Bearden, T.E. - New Tesla Electromagnetics and the Secrets of Electrical Free Energy.pdf

The Tom Bearden Website Support Free Energy and purchase the bumper sticker The New Tesla Electromagnetics and the Secrets of Electrical Free Energy By T.E. Bearden © 1984 Table of Contents Foreword Comments on the New Tesla Electromagnetics: Part I: Discrepancies in the Present EM Theory by T. E. Bearden Comments on the New Tesla Electromagnetics: Part II: The Secret of Electrical Free Energy by T. E. Bearden Overture to a New Age Technology by Dr. Rolf Schaffranke REVIEW AND OUTLOOK - The Development of Post- Relativistic Concepts in Physics and Advanced Technology Abroad by Dr. Rolf Schaffrancke http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/index.html24.11.2003 21:35:32 The Tom Bearden Website The Tom Bearden Website COMMENTS ON THE NEW TESLA ELECTROMAGNETICS Part I: Discrepancies in Present EM Theory © T. E. Bearden 1982 There are at least twenty-two major discrepancies presently existing in conventional electromagnetics theory. This paper presents a summary of those flaws, and is a further commentary on my discussion of scalar longitudinal Tesla waves in a previous paper, “Solutions to Tesla's Secrets and the Soviet Tesla Weapons,“ Tesla Book Company, 1981 and 1982. I particularly wish to express my deep appreciation to two of my friends and colleagues who at this time, I believe, wish to remain anonymous. One of the two is an experimental genius who can produce items on the bench that do not work by orthodox theory. The second is a master of materials science and electromagnetics theory. I thank them both for their exceptional contributions and stimuli regarding potential shortcomings in present electromagnetics theory, and their forbearance with the many discussions we have held on this and related subjects. It goes without saying that any errors in this paper are strictly my own, and not the fault of either of my distinguished colleagues. (1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the “charge“ is the flux of virtual particles on the “bare particle“ of observable mass. The charged particle is thus a “system“ of true massless charge coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable “mass“ is static, three-dimensional, and totally spatial. “Charge“ is dynamic, four- dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory. Decoupled charge - that is, the absence of mass - is simply what we presently refer to as “vacuum.“ Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these three as an “ether,“ as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm (1 of 11)24.11.2003 21:35:38 The Tom Bearden Website Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are identically anenergy - not energy, but more fundamental components of energy. (2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. Instead, it is the intensity of a many-dimensional (at least four- dimensional) virtual flux and a stress on all four dimensions of spacetime. This is easily seen, once one recognizes that spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not “filled“ with charge; rather, it is charge!) Just as, in a gas under pressure, the accumulation of additional gas further stresses the gas, the accumulation of charge (spacetime) stresses charge (spacetime). Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two. Tesla waves - which are scalar waves in pure massless charge flux itself - thus can exhibit extraordinary characteristics that ordinary vector waves do not possess. And Tesla waves have extra dimensional degrees of freedom in which to move, as compared to vector waves. Indeed, one way to visualize a Tesla scalar wave is to regard it as a pure oscillation of time itself. (3) Voltage and potential are often confused in the electrostatic case, or at least thought of as “composed of the same thing.“ For that reason, voltage is regarded as “potential drop“. This also is not true. Rigorously, the potential is the intensity of the virtual particle flux at a single point - whether or not there is any mass at the point - and both the pressure and the point itself are spatiotemporal (4-dimensional), not spatial (3-dimensional) as presently assumed. Voltage represents the spatial intersection of the difference in the potential between two separated spatial points, and always implies at least a miniscule flow of mass current (that is what makes it spatial!). “Voltage“ is spatial and depends upon the presence of observable mass flow, while scalar electrostatic potential is spatiotemporal and depends upon the absence of observable mass flow. The two are not even of the same dimensionality. (4) The charge of vacuum spacetime is assumed to be zero, when in fact it is a very high value. Vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux. For proof that a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion, see