by  Richard C. Hoagland

“In a tragedy for science (if not for society in general) whose outlines we are only now beginning to appreciate, after Maxwell’s death, two other 19th Century “mathematical physicists” — Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs — “streamlined” Maxwell’s original equations down to four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions. Because Heaviside openly felt the quaternions were “an abomination” — never fully understanding the linkage between the critical scalar and vector components in Maxwell’s use of them to describe the potentials of empty space (“apples and oranges,” he termed them) — he eliminated over 200 quaternions from Maxwell’s original theory in his attempted “simplification.”

[Oliver Heaviside, described by Scientific American (Sept. 1950) as “self-taught and … never connected with any university … had [however] a remarkable and inexplicable ability (which was possessed also by Newton and Laplace …) to arrive at mathematical results of considerable complexity without going through any conscious process of proof …” According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell’s use of quaternions and their description of the “potentials” of space was “… mystical, and should be murdered from the theory …” which — by drastically editing Maxwell’s original work after the latter’s untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components — Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.]

This means, of course, that the four surviving “classic” Maxwell’s Equations — which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every “hard” science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes — never appeared in any original Maxwell’ paper or treatise! They are, in fact– “Heaviside’s equations!”

Lest anyone doubt this is the case, they merely have to read a highly revealing paper on the subject by another renowned British mathematical physicist of this century, Sir Edmund Whittaker, titled simply “Oliver Heaviside” (Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, Vol. 20, 1928-29, p.202); or, another overview of Heaviside by Paul J. Nahin, “Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude” (IEEE Press, New York, 1988, p.9, note 3.). The end result was that physics lost its promising theoretical beginnings to becoming truly “hyperdimensional” physics … over a century ago … and all that that implies.

The major source of confusion surrounding Maxwell’s actual Theory, versus what Heaviside reduced it to, is its math — a notation system perhaps best described by H.J. Josephs (“The Heaviside Papers found at Paignton in 1957,” Electromagnetic Theory by Oliver Heaviside, Including an account of Heaviside’s unpublished notes for a fourth volume, and with a forward by Sir Edmund Whittaker, Vol. III, Third Edition, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1971). According to Josephs: “Hamilton’s algebra of quaternions, unlike Heaviside’s algebra of vectors, is not a mere abbreviated mode of expressing Cartesian analysis, but is an independent branch of mathematics with its own rules of operation and its own special theorems. A quaternion is, in fact, a generalized or hypercomplex number … [emphasis added]” And, you will remember, in 1897 Hathaway published a paper specifically identifying these hypercomplex numbers as “… numbers in four-dimensional space” (above). Thus, modern physics’ apparent ignorance of Maxwell’s 19th Century success — a mathematically-based, four-dimensional“field-theory” — would seem to originate from a basic lack of knowledge of the true nature of Hamilton’s quaternion algebra itself!

quaternion is like a complex number, in that it is made up of multiple parts.
It has four components, one scalar component and three vector components.

[Apparently, unless a “hyperdimensional theory” is narrowly expressed in terms of a separate technique Riemann himself invented for his own N-dimensional mapping — the so-called “metric tensor” — modern physicists don’t seem to be able to recognize it as a valid higher-dimensional model … not even when it was written in its own, specifically-designed,four-dimensional mathematical notation! (Riemann’s “metric tensor,” BTW, is essentially a graphical checkerboard composed, for a 4-space description, of 16 numbers defining, for instance, field strength at each point in that four-dimensional space. It is NOT written in quaternions.)

And, unless you track down an original 1873 copy of Maxwell’s “Treatise,” there is no easy way to verify the existence of Maxwell’s “hyperdimensional” quaternion notation; for, by 1892, the Third Edition incorporated a “correction” to Maxwell’s original use of “scalar potentials” (contributed by George Francis Fitzgerald — whom Heaviside heavily admired) — thus removing a crucial distinction between 4-space “geometric potential,” and a 3-space “vector field,” from all subsequent “Maxwellian theory.” Which is why Kaku apparently doesn’t realize that Maxwell’s original equations were, in fact, the first geometric 4-space field theory … expressed in specific 4-space terms … the language of quaternions! Just another measure of Heaviside’s effectiveness …]

“For the open-minded reader, let me explain what broken symmetry means, and what the broken symmetry of a dipole means with respect to powering any dipolar EM circuit. The strong prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang and its experimental proof by Wu et al. in 1957, initiated a great revolution across physics and won a nearly instant Nobel Prize in December 1957 for Lee and Yang. One of the broken symmetries proven by Wu et al. and published in 1957 is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, as on the ends of a dipole. That asymmetry is used by charges and dipoles for extracting and pouring out Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum, yet not one current Electrical Engineering or classical electromagnetics textbook mentions the energy implications of dipolar asymmetry. Nor do they mention that every charge and dipole freely pours out real observable EM energy continuously, with no observable energy input…”

“This free energy generating device is easy to replicate for just under 5$. I was playing around with a dyi neodymium magnet motor and felt an “electric tickle”, everytime the neodymium magnet got close to the coil. So I asked myself: can I power anything with it? I tried a LED and that burned up after a few seconds so I tried it with small 2 engines from an old walkman, connected together. This setup has been running for 2 weeks now and I still don’t understand the working of it. I know that a perpetuum mobile would violate the first law of thermodynamics and/or the second law of thermodynamics so it has to gain it’s energy from somewhere. Is it zero point? Could anyone please explain? I’m lost…”

ABSTRACT: “We show how to write Maxwell’s Equations in Hamilton’s Quaternions. The fact that the quaternion product is non-commuting leads to distinct left and right derivatives which must both be included in the theory. Then, a new field component is discovered, which reduces part of the degree of freedom found in the gauge, but which can then be used to explain thermoelectricity, suggesting that the theory of heat has just as fundamental a connection to electromagnetism as the magnetic field has to the electric field, for the new theory now links thermal, electric, and magnetic phenomena altogether in one set of elementary equations. This result is based on an initial hypothesis, named “The Quaternion Axiom,” that postulates physical space is a quaternion structure.”

by Tom Bearden, 12 Sept. 2010

Dear New Scientist:
Yes, there are some subjects I would very much like to see you include and discuss in New Scientist in the future. E.g., in the energy field, you are way behind and way off-track.  As an example, consider the standard electrical engineering, which handles and develops most all our electrical power systems.

In 1892, there were no electrical engineers at all, because it (electrical engineering) had not been born yet — but technical engineers were now needed to design, build, work on, and maintain the new AC power systems etc. given us by Nikola Tesla. Maxwell was already dead (he died in 1879), and everyone hated quaternions. There were only about three dozen PHYSICISTS on earth who understood something of electrodynamics, and that was it. To provide the new Tesla AC power technology, which was to be taught in our universities and called “electrical engineering”, Lorentz was preparing the equations for the mathematical model to be used. He was using Heaviside’s original vector equations, which were still ASYMMETRIC and thus included asymmetric Maxwellian systems.

