Tom Bearden on correcting "electrical engineering theory"

For those who get this post, please convey to electricl engineering
and theoretical physics intelligent thinkers for evaluation and feedback
to this list via new-energy-solutions-owner@yahoogroups.com

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Tom Bearden <soliton@...>
Sent: Aug 30, 2005 4:57 PM
To: gear2000@...
Subject: RE: thanks for your response to skeptics and thoughts on next steps

David,

The best answer to the question "Why has this not all come out already?"
must point out the status of the CEM/EE model taught to all electrical
engineers. Frankly, it's just about a piece of junk, or, in proper language,
for more than a century it has been riddled with falsities. In plain
language, we have taught all our power engineers (and the entire electrical
engineering community) a pack of lies for a century.

Eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others
have pointed out most of these errors, to no avail. So powerful a
"loose-knit" cartel in electrical engineering has been created, that one
simply cannot penetrate the barrier.

In an attempt to help rectify this situation, I gathered together most of
the major falsities in the EE model as taught in all our universities. The
compilation and a discussion with hard references are given in a paper,
"Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model," on my website at
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20comple
te%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . A second paper dealing with the subject is
at
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20comple
te%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc.

The great block to free energy from the vacuum was Lorentz's symmetrization
of the already-sharply-curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations in 1892. Just
to get easier equations to solve algebraically, and thereby mostly eliminate
the necessity for numerical methods, Lorentz symmetrized the equations
(actually doing what Lorenz had done before him, but the stature of Lorentz
was such that his publication of it nailed it down in concrete for the
fledgling EM community.

In short, in a single change, Lorentz ARBITRARILY discarded all asymmetrical
Maxwellian systems. Nature did not discard them; our own scientists did,
following Lorentz's lead. All EE's are still taught those symmetrized
equations today. And they are taught to leave the "external" source of
potential connected to the collecting circuit while current (dissipation of
energy) occurs in the collecting circuit.

Well, let us reason together. For a system to freely accept free
potentialization (e.g., change its voltage without allowing current to flow,
at least momentarily during the potentialization process) and also have a
NET force field available in the potentialized system to forcibly dissipate
push electrons through the load by dissipating that freely collected
potential energy, it must be an asymmetrical Maxwellian system and the
regauging must be asymmetrical, rather than Lorentz symmetrical. Here's a
gedanken experiment: Suppose in the external circuit we momentarily pin the
electrons, so current dq/dt cannot flow during that moment. During that
moment, the external source of potentialization is connected already, so
excess potential freely flows across the external circuit, potentializing it
without current flowing. No power and hence no work is done, but the amount
of excess free potential energy W now collected on that circuit is given by
Delta W = Vq.

Now disconnect the external source of potential, which has not been
"drained" or dissipated in any manner, because without current flowing there
is no power and thus no work being done. Work is the CHANGE OF FORM of
energy, rigorously. It is NOT the change of magnitude of energy remaining in
the same form! One is free to change the magnitude of the potential energy
in the circuit at will, work-free, if one merely changes V while holding
dq/dt = 0.

With the source now disconnected, recomplete the circuit in that gap (e.g.,
by connecting a resistor and a diode with the diode oriented to allow
dissipation of the excess collected potential energy.

Now unpin the electrons so current can flow in this circuit. Real current
drives through the resistor (and any other loads), dissipating the freely
collected potential energy in the loads and losses of this "new" circuit.

You have to pay only for the minute costs of the switching. You do NOT have
to pay for the potential energy that flows continuously and freely -- and
forever -- from any source of "static" potential from the moment of
formation of the dipolarity of that source.

We have just described a novel kind of true "Feynman ratchet" that will
accept energy flow freely from a source without work, collect it (ratchet up
the collected potential energy in the receiving circuit, work-free), and
then will dissipate that free energy to freely power some loads.

In 1903 and 1904, Whittaker showed that ANY EM FIELD AND EM POTENTIAL is an
ongoing set of continuous EM energy flows. In more modern terms, we state
that the field and potential (and their energy density) are established by
the free flow of energy from the associated charges.

That leads directly to the source charge problem, deliberately scrubbed from
all EM texts. It is readily shown experimentally that simply assembling a
charge or a dipole, results in the steady outpouring of real observable
photons from that charge or di-charge, from the moment of its formation. The
flow will continue forever, if the charge or dipole is not bothered or
destroyed.

