Foundations of a New Science

By T.E. Bearden
November 12, 1995

It is a pleasure to accept the offer of John and Larry to write a column in their new InterNet magazine. Theirs is a great venture, and with the energy and knowledge they bring to the task, one can be confident of their success in making this a very interesting and informative publication.

There is a new “rebel” science slowly being born, with most of the work being done outside the universities and orthodox scientific community. In the months ahead it will be my job to try to acquaint you with the gist of what’s going on, and what all the excitement is about.

This first article is deliberately just introductory, and its purpose is to interest you in the unusual fields we are going to be covering in more scientific detail, in future columns. We will also be listing a variety of references from the technical literature, which bear upon the various points addressed.

In this first article a little of my own background experience [note 1] is given, so you can decide whether you will be interested in what we have to say!

The real purpose of the column will just be to present information that you may not be able to readily obtain any other way. We will not argue or debate with skeptics; nothing productive is to be gained by that. If the information we present is useful to you, then our purpose has been accomplished. If it isn’t of use to you, then just file it in the old wastebasket. Also, from time to time I may answer a generic question, constructed from multiple queries. Individual responses to correspondence cannot be provided.

The work toward a new breakthrough science is going on in a broad spectrum of “fields,” most of which are not yet recognized by academia as even constituting legitimate areas of scientific endeavor (Table 1).
Some of the major areas involved are:

  • theoretical and experimental research in overunity electrical machines,
  • free energy research of other kinds, such as devices utilizing thermodynamics phase changes,
  • rapidly advancing efforts in cold fusion,
  • work on permanent magnet motors,
  • antigravity research, both theoretical and experimental,
  • development and utilization of a “hidden” electrodynamics inside the scalar potential (inside voltage),
  • the “memory” of space and materials; where this “memory” can be deliberately conditioned so that space and the materials themselves become causal actants rather than simple inert entities,
  • direct engineering of quantum change via a new kind of “hidden electrodynamic variables,”
  • the direct engineering of the vacuum’s virtual photon flux exchange with matter,
  • action at a distance, including the deliberate formation and usage of quantum potentials,
  • direct engineering of the local curvature of spacetime (yes, the direct engineering of general relativity, using the new hidden kind of electrodynamics),
  • use of the new “hidden” electromagnetics to engineer body cells including the reversal of diseased cells, genetics and all, back to a previous healthy state (cellular dedifferentiation, in biophysical terms, or cellular phase conjugation, in physics terminology),
  • research toward the direct engineering of the mind, including both the conscious and unconscious minds, long-term memory, and the personality itself, and
  • a ruthless re-examination (and correction where necessary and possible) of the definitions, concepts, and postulates that present physics is founded upon.

Each of these “major areas” as yet has no single “experts” in the sense that individuals exist who possess a “mastery” of the given area. As an example, in spite of multiple researchers and decades of vigorous research, no one is really an “overall expert” in the overunity electrical power systems field. The “field” itself is still struggling to be born and is not recognized at all by orthodoxy; in fact, many orthodox scientists bitterly resent one even attempting to work in this area. There is as yet no cohesive single “theory” of overunity electrical or magnetic machines, although our own group is making rapid progress in that respect. But there is still no universal agreement amongst even the researchers themselves. Literally the field is still being discovered.

This “groping dimly toward a new field” should not be too surprising. After all, the early electromagnetics researchers went through the same tortuous, agonizing kind of development. They were playing with cat fur, glass rods, and pith balls for quite an extended period before understanding progressed to the point where Maxwell could mathematically tie together and model the results of the experimenters such as Faraday and others. It has taken a century and a half for modern electromagnetics and electronics to reach its own present development. It is going to take another decade or so before the overunity researchers can overturn several ill-founded parts of the present electromagnetics and get the emerging field onto a solid foundations footing and into a solid theoretical position.

