by T.E.B.
Spirit of Ma'at:
"Free Energy & Alternative Energy -
Part I" - Vol 2
February 2002
from
SpiritOfMaat Website
No electrical engineering
department in the Western World presently teaches what
powers an electrical circuit, or what actually powers
the electrical power grid. None ever has. It also does
not appear in a single electrical engineering textbook
in the Western world, nor has it ever appeared in one.
- Tom Bearden,
Ph.D. |
click image to
enlarge
Clean Energy from the
Active Vacuum
No electrical engineering department in
the Western World presently teaches what powers an electrical
circuit, or what actually powers the electrical power grid. None
ever has. It also does not appear in a single electrical engineering
textbook in the Western world, nor has it ever appeared in one.
All the hydrocarbons ever burned, nuclear fuel rods ever consumed,
steam turbines turned, and generators rotated, have not added a
single watt directly to the external power line and to the power
grid. Nor has any windmill, nuclear power plant, battery, or
hydroelectric generator or solar cell array. None ever will.
Every electrical circuit ever built - and those built today - are in
fact powered by electrical energy extracted by the circuit
dipolarity from the local seething vacuum, from active space itself.
But our engineers are trained to build circuits which also
self-destroy the extraction of that vacuum energy, faster than they
power their loads.
The leaders of our scientific community - including the National
Science Foundation (NSF), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) - are unaware of what actually
powers an electrical circuit or the electrical power line.
Scientists have not integrated into classical electrodynamics and
electrical engineering - or into their own thinking - the broken
symmetry of opposite charges - such as of a common dipole or dipolarity
- that has been proven in particle physics since
1957.[1,2,3] Neither have our great national laboratories, etc.,
integrated this into their official power system thinking.
Instead, on energy matters these institutions, organizations, and
leaders continue to inappropriately advise the policy makers of the
U.S. Government. The government then inappropriately spends the
taxpayers’ money in the field of energy research, based on that
advice.
Consequently, billions of U.S. research dollars are spent annually
on an electrical energy science that is archaic and flawed. More
billions are spent on energy systems and centralized power grids
that are cumbersome, frightfully expensive, and completely
vulnerable to modern terrorist attack and natural disasters. These
systems are dinosaurs waiting for the terrorist comet to destroy
them.
To "fuel" such power systems, ever more,
This great juggernaut also continues to implement a rapacious energy
technology which fouls the planet, pollutes the biosphere, and
destroys much of it.
The juggernaut kills off species, is
responsible for an uncomfortable and increasing number of human
deaths each year from the pollution, and contributes directly to
global warming by emitting polluting hydrocarbon combustion
products.
It places the economy of the United States - so fragilely based on
the continued and escalating availability of cheap energy from cheap
fuel such as cheap oil and cheap coal - at the mercy of unfriendly
states controlling much of the world’s supplies. Terrorists are
presented with lucrative and strategic soft targets, easily
disrupted and destroyed.
The little-recognized basis for such startling technical statements
about the powering of electrical circuits has been in particle
physics for nearly half a century. It was evidenced by the award of
the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957 for their prediction of
broken symmetry. The implications of this major discovery - which
profoundly impacted all of physics - still have not been
incorporated into electrical engineering or into the ancient
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz electrodynamics taught to electrical
engineers.
Consequently, the ubiquitous vacuum energy source of all electrical
power - for every electrical circuit and electrical power system,
small or gigantic - continues to be resoundingly ignored in "energy
science and technology," in our universities, and in our leading
scientific institutions.
The environmental activists, seeking to save the biosphere, have not
yet recognized the real problem: the appalling energy advice
provided to everyone (including the environmentalists) by the
scientific community.
With the above "strong grabbers" to evoke the reader’s curiosity and
attention, let us explain why such startling and seemingly insane
statements are true, how things got that way, and what can be done
about it.
Brief History
of the Present Classical
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electrodynamics
In the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell combined electrical fields and
magnetic fields into a common model, and launched the present system
of classical electrodynamics still being taught today, though in a
more limited form.
Maxwell’s seminal paper [4] was published in 1865, in
quaternion-like notation. Quaternion algebra captures many more
features and functions of a science which it models than do either
the vector algebra or tensor algebra commonly used in electrical
engineering.
As an example, with the standard tensor or vector analysis one
cannot even "see" the most important functions accomplished by
Nikola Tesla in his patented circuits.
Quaternion analysis of
Tesla’s actual patented circuits does show these functions
[5].
Consequently, mainstream electrical scientists who use only standard
tensor analysis and confidently assume that they understand Tesla’s
work are very much mistaken.