And yet our instruments will show also that NO OBSERVABLE ENERGY INPUT TO
THE CHARGE OR DIPOLE OCCURS. Well, this is the source charge problem. Either
the charge continuously and freely creates all that observable EM energy
continuously pouring out -- thus annihilating the conservation of energy law
and most of physics along with it -- or the charge must continually absorb
disordered virtual state energy from the vacuum's virtual fluctuations,
reorder the energies absorbed, and then coherently integrate the successive
but now-ordered virtual energy bits to the next quantum level. Then the
zitterbewegung of the vacuum must "shake loose" a real quantum of emitted EM
energy, abruptly decaying the excitation of the charge.

That is what happens, and we also found the reordering process (which is
production of continual negative entropy, as shown theoretically possible by
Evans and Rondoni. In that case, the charge does annihilate the present
inadequate form of the second law of thermodynamics. Not to worry, many
things already violate that old flawed second law. We corrected it also,
gathering in all the known violations.

Rigorous proof that removing the Lorentz symmetry condition does produce a
system that receives excess free EM energy currents from its active
spacetime environment is given by M.W. Evans et al., "Classical
Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the
Vacuum," Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

So the solution to achieving and using free energy from the vacuum can be
first posed as the need to restore those long ARBITRARILY discarded
asymmetric Maxwellian systems. Presently, of course, all EEs and all
electrical power system engineers still use the symmetrized equations for
their design theory etc., and they only design and build SYMMETRICAL power
systems. In so doing, they only build systems which self-enforce equal and
opposite free force fields emerging from the symmetrical regauging. I.e.,
their standard closed current loop circuit with external source of potential
remaining attached while current is flowing, absolutely guarantees and
self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical behavior of the circuit.

All this is the real reason that free energy systems are not out there. To
develop such asymmetrical systems, so long discarded, is another major
effort in extending the present EE altogether. It requires some substantial
funding, such as funding and allowing our sharp young doctoral candidates
and post doctoral scientists to work in this area and do it. But meanwhile,
if one of them tries it, he merely winds up destroying his own career.
Similarly for the Professors.

Kosyakov said it rather bluntly:

"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].

Meanwhile, our own scientific community has its own great cartels that
dominate and control it. These include hot fusion (50 years and billions of
dollars, and nary an extra watt on the power line), the big nuclear power
consortium (industry and science both), and of course the extensive and
all-powerful though loose-knit electrical engineering consortium in
industry, government, science, etc.

And of course lots of vested interest "big cartels" viciously oppose it, and
do take whatever action is required to delay and prevent such from
happening. Including killing researchers.

The falsities taught in CEM/EE in all our universities have been known and
pointed out so long, and uncorrected by the scientific community, that the
ethics of the entire scientific community is now in serious question. Is
there any ethics remaining in our scientific leadership at all, or will they
just continue to teach known falsities already pointed out by Feynman,
Wheeler and others?

The scientific community is inescapably responsible for the escalating
energy crisis and all its ramifications. That includes the deaths of
hundreds of millions of unfortunate struggling people in struggling nations
which have not been able to achieve a national economy that supports
anything called a "decent life". The community is responsible for our
present deadly vulnerable dependence on oil etc.

For your private information, I also attach a letter I wrote to Dr. Leshner,
CEO of the AAAS, in response to a letter urging necessity to maintain
scientific ethics. Hopefully this will summarize the situation for you a bit
more clearly. My plea is to get the scientific community to actually
acknowledge the falsities being taught in that model, and then to get with
the program and correct that model and those falsities.

If that is done, and our young scientists freed to work in the area, in two
years there will never again be an energy crisis, anywhere on earth.

Best wishes,
Tom

P.S. The paper "Errors and Omissions...." also contains information on the
Japanese magnetic Wankel engine, which was suppressed by the Japanese
Yakuza. That engine can be readily built by any competent electrical
engineering laboratory, and tested by them to their heart's content as
providing COP>1.0. It is also easily close-looped for self-powering, which
is also indicated and can be readily done by the EE lab or any physics lab.

The reason for including that engine was that it is the only one I could
find where the mechanism used to kill the back mmf already is known to, and
understood by, electrical engineers.

Tom



-----Original Message-----
From: gear2000@... [mailto:gear2000@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:21 PM
To: soliton@...
Subject: thanks for your response to skeptics and thoughts on next steps

thanks for your response to skeptics and thoughts on next steps

Dear Tom,

I appreciate your taking the time to respond recently to the skeptics
drivel, and regret at same
time the situation taking that time, but it will be useful to have on the
record for future.