In the effort to produce a theoretical model of electromagnetics, Maxwell and his predecessors performed a magnificent work. Yet they also made very serious errors (Table 2), which persist to this day. [note 2] Let us list just a few of the more blatant errors in classical EM theory today:

First, Franklin guessed wrong on which way electrical current flowed in a circuit. There is no definition at all of electrical charge in all of physics, and there is no acceptable definition of potential (that is, there is no rigorous definition of just good old “voltage.”) There are no “fields of force” in the vacuum; there are just potential gradients __ because the vacuum is just one vast potential (virtual particle flux) in the first place. Force fields actually occur only in and of the matter in a material system. The primary causative agents of electromagnetics are not the so-called “force fields’ at all, but are the potentials __ as is well-known in quantum mechanics. [note 3] Maxwell assumed a material ether in his equations. The Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed the material ether, but the Maxwell equations have never been changed accordingly. The electron was not yet discovered when the Maxwell equations were written; the theory does not address electron spin. Maxwell was already dead some two decades when Barus’ 1898 paper [note 4] was published, pointing out the strange “backwards-traveling” wave (i.e., time-reversed wave) solution to the wave equation. In addition, Heaviside and Gibbs had already produced their vector truncation __ this truncated theory is the modern so-called “Maxwell’s equations” that universities teach today __ of Maxwell’s theory. Not a single one of them ever appeared in any book or paper by James Clerk Maxwell. [note 5]

So the time-reversed EM wave that one finally sees emerging in nonlinear phase conjugate optics in the early 1970s was omitted from the Maxwellian theory and its later modification by Heaviside and Gibbs. Maxwell’s actual theory is in a higher topology (quaternion algebra), and involves some 20 quaternion equations. Heaviside and Gibbs created vector algebra, and seriously curtailed Maxwell’s theory when they “translated” it into the much lower topology of vectors and some four equations. The later addition of tensors as the basis mathematics did not restore the lost topology provided by the quaternion model. [note 6]

For the EM wave, Maxwell simply assumed the transverse EM wave that had come from the much earlier derivation of the familiar wave equation from the old “plucked taut string” notions. [note 7] Yet when one closely examines and corrects some of the erroneous assumptions [note 8] made for the actual mathematical derivation of this “taut string” transverse wave, one finds (Figure 1) that an equal-energy second antiphased transverse “antiwave” is actually produced by the instrument and added to the “plucked string’s” transverse wave disturbance of the air medium, to produce a longitudinal wave of compression and rarefaction in the air itself. The “transverse string wave” in fact never leaves the string. The string wave is not the wave that is launched into the medium.

A similar electromagnetic situation exists. In a whip antenna (Figure 2), the Drude electron gas in the conductor does exhibit a transverse “string-type” EM wave of electron precession. However, at the same time, by Newton’s third law (which Maxwell neglected because at the time the atom was regarded as just a blob with no internal structure) the positively charged, phase conjugated atomic nuclei have equal energy, highly damped transverse recoil waves created in them. Further, these “nuclei-recoil” waves are phase conjugate replicas of the electron gas waves. The total disturbance that is launched into the vacuum from the whip antenna is (a) the normal transverse disturbance of the virtual photon flux of vacuum caused by the electron gas wave, and (b) the coupled equal-energy transverse antiwave caused by the nuclei-recoil via Newton’s third law. The amplitude of the material antiwaves of nuclei vibration are highly damped because of the massiveness of the nuclei; however, they are of equal energy to the electron wave. But when launched into the same vacuum, the two equal-energy wave disturbances experience equal damping because they are in the same medium. Hence the wave and antiwave are (a) locked together in the vacuum, and (b) of equal energy, and (3) of equal amplitude once launched into the vacuum. What results is a vacuum EM wave of rarefaction (reduction in intensity) and compression (increase in intensity) of the virtual photon flux of vacuum __ just exactly like what is launched into the surrounding gaseous air medium from the “plucked taut string” and perturbed body of a physical instrument. The EM wave in vacuum is a longitudinal wave directly analogous to a sound wave __ just as Nikola Tesla stated. [note 9]

The vacuum may be considered a scalar potential, in which case it has an internal biwave structure (Figure 3). Interference of two potentials __ i.e., the hidden interference (Figure 4) of their internal wave structures __ in fact already creates all EM fields and waves.

