Three brave pioneers of frontier science left us permanently in the past month. Most recent was Nobel prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier, preceded by Stanford University engineering professor emeritus / consciousness researcher William A. Tiller, and electrical engineer Thomas E. Bearden. I wrote about each of them, in different issues of Atlantis Rising magazine.
Tom is the friend I wrote about more often, and am glad I wrote a magazine column about his life and commemorated his 80th birthday in 2010, while he was still of sound mind and body and could enjoy being interviewed.
I’ll post that article in two parts. It began:
“Who is Tom Bearden?” I asked a new friend at the Tesla Society conference. It was 1986 and we were in Colorado Springs listening to a speaker who revealed some new insight about “free energy” inventions. My friend was rushing away to find a fax machine — to be first to send the news to this man Bearden. I also overheard others speaking the name “Bearden” with obvious respect.
At similar conferences later, I met Thomas Bearden and once dined with him in Huntsville, Alabama. He’s gracious and generous in teaching how society could have abundant energy. It requires the scientific community to depart from what he describes as flawed and archaic 1890s electrical engineering.
For more than forty years he researched energy breakthroughs, focusing on energy from the “vacuum of space” and how – unknown to conventional engineers — every electrical circuit already uses it.
Bearden collaborated with free-energy inventors and saw novel effects firsthand on inventors’ workbenches. His own path included strenuous reading of the foundations of physics, to the point of concluding that scientists do not completely understand some basics such as what energy and force are.
He found that the electrical engineering model still used today was, in 1892, “deliberately mutilated and thus severely limited ever since.” He inferred that banker J. P. Morgan pulled strings behind the scene for that mutilation, so that tycoons could make vast fortunes within an energy-scarcity paradigm.
The science story in brief started with 19th century Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell who included “quaternion-like theory” when he formulated classical electromagnetic theory. Those equations would have allowed tapping into energy from the vacuum of space. Later, said Bearden, electrical engineer Oliver Heaviside and others savagely simplified Maxwell’s equations.
Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz later stole work already done by an unrelated mathematician with a similar name, Ludwig Lorenz, and published it as his own. Lorentz was much higher-profile and his publication of the symmetrized Heaviside equations changed our world. It discarded the possibility of electrical systems whose C.O.P. (co-efficient-of-performance) are greater than one, which means more output than input energy. Thus the electrical engineering model was crippled at its beginning, Bearden told us. Meanwhile, genius inventor Nikola Tesla had already discovered “asymmetric” Maxwellian systems.
Tesla told technical groups that we don’t need to consume fuel to get energy, but could freely harvest all the electromagnetic energy we need, directly from the “active medium” – the background energy of the universe. (See part 2 blogpost, Tom Bearden’s life story.)
One proof that Tesla had what he claimed is an article by T. W. Barrett published in a science journal and posted on Bearden’s website: “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit Theory.” (http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf)
There’s much more to Tom Bearden’s findings, such as J.P. Morgan’s interference with the use of Heaviside’s later discovery of a giant hidden energy flow pouring out of the terminals of every battery and generator (in 1900 Lorentz was again brought in to mathematically discard the energy flow as being of “no physical significance”). Bearden points to an area of optical physics and other establishment science that taps the hidden energy flows – although those physicists aren’t allowed to discuss the thermodynamics bluntly in publications, but only use euphemisms such as the “reaction cross section is increased.”