Sounds like your personal situation will preclude much if not all of any
time involvement
on your part in the lab when the funding comes for next stage MEG prototype
fabrication,
but its seems clear that your colleagues can manage that part ok.

One of the implicit first questions folks have in my past experience trying
to explain
all this is once they get past the prejudice against the reality of these
new energy
techs, they express or react with the feeling of "well, if this is really
true, after all
this time, why has it not already come out?" This even after DePalma's
proof of
principle in 1979 was only a couple years old!

Best of wishes and prayers for good health for you and your wife,

David

----------

From: Tom Bearden [soliton@...]
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:24 PM
To: 'Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS'
Subject: RE: AAAS Advances Newsletter



Dear Dr. Leshner,



Yes, indeed I strongly back you by believing in scientific integrity being
exercised by the scientific community. I am very pleased that as head of the
AAAS you do also, as witness your cogent and very timely letter.



If you really are sincere about maintaining scientific ethics and integrity,
there is another very gross area that desperately needs your attention. Please
do read and digest the following information and the linked papers, and please
have some really good physicists review them for you also. As an immediate
example, by correcting a glaring example of lack of scientific ethics for more
than a century, the entire world energy crisis can be easily solved in two years
– cheaply, quickly, cleanly, and permanently.



The linked paper for downloading is Thomas E. Bearden, “Errors and Omissions
in the CEM/EE Model,” available freely from
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%2\
0w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . A related paper is available freely from
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analogy3.d\
oc .



For more than a century a shocking and complete lack of scientific integrity has
been demonstrated by the present scientific community, including the AAAS, NAS,
NSF, DoE, national laboratories, universities, etc. The standard CEM/EE model
taught in all our universities contains known and grave scientific falsities
that continue to be universally taught to all our electrical engineers, and
these falsities have directly resulted in the present escalating world energy
crisis that may yet catastrophically collapse the U.S. economy. These known
scientific falsities have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
millions of poor and suffering peoples worldwide whose struggling nations never
were able to have the economy – based on cheap energy – to provide a decent
life or any chance. The known falsities in the CEM/EE model have been previously
pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and
others to no avail; the errors are still being deliberately perpetuated by our
own scientific community. And the escalating price of gas at the pump today, as
well as the escalating price of oil, is directly due to the grave scientific
falsities being perpetuated by our own scientific community.



EM energy – in any amount desired, for as long as desired, and anywhere in the
universe – is free for the asking and taking, whenever one merely assembles
some charge or makes a dipole. That silly thing – the charge or dipole, once
made and left alone thereafter – will continually pour out real observable EM
energy extracted from the vacuum, forever. The original charges and dipoles in
the original matter in the universe have been doing it for some 13 billion
years, and they have not “run down” yet. They will continue to do it for
another 13 billion years, if the universe itself lasts that long.



Well, if one has a gushing oil well, one can arrange to catch the oil and make
the energy rather freely available, without having to destroy the oil well
itself! But in the present CEM/EE, all our engineers are trained to take half
the free energy extracted from the vacuum, to do nothing but destroy the
“gushing energy source” itself. We pay the power company to engage in a
giant wrestling match inside its own generators, and always deliberately lose!



Today most scientists have not even heard of the “source charge problem”,
wherein every charge in the universe continually emits real observable photons
and thus continually pours out real observable EM energy, without any observable
input of energy to the charge itself. We solved that problem in 1999 and
published it in 2000, 2002, and subsequently. Bunge spoke of this source charge
problem in electrodynamics in these terms:



“[I]t is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and
quantal, are in a sad state.” [Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics.
Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, 1967, p. 176.].



Kosyakov stated it directly and plainly:



"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].



This is known as the “source charge problem”, but it has been scrubbed from
all the CEM/EE texts and from most of the physics texts. Nonetheless, physicist
Sen characterized it this way:



"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.].



It follows that every “static” EM field and EM potential already decomposes
into ongoing freely flowing real EM energy flows from its associated source
charge(s). This was in fact already shown more than a century ago by E.T.
Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics.”
Mathematische Annalen 57: 333-355; ----- “On an Expression of the
Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential
Functions.” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, 1:
367-372. Yet it has never been included in the CEM/EE texts or curricula.