When the incoming longitudinal “biwave” from the vacuum strikes the atoms of the receiving antenna, each atom may be considered a dynamic assembly of multiple dipoles, where each dipole consists of one of the electrons in the electron shells and one of the positive charges in the nucleus. The receiving dipole in the interacting atom splits the two waves apart again (Figure 5). The negatively charged end of the dipole is time-forward, and the positively charged end is time-reversed. Hence the separated normal-wave-half of the biwave interacts with the electron, to give again the familiar transverse “electron precession” wave that we detect with our “electron wiggle-detecting” instruments (Figure 6). This detected electron precession wave is what all our textbooks prescribe erroneously as the vacuum wave! The separated time-reversed-wave-half of the incoming vacuum wave is split off and interacts with the positive end of the receiving atomic dipole, in the time-reversed atomic nucleus, thus generating Newton’s third law reaction force to provide the recoil of the nucleus. Present physics has ignored this second wave altogether, because of the serious error in the original derivation of the wave equation from plucked strings. Thus physics presently has absolutely no causative mechanism for Newton’s reaction force. Instead, scientists just “mystically invoke the appearance of this magic force.” Describing that something occurs, and naming its occurrence, does not constitute advancing a causative mechanism!

Further, if we should trick the time-reversed wave half into coming outside the atom instead of going inside to interact with the nucleus (Figure 7), then it follows that the nucleus would not recoil. In that case the interaction would appear to violate Newtonian third law reaction. Phase conjugate mirrors already do just exactly this when they emit a phase conjugate replica wave. They direct the antiwave outside and away from the atom instead of inwards into the nucleus. So they do not recoil, no matter how powerful a phase conjugate replica wave they emit.

Finally, we can also show that the EM wave in vacuum is longitudinal, by yet another approach. The electrons in the electron gas in a conductor are spinning, and they are severely constrained longitudinally to be able to move only very, very slowly down the wire. So when perturbed, they act as gyroscopes, and precess at right angles to the perturbing force. The fact that the gyroelectrons in a wire move radially almost entirely, and only “slip” down the wire very slowly with a “drift” velocity, already proves conclusively that the incoming vacuum disturbance was longitudinal. The precession of a gyro is at right angles to the perturbing force. Therefore rigorously the vacuum EM waves are longitudinal, because the gyroelectrons moved transversely. The present assumption of the transverse EM wave in vacuum contradicts the entire theory of gyroscopes! [note 10] There are many other errors in classical EM that we will point out in future articles; this should give the reader a flavor of what is in store for him in future articles.

So there are no truly satisfactory “experts” in any of the 14 fields. Yet there is still something to be said for having some years of experience in one or more of the areas. I have had the good fortune or misfortune, depending upon one’s viewpoint, to be involved in various of those 14 activities for some 30 years or more, and am active in several of the areas now. My colleagues and I are particularly active in researching overunity electrical devices (see Figure 8), to include the effects of controlled chaotic oscillators, charge-blocking oscillators, and oscillators driven by in-shuttled (bridged) Poynting field energy density flow ExH. Parametric oscillation is known to have yielded overunity electrical machines and was fully reported by Russian researchers in the Russian and French technical journals in the mid 1930s. [note 11] We will further cite that little-known work in future articles. Also, we are working mightily upon true negative resistors (Figure 9), wherein the resistor scavenges some of the disorganized energy from the vacuum’s energetic exchange with the charges in the system, organizes and collects it, and then outputs that collected energy flow into the external circuit. Such a resistor acts as a power source. Kron, perhaps the greatest of the electrical machinery scientists, is known to have produced such true negative resistors.

