ZPEnergy.com - Tom Bearden Website Update

Anthony Craddock writes: We are pleased to announce a USD 10 reduction in the price of Tom Bearden's unique book "Oblivion - America at the Brink."

http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-ob.htm

The original working title for this book was "Mind Wars," and this treatise exposes in intricate technical detail the tools that have been, and are currently being, deployed in the international Mind Control wars.

It was originally prepared as a briefing for the leaders of the friendly nation most likely to be able to counter the threat, and other government representatives have subsequently beaten a path to Tom Bearden's door for personal briefings on the subject. The subject matter is real science, not, regrettably, science fiction.

This book is the only source worldwide for this information.

The correspondence section of the Website has also been updated.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html

And, for all those of you who have been asking about the sequel to the fantastically popular "Energy from the Vacuum Series - Part 1" DVD, we plan to formally announce the release of Part 2 (featuring John Bedini) later this month. Note: we are NOT taking orders yet, but we will be putting out a broadcast when the inventory is received and is ready to ship.

www.energyfromthevacuum.com

We are also eyeing a Second Printing of the incredible best selling Bearden/ Bedini book "Free Energy Generation - Circuits & Schematics," as the overwhelming demand is fast depleting our existing stock.

http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-feg.htm

Regards

Tony Craddock
Director
The Tom Bearden Website/ Cheniere Media
www.cheniere.org
---------------------------------

Extract from the letter:
Answers to some questions and an asymmetric free energy approach

Subject: Answers to some questions and an asymmetric free energy approach
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:48:37 -0500

Hi Jonathan,

At least a dozen nations today have scalar interferometers, in one form or another. These nations include Russia (under the auspices and control of the KGB), China, Israel, Brazil, and several others.

Rigorous proof of scalar interferometry is given by M. W. Evans et al., "On Whittaker's Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.

We have all been very much lied to about EM energy, also. Maxwell’s actual theory is not taught in university, and never has been in any electrical engineering courses. When you were told you were studying Maxwell’s theory, you were being lied to.

To see Maxwell’s original theory, courtesy of the ZPE website, simply download the individual pages at these links (one page for each link):

http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_1.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_2.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_3.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_4.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_5.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_6.pdf
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Diagram.pdf

Any EM transmitter you have radiating has, in addition to the accounted divergent Poynting energy flow component you were taught, a giant curled Heaviside energy flow component, unaccounted since Lorentz (apparently at the bidding of the giant cartels) arbitrarily excluded it from the watered-down Heaviside equations and theory in 1900. The magnitude of that giant curled component (ironically discovered by Heaviside, whose work was used to severely truncate Maxwell's theory and work) accompanying every accounted Poynting component is more than a trillion times the magnitude of the Poynting component.

In the 1880s and 1890s, Tesla was hell-bent on giving the world free energy directly from the active medium (what today we would call the “active vacuum” or “active spacetime itself”).

[Rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum 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].

Quoting Evans et al:

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.”

Obviously, from the cartels' view this intent by Tesla was totally unacceptable! They thus began intensely suppressing Tesla, because "that fool is intent on giving the world cheap clean electrical energy for free, and one cannot put a power meter on that!” To the cartels, it was unacceptable that electrical engineers should be taught that every generator already outputs a mix of two EM energy flows, one very tiny and usable (divergent) and the other incredibly enormous though usually unusable (usually nondivergent and noninteracting).

Accordingly, they apparently pressed Lorentz into service, to eliminate all those asymmetrical systems that could not only exist in an active medium, but could also receive and use excess energy from it. In 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already sharply truncated Heaviside vector equations, thus removing the remaining and “offending” asymmetric Maxwellian systems.

Of course, Lorentz simply borrowed that work from his predecessor Ludwig Lorenz, but it was H.A. Lorentz who received credit for it. Indeed, Lorentz apparently received credit for the original work of several persons! [For a discussion of who got credit for what, see J. D. Jackson L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Discusses roots and history of gauge invariance, verifies 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.

In the cartels' view back there in the 1880s and 1890s, electrical engineers simply must not be taught that every generator already outputs more than a trillion times as much EM energy flow as one inputs to it in mechanical energy to crank the generator shaft! So they called again on the services of their useful scientist Lorentz, who in 1892 had nicely symmetrized Heaviside's equations for them, so as to arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems from the theory -- the kind of system Tesla was trying to build that would accept and extract excess usable energy from the active medium, and thus could become "self-powering" like a windmill-driven power system, a hydroelectric power plant, or a solar cell array powered generating system.

To get rid of the unacceptable Heaviside giant energy flow component as desired by the cartels, Lorentz simply assumed a closed surface surrounding every volume element of interest. He then surface-integrated the entire energy flow vector (containing both the giant curled nondiverging Heaviside energy flow component and the feeble diverging Poynting energy flow component), around that closed surface. This eliminates (totally discards) that nondivergent giant Heaviside vector component (at least in any special relativistic situation) and retains the divergent Poynting energy flow component that enters the circuit and powers up the electrons.

Recall that the energy flow “in” an EM circuit or system occurs in space outside the conductors, not inside the wires, and it does not involve electron current. The two components of energy flow – the diverged Poynting energy flow component and the Heaviside curled and nondivergent energy flow component – both flow through space outside the wire, and normally only the Poynting component gets diverged into the conductors to power the electrons.
Even in today’s better textbooks, the Poynting energy flow is not the true flow of EM energy through a representative unit area in space. Even Jackson points that out (but does nothing about it). Quoting Jackson:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the cưrl 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].

Note that Jackson uses precisely the same argument (no physical significance) that Lorentz used, to justify discarding any cưrled energy flow vector component.

Jackson's statement is true only so long as the situation is special relativistic (which is most of the time). In that case, the divergence of the cưrl is zero and so Heaviside's curled flow component doesn’t diverge or interact at all, and hence has "no consequence" at least with respect to ordinary EM. But if the situation is made general relativistic, then Jackson's statement is not valid. In that case, vector analysis fails and the divergence of the cưrl can indeed be nonzero. So some of that giant Heaviside curled energy flow component can be diverged and used.

The "negative resonance absorption of the medium" (NRAM) process – used in optical physics and proven experimentally since 1967 when the Russians allowed Letokhov to release it – will indeed diverge some of that excess but long ignored Heaviside energy flow component. Hence a self-resonant charged medium, fed (optimized experiment) by an IR laser, will output re-radiate 18 times as much IR energy as one calculates is input to it (using Poynting energy flow component input only).

Because the optical physicists know nothing about that huge ever-present Heaviside curled energy flow component, they have no notion as to where the excess input energy (required by the conservation of energy law) could be coming from. Hence they say "negative resonance absorption" instead of "excess resonance emission", or they do not get their papers published! And they never speak of the thermodynamics of the reaction; instead, they speak only of the "change in the reaction cross section" of a self-resonant charge, compared to the same charge when static.

... More here