To rigorously and specifically show that CEM/EE prior to Lorentz symmetrizing
does indeed produce EM energy freely into the EM system or circuit from the
vacuum and local curved spacetime, see M. W. Evans et al., “Classical
Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the
Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, 61, 513-517 (2000). Once the totally artificial
Lorentz symmetry condition is removed, real usable EM energy currents do occur
from the vacuum into the system, for its free collection and use to power loads.
This higher group symmetry EM paper by Evans et al. is a continuation of
important work by Lehnert and Roy; see B. Lehnert, Physica Scripta 19, 204
(1996); ---- Optik 99, 113 (1995); ----- Dept. of Electron and Plasma Physics,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, TRITA-EPP-79-13 (1979); ----
ibid., TRITA-EPP-86-16 (1986). Also see B. Lehnert and S. Roy, Extended
Electromagnetic Theory, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998.



The standard classical electromagnetics and electrical engineering (CEM/EE)
model is riddled with known science falsities, proven by the march of physics
since that CEM/EE model was mangled and stuck together in the 1880s and 1890s
(Maxwell was already dead). As a crowning blow, Lorentz symmetrized the already
horribly curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations, thereby arbitrarily discarding
all asymmetric Maxwellian systems, and leaving only symmetrized Maxwellian
systems accounted. He did it for no other reason than to get simpler equations
easier to solve with closed algebraic solutions, and avoid most use of numerical
methods just to solve the [asymmetric] equations.



As examples, the present CEM/EE model that AAAS along with all our other
scientific agencies backs and promulgates in all our universities has the
following dozen severe falsities. The model assumes:



1. The material ether. This was falsified in 1887 (Michelson and Morley,
1886, 1887). Maxwell himself assumed this error, and the curtailed equations
have never been corrected to eliminate their implicit material ether assumption.

2. Force fields in space. Force fields actually exist only in matter.
This falsity continues to be propagated and ignored, even though eminent
scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, and Bunge have pointed it out, including
even in sophomore physics (See Feynman’s three volumes of physics, 1964, Vol.
1, p 2-4, 12-2). It means that there is not now, and there never has been, a
single EE department, professor, or text that calculates the EM field in space,
though all purport to do so.

3. A flat spacetime. This was falsified in 1916 by general relativity
(Einstein, 1916). Whenever the energy density in an EM circuit or system
changes, the energy density of spacetime (ST) also changes, constituting a
change in the curvature of spacetime. This ST curvature then interacts back upon
the system, producing free forces. Or as Wheeler put it, mass (energy) tells
space how to curve, and curved space tells mass how to move. For a particle
physics viewpoint, the ST curvature also interacts upon the active vacuum,
changing its virtual particle flux. With the reaction forces created in the mass
by the curved ST interaction, then whether or not there are net free forces
remaining in the system to do free work in loads depends upon whether the system
is made symmetric or asymmetric in its receipt and application of the free
regauging forces and the free regauging energy.

4. An inert vacuum. This has been falsified since at least 1930 by the
advent of the Dirac Sea theory (Dirac, 1930) and the development of quantum
mechanics and particle physics. In quantum field theory, all observable forces
are generated by the interactions with observable mass of virtual particles in
vacuum. Hence the vacuum cannot be inert, and spacetime cannot be flat, if any
forces at all exist anywhere in the CEM/EE system.

5. That “static” EM fields are fixed and “frozen”. Instead, they
are comprised of moving internal EM energy flows (moving real observable
photons). In CEM/EE they are treated as analogous to a frozen waterfall.
Instead, they are analogous to an unfrozen waterfall. The fields and potentials
represent continuous flows of EM energy (real observable photons) emitted at
light speed from their associated source charges. The emitted photons
continually establish and replenish these EM energy flows—and the resulting
associated fields and potentials—at light speed. This continuous outflow of
spreading observable real EM energy (observable photons) from any charge or
dipolarity is easily measured experimentally, as is the fact that no observable
energy input is provided to the source charge in this process.

6. That all EM field energy and potential energy has been freely created
from nothing at all. First, the model assumes that every EM field, EM potential,
and joule of EM energy in the universe is produced from its associated source
charge(s), which is true. But the model further assumes that all the field
energy and potential energy has been freely created by the source charges(s)
from nothing at all, which is false. So the CEM/EE model assumes total violation
of the conservation of energy law (the first law of thermodynamics) as well as
of the second law, by every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in
the universe as well as every charge and dipole in the universe. Hence either
the CEM/EE model is terribly wrong, or most of physics and thermodynamics are
terribly wrong.

