
Aug. 1985, p. 70;
Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum really
Empty?", American Scientist, Mar.-Apr. 1980, p. 154;
Jack S. Greenberg and Walter Greiner, "Search for the sparking
of the vacuum," Physics Today, Aug. 1982, p. 24-32;
Richard E. Prange and Peter Strance, "The superconducting
vacuum, " American Journal of Physics, 52(1), Jan. 1984, p. 19-
R. Jackiw and J.R. Schrieffer, "The decay of the vacuum,"
Nuclear Physics B, Vol. 190, 1981, p. 944.
See Paul Davies, Superforce, Simon and Schuster, 1984 for a
layman's overview of modern physics, including the modern view
of the vacuum.
2. E. T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of
mathematical physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p.
333-355. Since the scalar potential actually consists totally
of a set of hidden bidirectional EM waves, then scalar
interferometry is possible, and not just an oxymoron as it
would seem without considering the inner wave structure of the
scalar potential. Two scalar potentials (each of which is a
multi-biwave set) can interfere; it is just a special kind of
multiple wave interferometry between their internal wave
compositions. This is a major point of profound impact on
physics. Whittaker in fact showed that all classical EM could
be replaced by such scalar EM potential interferometry.
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, 1904, p. 367-372.
Further, scalar interferometry has been proven; today it is
called the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. See Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm,
"Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum
Theory," Physical Review, Second Series, 115(3), Aug. 1, 1959,
For confirmation and discussion, see Bertram Schwarzschild,
"Currents in normal-metal rings exhibit Aharonov-Bohm Effect,"
Physics Today, 39(1), Jan. 1986, p. 17-20. For an extensive
discussion of the Aharonov-bohm effect and an extensive list of
references, see S. Olariu and I. Iovitzu Popescu, "The quantum
effects of electromagnetic fluxes," Reviews of Modern Physics,
57(2), April 1985. Modern scientists have generally been
unaware of the inner wave structure of the interfering
potentials and have utilized only quantum mechanical theory for
the interference. Consequently, they have been able to
experimentally establish the AB effect for only a few thousand
angstroms distance. With the Whittaker formulation, the AB
effect becomes distant-independent, because the necessary
potentials can be fabricated as laser-like beams, simply by
assembling the proper Whittaker multibeam set.
Also, Ignatovich pointed out that the Schroedinger potential
can also be decomposed into just such an internal bidirectional
EM wave set. See V. K. Ignatovich, "The remarkable
capabilities of recursive relations," American Journal of
Physics, 57(10), Oct. 1989, p. 873-878.
3. See Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave
Equation With Complex Source Locations," Journal of
Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 861;
"Localized Transmission of Wave Energy," Proc. SPIE, Vol. 1061,
Microwave and Particle Beam Sources and Directed Energy
Concepts, 1989, p. 396-397;
"Localized Transmission of Electromagnetic Energy," Physical
Review A, Vol. 39, p. 2005;
"Localized Wave Transmission Physics and Engineering," Physical
Review A, 1992, (in Press);
"Localized wave transmission physics and engineering," Proc.
SPIE Conference on Intense Microwave and Particle Beams II, Los
Angeles, CA, vol. 1407, Jan. 1991, p. 375-386.
See Richard W. Ziolkowski, Amr M. Shaarawi, and Ioannis M.
Besieris, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), Vol. 6, 1989, p.
R.W. Ziolkowski, and D.K. Lewis, D.K., "Verification of the
Localized Wave Transmission Effect," Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 68, 1990, p. 6083;
Richard W. Ziolkowski, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M.