Tesla had discovered in the late 1880s and early 1890s how to build ASYMMETRIC systems which could take and use all the EM energy one wished, from the “active medium” (Tesla’s term) and without consuming fuel. And Tesla was briefing technical societies to that effect. (See rigorous proof that Tesla could have given us free EM energy from the seething active medium: See T. W. Barrett, “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett rigorously shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and dissipation of the energy in those regions desired. The quaternion electrodynamics also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis using the symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz vector equations cannot reveal. Barrett shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. We also strongly note that Barrett is a very noted (though quiet) electrodynamicist and one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar, along with Harmuth.)

Input resistance of an asymmetric dipole. Computer generated graphics by Jeremy K. Raines.Input resistance of an asymmetric dipole, with radius 0.1 meter and total length 150 meters. Each color corresponds to a different range of resistance: blue, less than 25 ohms; green 25-100 ohms; yellow 100-1000 ohms; and red, greater than 1000 ohms.

All this was known to the ruthless financier J. P. Morgan, still angry and smarting at his own backing of Edison and DC power systems being soundly defeated by Tesla’s much more practical AC power systems. So he was already setting up the total suppression of Tesla, by first breaking his backer Westinghouse (which he did) and then deliberately breaking Tesla (which he did also). Morgan had already had his technical advisors check the work of Tesla, and they found that Tesla’s confounded “energy freely from the active medium” systems (asymmetric systems) were for real. As a result, Morgan’s tech advisors did a group analysis on the Heaviside equations and showed that the Heaviside equations were still ASYMMETRICAL — and thus they still contained some of those confounded Tesla “free excess energy from the active medium” (i.e., asymmetric) systems. At Morgan’s bidding, Lorentz was then elicited to eliminate those “free energy from the active medium” systems from this new-fangled electrical engineering that was being formed.

Lorentz was a great scientist, but he was also noted for stealing and publishing other scientists’ work and taking credit for it. [For an expose, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Jackson and Okun discuss roots and history of gauge invariance, verify that Ludwig Lorenz (without the ‘t’) first symmetrically regauged Maxwell’s equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the ‘t’) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it. Lorentz stole work by Lorenz (without the “t”) and published it as his own, and thereby ARBITRARILY SYMMETRIZED the resulting EE model and theory using the “Heaviside-Lorentz” modified SYMMETRICAL equations.

Input reactance of an asymmetric dipole. Computer generated graphics by Jeremy K. Raines.Input reactance of an asymmetric dipole, with radius 0.1 meter and total length 150 meters. Each color corresponds to a different range of reactance: blue, less than -250 ohms; green -250 to 0 ohms; yellow 0-250 ohms; and red, greater than 250 ohms.

Hence before the very birth of EE, the model and subject were already deliberately mutilated and crippled to prevent free energy from the vacuum systems — i.e., such systems as now have been rigorously developed and demonstrated by Klimov et al. and validated by both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Recoverable Energy Laboratory. The work of Klimov et al. is rigorously published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals, and it is now accepted in both fields — and INDEPENDENTLY verified by those two great national labs. Therefore we never have to “prove” it again, as it has been scientifically and experimentally proven for all time. But from its very birth, the severely crippled electrical engineering model has allowed only SELF-SYMMETRIZING EM systems to be conceived, built, deployed, and used by our electrical engineers.

This odd fact (this deliberate mutilation of energy “science and technology” in our standard electrical engineering, from its very birth) is totally responsible for the present world energy crisis! The very first requirement for total, quick, clean, cheap solving of the world energy crisis is the direct and intentional violation of standard electrical engineering! Meanwhile, there are already very good and much better systems of electrodynamics available in physics, such as quaternion electrodynamics etc. — and these allow conceiving, building, deploying and using ASYMMETRIC electrical power systems. In short, these FAR BETTER electromagnetic models do indeed allow “free energy from the seething virtual state vacuum”, speaking in modern quantum terms. And rigorous proof has been shown by (1) Barrett, (2) Klimov et al., and (3) Nobelists Lee and Yang in their epochal discovery and proof of broken symmetry and its requirement that “something previously virtual becomes observable”.

The Magnetic Dipole formed Cortex

Any dipole — the common dipole! — is a proven broken symmetry, and hence it continually converts something previously virtual into something observable (which is part of the nature of a broken symmetry). Any dipole continually absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, additively exciting above the quantum threshold, and then decaying its excitation by re-emitting real observable photons at a steady rate. Indeed, the so-called “static EM field” in electrical engineering — and associated with every charge and dipole — is actually a proven steady FREE emission of real, usable EM energy-from-the-vacuum, which continually creates and sustains the so-called “static” EM field. The field is not “static” at all, but is rather like a steady-state waterfall, seemingly fixed in form and intensity at each “point”, but comprised of internal components in steady and continual motion. In addition to the beautiful work of Klimov et al., it is simple to “power an electrical load” without “furnishing the power” by the source dipole (in the generator or battery). All one need furnish is the ENERGY, and then the interaction between energy and moving charge provides the “power”.

Here’s how to do it (power loads and systems by “static voltage” only). Simply let the source dipolarity momentarily provide “STATIC” VOLTAGE and no current at all, to the external circuit attached to its terminals. Do this while temporarily “pinning” the free electrons in the conductors of the external circuit, so that (momentarily) they cannot flow as current. The “static” voltage, however, will flow down the external circuit at nearly light speed, and will “potentialize” the temporarily pinned free electrons. (There are known ways to do this pinning for up to a millisecond; switching in a microsecond is easily done). The product of the voltage potentializing the external circuit, multiplied by the number of coulombs of interacting “potentialized pinned electrons”, gives the number of joules of EM energy now FREELY collected in the external circuit, without “drawing power” from the dipolar voltage source. Then, with the external pinned circuit now potentialized, switch away the dipolar source furnishing the potentializing “static” voltage (electrostatic scalar potential). Note that NO POWER HAS BEEN DRAWN FROM THE ORIGINAL DIPOLAR VOLTAGE SOURCE, BUT LOTS OF EM ENERGY HAS BEEN RATHER FREELY DRAWN FROM IT. So the dipolar source itself is not depleted at all. All that is required so far is a tiny bit of “switching power” to operate the efficient switching.

Then with the external potentialized circuit still pinned, one “switches in” a resistor load in series with a diode, connecting across the “gap” in the ends of the external circuit, so that a NEW and COMPLETELY SEPARATE symmetrical system — ALREADY POTENTIALIZED ALMOST TOTALLY FREELY — results. And then let the pinning expire in this now-completed potentialized system, so that the NEW symmetrical system THEN splits its freely collected potential energy in half, using half in the FORWARD EMF region to dissipate in the loads and losses when current moves, and thus powering the loads. The other half of the stored potential energy is dissipated in the BACK EMF region (across the series load resistor and diode) to destroy the system’s dipolarization. Then switch back to original configuration with external circuit again pinned. Re-potentialize again while pinning still exists, switch away the potentializing source dipole again, switch back in the resistive load and the dipole, and repeat the cycle again and again and again.

In short, potentialize the load circuit “statically”, and “dissipate” the potential energy dynamically to power the loads, without the original dipolar source being in the “discharging/depotentializing” circuit during its “powering” operation. In this way one can easily “power” a large load with a “voltage source” only, while obeying all the laws of physics and of nature and requiring the operator furnish only a tiny bit of “switching” energy. Even this can be made “free” by making the “switching unit” part of the overall load system in the original external circuit. So we have used a deliberately ASYMMETRICAL system to freely potentialize the pinned electrons in the external circuit, in total violation to standard electrical engineering SYMMETRIC-ONLY usage. And then we have switched away the very small VOLTAGE source dipole, by reconstituting the open external circuit into a closed-circuit system that then DISSIPATES the collected energy to (1) power the loads and losses, and (2) kill its own dipolarity.