7. That the scalar potential is a basic entity and has no deeper internal
structures and dynamics. This erroneous assumption has been falsified for more
than a century by Whittaker, ibid. In quantum field, the longitudinal photon and
the scalar (time-polarized) photon are individually nonobservable, but their
paired combination is observable as electrostatic scalar potential (common
voltage). Hence the scalar potential (common voltage) decomposes into pairings
of flowing time-polarized waves and longitudinal waves, as shown by Whittaker,
ibid. more than a century ago.

8. That the EM field is also basic and has no internal structures and
dynamics. This erroneous assumption has also been falsified by Whittaker for
more than a century (Whittaker, ibid.).

9. That the isolated source charge is finite and does not polarize its
surrounding “inactive” vacuum. To the contrary, modern particle physics
shows that the charge does indeed polarize the surrounding active vacuum, and
that the vacuum has structure and dynamics, and is active. The erroneous
“inert vacuum” assumption of the CEM/EE model ignores and arbitrarily
discards the associated asymmetry of opposite charges that accompanies any
charge and the opposite charges of its polarization ensemble. Further, according
to modern physics the bare charge inside the polarization screen is infinite, as
is the screening virtual charge surrounding it. The difference between these two
infinite charges, however, is finite and is what our instruments observe of the
internal infinite bare charge. The “difference” is the classically observed
value of the so-called “isolated” charge. Via its broken symmetry of
opposite charges, the source charge ensemble continually consumes positive
entropy of the virtual state vacuum, transducing it to negative entropy of the
observable state—totally falsifying the present incomplete second law of
thermodynamics. The linked paper includes a formal correction to the long
oxymoronic second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, broken symmetry implicitly
requires that something virtual has become observable. Quoting Lee:

"Since non-observables imply symmetry, these discoveries of asymmetry must imply
observables."



Broken symmetry of opposite charges (and thus of any charge’s polarization
ensemble) was experimentally proven in 1957 (Wu et al., 1957) after earlier
prediction by Lee and Yang (Lee, 1956; Lee et al., 1957). So revolutionary was
the advent of broken symmetry in physics that the Nobel Prize was quickly
awarded to Lee and Yang—in Dec. 1957—for their startling prediction.

10. That Heaviside’s giant usually nondivergent “curled” component
of the energy flow vector (Heaviside, 1893) is of no physical significance and
can be discarded, leaving only the tiny Poynting divergent flow component. To
get rid of Heaviside’s troublesome and inexplicable huge curled component of
the energy flow, Lorentz originated the trick of integrating the energy flow
vector around an assumed closed surface surrounding any volume element of
interest. This procedure arbitrarily discards (from all accounting) the giant
and inexplicable Heaviside component that does not usually interact to power the
circuit or anything else. But the procedure retains the tiny diverged Poynting
component that interacts and diverges into the circuit to power the circuit. The
CEM/EE model thus ignores the fact that, when the huge Heaviside curled
component of the energy flow vector is also considered, every dipolar source
generator outputs incredibly more EM energy than the mechanical energy that is
input to crank the shaft of the generator. The ignored Heaviside energy flow
component is sometimes a trillion times as great in magnitude as the feeble
Poynting component.

As an example, Jackson uses the same Lorentz argument (no physical significance)
to ignore the extra Heaviside component. He states a true premise and then a
false premise, assuming they are in agreement. Quoting:

"[T]he 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." [Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, 1975, p.
237].

To the contrary, with special measures a little of the huge Heaviside curled
energy flow component can be diverged after all, and this diverged component can
be collected and used. As an example, in the physics of negative resonance
absorption of the medium (NRAM), sufficient additional spacetime curvature is
elicited by self-resonating spinning charged particles of the medium. This
results in additional energy diverged and collected by the resonant charges from
the long-neglected curled Heaviside energy flow component. Hence some 18 times
as much energy emission occurs from the self-resonant medium, operating in the
UV or IR, as was input to the medium in the Poynting energy flow component
(Bohren, 1983; Paul and Fischer, 1983; Letokhov, 1967, 1968, 1995). The
experimentally proven COP of this NRAM process is therefore COP = 18.