I have also proposed a theoretical explanation of the Priore device (Figure 10) in France which in laboratory animals demonstrated remarkable cures of terminal tumors, cured trypanosomias, reversed atheriosclerosis, and restored suppressed immune systems. The Priore work was not anecdotal, but was performed under rigorous scientific protocols, working under the auspices of renowned French scientists such as Courrier and Pautrizel. The work is properly reported in numerous papers in the French medical literature. [note 12] The results were certainly achieved, but neither Priore himself nor the scientists of the day could understand the mechanism involved. The deciphering of that causative technical mechanism utilized by the Priore group required 10 years of intense effort. The results have now been published in the journal Explore! and are there for anyone to read. [note 13]
Presently my CTEC colleagues and I have filed three patent applications and a continuation, on various methods for overunity processes and apparatuses, room temperature superconductivity, Poynting generators, etc.

As an example, we took exactly the opposite approach to room temperature superconductivity as has been taken by all the orthodox researchers to date. What exactly is sought, after all, for superconductivity (SC) in a section of an electrical circuit? Well, one has some electrons on one side of that SC section that are transporting excess potential, as given by the Slepian vector J*. [note 14] What is desired is to get some electrons on the other side of the SC section that also are transporting the same amount of excess energy in the form of J*. You can do that in two ways: (1) you can flow the electron carriers through the SC section, carrying their J*, or (2) you can block the J and flow the * itself across as the Poynting flow S. [note 15] Nondivergent Poynting flow flows along an equipotential, which is just another way of saying that, if the S-flow does not diverge, it carries the same potential * along with it. Hence it carries the EMF right along with it as it flows without divergence.

Conventional approaches have all tried to shove the electron carriers through the SC lattice section. Doing that is like trying to fire a very slow bullet through several million rotating fans in a straight line. So cryogenics (to slow the fanblades to a crawl) and massive correlation of the electrons and of the electron-to-lattice interactions is necessary if one is to get the electrons through there without excess collisions that shake off some of the excess * from J*, as scattered photons (heat) or as a change of form of the energy (as in straining the dielectric of a capacitor to convert electrical energy to mechanical strain energy via the piezoelectric effect.)

Our approach is exactly the opposite (Figure 11) and Figure 12). Why not just stop the flow of excited electron carriers on one side of the SC section, and continue the nondiverging flow of the Poynting field energy density S across that section at room temperature? Then the cryogenics is not needed at all. After all, circuits already work that way anyhow __ except standard practice is to nullify the process by letting current be driven around the sourcing current loop and back through the back EMF of the primary source. A quantum well (or several other methods) can be used to trap the “sourcing” electrons in the conductor just prior to entering the SC section. The “receiving” electrons on the other side of the SC section, however, must be in their own dq/dt-isolated current loop.

Normal sources do not furnish electrons and current to a circuit anyway. Sources just furnish Poynting flow S and EMF. [note 16] In the receiving current loop, the EMF appears automatically once the S-flow flows in and is “locked on to” by the receiving electrons. Given q**, you will immediately have J* if the electrons are free to move in the conducting circuit (see Figure 13). Further, you have eliminated all the loss terms from the standard Poynting equation for energy losses. So all the energy flow S just flows across the SC section, without any current or Cooper pairs flowing through that SC section. The SC section has become a “bridge” which (1) strips off the Poynting field energy density flow S from the electron current dq/dt on the sourcing side of the SC/bridge section, by simply reducing the dq/dt to zero; and (2) continues to pass the S-flow across the dq/dt-blocked SC/bridge section to the other side (Figure 14). The excess S-flow (and EMF) pours into the receiving dq/dt-isolated current loop, exciting the electrons therein to produce dq/dt and J*. Any closed current loop is self-powered, once it receives S and EMF. It furnishes its own electrons; it only requires excess energy and EMF. [note 17]

So our approach gives room temperature superconductivity in a very straightforward manner, once you discover how to block the current dq/dt in a conductor. Blocking it in an insulator is not sufficient, because that drops the potential and stops the S-flow and the equipotential * (the EMF). However, a degenerate semiconductor such as the Fogal chip can be used, as can several other processes for blocking dq/dt in a conductor. We will discuss these in a future article.