Any competent EE department or physics department can readily build and demonstrate this system, if they but put their minds to it. And it means that, by MERELY CHANGING AND UPGRADING THE HORRIBLY MUTILATED AND ANTIQUE OLD SELF-SYMMETRIZING HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ SYMMETRIZED MODEL, TO A MUCH MORE MODERN DELIBERATELY-ASYMMETRIC OVERALL SYSTEM USAGE, one can solve the world energy crisis easily and forever. One easily cleans up the biosphere now, because there need be no coal burning, diesel fuel burning, etc. Our cars can be electric and powered by very small VOLTAGE sources (“batteries”), that need hardly furnish any CURRENT at all.

Incredibly, the “world energy crisis” is due totally to the continued usage of a horribly crippled and deliberately mutilated archaic old electrical engineering technology and model. It is readily solved by first adopting a much better (higher group symmetry) EE model, and upgrading for over a century of scientific ignorance on a scale that boggles the human imagination. And by deliberately building and operating “ASYMMETRIC” Maxwellian power systems. Klimov et al. have already rigorously proven that real physical systems can be built that receive extra energy from the seething virtual state interaction, and output it as real, observable EM energy used to help power our circuits and systems and loads, with COP>1.0. No “second law of equilibrium thermodynamics” is violated, because the described systems are NONEQUILIBRIUM systems with respect to their ongoing interaction with the virtual state vacuum. Maxwell, you see, was also a thermodynamicist of some note at his time, and he already knew that the hoary old second law of EQUILIBRIUM thermodynamics was readily violated.

E.g., quoting Maxwell: “The truth of the second law is ‘ a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules’ Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.” [J. C. Maxwell, ‘Tait’s Thermodynamics II,’ Nature 17, 278’280 (7 February 1878)].

These “free energy from the vacuum” systems do not violate the situation re “perpetual motion” because NEWTON’S FIRST LAW OF MOTION IS ACTUALLY THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL PERPETUAL MOTION! Simply read it and think. If I place an object into a state of motion or at rest, it will remain (perpetually and continually) in that state of motion indefinitely (forever), unless and until an external force comes along and interacts on the state of motion or rest, changing it. Sadly, we have not even “understood” Newton’s law of perpetual motion (his first law of motion) all these years since he advanced it! So I would strongly challenge and urge New Scientist that what is urgently needed is the following:

(1) Realization that the world energy crisis is directly due to the terrible deficiencies in the standard EE model.
(2) Therefore, the SOLUTION is a PHYSICS problem, requiring the use of much better and more complete electrodynamics (such as quaternion electrodynamics, very close to Maxwell’s original theory), and requiring the development and usage of ASYMMETRIC Maxwellian/Tesla power systems.
(3) If we wish to be honest and scientific, then we MUST CHANGE that horribly mutilated and crippled old Heaviside-Lorentz EE model, and recover those Tesla ASYMMETRIC systems that were casually eliminated by eliciting Lorentz to do the dirty work.
(4) Revise all electrical engineering texts, labs, and practices to incorporate the new higher group symmetry EM model to be used.
(5) Get some bright new youngsters and grad students trained and graduated with Doctorates in a NEW and MODERN electrical engineering that incorporates both (1) SYMMETRIC old standard self-destructive electrical power systems and (2) ASYMMETRIC new Maxwellian power systems that then can and will rapidly be built.

Very best wishes,
Thomas E. Bearden, U.S. Army (Retired)
MS, Nuclear Engineering
BS Mathematics with minor in electronic engineering
Graduate of the U.S. Army’s MOS 1181 Staff Officer’s Missile Engineering course (equivalent to MS in missile science)

In addendum:
And if you REALLY wish to jump physics forward a thousand years into the future, see the subject I call “precursor engineering” (on my website This subject was discovered and known to P.A.M. Dirac by 1930, and results from the use of Dirac Sea vacuum tickling of any physical object or objects, or any physical process. In short, physics also was deliberately mutilated by arbitrarily tearing negative energy out of Dirac’s theory in 1934, only a year after Dirac and Schrodinger were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize. Their astounding work made possible modern quantum physics.

by Richard Hoagland

Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden, retired army officer and physicist, has been perhaps the most vocal recent proponent for restoring integrity to the scientific and historical record regarding James Clerk Maxwell — by widely promulgating his original equations; in a series of meticulously documented papers on the subject, going back at least 20 years, Bearden has carried on a relentless one-man research effort regarding what Maxwell really claimed. His painstaking, literally thousands of man-hours of original source documentation has led directly to the following, startling conclusion: Maxwell’s original theory is, in fact, the true, so-called “Holy Grail” of physics … the first successful unified field theory in the history of Science … a fact apparently completely unknown to the current proponents of “Kaluza-Klein,” “Supergravity,” and “Superstring” ideas ….

Just how successful, Bearden documents below: ” … In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell’s theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell’s theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

“Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell’s theory. As a result of this artificial restriction of Maxwell’s theory, Einstein also inadvertently restricted his theory of general relativity, forever preventing the unification of electromagnetics and relativity. He also essentially prevented the present restricted general relativity from ever becoming an experimental, engineerable science on the laboratory bench, since a hidden internalized electromagnetics causing a deterministically structured local spacetime curvature was excluded. Quantum mechanics used only the Heaviside/ Gibbs externalized electromagnetics and completely missed Maxwell’s internalized and ordered electromagnetics enfolded inside a structured scalar potential. Accordingly, QM [quantum mechanics] maintained its Gibbs statistics of quantum change, which is nonchaotic a priori. Quantum physicists by and large excluded Bohm’s hidden variable theory, which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change — engineering physical reality itself.

“Each of these major scientific disciplines missed and excluded a subset of their disciplinary area, because they did not have the scalar component of the quaternion to incorporate. Further, they completely missed the significance of the Whittaker approach, which already shows how to apply and engineer the very subsets they had excluded. What now exists in these areas are three separate, inconsistent disciplines. Each of them unwittingly excluded a vital part of its discipline, which was the unified field part. Ironically, then, present physicists continue to exert great effort to find the missing key to unification of the three disciplines, but find it hopeless, because these special subsets are already contradictory to one another, as is quite well-known to foundations physicists. Obviously, if one wishes to unify physics, one must add back the unintentionally excluded, unifying subsets to each discipline. Interestingly, all three needed subsets turn out to be one and the same …” — T.E. Bearden, “Possible Whittaker Unification of Electromagnetics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics,” (Association of Distinguished American Scientists 2311 Big Cove Road, Huntsville, Alabama, 35801). Given Bearden’s analysis — what did we actually lose … when science “inadvertently lost Maxwell ..?”