G.M. Graham and D.G. Lahoz, “Observation of static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo,“ Nature, Vol. 285, 15 .May 1980, pp. 154-155. In fact, vacuum IS charge, identically, and it is also “spacetime“ and at least four-dimensional. http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm (2 of 11)24.11.2003 21:35:38 The Tom Bearden Website (5) Contrary to its present usage, zero is dimensional and relative in its context. A three-dimensional spatial hole, for example, exists in time. If we model time as a dimension, then the spatial hole has one dimension in 4-space. So a spatial absence is a spatiotemporal presence. In the vacuum 4-space, a spatial nothing is still a something. The “virtual“ concept and the mathematical concept of a derivative are simply two present ways of unconsciously addressing this fundamental problem of the dimensional relativity of zero. (6) The concepts of “space“ and “time“ imply that spacetime (vacuum) has been separated into two parts. We can only think of a space as “continuing to exist in time “ To separate vacuum spacetime into two pieces, an operation is continually required. The operator that accomplishes this splitting operation is the photon interaction, the interaction of vector electromagnetic energy or waves with mass. I have already strongly pointed out this effect and presented a “raindrop model“ of first-order physical change itself in my book, The Excalibur Briefing, Strawberry Hill Press, San Francisco, 1980, pp. 128-130. (7) “Vector magnetic potential“ is assumed to be always an aspect of (and connected to) the magnetic field. In fact it is a separate, fundamental field of nature and it can be entirely disconnected from the magnetic field. See Richard P. Feynman et al, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, 1964, Vol. II, pp. 15-8 to 15-14. Curiously, this fact has been proven for years' yet it has been almost completely ignored in the West. The “Vx“ operator, when applied to the A-field, makes B-field. If the Vx operator is not applied, the “freed“ A-field possesses much-expanded characteristics from those presently allowed in the “bound“ theory. Specifically, it becomes a scalar or “shadow vector“ field; it is not a normal vector field. (note: for V read inverted capital Delta) (8) The speed of light in vacuum is assumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. Instead it is a function of the intensity of the massless charge flux (that is, of the magnitude of the electrostatic potential) of the vacuum in which it moves. (Indeed, since vacuum and massless charge are one and the same, one may say that the speed of light is a function of the intensity of the spatiotemporal vacuum!). The higher the flux intensity (charge) of the vacuum, the faster the speed of light in it. This is an observed fact and already shown by hardcore measurements. For example, distinct differences actually exist in the speed of light in vacuo, when measured on the surface of the earth as compared to measurements in space away from planetary masses. In a vacuum on the surface of the earth, light moves significantly faster. For a discussion and the statistics, see B. N. Belyaev, “On Random Fluctuations of the Velocity of Light in Vacuum,“ Soviet Physics http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm (3 of 11)24.11.2003 21:35:38 The Tom Bearden Website Journal, No. 11, Nov. 1980, pp. 37-42 (original in Russian; translation by Plenum Publishing Corporation.) The Russians have used this knowledge for over two decades in their strategic psychotronics (energetics) program; yet hardly a single U.S. scientist is aware of the measured variation of c in vacuo. In fact, most Western scientists simply cannot believe it when it is pointed out to them! (9) Energy is considered fundamental and equivalent to work. In fact, energy arises from vector processes, and it can be disassembled into more fundamental (anenergy) scalar components, since the vectors can. These scalar components individually can be moved to a distant location without expending work, since one is not moving force vectors. There the scalar components can be joined and reassembled into vectors to provide “free energy“ appearing at a distance, with no loss in between the initial and distant points. For proof that a vector field can be replaced by (and considered to be composed of) two scalar fields, see E. T. Whittaker, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Volume 1, 1903, p. 367. By extension, any vector wave can be replaced by two coupled scalar waves. (10) The classical Poynting vector predicts no longitudinal wave of energy from a time-varying, electrically charged source, In fact, an exact solution of the problem does allow this longitudinal wave. See T. D. Keech and J. F. Corum, “A New Derivation for the Field of a Time- Varying