Another advantage of this approach to room temperature superconductivity is that now one can also have permissible overunity coefficient of performance. Now the load can be placed in its own S-receiving, isolated current loop. With the sourcing current loop furnishing only S and not dq/dt, the load is still powered normally in its own closed dq/dt current loop, but none of the load current is passed back through the back EMF of the primary source in the sourcing circuit.

This principle — that at least a substantial portion of the load current must not pass back through the primary source — is the primary principle required for a permissible overunity electrical machine (Figure 15). A permissible overunity electrical machine is one which produces more power in the load than you have to put into the machine to run it.

Obviously, the laws of physics and thermodynamics require such an overunity machine to be an open system that extracts and utilizes excess energy from an external source. In the case outlined, we extract the excess energy directly from the vacuum in the form of S-flow; essentially we convert our primary source to a Poynting generator rather than a “power” (energy flow loss rate) generator. The resulting9.  overunity machine accomplishes both room temperature superconductivity and also overunity coefficient of performance (Figure 16). It does not violate the conservation laws of physics. It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is an open system receiving and utilizing excess energy from the vacuum, and the second law need not apply to such systems. [note 18]

You see, all power systems are already free energy density flow sourcing systems, if we but use them correctly. Every dipole is a “gating device” for extracting excess field energy density flow from the violent bidirectional flux exchange between the vacuum and each end of the dipole. [note 19] [note 20] When we attach “conducting leads” to a dipolar source, as in the simple two-wire circuit, all we are doing with the conductors is providing waveguides for the extracted S-flows from the vacuum to flow along (it flows outside the conductors) without loss. In effect, each lead is simply extending the pole (i.e., the terminal) to which it is connected.

My associates and I are also working on several other inventions at present, including two more patent applications to be filed in the near future. One of those is in the field of overunity power systems, while the other is in an entirely different, highly proprietary nuclear effort. I will address all these areas in future columns, and those columns will have real “meat” in them.

Present “big science” proclaims that overunity electrical machines are impossible. The reader should understand that the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office is never going to grant a patent for an overunity electrical machine unless the machine is independently tested and replicated, and unless it is certified by scientists of impeccable credentials. This is as it should be. Legitimate free energy researchers accept that dictum. Eventually the stuff has to work on the bench in order to be validated. On the other hand, free energy researchers also point out that one must not demand of us the next 100 years of national research by a hundred major laboratories immediately! This is still a shoestring operation, because all conventional sources of research funds are denied to the serious overunity researcher (with the single exception of occasional personal funding of a researcher by a private individual). In other words, we demand at least the same kind of consideration that the orthodox nuclear fusion community has enjoyed. Billions of dollars have been poured into that sinkhole, and not a single controlled fusion power unit is working anywhere in the world after decades of work at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

So we overunity researchers deserve at least a decade or two of our own, to try to accomplish overunity electrical system development. We also painfully point out that “Big Science” will not fund a single overunity researcher, for specific overunity purpose, no matter what his credentials or capability. In fact, “Big Science” is part of the problem, because it fervently seeks to prevent any legitimate research in overunity. To carry out its suppression campaign. it resorts to vilification, character assassination, libel, and slander of the overunity researchers themselves __ again, regardless of their qualifications or legitimate scientific procedures. [note 21]