If two key physics papers often cited by Bearden (which appeared decades after the death of Maxwell), are accurate … we lost nothing less than– the “electrogravitic” control of gravity itself!! The critically-important research cited by Bearden was originally published by “Sir Edmund Whittaker” (the same cited earlier in this paper), beginning in 1903. The first was titled “On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics” (Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p.333-335); the second, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field due to Electrons by means of two Scalar Potential Functions” (Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372).

Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the “missing” scalar components of Maxwell’s original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting “gravity” with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as “light.” In the first paper, as Bearden described, Whittaker theoretically explored the existence of a “hidden” set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum — demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant “spacetime” with electromagnetic radiation, in a manner directly analogous to Einstein’s later “mass-curves-space” equations. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two “Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum” — gravitationally curving spacetime — could be turned back into a detectable “ordinary” electromagnetic field by two interfering “scalar EM waves”… even at a distance.

Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that “the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an undulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity … [and] the waves will belongitudinal (top) … These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light … [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater …” (Op. Cit., “On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics“)

Remarkably, four years before Whittaker’s theoretical analysis of these potentials (pun intended …), on the evening of July 3-4, 1899, Nikola Tesla (right) — the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of “alternating current”) — experimentally anticipated “Whittaker’s interfering scalar waves” by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) “longitudinal stresses” (as opposed to conventional EM “transverse waves”) through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell’s original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference “return” from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a “standing columnar wave,” and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West (Nikola Tesla, Colorado Springs Notes 1899-1900, Nolit, Beograd, Yugoslavia, 1978 pp. 61-62).

[Many have since speculated that Tesla’s many other astonishing (to the period) technological accomplishments, many of which apparently “were lost” with his death in 1942, were based on this true understanding of Maxwell’s original, “hyperdimensional” electromagnetic ideas …]

Tesla’s experimental earlier detection notwithstanding, what Whittaker theoretically demonstrated years after Tesla was that future electrical engineers could also take Maxwell’s original 4-space, quaternion description of electromagnetic waves (the real “Maxwell’s Equations”), add his own (Whittaker’s) specific gravitational potential analysis (stemming from simply returning Maxwell’s scalar quaternions in Heaviside’s version of “Maxwell’s Equations”…), and produce a workable “unified field theory” (if not technology!) of gravity control … Unless by now, in some government “black project,” they already have

And what we’ve deliberately been “leaked” over the last seven years, in repeated video images of “exotic vehicles” performing impossible, non-Newtonian maneuvers on official NASA TV shuttle coverage … is simply the result!

Theory is one thing (Maxwell’s or Whittaker’s), but experimental results are supposedly the ultimate Arbiter of Scientific Truth. Which makes it all the more curious that Tesla’s four-year observational anticipation of Whittaker’s startling analysis of Maxwell — the experimental confirmation of an electromagnetic “standing columnar (longitudinal) wave” in thunderstorms — has been resolutely ignored by both physicists and electrical engineers for the past 100 years; as have the stunning NASA TV confirmations of “something” (above) maneuvering freely in Earth orbit.

With that as prologue, a new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that “Heaviside’s Equations” are actually “Maxwell’s,” were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with another remarkable, equally elegant experiment — which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell’s “pesky scalar potentials” … those same “mystical” potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal “electrodynamics” laboratory experiment (“Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory,” The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the “hidden potential” of free space, lurking in Maxwell’s original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment — see diagram; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron “wave functions” — triggered by the “hidden Maxwell scalar potential” created by the shielded magnet — see text, below].

Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an “impossible” phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting “donut,” nonetheless, changed their electronic state (“wave functions”) as they passed through the observably “field-free” region of the hole — indicating they were sensing “something,” even though it could NOT be the ring’s magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists’ experiments as a true phenomenon (and not merely improper shielding of the magnet), this “Aharonov-Bohm Effect” provides compelling proof of a deeper “spatial strain” — a “scalar potential” — underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic “force-field” itself. (Later experiments revealed a similar effect with shielded electrostatic fields …) All of which provides compelling proof of “something else,” underlying all reality, capable of transmitting energy and information across space and time … even in the complete absence of an electromagnetically detectable 3-D spatial “field”– Maxwell’s quaternion … hyperdimensional “potential.”

So, what does all this have to do with NASA’s announcement of a “new planet?” If a “potential” without a field can exist in space — as Maxwell’s quaternion analysis first asserted, and Aharonov-Bohm “only” a century later ultimately found — then, as defined by Maxwell in his comparisons of the aether with certain properties of laboratory “solids,” such a potential is equivalent to an unseen, vorticular (rotating) “stress” in space. Or, in Maxwell’s own words (first written in 1873 …): “There are physical quantities of another kind [in the aether] which are related to directions in space, but which are not vectors. Stresses and strains in solid bodies are examples, and so are some of the properties of bodies considered in the theory of elasticity and in the theory of double [rotated] refraction. Quantities of this class require for their definition nine [part of the “27-line”…] numerical specifications. They are expressed in the language of quaternions by linear and vector functions of a vector …” — J.C. Maxwell, “A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,” (Vol.1, 3rd Edition, New York, 1954). And stresses, when they are relieved, must release energy into their surroundings …

There is now much fevered discussion among physicists, (~100 years post-Maxwell) of the Quantum Electrodynamics Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of space — or, “the energy of the vacuum”; to many familiar with the original works of Maxwell, Kelvin, et. al., this sounds an awful lot like the once-familiar “aether” … merely updated and now passing under “an assumed name.” Thus, creating — then relieving — a “stress” in Maxwell’s vorticular aether is precisely equivalent to tapping the “energy of the vacuum” — which, according to current “quantum mechanics’ models,” possesses a staggering amount of such energy per cubic inch of space. Even inefficiently releasing a tiny percentage of this “strain energy” into our three dimensions — or, into a body existing in three-dimensional space — could make it appear as if the energy was coming from nowhere … “something from nothing.” In other words, to an entire generation of students and astrophysicists woefully ignorant of Maxwell’s real equations, such energy would appear as– “Perpetual motion!”


“This is of course quite useful for purposes of simplifying the theory, but it has now arbitrarily eliminated the freedom of the system designer to regauge the system’s potentials, without changing the force fields, and without requiring work to be done upon the system to do regauging. In short, the electrodynamicists have simply assumed away the capability of work-free “refueling” of an electromagnetic system by the system’s evoking a work-free regauging. Thereby they have narrowed the model to a closed system of equations that prohibits the free opening and receipt of excess vacuum potential energy.

What they have done is discard a major overunity mechanism: Regauging without requiring work be done on the system, so as to freely gather in and collect excess potential energy in the system, whereupon that excess collected/stored energy can then be used to freely power loads. The blunt truth is that overunity via such work-free regauging has been in the Heaviside/Maxwell equations all along, and the electrodynamicists have just conveniently and arbitrarily assumed it away by limiting the theory to prevent regauging the potentials.”


Economic Paralysis of Westinghouse
“Westinghouse – a decent man who had liked Tesla and backed him when Tesla was using a pick and shovel to dig ditches to pay for his daily food – then fell on bad times, and was headed for bankruptcy. He had signed a contract with Tesla to pay Tesla very nice royalties on the AC power systems, and this represented several hundred millions of dollars. Westinghouse affirmed to Tesla that, even though he went bankrupt, he would pay Tesla as long as he, Westinghouse, had a dollar. Tesla deeply appreciated Westinghouse’s warm friendship and Westinghouse backing him when no one else would. In a remarkable gesture of profound gratitude, Tesla simply tore up the contract, freeing Westinghouse and saving him from total financial ruin. But financially Westinghouse was unable to further fund large projects. This put Tesla right where Morgan wanted him.