Charge in Einstein's Theory,“ International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 20, No, 1, 1981, pp. 63-68 for the proof. (11) The present concepts of vector and scalar are severely limited, and do not permit the explicit consideration of the internal, finer- grained structures of a vector or a scalar. That is, a fundamental problem exists with the basic assumptions in the vector mathematics itself. The “space'' of a vector field, for example, does not have inter- nested sublevels (subspaces) containing finer “shadow vectors“ or “virtual vectors,“ Yet particle physics has already discovered that electrical reality is built that way. Thus one should actually use a “hypernumber“ theory after the manner of Charles Musés. A scalar is filled with (and composed of) nested levels of other “spaces'' containing vectors, where these sum to “zero“ in the ordinary observable frame without an observable vector resultant. In Musés' mathematics, for example, zero has real roots. Real physical devices can be - and have been -constructed in accordance with Muses' theory. For an introduction to Musés' profound hypernumbers approach, see Charles Musés' foreword to Jerome Rothstein, Communication Organization and Science, The Falcon's Wing Press, Indian Hills, Colorado, 1958. See also Charles Musés, “Applied Hypernumbers: Computational Concepts,“ Applied Mathematics and http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm (4 of 11)24.11.2003 21:35:38 The Tom Bearden Website Computation, Vol. 3, 1976. See also Charles Musés, “Hypernumbers II,“ Applied Mathematics and Computation, January 1978. (12) With the expanded Tesla electromagnetics, a new conservation of energy law is required. Let us recapitulate for a moment. The oldest law called for the conservation of mass. The present law calls for the conservation of “mass and energy“, but not each separately. If mass is regarded as simply another aspect of energy, then the present law calls for the conservation of energy. However, this assumes that energy is a basic, fundamental concept. Since the energy concept is tied to work and the movement of vector forces, it implicitly assumes “vector movement“ to be a “most fundamental“ and irreducible concept. But as we pointed out, Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components. Further, Tesla discovered that these “coupled components“ of “energy“ can be individually separated, transmitted, processed, rejoined, etc. This directly implies that energy per se need not be conserved. The new law therefore calls for the conservation of anenergy, the components of energy. These components may be coupled into energy, and the energy may be further compacted into mass. It is the sum total of the (anenergy) components - coupled and uncoupled - that is conserved, not the matter or the energy per se. Further, this conservation of anenergy is not spatial; rather, it is spatiotemporal in a spacetime of at least four or more dimensions. (13) Relativity is presently regarded as a theory or statement about fundamental physical reality. In fact, it is only a statement about FIRST ORDER reality - the reality that emerges from the vector interaction of electromagnetic energy with matter. When we break down the vectors into scalars (shadow vectors or hypervectors), we immediately enter a vastly different, far more fundamental reality. In this reality superluminal velocity, multiple universes, travel back and forth in time, higher dimensions, variation of all “fundamental constants“ of nature, materialization and dematerialization, and violation of the “conservation of energy“ are all involved. Even our present Aristotlean logic - fitted to the photon interaction by vector light as the fundamental observation mechanism - is incapable of describing or modeling this more fundamental reality. Using scalar waves and scalar interactions as much subtler, far less limited observation/detection mechanisms, we must have a new “superrelativity“ to describe the expanded electromagnetic reality uncovered by Nikola Tesla. (14) “Charge“ is assumed to be quantized, in addition to always occurring with - and locked to - mass. Indeed, charge is not necessarily quantized just as it is not necessarily locked to mass. http:/www.cheniere.org/books/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm (5 of 11)24.11.2003 21:35:38 The Tom Bearden Website Ehrenhaft discovered and reported fractional charges for years, in the 30's and 40's, and was ignored. See P.A.11. Dirac, “Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature,“ Symposium on the Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature, ed. Jagdish Merha, D. Reidel, Boston, 1973, pp. 12-14 for a presentation of some of Ehrenhaft's results. Within the last few years Stanford University· researchers also have positively demonstrated the existence of “fract