Indeed, orthodoxy has a black record with respect to energy. When Mayer advanced the conservation of energy law, orthodoxy hounded him unmercifully. He was universally ridiculed as the very epitome of a fool. He lost his job and suffered a nervous breakdown. Then years later toward the end of his life, scientists came to accept the conservation of energy as a most useful tool that dramatically simplified much of their analyses. So then science began to laud Mayer. There are a thousand other such examples; suffice it to say that “big science” is a bureaucracy and a “bell-shaped distribution curve” just like any other large group of people. Some scientists are near-angels. Others are near-devils. The vast majority are neither, but are just ordinary persons doing a special kind of job. In the scientific bureaucracy, however, the manipulative scientists scurry, slash, and manipulate their way toward the top. So the leadership of any big bureaucracy __ including the scientific bureaucracy __ is always rife with such near-scalawags and power-hungry individuals. Scientists are not exceptions to the same human weaknesses that we all evidence. If you really want to see jealousy, backbiting, and fierce “back-room dealing” and power-struggling, just get into a university research environment! But because the “power merchants” of any bureaucracy always fiercely resist any challenge to their position or superiority, big science has always fiercely resisted anything truly revolutionary. And today they also enlist the power of the state to enforce their dictums. We will devote one of our future columns to pointing out some glaring examples of persecution of independent researchers by big science. It is an area that all unorthodox researchers should be well-aware of. The world of science does not run by sweet reason and lofty ideals; that is just the dogma. It runs strictly by “who’s going to be the big monkey,” just like everything else. Primate dominance is still a dictum of the functioning of all bureaucratic human systems.

The free energy researchers are not working on the so-called “perpetual motion machine,” where a closed system is erroneously stated to produce more output than must be put into it to operate it. That old saw is actually a red herring that dogmatic scientists use to vilify free energy researchers. It is a lie that they have also successfully sold to the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of modern physics already knows that there does not exist a single closed system in the universe, anywhere. In particular, every physical system is continuously “open” to the violent exchange of energy with the surrounding vacuum. It’s just that most systems are in local equilibrium in these flow exchanges, except for minuscule gating accomplished for such things as the Lamb shift, etc.

By analogy it’s something like this. The free energy researcher is standing by the banks of a mighty, rushing river with breathtaking falls, turbulent areas, etc. Big Science is begrudgingly admitting that, yes, there is a river there, but it is an insane delusion to think that you can tap that energy. The free energy researcher is saying that, well, if I can build a gating sluice a little distance upstream, perhaps I can divert a small portion of the river’s flow downstream to my waterwheel, and power my mill. The orthodox scientist then vilifies the free energy researcher for even having such a heretical thought. In fact, says the orthodox researcher, any fool can see that the laws of nature force the river’s flow to stay firmly in its banks, because it is a closed system, and Moses brought that law down off the mountain with him on a special stone tablet. Then he adds all the other smug remarks such as, “If it could be done, then we at MIT and Harvard and Caltech would already have done it!” So until the orthodox scientist develops a little less dogma and a little more common sense, and learns the difference between a scientific discussion and a dogfight, the free energy researcher can hardly communicate with him.

The goal of the legitimate free energy researcher is to find a way to break the local equilibrium of this universal energy exchange, and gate a tiny bit of it up into the external circuit as excess electrical energy (Figure 17). Then he must collect the excess energy, and shuttle it from the “gating and collecting circuit” over to a dq/dt-closed current loop containing the load. He must also prevent the load current, or most of it, from passing back through the primary source against its back EMF, because if it does that, he will destroy the separation of charges in the dipolar source, killing the dipole and extinguishing the “excess energy gating.” In other words he must find a way to process and transport the energy flow across dq/dt-blocked bridges between the source’s closed dq/dt-current loop and the load’s closed dq/dt-current loop. Ruthlessly it is an energy transport S-flow problem, not a J* energy transport problem. If he uses J* in his sourcing current loop, he automatically drives the current dq/dt back through the back EMF of his source and kills it. If he does not drive dq/dt back through the source, the source will furnish S-flow for an indefinite period! Every battery and generator we have ever built is already a “free energy” machine in that it already involves broken local symmetry in the vacuum energy exchange. We have just not realized how to use our power sources purely as Poynting S-flow sources.

So we must treat an electrical system as an open system with broken local symmetry (Table 3) in the vacuum flux exchange, so that the system extracts (gates) excess energy from an external source. In this case the source is the system’s flux exchange with the vacuum. This approach is no more mysterious or bizarre than putting a waterwheel in a river, or a windmill in a wind, or a bank of solar cells out in the sunshine. The universal “free source of energy” that the overunity researcher seeks to tap is the violent exchange of virtual photons between the electrical charges of the system and the surrounding quantum mechanical vacuum (Figure 18). In quantum physics this powerful, energetic exchange of the vacuum with electrical matter is now proven both experimentally and theoretically. It is already accepted in quantum physics that the vacuum is filled with electromagnetic energy. The researcher doesn’t have to prove it anymore; he just has to find out how to properly use it. The artesian well is already there; we just have to learn how to collect and use the flowing water without dynamiting the well!