Edison introduced a new word to the American public, more and more concerned by the dangers of electricity. Convicted criminals would be “Westinghoused.”

How Morgan Trapped Tesla and Destroyed Him
Accordingly, to finance his dream of capturing free electrical energy from the active medium (from the vacuum/spacetime), Tesla had to turn to Morgan for financing. Morgan cynically agreed to finance Tesla (and the free energy project), but only after Tesla agreed to sign over 51% controlling interest in all his (Tesla’s) inventions. Tesla signed the agreement, and Morgan gave him about half of the money needed for the project at Long Island. But Morgan had put Tesla in an iron trap from which there was no escape. He now controlled all Tesla’s inventions and their use, so he had Tesla paralyzed in that respect. And then later he simply refused to give Tesla the rest of the money needed to finish the project. Consequently Tesla was halted. He declined financially and went totally bankrupt. He became totally destitute, reduced to living in a hotel room on the good graces of the hotel and a small patron or two. He never recovered from this absolute destitution until his death in 1943. Thus Morgan totally crushed Tesla with an iron hand, thereby permanently removing Tesla as an unacceptable threat to Morgan’s empire and removing Tesla’s threat of producing and giving away free energy from the active medium. All the above is well-known. But there is another part of the story that has escaped recognition. And that strange part of Morgan’s actions has profoundly affected all humanity and this entire planet and biosphere for more than a century.

The Rest of the Story
Morgan was not only ruthless but extremely thorough
When the “new” Heaviside equations were tentatively accepted as the new “Maxwell’s theory” to be taught in the electrical engineering just beginning to be set up in some universities etc., Morgan also directed his close scientific advisors to assure that this new “electrical theory” was harmless and did not contain or teach any of Tesla’s “energy freely from the active medium” systems. In other words, not only was it essential to suppress the present Tesla, but it was essential to suppress all the future “Teslas”. At the time, scientists did not have scientific jobs waiting all over, as they do today. A scientist at the university was not really too well paid, and a really good scientist would often seek and obtain a job as a consultant to one of the rising industrialists such as Morgan. Indeed, Edison’s UK group already had an electrical scientist consultant of the highest caliber – Dr. John Ambrose Fleming in England. Fleming became consultant to the Edison group in 1881 and continued as such for 10 years. Fleming was an honorable and ethical man, and of course would not personally engage in skullduggery.

But all Morgan/Edison had to do was assign a sufficiently good scientist of their own to have a personal conversation with Fleming, since Fleming had studied directly and extensively under Maxwell himself. Fleming was thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of Maxwell’s theory, and he was also thoroughly familiar with Heaviside’s emasculated vector algebra subset. The conversation would just be a group theory conversation, pleasant but adroit, and it would draw out from Fleming (who was of highest character and ethics) the exact technical characteristics of the Heaviside model – particularly with respect to any potential EM system taking excess free energy from a hypothetical active medium.

from the Evariste Galois Archive

Modern group theory was founded by the brilliant teenager Évariste Galois, whose work was later published and developed after Galois’ unfortunate quick death on May 31, 1832 from being fatally wounded in a duel the previous day. The brilliant but erratic Galois was only 20 years old when he perished. But later his work was to profoundly affect mathematics, electrodynamics, physics, and all other sciences. In April of 1830, Galois (1811-1832), a student at the École Normale, had published “An Analysis of a Memoir on the Algebraic Resolution of Equations” in the Bulletin de Ferussac. In June, he published “Notes on the Resolution of Numerical Equations” and “On the Theory of Numbers.” These and a later memoir make up what is now called Galois theory. Galois’s manuscripts written just before his death in a duel, with added annotations by Joseph Liouville, were published in 1846 in the Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. In 1870, with the publication of Camille Jordan’s Traité des Substitutions, group theory became a fully established and very important part of mathematics and science. So in 1881, Fleming most certainly would have been well aware and conversant in group theory and the group symmetry of a given algebra, and thus of the characteristics of the systems that were included in a given algebraic model. The necessary knowledge to assess the Heaviside vector equations was already there when Morgan’s need (to suppress Nikola Tesla and to render the reduced Heaviside equations harmless) became paramount in the late 1880s. The news about the group symmetry characteristics of Heaviside’s equations was not good. Those Heaviside vector equations still included some of Maxwell’s asymmetrical systems. And any EM system that freely receives energy from its active environment, and uses it to freely power its loads, is an asymmetrical Maxwellian system a priori. Hence engineers who were taught such a theory would be able to eventually design and build some of Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium” systems.

Morgan’s response would have been short and direct: “Fix it!”
Obviously the fix was to simply remove the remaining asymmetry of the Heaviside model’s equations. It is not too hard a job to convince mathematicians to change asymmetry anyway, since they tend to worship “the beauty of symmetry” and asymmetry is considered “vulgar”.

Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations
H. A. Lorentz was the man who was elicited to do the necessary “symmetrization” with ease, thereby accomplishing exactly what Morgan decreed to his own advisors that must be done: Get rid of those Tesla systems capable of taking and freely using EM energy from the active medium. H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) simply lifted and used what L. V. Lorenz (without the “t”) had already done. For the deliberate “fixing” of the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations, see H. A. Lorentz, “La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,” [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. [Also in H. A. Lorentz, Collected Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, vol. 2, pp. 168-238, esp. p. 168.] This is the work that Lorentz cites later (in 1895) for his proof of the symmetrical regauging theorems (the two equations of symmetrical regauging).

This is the “symmetrization” (at the direction of J. P. Morgan) of the Heaviside equations that arbitrarily discarded all remaining asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – thus discarding all systems that receive excess EM energy freely from the “active medium” (active vacuum) and could use this free energy to power loads and themselves. With this “fix”, Morgan was assured that Tesla’s discovery of the active medium – and that EM energy could be extracted from it – would never be taught. Electrical engineering was just beginning to be formed and started in those days, and so almost from its inception electrical engineering has used these “fixed” Heaviside equations (erroneously calling the resulting crippled model “Maxwell’s theory” which was and is a blatant falsity). Hence our electrical engineers – almost from the beginning – have thought, designed, built, and deployed only that subset of Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum, hence self-preventing having COP>1.0 and self-powering EM systems taking their excess input energy directly from the active vacuum.

It also prevented electrical engineers from realizing how their circuits are actually powered, and where the energy actually comes from. It does not come from cranking the shaft of the generator! For a clear exposé of how a symmetrical electrical power circuit and system kills its own source, and also to see what actually powers the external circuit in a generator-powered system, see “Figure 2. Operation of a Symmetrical Electrical Power System,” in T. E. Bearden, “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B,” available at link

For an excellent paper adroitly pointing out Lorentz’s propensity for using other people’s work but taking or receiving credit for it himself, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680.

For the Lorentz symmetrical regauging as used by our present electrical engineers and classical electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell’s (Heaviside’s) equations reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6/11 on p. 246. The Lorentz regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p. 240.