Shaarawi, "Localized Wave Represntations of Acoustics and
Electromagnetic Radiation," Proceedings of the IEEE, 79(10),
Oct. 1991, p. 1371-1378;
I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A
bidirectional travelling plane wave representation of exact
solutions of the scalar wave equation," Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 30(6), 1989, p. 806;
A.M. Shaarawi, I.M. Besieris, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A novel
approach to the synthesis of nondispersive wave packet
solutions to the Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equations," Journal
of Mathematical Physics, 31(10), 1990, p. 2511;
"A nondispersive wave packet representation of photons and the
wave-particle duality of light," UCRL-101694, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1989;
"Diffraction of a classical wave packet in a two slit
interference experiment," UCRL-100756, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 1989;
"Localized energy pulse trains launched from an open, semi-
infinite, circular waveguide," Journal of Applied Physics,
65(2), 1989, p. 805;
R.W . Ziolkowski, D.K.Lewis and B.D.Cook, "Experimental
verification of the localized wave transmission effect,"
Physical Review Letters, 62(2), 1989, p. 147;
R.W. Ziolkowski and D.K. Lewis, "Verification of the localized
wave transmission effect," Journal of Applied Physics, 68(12),
1990, p. 6083;
M.K. Tippett and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional wave
transformation of the cold plasma equations," Journal of
Mathematical Physics, 32(2) 1991, p. 488;
A.M. Vengsarkar, I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W.
Ziolkowski, "Localized energy pulses in optical fiber
waveguides: Closed-form approximate solutions," Journal of the
Optical Society of America A, 1991.
4. For a precise statement of the distortion correction theorem,
see Amnon Yariv, Optical Electronics, 3rd Edn., Holt, Rihehart
and Winston, New York, 1985, p. 500-501.
5. Both wave and antiwave co-exist in the vacuum simultaneously,
forming a stress wave. The entity that is stressed is the rate
of flow of time. In the common interaction with matter, the
time-forward half of the stress wave normally interacts with
the electron shells of the atom, giving electron translations
forces. The time-reversed or anti-wave half interacts with the
nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd law reaction (recoil) forces.
The so-called "EM wave" in vacuum is a gravitational wave. It
is a wave of oscillation of the rate of flow of time. It is
rather like a sound wave in air, as Tesla pointed out, and it
is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse "string" wave.
6. As pointed out by Nikola Tesla. Tesla was correct, and all the
textbooks with their transverse "string" waves are in error.
There are no strings in the vacuum!
7. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, Introduction to
Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982,
8. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, ibid., p. 100-101.
See also Raymond A. Serway, Physics For Scientists And
Engineers, With Modern Physics, Saunders College Publishing,
Philadelphia, PA, 3rd Edn., Updated Version, 1992, p. 752-755.
9. Sommerfield's theory of metallic conduction was based on
Drude's concept that the outer valence electrons of a
conductor, which do not form crystal bonds, are free to migrate
through the crystalline lattice structure, and so to form an
electron gas. At room temperature, by quantum mechanical
considerations these free electrons are moving randomly, but at
an average velocity on the order of 106 meters per sec. E.g.,
see Martin A. Plonus, Applied Electromagnetics, McGraw Hill,
New York, 1978, p. 54-58, 62-3, 376-7. If you wish to know
just how much power exchange is driving the collisions of the
electron gas in a copper wire, here is an illustration. In one
cubic centimeter of copper wire, the power exchange in and out
of the electron gas is some 4 billion billion watts. That's
the equivalent of 4 billion large electric power plants, each
of 1,000 megawatt capacity. And one cubic centimeter of copper
is a lump about the size of the end of your little finger.
