here are a few quotes, just off the top of my head -

1) "Dear Dr. Popov,

In answer to your questions:

Our website personnel are arranging a different order form for your Physics Department now.


On the scalar waves: With additional research they have become a bit more complicated. First, if one reinterprets Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential, it is a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal phase conjugate EM wavepairs. Interestingly, at least prior to observation (reaction with charged matter), one of his bidirectional phase conjugate longitudinal wavepairs --- in 4-space --- would seem to be a paired set of waves, but consisting of (1) a longitudinal EM wave on the time axis (which is a time-polarized EM wave) and (2) a longitudinal EM wave in 3-space.

This would then be consistent with quantum field theory, where (in photon terms) the time-polarized (scalar) photon combined with the longitudinal photon is observable as the instantaneous scalar potential. Neither the scalar photon nor the longitudinal photon is individually observable.

So it appears that what I called "scalar waves" back in 1983 is indeed such a revised Whittaker pair, which is slightly different from Whittaker's original interpretation.

Evans et al. have also published several papers dealing with the Whittaker work, one of which shows that scalar interferometry does indeed produce "ordinary" transverse EM waves as we assumed in the late 1970s. That paper is in the group of 60 AIAS papers by M.W. Evans et al., comprising the Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999.

I hope you enjoy the Energy from the Vacuum book and find it useful.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden " - [link to www.cheniere.org]


2) "Tom Bearden has patented an over unity free energy device called the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, the MEG. Over unity in this respect means that more energy is coming out of the device than what is going into it. Bearden claims that it produces a 100 times more energy output than the energy that is put into it to keep it running. His MEG device is not in conflict with the laws of energy conservation, the second law of thermodynamics, since it simply taps the energy from the vacuum. Jean Louis Naudin who replicated Bearden’s MEG device now corroborates his claim that the MEG is an over-unity device.

Bearden has redone 19th century James Clerk Maxwell’s work, the founder of the classical electrodynamics theory. He says the interpretation of the original work of Maxwell is seriously flawed and has been misinterpreted and simplified by Lorentz and Heaviside for better understanding. Bearden discovered that the original quaternion equations of Maxwell were overlooked and, as a result, so was the possibility of tapping free energy from the vacuum. Bearden is in good company about this statement since it was Max Planck the founder of quantum physics who had always suggested that the validity of Maxwell’s equation should be re-established.

In lay terms Bearden’s MEG devices is basically a charged dipole, consisting of two charged plates. He explains that the physical vacuum creates a virtual photon flux of electromagnetic energy that sustains the electrical dipole potential. The dipole potential is actually the equilibrium between the discharge and replenishment by virtual photons from the vacuum. Hence, the static electric field is not static at all; it only appears to be so, much like a waterfall, which from a distance looks like one static wall of water, but when studied at close range proves to be a constant flow of water. The secret of the Meg device is not to discharge the charge of the dipole in the same circuit of the dipole but in another separate electrical circuit. After this the vacuum will automatically replenish the discharged dipole to seek equilibrium. The charge that flows in the other circuit is said to deliver real electrical power.

In this way zero point energy is extracted from the vacuum and discharged in an electrical circuit. Bearden says that all our current sources of electrical energy such as batteries, dynamos and power plants all have one problem in common. When the electrical current is fed back to the source that created the electrical current to begin with, it will kill the source of the virtual photon flux with the vacuum. Unknowingly we’ve been taking buckets full of zero point energy from the river but were unintentionally throwing it straight back into the river.

Tom Bearden also made a very important new discovery concerning a new type of ‘electromagnetic energy’. According to Bearden the four Maxell equations used in today’s electrical engineering are simplified versions of Maxwell’s original work. According to Bearden it was Oliver Heaviside who removed the scalar part of the complex numbers in Maxwell’s equations leaving only the vectors in Maxwell’s equations for easy calculation.

This is why science today only knows the classical electromagnetic wave that is a transverse wave. In the transverse wave the electrical and magnetic fields of the electromagnetic wave oscillate perpendicular to the propagation of the wave. Bearden says that by removing the scalar part in Maxwell’s equations we missed the fact that energy can also propagate as a longitudinal wave at super-luminal speed (faster than the speed of light). Longitudinal waves are akin to sound waves and oscillate in the same direction as their propagation.

According to Bearden the internal longitudinal wave in the electromagnetic wave is the fundamental wave and exists in all known electromagnetic fields of any shape. The scalar component of the electromagnetic wave can be created from two opposing electromagnetic waves, a wave and its anti wave. Both waves will cancel each other’s electrical and magnetic field components when the waves are in phase spatially but 180 degrees out of phase temporally The result is an electromagnetic scalar wave. This scalar wave travels in the time domain and it is completely different from the transverse electromagnetic wave, which travels through three dimensional space. According to Bearden we must think of time as a compressed form of energy just like matter is. Remember Einstein’s famous law that tells us that energy equals mass times light speed squared? Now the same amount of abundant compressed energy can be found in the time domain and can be tapped when the longitudinal scalar EM waves of the time domain are converted into ordinary transverse EM waves. The conversion of scalar electromagnetic energy into transverse electromagnetic energy is called scalar interferometry and is the result of two interfering scalar waves. It is the opposite effect to the self-cancelling of two transverse electromagnetic waves which creates the scalar wave.