Elimination of Heaviside’s Giant Curled EM Energy Flow Component
Lorentz also was apparently impressed a second time, in 1900, to further limit the application of the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations, in order to specifically eliminate the newly discovered giant Heaviside curled Electro-Magnetic (EM) energy flow that – unknown to our present electrical engineers – accompanies every Poynting energy flow component (which is diverged into the circuit to power it), but is itself (the curled component) not diverged and thus is just wasted because it normally does not interact. The giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow component is more than a trillion times greater in magnitude than the accounted Poynting diverged EM energy flow component. Thus the Poynting energy flow theory in our present electrical engineering textbooks and curricula is only a pale shadow of the actual energy flowing in conjunction with an electrical system or circuit.

In Morgan’s view, it would simply not do to have all the future electrical engineers taught (and understand) that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy output as the mechanical shaft energy input we crank into the generator shaft! If they were to all know this, then inevitably some very sharp young doctoral candidates or post docs would figure out how to freely tap some of that available giant Heaviside curled energy flow component. And they would extract some of that giant energy flow and freely use it, thereby ushering in Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium” after all.

“Enclosing sphere of calculation is double size of fisheye radius 2R1 = 4 μm and 20R1 = 40 μm. Contours of radiation pattern on xy plane are projected onto ground plane to show asymmetry in x coordinates due to the broken symmetry of injection position.”

Here again, Morgan would simply have ordered the problem “fixed”
And again, Lorentz “fixed it” for him very easily, by introducing the standard little surface integral trick that retains the diverged small component (the Poynting component) but discards the huge nondiverged curled component. In other words, Lorentz altered the actually-used energy flow vector by throwing away that giant Heaviside component quite arbitrarily. Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component is no longer accounted or even recognized in electrical engineering, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow component in every EM system or circuit. [To see the dirty work, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, “Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld,” p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the “entire” energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.]

Justification for Removal of the Giant Heaviside Curled Energy Flow Component
To justify getting rid of the giant curled (and usually nondiverged) Heaviside energy flow component, Lorentz smoothly and slyly stated that “it does nothing and so it has no physical significance.” And that same smooth statement is used by our scientific community to this day to justify the emasculation of the actual energy flow vector and to use only the feeble Poynting component of it. E.g., quoting Jackson:

“…the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice …” [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237].

Jackson’s statement (as is Lorentz’s statement) is correct only in a special relativistic situation, where vector analysis holds and the divergence of the curl is zero. However, if we deliberately introduce a general relativistic (GR) situation or subset, with synchronization of the output of that GR section and the input of the special relativistic section, then vector analysis fails and the divergence of the curl is not necessarily zero at all. So Jackson’s statement is correct only part of the time (which is usually most of the time since with rare exceptions most electrical power situations are special relativity situations!

Indeed, Jackson’s statement (and Lorentz’s little closed surface integration trick) can be deliberately violated at will, and it has been so violated since 1967 by the NRAM (negative resonance absorption of the medium) process in optical physics. We leave analysis of that process and where the excess energy comes from and how, for another day and paper. [See Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, “Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component”. This is a Provisional Patent Application, filed and obtained in Oct. 2005. It is now released into public domain and freely given away to the public domain. It is available at [].]

Suffice it to say that NRAM optical physicists every year regularly perform true COP = 18 optimized experiments, without understanding the true source of the excess energy received from the active vacuum environment. To get their papers published, they are not allowed to use the term “excess emission” (they must use the mind-numbing term “negative absorption”. They are also not allowed to discuss the thermodynamics of the process (which when optimized in the IR or UV gives COP = 18), but can only point out the “increase in the reaction cross section” because of the self-resonance of the charged particles of the absorbing medium as compared to more normal static charged particles in a static absorbing medium. Thus our electrical engineers and scientists today are totally unaware that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy flow from the vacuum, as is in the mechanical energy flow we input to the generator shaft. This even though in our leading universities our own NRAM optical physicists continue to experimentally prove it, without understanding where the excess EM energy comes from. This second “fix” by Lorentz then finished Morgan’s suppression of the “new electrical engineering science” so that it would not contain asymmetrical Maxwellian systems nor would it contain Heaviside’s giant curled EM energy flow component. With these changes, Morgan (using Lorentz’s services) deliberately crippled electrical engineering and electrical power systems for more than 100 years, and guaranteed that COP>1.0 and self-powering Maxwellian systems – permitted by nature and Maxwell’s original theory – would not be built by our electrical power engineers.

Tesla’s Statements Showing His Intention
To show Tesla’s intent to give the world cheap clean energy extracted freely from the active medium, here are some appropriate Tesla quotations:

“Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels.” [Nikola Tesla].
“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel… We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians…Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.” [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time].
“We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. …the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium…” [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.].
“Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material.” [Nikola Tesla, 1900].

Deciphering Energy Flow

“…only the entire surface integral of N [their notation for the Poynting vector] contributes to the energy balance. Paradoxical results may be obtained if one tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energy flow per unit area at any point.” [Wolfgang Panofsky and Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1962, third printing 1969, p.180].
“It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = ExH, and regard it as the intensity of energy flow at a point. This procedure is open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is zero without affecting [the basic integration procedure’s result].” … “…fortunately, we are rarely concerned with the energy flow at a point. In most applications we need the rate at which energy is crossing a closed surface.” [D.S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p. 52, 53.].
“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2].

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Quoting from p. 513:

“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations, indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and current.”

One of the authors has remarked:

“This has led to one of the greatest ironies in history: All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the steam turbines that ever turned the shaft of a generator, all the rivers ever dammed, all the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, all the windmills and waterwheels, all the solar cells, and all the chemistry in all the batteries ever produced, have not directly delivered a single watt into the external circuit’s load. All that incredible fuel consumption and energy extracted from the environment has only been used to continually restore the source dipole that our own closed current loop circuits are deliberately designed to destroy faster than the load is powered.” [Thomas E. Bearden, “Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum,” Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2. Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 119, Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice, John Wiley and Sons, 2001, p. 691-192].
“…[There is] .. an often-overlooked feature inherent in the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Rigorously, work is defined as changing the form of energy. When one joule of energy performs one joule of work, one joule of energy still remains, but in an altered form. If that remaining joule of energy has its form changed yet again, another joule of work has been done. And so on.” [M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 515-516].

The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today
As can be seen, from Morgan’s personal view that Tesla and the new Heaviside theory were unacceptable threats to his rising great financial empire, the ruthless Morgan felt fully justified in having the EE theory “fixed” and crippled, to permanently eliminate all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems from the Heaviside theory, and later also to eliminate Heaviside’s own giant curled EM energy flow component as well. In this way, Morgan directly assured the removal of self-powering and COP>1.0 asymmetrical electrical systems receiving and using excess free energy from the vacuum. Regarding Tesla as his mortal enemy, Morgan also felt fully justified in shackling and then figuratively “imprisoning” Tesla financially for the rest of his life, totally destroying Tesla from any further open research and development that would ever again challenge Morgan’s escalating empire and huge cartels. Interestingly, Heaviside also wound up being a near-total hermit, living in a little garret apartment. So eerily, more than a century ago and along with its very birthing, our “modern” classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering science was deliberately mutilated and crippled, specifically so that COP>1.0 and self-powering electrical systems – asymmetrically powering loads extracted from “free EM wind energy flows” from the vacuum/space itself – would never be known or developed by our electrical engineers.