The remaining objection orthodox scientists usually raise against the notion of extracting vacuum energy has been that “thermodynamics doesn’t permit it.” However, Cole and Puthoff have rigorously shown that, on the contrary, the theory of thermodynamics does not prohibit the vacuum’s energy being extracted and used to produce heat, light, and power. [note 22] So the validity of that final objection has now vanished.

And there is mind-numbing energy density there in the vacuum, waiting to be extracted. The well-known Lamb shift, e.g., in a single hydrogen atom is due to that vacuum exchange. [note 23] Interestingly, the calculated energy density of the exchange causing the Lamb shift is greater than the surface energy density of the sun. Different physicists have made various theoretical estimates of the energy density of this seething vacuum. A conservative ballpark figure is something on the order of 1090 grams per cubic centimeter, expressed in mass units.

It has also been my good fortune to know and work closely with several other free energy researchers. I was a colleague of Floyd (“Sparky”) Sweet (recently deceased) for about seven years; Sparky held a Master’s degree in EE from MIT and had years of experience with General Electric and other firms. He was a highly skilled researcher who invented the solid state vacuum triode amplifier (Figure 19), a unit which produced 500 watts of output and a coefficient of performance of 1,500,000. I personally tested the machine, activated the magnets on one occasion, and understand how it all worked. [note 24] The paper [note 25] I co-authored in 1991 with Floyd is still the only paper in the orthodox engineering literature that reports (a) successful overunity functioning of a solid state magnetic device, and (b) a successful antigravity experiment on the laboratory bench, reducing the weight of an object by 90%. [note 26]

We stress again that a legitimate overunity electrical machine must be an open system, receiving excess electrical energy from the surrounding vacuum. As such, it must operate in a higher topology than normal electrical machines (Figure 20).

My good friend Frank Golden has long been a close colleague. Years ago Frank developed a motor that produced overunity efficiency, but then to our astonishment we found (courtesy of Bill Tiller, [note 27] with whom we were working at the time) that its operation depended upon a 5-year-long conditioning (structuring) of the local ambient potential in order to work. Previously we had been entirely unaware that one can sometimes condition the local vacuum and the local matter in the area with a particular dynamic form. Given the local conditioning, a motor with that form will then work in that vicinity, but not necessarily elsewhere at an appreciable distance away. We now understand the mechanism for such “conditioning of the vacuum.” We also now know what to do if an overunity machine is actually a machine of that type (many of them are not). In other words, we know how to convert it to a machine that will work anywhere, anytime. We will be addressing such little-known things in future articles.

John Bedini is also a close friend and colleague; John built several experimental motors (both electrical and magnetic) in the overunity area, and performed successful trans-mutation experiments. John is a recognized genius in high-end sound amplifier development. Many audiophiles worldwide still swear that the Bedini amplifier is the best and sweetest-sounding audio amplifier ever built. One of John’s battery-powered electrical motors (Figure 21), for example, ran continuously off its battery for about five years, and kept the battery charged. When you realize that such a small electric motor is only about 35% efficient, then you realize that about 65% of the energy flowing out of the battery was being dissipated in the motor as heat, core losses, etc. So the unit was continuously performing work for that five years. [note 28] The 1/8 hp motor represented a load in which the continuous rate of work being done (the rate of energy dissipation) was about 0.08 hp. We will have more to say on this motor and its technical process in a future article.