11. That the symmetrical, standard closed current loop circuit with
source of potential connected as a load while current flows is the only proper
one to use. To the contrary, this inane circuit self-enforces Lorentz
symmetrical self-regauging, forcibly preventing COP > 1.0 Maxwellian system
performance taking excess asymmetric regauging energy from the vacuum and using
it to freely power a load. Lorentz symmetry in an electrical circuit forcibly
equalizes its back emf and forward emf, and in a magnetic circuit it forcibly
equalizes the back mmf and the forward mmf. The power company’s power system
transmission lines and circuits all enforce Lorentz symmetry, thus assuring that
we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside
its own generators and always lose.

12. That EM energy is always positive energy, and that the mass of
electrical charges is always positive. To the contrary, with its electron lifted
out and departed, a persisting Dirac sea hole has negative mass-energy. As a
source charge each such empty Dirac sea hole will also produce negative energy
EM fields and potentials. Currents of such negative mass-energy holes in fact
comprise the so-called “dark matter” in the universe, and their resulting
negative energy EM fields comprise the so-called “dark energy”. Dirac sea
hole currents and their negative energy EM fields spreading at light speed can
be evoked and explored in actual circuits, as has been shown by Bedini and
Bearden [John Bedini and T. E. Bearden, “Radiant Potential Energy Charger.”
U.S. Provisional Patent Application ER 677978580 US, 2004]. Astrophysicists do
not have to look through telescopes to try to find evidence of dark energy and
dark matter; the two are easily evoked in actual lab bench circuits by Bedini
methods, and their strange phenomenology can be explored at will.



Dr. Leshner, I deeply hope you recognize the sincerity of this letter and the
magnitude of the scientific integrity problem it points out. Please do anything
you can personally do to verify this information, and also to rectify the
situation through action by the AAAS.



As a military analyst I can tell you that the centralized electrical power
system of the United States will likely be “laid down”, never to function
again, in about two years from now by hostile assets already inserted into this
nation for use in the asymmetric war we are now in. Unless we get our scientific
community to correct these grave errors in our standard electrical power
engineering model and view, once the central power system expires we shall
simply suffer a giant and catastrophic economic collapse, with the most dire
national consequences imaginable.



If so, then sadly it will be due directly to the lack of ethics and integrity of
our own scientific system itself with respect to the CEM/EE model errors and
falsities.



Presently our scientific community is not only fiddling while Rome prepares to
burn, but it is deliberately guaranteeing that when Rome does burn it will burn
completely.



Sincerely,



T. E. Bearden, Ph.D., LTC U.S. Army (Retired)

2311 Big Cove Road

Huntsville, AL 35801

soliton@...’

www.cheniere.org








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS [mailto:aaas-response@...]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:51 AM
To: soliton@...
Subject: AAAS Advances Newsletter





Message to Members: Defending Scientific Integrity
AAAS in Action: News to Note
AAAS at Work: Programs at the Forefront
AAAS Announcements: Items of Interest
Read On, Online: Science Sites


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This month’s Advances is sponsored by Office Depot
AAAS members in the United States now receive discounts by shopping online at
Office Depot. Take advantage of this new benefit at the AAAS Online Member
Community website: http://aaasmember.sciencemag.org/misc/officedepot.dtl.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message to Members
DEFENDING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Dear AAAS Member,

Three scientific researchers whose climate studies suggest temperatures in the
Northern Hemisphere are warmer than they have been for a thousand years recently
received a demand from the U.S. Congress for detailed documentation of their
work and professional histories. AAAS has expressed deep concern that this
demand gives the impression of a search to discredit the scientists rather than
to seek understanding of their work.

In a letter to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, AAAS stressed that the papers in question had been
subjected to multiple levels of peer review prior to publication in leading
scientific journals as well as inclusion in the reports of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While stating that Congress has an important
role in the oversight of federally funded research, AAAS also cautioned that,
when weighing policy-related scientific work, the proven approach of hearings,
meetings with individual experts, and studies commissioned by relevant executive
branch agencies remains superior to the approach taken in the round of letters
to climate scientists.

Read the full text of our response, which also was reported in major newspapers
including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, at
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.shtml.

Thank you for your support in our continuing effort to defend the integrity of
the scientific enterprise and its products.

Sincerely,

Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS

P.S. See our Historic Milestone of the Month articles on the Theory of
Relativity, part of a series honoring the 125th birthday of Science.