“Edison’s most brutal display of scare tactics was the 1903 electrocution of an elephant, which has recently trampled three men, including one for trying to feed her a lit cigarette.”

Since then, hundreds of thousands of EEs have been graduated worldwide. Electrical engineering (with its deliberately crippled CEM/EE model) has become a giant part of our science, technology, culture, and society. Everything – from our electric lights to our refrigerators and heat pumps, radios and television sets, auto ignitions, lights and power for our cities, etc. – is now using this horribly emasculated CEM/EE model. It has directly prevented struggling nations having no oil or gas resources from achieving a modern economy (which is based on cheap energy). This has left those nations impoverished, with their peoples starving and miserable and disease-wracked. Hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation and disease have resulted worldwide. It has “welded into our minds and our very brains” the mistaken notion that – other than a wee bit of wind power, water power, solar power, etc. – we can only have “energy from consumption of fuel”. So we have Morgan’s ruthlessness, and the present totally inexcusable lack of insight by our own scientists and engineers (and particularly our scientific leadership) – to thank for the present escalating “world energy crisis” and its resulting world-wide, environmental, and epochal consequences.

What Must Be Done
The straightforward answer, of course, is that our scientists need to rapidly correct and update that horribly flawed CEM/EE model (and the entire electrical engineering technology and science being taught in all universities worldwide) that Morgan deliberately shaped us into. We must firmly remove Morgan’s dead iron boot from the back of everyone’s neck, reintroduce Maxwell’s actual higher group symmetry EM theory (updated as necessary), and restore and accomplish Tesla’s dream of providing the world cheap, clean EM energy directly from the seething vacuum/spacetime. If “energy from fuel consumption” is the problem because fuel supply is tapering off while demand is increasing, then “energy without fuel consumption” is the solution. Windmills, solar arrays, and hydroelectric systems can give some relief, but they are only a drop in the bucket. The only complete and final solution (and one that is cheap, clean, and quick) is to shift our main interest to “energy from the vacuum”. Quantum field theory already tells us that we simply cannot separate the charge from its ongoing fierce virtual particle interaction with the vacuum. Quoting Aitchison:

“…the concept of a ‘single particle’ actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between ‘the particle’ and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored.” [I. J. R. Aitchison, “Nothing’s Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory,” Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].

Indeed, in modern physics that vacuum interaction generates all forces in nature. Again quoting Aitchison:

“Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta…” [Ibid., p. 372].

Every charge in the universe already totally violates both the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics and the sad old electrical engineering model. From its very formation, the charge simply sits there and unceasingly pours out real photons – real, usable, observable EM energy – in all directions at light speed. This process forms the so-called “static” EM fields associated with that source charge; the “static” fields are not static at all, but are nonequilibrum steady state (NESS) thermodynamic systems associated with that charge.

Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:

“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

We Must Also Recognize the Source Charge Problem and Its Solution
Every charge is continually extracting the necessary input virtual state energy to support its steady emission of observable energy, from its seething virtual particle reaction with the vacuum. This is done without any observable energy input to the charge! Quoting Sen:

“The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics.” [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii].

Quoting Kosyakov:

“A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated.” …. “The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?” [B. P. Kosyakov, “Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].

So there is no “energy” crisis at all, and there never has been! Every charge and dipole in the universe continually pours out real, usable, EM energy, and the original charges of the universe have been doing it for 15 or so billion years, since the formation of the universe. They will freely continue another 15 billion years if the universe lasts that long. Instead of an “energy” crisis, we have an “energy from fuel” crisis because there is a finite supply of fuel and it is “topping off” and declining in availability, while the demand for energy is escalating. And since we erroneously insist that we can only have “energy from fuel” primarily, then we have an escalating “energy from fuel” crisis because we have an escalating fuel crisis.

Again, the solution obviously is “energy without fuel”. And one must use energy from a part of the external environment that is 100% dependable, never ceasing or faltering, and available at every point in the universe. Energy from the vacuum is indeed that solution. Because of its peculiar continual interaction with the active vacuum, in modern physics one cannot regard a solitary classical charge as a “very small” thing having (access to) only a very small energy. Indeed, the charge polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with charge of opposite sign. So the “charge” must be modeled as two infinite and opposite charges, each having infinite energy. Our instruments, peering through the giant external screening charge at the “bare charge” inside, sees only the finite difference of these two infinite charges. And that difference is the value of the classical charge printed in the electrical engineering textbooks. Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:

“[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron’s mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy.” [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

We can easily show the production of a steady and unending stream of real, usable EM energy from the vacuum, at will. Simply lay an electret or charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field of the electrical component and the H-field of the magnet are orthogonal. Then even according to the standard EE textbooks and their Poynting energy flow theory, that silly gadget will sit there and freely and continuously pour out a real Poynting EM energy flow S, given by the simple equation S = E X H.

So we can produce all the “free EM energy winds from the vacuum” that we wish. Easily, cheaply, and cleanly. Anywhere, anytime. The only problem then is to learn how to build an asymmetric “EM windmill” that intercepts and collects some of that steadily flowing energy, and then dissipates it in the external loads without dissipating half of it back in the “free energy flow gadget” to destroy it. Again, In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having usable free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Quoting the abstract:

“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations, indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and current.”

The bits and pieces of a dramatically corrected and extended electrical engineering model and electrical science are already there in the various areas of physics, just waiting to be integrated into a true and “fitted” model of “EM energy freely and copiously extracted from the vacuum”. Indeed, the higher group symmetry electrodynamics models are already generated and available in physics – such as the O(3) electrodynamics developed by Myron Evans and later extended by him into an elegant Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) unified field theory. Quoting Evans from his earlier O(3) electrodynamics:

“…the acceptance of a structured vacuum described by an O(3) gauge group leads directly to the existence of novel charges and currents in the vacuum. These are conserved, or Noether, currents and charges and are clearly topological in origin. They spring from the fact that the vacuum is a topological space. Four such entities emerge: [1] A topological vacuum electric charge, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [2] A topological vacuum electric current, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [3] A topological vacuum magnetic charge, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth. [4] A vacuum topological magnetic current, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth. … Each of these four objects can provide energy, which can be loosely termed ‘vacuum energy’: energy coming from the topology of the vacuum.” [Myron W. Evans, “O(3) Electrodynamics,” in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 Vols., edited by M.W. Evans, Wiley, New York, 2001, Part 1, p. 84].

To save our own nation and the Western world from a giant and impending economic collapse because of the inane “energy from fuel” crisis, we must unleash our very best scientists and researchers – particularly the young and more vigorous ones – on solving this problem. We must quickly correct and update the electrical engineering model that was so deliberately “fixed” at Morgan’s command. And we must unleash our sharp young professors, doctoral candidates, and post doctoral scientists to quickly research and develop new asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that finally – after more than a century of delay – utilize the full extent of Maxwell’s 1865 quaternion-like theory prior to the 1880s and 1890s mutilation of it after Maxwell was already dead.”

