Legend:
\text\ = italic text
L_dv or L_S-tube = L subscript dv or subscript S-tube
{phi} = greek letter phi
=/  = different of
=~  = approximately equal to
______________________________________________________________________

Fax to David Jonsson, Upsala, Sweden (internet: david@ibg.uu.se)
October 30, 1995

Dear David:

Confirming that I received your nice fax of Oct 6; have just been so 
swamped here that things have been impossible. Also received your 
latest fax today. Thanks for the statistics; looks as if at least a 
few persons are interested in this material. Will try to give you a 
short update.

Our overunity work continues to go well, and we are making progress 
although severely hampered by lack of funds and laboratory equipment. 
(We have about a $30,000 laboratory; we need about a $150,000 lab). 
The best thing we have found - where the semiconductors self-target 
with each other at instantaneous velocity (superluminal tunneling) - 
requires a better lab than we possess in order to resolve the 
instabilities. We demonstrated such circuits two years ago that 
produced substantial overunity, but promptly blew themselves up 
because of unstability. Nonetheless, that is the wave of the future, 
because eventually we will do it with just a few semiconductors and 
ordinary switching components. But first, rigid stabilizing methods 
have to be worked out. We know what the problem is, and how to go 
about solving it, but do not have the physical technical facilities 
that are required. So we have turned to other overunity methods, 
which are beginning to look very promising. Just now we are doing 
much of our work on a SPICE-type simulator. It is much easier to 
change parameters and "blow up the simulation" than it is to blow up 
actual circuits.

Also we have particulary made great strides in our theoretical 
understanding. Presently I feel that we have finally produced a 
legitimate theory of electrical overunity machines, and we will be 
publishing much of that in the future as soon as our patent 
application situation is completed. Simply put, there is no longer 
any doubt as to the precise mechanisms involved in overunity 
coefficient of performance.

Our work in correcting electromagnetic theory also goes well, 
particularly with respect to my 1973 statement of the actual 
mechanism that generates the flow of time. That has now been 
extended and refined. As with other EM mechanisms, this one is 
also subject to direct engineering.

My colleagues and I have now filed some four patents, and are in 
process of preparing two more. One of these is on overunity process 
and apparatus that we have shown to work both theoretically and by 
direct simulation. The other is a discovery of what appears to be a 
\totally\ new law of nature. This latter discovery enables energy 
mechanisms of such ramifications and power that one's mind is 
literally numbed at the prospect. It is a totally different way of 
addressing the energy problem.

However, these patent applications we have filed are formidable 
documents, most running to 200 pages or more, and they have 
required enormous effort to write and submit. It is in these 
documents that we have advanced the theory of electrical overunity 
machines. At any rate, we are now in patent pending status on several 
major apparatuses and processes  for electrical overunity machines, 
and on room temperature superconductivity (which turned out to be 
rather straightforward, once dq/dt-blocking is applied). One simply 
transfers the energy across the superconducting section as S-flow, 
rather than as J{Phi}. That is, one makes J=0, but in a 2-line 
conductor section so that d{Phi}/dt =/ 0 and S =/ 0.

We have also successfully resolved the controversy that has gone on 
in the literature for a century with respect to the flow of energy 
in electrical circuits; i.e. the Poynting S-flow theory of Poynting 
and Heaviside. (Heaviside's version is much better than the accepted 
Poynting version, because it includes electrogravitation as well). 
As you may know, Poynting theory has not been very successfully 
applied to circuits of any but the simplest configurations. It is 
used easily and extensively, however, in systems that radiate EM 
energy into space. Literally, electrical engineers \do not know\ how 
the flow of energy is evoked from their circuits, and how it flows 
in their circuits. They are taught to track only the minuscule 
\losses and scatterings\ from that energy flow. There has been a 
continuing discussion (and disagreement) in the literature, and much 
of the material in those papers is seriously flawed, and some is 
downright wrong. Most EM textbooks shy away from the Poynting flow 
in \circuits\; Jackson, e.g., does not mention it. Most texts show a 
simple circuit or two, work out one or two simple examples, state 
that "See! This energy flow stuff works also!" and then the authors 
get the heck out of that "bottomless pit" with obvious relief. Of all 
the texts I have found, Kraus (4th edition) tries the hardest, and 
only contains a minor error or two. I enclose Figures 1 and 2 to show 
how the S-flows actually run in a simple circuit, including \from\ 
the vacuum and \back\ to  the vacum.