Bill Fogal is a close colleague; Bill has patented the world’s first dq/dt-blocking semiconductor, [note 29] which partially blocks the normal current while continuing to pass the flow of voltage (Table 4). I have written a proprietary technical explanation of the Fogal semiconductor, which utilizes an extremely little-known feature called the “overpotential.” The overpotential part of the theory is experimentally proven and theoretically explained in an obscure part of electrochemistry, by a few chemists who specialize in electrode effects. J. O’M. Bockris is probably the leading world expert in overpotential theory; he authored the textbook on it. [note 30]

One of the latest overunity developments is the magnetic resonance amplifier (MRA) developed by Joel McLain and Norm Wooten (Figure 22). Earlier testing disputed the overunity functioning. More recent testing at several well-known laboratories has resulted in the instrumental measurements clearly showing overunity. While the test institute scientists themselves may be willing to attest to overunity results of their testing, none of the corporate heads will allow it. I have personally stated that the MRA is capable of overunity. Our own measurements had to be discarded because we did not have the proper instruments available. E.g., all our oscilloscopes were “hard grounded” to building ground, and we needed to make “floating differential ground” measurements in order to settle things once and for all. McLain and Wooten have filed for a patent, and multiple tests with excellent equipment have indeed indicated overunity. What happens next remains to be seen. I suspect that the two inventors may simply accept foreign capital investment and go offshore.

Howard Johnson is also a respected colleague, whom I very much admire. (See Figure 23). Howard has continued to work quietly and patiently upon his patented permanent magnet motor, [note 31] including patenting various magnetic gates, etc. that are necessary to make such a motor work in a rotary configuration. [note 32] Howard employs a two-particle theory of magnetism; i.e., each magnetic flux line is envisioned as having a particle traveling from the north pole to the south pole, and also a particle traveling from the south pole to the north pole. The particles are spinning; the forward-time particle spins in one direction, and the antiparticle spins in the other direction. Howard then slightly separates the two particle flows. [note 33] In other words, Johnson splits the flux lines themselves, into two different pieces. When so separated, the component lines are now curls, so their paths curve. The paths of the two “curl particles” are different; one curls in one direction and the other curls in the opposite direction. Further, a predominance of one form of curl particle gives a “time-forward” aspect, while a predominance of the other form of curl particle gives a “time-reversed” aspect. Johnson is thus able to employ a deeper kind of magnetism than the textbooks presently contain. He demonstrates that a “spin-altered” magnetic assembly exhibiting (to a compass or other such detector) a north polarity can attract another unaltered magnetic assembly exhibiting a north polarity. In short, he can make a north pole attract a north pole. We will give you further insight into Johnson’s two-particle theory in a future article. [note 34] We will also explain how and why the physicists missed that antiparticle in the magnetic field’s flux lines, and thereby failed to advance the theory of magnetism to a deeper level. Make no mistake, one day when the new theory is done, Johnson may well be awarded a Nobel Prize for his epochal discovery of a deeper structure of magnetism.

Bits and pieces of the new science approach are just now beginning to spill into a few conventional journals and symposia. For some time a few of the rebels spearheading this new science have been doing something that the University scientists should have been doing all along. The rebels have been meticulously examining the concepts, postulates, and definitions that the present scientific models are founded upon, to reveal serious foundations errors. Corrections for some of these errors have been discovered and made. [note 35] Others are still problems yet to be resolved. Yet slow progress is being made, and a “flip-over” of the old science is likely to occur within the next decade if not sooner. By then the new concepts will have become “solid” enough to allow producing an engineering mathematical model. Also the supporting experiments will have become solid enough to justify the new concepts and the model.

In this first article I wanted to introduce the 14 major areas. We will be discussing these areas in some technical detail in the future. We’ll also include current major news items of development in these areas, for the interested lay reader. I’ll particularly try to give you the benefit of extensive reference citations painfully gathered over the last 30 years. The articles will be targeted toward both the serious researcher and the interested, educated layman.

So that’s the agenda for the months ahead. We hope you find this information and the approach of direct interest and use.

Again, it’s a privilege to be aboard. And we invite you to hang on in the future; it’s going to be a wild but exciting ride. We really are going to chase this wild dragon with great vigor.