Symmetric versus Asymmetric Electromagnetic Systems
(Originally Posted at Energetic Forum on 05/22/2012)

“It took me a while to put all this material together, it is back up by several tests with many different types of sizes and configuration Models that I have built over more than two decades. Plus all the research and developed work that goes back in our history to more than a Century ago… I will keep this document as simple as possible, in order to be understood easier. The main body of this document is written by me, and please forgive any misspellings or not to well redacted text, whenever I copy-paste paragraphs, I will insert a reference to a link at the bottom of this thread. I will try to maintain it as brief as possible.

The History
The Father of Magnetism, James Clerk Maxwell , gave Us an Incredible and great Dynamic Theory of Electromagnetism, his analysis extends to the deepest interactions basically from space , the Vortex Theory of Molecules. The Scientists of his time found his Theory very hard to accept not only because of its complexity, but the way he refers to as an Electromagnetic Field, something intangible and not simple to analyze …”Maxwell’s Theory becomes simple and intelligible only when you give up thinking in terms of mechanical models. Instead of thinking of mechanical objects as primary and electromagnetic stresses as secondary consequences, You must think of the Electromagnetic field as primary and mechanical forces as secondary...” (2)

At his final developments He derived into two main fields to calculate-study his Electromagnetic Theory. The Symmetrical Systems were the ones adopted by All EE (Electrical Engineering) Universities in the World since the fall of the 19th Century (1880-to late 1890’s), right after the death of Maxwell in 1879, the Heaviside Vectorial Equations started to suffer a “Process of Symmetrization” by Nobel Prize Scientist Hendrik Lorentz , financed by J.P Morgan and Thomas A. Edison… Asymmetrical Systems were completely disregarded from further teachings in any Technological Center or Universities of the related fields in the World. All the Motors that we have access up to now are symmetrical. Symmetrical Systems are Closed Systems that equals Zero in a “Balanced Equation” of Energy Conservation. They balance by canceling and constant reverse electromagnetic interactions.(Motors Related)

The Main Concept
The Symmetry or Asymmetry does not necessarily relates to the Geometrical and Structural Disposition of any given Electromagnetic System Components, but to the way they Interact Internally or Externally with each others. Example: We could have a Three Pole Armature Motor, (very asymmetrical) and two stators, but still falling within the Symmetrical Systems Category.

The Asymmetric Systems are Open Systems, when applying them to Motor Structure Coils configured in a fashion as not to interconnect them as a whole “pack” in a serial or parallel circuit, but disposed Independently Connected by pairs or by Groups of Sequenced Pairs. Asymmetric Systems expands to all Electric-Electromagnetic Systems that includes Transformers and Capacitors. A typical Asymmetrical transformer is the Tesla Core less Coil, and all derivations from different Inventors through decades, like Don Smith or Tariel Kapanadze models.

The Typical Symmetrical Motors we are familiar with and mostly used up to now in daily applications, is the Lap or Overlapped Winding, it applies to all PM Brushed Motors and also to Universal Motors, the only difference in the last one is that it uses a Stator as a winded coil or Field versus a PM, Permanent Magnet Stator. This type of winding connected in series all coils in the armature, overlapping between coils, it is also known as a “Short Circuit Motor”… Depending on the design, two or four brushes-stators, the 360 degrees turn will be divided in Two or Four Sections, where sequences of coils change voltage and magnetic polarity as soon as it leaves a section. This cancels all external magnetic resonance or feedback of every coil, electron and flux collision galore generates undesired heat, therefore must of this machines require a fixed fan to the end of shaft. This is the “Symmetrical Obsolete Systems” we use everyday, from an Automobile window, windshield wiper, seats adjustments, Starter, Fan Blowers, etc,etc…all the way to Drills, handheld or AC, hair blowers, Air Conditioning Fans, Vacuum Cleaners, etc,etc…the list is endless. An exception to the brushed motor, also Symmetrical, would be the lately used BLDC Motor, (Brush Less Direct Current) which uses a DC Three Phase Square Wave, generated by Three Channels of Heavy Duty MOSFET’s, since their windings could be only two types: Star (Y) or Delta. Both connect in series with each others. However, this type of motors does not have yet the powerful starting torque like a Brushed motor. It could be achieved, but by heavy duty and expensive controlling-management circuitry, and not applicable in limited small space like a brushed motor could be installed. Lately is being used in EV and small Utility Recreational transport vehicles, like Golf Carts, Bikes, Scooters, etc. It is understood that all AC Motors, by the nature of its type of sine wave that fluctuates between Negative-Positive every 50-60 Hertz/Second plus the type of windings they utilize, will be also included in the Symmetrical Closed Systems.

Symmetrical Systems explained by Tom Bearden…
“…It is that Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the equations — and the ubiquitous use of the well-grounded closed current loop circuit containing both the external (transmission) circuit and load, and the basic source of potential (i.e., the generator) in it — that is the problem. The closed current loop circuit physically enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which in turn guarantees back emf (or mmf) is equal to forward emf in our EM circuits and systems. Hence it forces half of the free regauging energy (from the vacuum) appearing in the external circuit to be used for nothing but destroying the main source of potential (the main source of dipolarizing the circuitry). The other half of the energy is used to power the loads and losses in the external circuit. So less than half is used to power the load, while a full half is used to destroy the source dipolarity. To RESTORE the dipolarity requires that we then input at least as much as was used to destroy it. Hence we are forced always to input and pay more energy to restore the source dipolarity (that actually extracts the energy from the vacuum) than we get out there as power in the load. I.e., we always have COP<1.0 power systems, unless we ring in some normal natural observable energy from the environment as from a flowing river, blowing wind, solar radiation, etc.

“Such a closed current loop circuit and resulting EM system can never produce COP>1.0 from the vacuum, even though all the fields and potentials and energy appearing in the external circuit are extracted directly from the local vacuum by their associated source charges in that circuit, a priori. Simply look into the known polarization of the vacuum that occurs from the presence of any charge, and then examine what “asymmetry of opposite charges — i.e., asymmetry of that dipolarization — means. It means that the beast directly absorbs virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into observable photon energy size, and re-emits the energy as real, observable EM energy emitted in all directions. We have previously shown the solution to that “source charge problem”, taken directly from particle physics. We also showed the fundamental coherent integration mechanism that is able to consume positive entropy of the virtual state and produce negative entropy in the observable state…”(3)

Must of Nikola Tesla original Patents of Motors Generators are based on Independent Pairs of Coils, creating “Dipoles”, or Groups thereof (Several Dipoles), Independently Connected, open, not connected in series through all the circuit as a huge short…Then We have all other suppressed Motor-Generators technology not easily available and most of times not containing all the spec’s to be reproduced…except that We build it ourselves. The Asymmetrical Systems since they are open, they allow to create a series of exchange of Energy Reaction to our Inputs, based on Electromagnetic Resonance or Electromagnetic Feedback in every spin (on a Motor),or in every pulse of input in a Static Coil. One of the first Asymmetrical Motor was Faraday’s Unipolar Motor, later modified by Nikola Tesla. Asymmetrical Systems does not violates the Energy Conservation Laws, since they are not part of themEnergy Conservation Laws applies ONLY to Closed Systems…


Electromagnetic induction, a basic test setup



Leave a Reply