Interestingly, the Slepian vector J{Phi} is the energy \collected\ 
by the circuit \from\ the Poynting flow S. S-flow is outside the 
conductors and very rapid, while J is totally internal to the 
conductor and incredibly sluggish. When one works it all out, one 
finds that -- on the average -- a typical circuit collects as J{Phi}
some 10E-13 of the mightly energy flow S that is evoked by the 
source along its conductors in the external circuit! So our modern 
circuitry is the most inefficient \energy collector\ imaginable. 
This justifies my former statement that a flashlight battery could 
in theory power a battleship. However, one would have to increase 
the \energy collection efficiency\ of the external circuit connected 
to the battery, quite a few times over!

It would appear that there are ways of doing that; and those ways 
produce overunity coefficient of performance. Even so, one is still 
collecting only a very, very small fraction of the actual raging 
energy flow that the source extracts from the vacuum and send down 
the conductors.

Here is a new one for you to ponder.

It is not necessary to discover how to build a "free energy source". 
That is all that we have ever built anyway! Every generator and 
every battery is already a true, free energy source. A source does 
not add a single electron to the circuit; it does \not\ furnish 
current to the circuit. (A few very good textbooks even admit this; 
sources furnish potential difference, i.e. emf, nothing else). The 
\electrons\ for the current are furnished by the physical materials 
comprising the circuitry itself. E.g., on the average, there is 
about one free conduction electron for every atom of copper in 
copper wire. And so on. The Drude electron gas in the lattices of 
the materials furnishes the electrons for the current.

If all that you draw from the dipolar source is \energy flow\, it 
will furnish that energy flow -- that S -- \indefinitely\. Particle 
physics already rigorously proves this. As is well-known in 
particle physics, and electric charge is a broken symmetry in the 
virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum. So a dipole 
-- a separation of two different electrical charges -- is a double 
asymmetry of local spacetime. Now an asymmetry of spacetime has 
marvelous characteristics in particle physics. For one thing, it 
has to act as a source (energy flows out) or a sink (energy flows 
in and "disappears"). In the electrical dipole case, the energy 
flows out. Any dipole is a free energy source, period. \That flow 
will persist as long as the dipole persists. Period.\ 

According to the particle physics, another nice characteristics of 
a local asymmetry of the vaccum flux is that \something virtual 
has become observable\. In other words, the asymmetry is in the 
virtual photon flux of the local vacuum. That means that some of 
those \virtual\ photons have now become \observable\ photons. So 
our dipole furnishes observable photon flow and energy. That's rather 
nice, because that is just what is needed to power loads.

Rigorously our electrical dipole furnishes two different flows of 
EM energy, one for each of the two charges, and the one greater 
than the other. So every electrical dipolar source we build, is 
\already\ a double asymmetry of ST (spacetime), and it is 
\already\ a source of energy flow \extracted directly from the 
vacuum itself\. This is really particle physics, not Tom Bearden.

When you attach conductors to those separated ends of the dipole, 
you simply extend the charges along the conductors, so to speak. 
There is a Poynting flow S along both lines, from the terminals 
outward into the external circuit. S-flow is along an 
equipotential; in other words, said in another way, the 
nondiverging S-flows down conductors carry a standard, fixed 
potential V along with them. The greater the S-flow magnitude, the 
greater the V that is carried, and vice-versa.

Along a wire, the trapped (but "dithering") electrical charges act 
as "railroad tracks" or "inverse waveguides" for the S-flow outside 
the wires and along them. Thus the S-flow does not diverge along 
the conductors, except for the very, very tiny fraction that enters 
radially into the wire and is collected as J{Phi}, and subsequently 
the {Phi} shaken off as a "voltage drop"in the loads, as scattered 
photons (heat) or as work done such as force applied to a dielectric 
and moved against a "giving" dielectric as mechanical strain.

In the circuit, the sluggish electrons move very, very slowly as 
J{Phi} (an example case might be 11 feet per \hour\) down the wire, 
while the S-flow outside the wire is racing down the wire at 
essentially light speed. So the two S-flows in the circuit (one 
along the "positive" wire and the other along the "ground" wire) 
carry two different potentials, one of which we just use for 
reference and call "electrical ground". So the potential difference 
between the two S-flows is then exhibited as the potential V across 
the terminals, and across the two conductors. The \net\ S-flow then 
is a function of the magnitude of this V. The greater the V, the 
greater the S-flow.

The two S-flows for the two ends of the dipolar source originate 
in the vacuum. After all, the dipole is just two asymmetries in 
that vacuum flux in the first place! The two S-flows then roar 
along the connected lines of the external circuit at light speed, 
flashing on out into space and beyind. Along the conductors, the 
potential difference {Phi} between the two S-flows also 
potentializes the sluggish electrons to J{Phi}, but the J (and 
consequently the J{Phi}) moves only at the \electron drift 
velocity\. 