10. E. g., see .Raymond A. Serway, ibid., p. 743-744 for a
discussion and calculation of the electron drift velocity in
11. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The
Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. 1,
1963, p. 2-4. In the classical EM theory launched by Maxwell
and later modified by Heaviside et al, this problem did not
exist for the original theoretical formulation. In that
formulation by Maxwell, and continued by Heaviside, a material
ether is assumed for the model. The Michelson-Morley
experiments of 1887 destroyed the notion of the material ether,
but the classical electromagnetics model has never been
corrected to rectify its very serious foundations flaw in this
12. Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of
Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1963, p. 283-287. Note
on p. 283 that a "field of force" at any point is actually
defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at that
point. In spite of this, most classical electrodynamicists
continue to adhere to the notion that the EM field exists as
such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable
quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge
E.g., see J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn.,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 249. Note that holding
such a concept is tantamount to holding on to the material
ether, and assuming that the vacuum itself is "measurable" or
13. The formula F = ma is simply an algorithm for calculating the
magnitude of the force. It states that "the magnitude of the
force is equal to the magnitude of mass that is accelerating,
multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration." No such "
equals" formula is a definition; it is only a calculational
14. This falsifies one of the assumptions in the common notion of
the scalar potential; that its gradient in vacuum is a force
field. Let us falsify another part of the conventional concept
of the potential. Take the notion of forcibly pushing in "
against the field" of a trapped charge, a unit charge from
infinity. At any point you stop, the work n you have done on
the unit charge is equal to the value of the potential, so it
is said. Actually, you pushed in a one-coulomb collector, and
have collected and dissipated as work n joules of energy on
that one coulomb. In other words, the energy density of the
potential there, if collected and dissipated on a collector, is
n, where n is joules per coulomb (NOT joules!). To prove it:
Suppose we go out on 10,000 radials from that point, and push
in from infinity 10,000 unit charges from infinity. Then the
total work done "against the potential gradient ("field," in
common language) is now 10,000 n. This makes no sense at all
from the conventional view (which carefully refrains from
multiple collectors!). It makes good sense from our view of
the potential as having infinite energy but a finite energy
density. In that case, the more collectors, the more energy
collected, for dispersal as work.
15. For a discussion, see Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, 1959.
16. Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless," Electrical Experimenter, May
1919, p. 87.
17. The power in the load is always the time rate of dissipation of
energy that has just been freely collected by the load for
18. One can foresee a day in the not too distant future when any
power company continuing to do such an unthinkable thing will
have a class action suit brought against it by its customers!
19. T. E. Bearden, "Mechanism for Long-Term Cumulative Biological
Effects of EM Fields and Radiation," March 1993 (in
20. Precisely analogous to a heat pump's operation - which as is
well-known can readily be "over unity" in its efficiency. The
maximum efficiency of the heat pump is about 8.22.
E.g., see David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of
Physics, 3rd Edition Extended, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1988, Volume 1, p. 510-519. Good heat pumps normally have
about 4.0 efficiency.
21. External power in an electric circuit refers to the dissipation
rate (in the circuit's external load) of the potential
gradients on the activated/potentialized electrons. Internal
power refers to the dissipation rate in the circuit's
22. We call strong attention to T.W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear
Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la
Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), No. 1, 1991, p. 23-41. In
this important paper, Barrett shows that a higher topology EM,
such as quaternion EM, allows many things to be accomplished
with circuitry that are not apparent to a conventional vector
or tensor analysis of that circuitry. He also shows that
Nikola Tesla's circuits accomplished this higher topological
23. It is easy to test this. Connect several different wires to a
single source of potential gradient. With respect to ground,
the end of each one of those wires has the same potential
gradient as does the original source with respect to ground.
If you connect 10 wires to a single "100-volt" potential
gradient source, you will have ten 100-volt potential gradients
appear. You can use each of these ten potential gradients as a
primary source. From each of these new primary sources, you
can branch ten more, and now have a hundred potential gradient
sources. You can treat each of these hundred new sources now
as a primary source. To each one, you can add a switcher,
collector, and external load, and drive all 100 loads. Or
instead, you can put ten switcher/collector/external load
circuits with each of the hundred new primary sources, and
power all 1,000 external loads. Energy/potential is free from
any source, so long as you do not demand power from the same
24. Per Whittaker and Ziolkowski, this VPF exchange __ from
consideration of its wave aspects __ consists of a harmonic
series of bidirectional waves.
25. We are easily permitted to have free energy and violate the
"local energy conservation law for a closed system." This is
because the two-cycle system is not closed, and so instead we
must apply local energy conservation for an open system with a
hidden source. In any given time interval, the energy taken
(scattered) from the system as external work cannot exceed the
sum of the unscattered trapped energy that was in the system
initially and the unscattered energy that flowed into the
system during that time interval.
26. You can actually do away with the separate collector, and
utilize the doped copper DSC material itself as the collector.
However, you will not be able to collect nearly so much energy
in each collection cycle, for dissipating in the load in the
subsequent work cycle.
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to firstname.lastname@example.org.