The virtual photon flux that occurs between the dipole and the vacuum mentioned above is what scalar waves are. So scalar waves are very different from electromagnetic waves; for one thing they can travel over immense distances with no loss of energy at super-luminal speed (faster than light).

When scalar waves are created by a dipole, such as a battery, a generator or a permanent magnet with two poles, the polarisation of charge will create scalar waves that rush between the dipole and the vacuum. Every dipole in the universe from the atom with its positive and negative charges, to the Earth and the Sun with its magnetic fields and all the other heavenly bodies in the universe radiate scalar waves, so basically scalar waves are everywhere in the universe, they fill the vacuum of space making it a plenum of zero point energy.

In the early 20th century Nikola Tesla was the first to discover the scalar wave. He used induction coils to create these scalar waves. He had conducted many experiments while sending scalar waves around the Earth proving that scalar waves propagate over long distances with no loss in field strength. Unlike our current familiar electromagnetic wave that dissipates and looses its energy at a rate equal to the square of the distance from the source, Tesla’s longitudinal waves could travel any distance with practically no loss of energy." - @ [link to www.soulsofdistortion.nl]


3) See Bearden describe the nature of scalar waves and Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 1of8 @ [link to www.youtube.com] - relevant section starts 1 min 40 secs in.

I'm always happy to perform voluntary unpaid research for sceptics who are seriously interested in these and similar topics - but not if they're simply debunkers who don't examine the data

Thanks for your precious time
R. Ayana
[link to newilluminati.blog-city.com]



While you may dismiss posts you do not agree with by stating, ”but not if they're simply debunkers who don't examine the data“ I ask have you yourself really examined the data? What prompts you to believe in Bearden’s claims? Bearden has made some extraordinary claims but does not seem to have backed up these claims.

Bearden, and others, did, in 2000, receive a patent for the Motionless electromagnetic generator what you call an “over unity free energy device” however, the patent application makes no direct claims regarding the MEG as a power source, and includes nothing about over unity operation or vacuum energy. It is important to know that, contrary to popular belief, the patent office does not require a working model. On the US Patent Office web site it says:
Do you need a working prototype in order to get a patent for an invention?
A working model is not required in order to obtain a patent. The filing of an application which completely describes the invention is considered to be a constructive reduction to practice and is sufficient.
So, if this invention is so great, why in 10 years has it not gotten a working model? The simple answer is, it doesn’t work.

As far as I can tell, the motivation for Bearden’s patent can be found in Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum, Physica Scripta, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp. 513-517 (2000) of which Bearden is one of 15 authors.

However, I have located 2 papers stating errors in the Bearden paper:
Gerhard W. Bruhn, No energy to be extracted from the vacuum, Physica Scripta, Volume 74, Issue 5, pp. 535-536 (2006).
A few years ago a hopeful article (Evans 2000 Phys. Scr.61 513-7) appeared in this journal promising that according to its 15 authors' opinion the pending energy crisis could be solved by 'extracting energy from the vacuum'. However, in the past years the energy price has grown to unthinkable heights: a reason for having a look at the promised 'energy from the vacuum' in (Evans 2000). So we shall do so below and shall arrive at a great disappointment: the 15 authors were in error; their vacuum energy stems from a simple flaw of thinking by misinterpreting the well-known Lorenz term of the classical Maxwell gauge theory. Their miraculous conclusion should have made the authors suspicious, that just the Lorenz term should yield a vacuum current. Surely, its a pity that vacuum currents and vacuum energy in (Evans 2000) have their origin merely in a simple flaw of thinking, and all further speculations for a vacuum energy density are in vain. However, better to return to reality.

Erhard Wielandt, The superposition principle of waves not fulfilled under M W Evans' O(3) hypothesis, Physica Scripta, Volume 74, Issue 5, pp. 539-540 (2006).
In 1992, M W Evans proposed a so-called O(3) symmetry of electromagnetic fields by adding a constant longitudinal 'ghost field' to the well-known transversal plane em waves. He considered this symmetry as a new law of electromagnetics. Later on, since 2002, this O(3) symmetry became the centre of his Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory which he recently renamed as ECE Theory. One of the best-checked laws of electrodynamics is the principle of linear superposition of electromagnetic waves, manifesting itself in interference phenomena. Its mathematical equivalent is the representation of electric and magnetic fields as vectors. By considering the superposition of two phase-shifted waves we show that the superposition principle is incompatible with M W Evans' O(3) hypothesis.

If you wish to call my posts a “debunking” then so be it. I prefer that the science presented be sound before conclusions are drawn.