During one second of flow, the S-flow fills an "equivalent tube"
in space with energy; a tube that is about 300,000,000 meters 
long! Meanwhile, the sluggish electrons making up the collected 
fraction J{Phi} of that energy, have "drifted" a distance down the 
wire that is less than the thickness of one's fingernail. Since 
the {Phi} of the J{Phi} tube is the same as the {Phi} of the S-tube, 
then the fraction k of energy collected in that one second as 
J{Phi}, is just the ratio of the lengths of movement for J{Phi} vs S. 
So this gives k = [L_dv] / [L_S-tube] =~ 10E-13. In a given situation 
this fraction will of course vary a little, but that's a rough 
ballpark figure. It serves to illustrate the gross inefficiency of 
energy collection performed by our normal circuits.

Now one can see why all sources are already free energy sources.

The potentialized electrons, travelling as J{Phi}, undergo 
increased collisions in the loads, resulting in shaking off their 
excess {Phi}, (in a resistor, e.g., the {Phi} is shaken off the 
J{Phi} as scattered photons, which is heat). Notice that none of 
that load work has anything at all to do with depletion of the 
source's ability to furnish emf and V and S. So long as the 
source's separation of charges is okay, the emf, V, and S will 
continue to be furnished unabeated, because these are being 
"pumped" by the double local asymmetry of the local vacuum's virtual 
photon flux exchange with the separated dipolar charges!

Notice that we have combined particle physics, general relativity, 
classical electrodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics. This is a 
really unified field theory approach.

At any rate, we already have jillions of free energy electrical 
power \sources\. We have never had anything else.

The reason that we do not have free energy \systems\, is because 
the engineers deliberately ram those spent electrons back through 
the ground return line, and through the back emf of the source. 
This means that one-half the tiny fraction of S-energy that is 
collected as J{Phi}, is expended as work to drive the electrons 
back though the source against its back emf so as to potentialize 
those electrons again to J{Phi}. This "ramming"does work inside 
the source. Specifically, it does work upon the sources' separated 
charges, gradually destroying that separation and hence the source's 
dipolarity. That of course destroys the source's ability to 
furnish emf, V, and S.

Figure 3 shows what is needed to utilize a "free-energy" source 
for overunity coefficient of performance of the \system\. First, 
we utilize two separate closed dq/dt-current loops. These loops 
are closed with respect to dq/dt, and isolated from each other with 
respect to dq/dt. However, they are not necessarily closed with 
respect to S, dE/dt, df/dt, and emf flows, but only with respect 
to dq/dt.

In figure 3, the leftmost current loop (for the source) isoptimized 
to produce appreciable voltage at very little (minuscule) current 
dq/dt. Note that S = S(V). So this circuit produces a powerful 
S-flow of energy, flowing along the conductors. Here we are 
utilizing the sourcing current loop to furnish V, dE/dt, S, emf, 
and d{Phi}/dt. We are not using it to drive very much dq/dt. 
Consequently, the overall wattage (power expended) in the sourcing 
loop is small.

Meanwhile, in the rightmost current loop, the load is placed. 
Current dq/dt will flow in this circuit whenever V, dE/dt, S, emf, 
and d{Phi}/dt are added (coupled) to it. And just like any other 
"normal"dq/dt-circuit, this induced current will then kill the 
dipolarity across the \coupling circuit component\ in this "load 
circuit". Notice that the coupling circuit component acts as a 
"source" in the load loop.

We now introduce the concept of a "bridge". A bridge is just a 
dq/dt-blocked pair of conductors (or degenerate semiconductors, 
or charge saturated ferroelectric capacitors of the old "double-S" 
curve hysterisis loop kind, etc). The point is, the bridge has its 
dq/dt-blocking component properly placed in the sourcing circuit, 
so that the bridge will not pass dq/dt in either direction, but it 
will pass V, dE/dt, S, emf, and also d{Phi}/dt.

The other end of the bridge is connected into a component (not 
shown) that furnishes coupling. E.g., this can be a capacitor in a 
simple case. In the AC case (which is best), it is ideally an LC 
oscillator. That LC oscillator operating as a voltage-forced 
resonator is called a \swinger\. An LC oscillator will oscillate 
whenever voltage is swung onto it properly, whether or not any 
current dq/dt is furnished. An LC oscillator can be made to 
furnish its own current dq/dt. An ideal way (not shown) to mount 
the load , is to make the L of the oscillator the primary of a 
transformer, where the load is connected across the secondary.

At any rate, ideally the bridge furnishes AC voltage to the swinger 
via two dq/dt-blocked leads. The frequency of the bridge voltage 
is made just a wee bit higher than the resonant frequency of the 
swinger. Consequently the swinger is a voltage-driven resonator, 
furnishing its own dq/dt. This "powers up" the primary of the 
transformer, which in turn powers up the secondary and the load.

None of the load current dq/dt and none of the swinger current 
dq/dt can pass back across the blocking bridge. Consequently the 
load is powered without doing work from ramming the load current 
back through the back emf of the original source.

Remember, all that the load circuit needs to "power up" is coupled 
potential (emf). It does \not\ need external current.

Note also that we have achieved room temperature superconductivity 
(RTSC) across the bridge. In other words, we flowed the S across 
the bridge without any divergence at all and without loss of energy 
to drive charged particles as dq/dt. Consequently no energy is lost 
across the bridge from the sourcing loop to the swinger/load loop.

As is well-known in Poynting theory, the J{Phi} represents the 
collection and loss of a fraction of the S-flow. However, in 
our scheme J{Phi} = 0 in the bridge, so there is no such energy loss 
in the bridge. So \energy\-wise, we have pure lossless energy 
transport across that bridge. And at room temperature. Without 
the cryogenics. So rigorously we have \room temperature 
conductivity\. 

All one needs to do is to concentrate on the \energy\ flow, not 
the current J{Phi} flow, to readily accomplish room temperature 
superconductivity. The J{Phi} flow is a measure of the rate of 
energy \loss\ from energy transport, not the total rate of energy 
transport S-flow per se.

Another advantage of doing RTSC this way is that it also enables 
overunity COP at the same time. We carried \all\ the S-flow across 
the bridge, not just a small J{Phi} Cooper pair portion as is done 
in normal RTSC. That's something that the Cooper pairs cannot do, 
because they make up a very sluggish J{Phi}.

The above items are some of the things that we have covered more 
fully in our patent pending applications.

We also inclose figure 4, which is the overall electrical 
overunity COP schema. Anything else that is handy, I'll just 
tag onto this fax also.

Feel free to put this letter plus the figures on the net if you 
wish.

At any rate, the work goes slowly but steadily. The Fogal 
semiconductor is not yet in production, so we are also doing 
everything we can to assist Bill Fogal in getting that done. We 
did perform a test that showed that the chip does indeed 
accomplish quite anomalous noise reduction.

Also, earlier this year I finally published the exact mechanism 
by means of which the Priore approach was able to cure terminal 
tumors, sleeping sickness, suppressed immune systems, and 
clogging of the arteries in test animals, in the 1960s to mid 
1970s. [Bearden, T.E. (1995) "Vacuum Engines and Priore's 
Methodology: The True Science of Energy-Medicine. Part I and II". 
Explore!, 6(1), 1995, p. 66-76; 6(2), 1995, p. 50-62.] With the 
rising changes in many disease agents, the bugs are becoming 
resistant and our antibiotics are beginning to fail. Even the 
orthodox scientists are now stating that quite bluntly. They 
admit that we are facing a new age of great plagues. The Priore 
approach could stop cold, were it to be redeveloped.

As an interesting aside, Priore accomplished everything for his 
Ph.D., but the university came under such terrible pressure from 
the orthodox cancer establishment that they dared not accept his 
thesis. By a curious coincidence, I happen to have in my files 
the actual thesis that Priore submitted, but which was refused.

Lots of other things are also going on, but much of it cannot 
yet be openly released until our patent applications are secure.

Personally, however, I believe that the accelerated time schedule 
for the "New World Order"-- now set for the year 2000 -- is as a 
result of the imminent advent of (1) superluminal communication 
(we at CTEC are going to file a patent on that as well), and 
(2) overunity electrical energy systems. There has to be almost 
a police state existing in the world, if this "new 
electromagnetics" is to be forcibly put back under control and 
buried. It appears now that such a police state is imminent, both 
here in the U.S. and worldwide. Let us hope that the conspirators 
fail, and that common sense somehow resurrects and stops that 
nonsense. That is one reason why nets and bulletin boards are so 
important. It is the only way that the truth is getting through 
these days at all.

So please keep up the good work; it is most important to release 
and disseminate all that one can, so that the information is not 
lost when the lid clamps tightly shut.

Hope things go well with you and your busy activitie on the net.

Sincerely,

Tom Bearden
30 October 1995

Incls
  Figs (a/s)
  Other as available