In his 1865 paper, Maxwell specifically lists his 20 equations and
his 20 unknowns. His work was strongly contested, because few of the
three dozen electrical scientists on earth at the time were capable
in quaternion mathematics.
Before he died in 1879, Maxwell himself had started rewriting his
1873 book for a second edition, with simpler equations.
In the 1880s, after Maxwell was deceased, Oliver Heaviside
- a
brilliant but self-taught scientist who never attended university - played a major role in converting (reducing) Maxwell’s equations to
what today is vector algebra [6].
Heaviside detested potentials, and
stated that they should be "murdered from the theory."
The reduction work by Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz resulted in the
modern four vector equations in some four unknowns. These are taught
- along with a further truncation by Lorentz - in every university
as "Maxwell’s equations." They are in fact Heaviside’s equations,
further truncated by Lorentz symmetrical regauging
[7].
In those early EM days, the potentials were thought to be
mathematical figments, and all electromagnetic phenomena were
considered to be the result of the force fields. Hence, any
manipulation of the potentials that left the net force fields
unchanged was thought to result in prescribing identical systems.
Today that is known to be untrue - e.g., in quantum mechanics and
quantum electrodynamics, as well as higher group symmetry
electrodynamics - but leading classical electrodynamicists still
perpetuate the myth.
Both Maxwell’s original theory and Heaviside’s truncation prescribe
two major kinds of electromagnetic systems:
(i) those which are "in
equilibrium" with their active environment, so they cannot
receive and use [8] EM energy from it, and
(ii) those which are "out of
equilibrium" with their active environment, and so can freely
receive and use [9] EM energy from it.
The first class of thermodynamic systems (in equilibrium) may be
compared to a rowboat floating in a still pond. It has no "net
force" upon it, so if we wish the boat to go, we ourselves will have
to "row" it, continually putting in force and energy to do work on
the boat to force it forward.
The second class of thermodynamic systems (in disequilibrium) may be
compared to a sailboat on the same pond, with a wind blowing. Here
we may have to input a little energy to the rudder to "steer" the
boat, but the energy and force for the heavy propulsive power is
provided freely by the wind. So our boat now "does more work in
moving through the water" than the energy that we ourselves input to
steer it can do.
Simply put, we do not have to row the boat, but only arrange the
sails and steer it with the rudder. The wind puts in the excess
energy and force required to propel the boat, so the conservation of
energy law is not violated.
Such a system can even be completely "self-powering," similar to a
windmill in the wind or a waterwheel driving a mill for grinding
grain. We have to pay to build the windmill or the waterwheel, and
to maintain it, but we do not have to input any energy or force to
it ourselves once it’s up and running and the wind is blowing or the
water is flowing.
The same is true for EM systems, because Maxwell’s theory is a
purely material fluid theory. Hence, in theory, anything a fluid
system can do, Maxwellian systems can also do because the equations
are the same and prescribe analogous functions.
Before Lorentz regauging, the Maxwell-Heaviside equations were
difficult to solve analytically. Numerical methods are often
required, and this posed a calculation nightmare back in the 1800s,
before the advent of automated calculations. Today, using computers,
numerical methods can be accommodated much more easily.
To reduce the difficulty in solving the Maxwell-Heaviside equations
and largely eliminate the need for laborious numerical methods,
simpler "Maxwellian" equations were sought. Lorentz further reduced
the Maxwell-Heaviside equations by "symmetrically regauging" them
[10]. This symmetry constrains the modern gauge freedom principle,
whereby the potential (and the potential energy) of an EM system can
be freely changed at will.
In those systems covered by the reduced theory, the potential energy
can still be changed, but it can only be changed in such a manner
that the two new free fields produced are equal and opposite. Hence,
the new fields "fight each other to a draw," changing the internal
stress of the system but doing no external work (which requires a
net nonzero field).
This "equal and opposite" constraint upon change energy potential
has the effect of bottling up any excess EM field energy that might
be received by the system from its environment into a force-free
stress potential. The system can be freely energized by the
environment to stress the system, but it cannot use the free stress
potential energy to perform any external work.
To perform work, such a system has to have an additional input of
energy where a net force field also emerges. In short, the system
has to additionally be asymmetrically regauged - which means the
energy has to be input by the system operator or experimenter, since
the system itself prohibits the environment from furnishing such
"energy with a net field."
In effect, Lorentz modified the equations to select only the far
simpler "first class" of Maxwellian systems - those in equilibrium
with their external active environment, and thus unable to receive
and use any "free energy" from it
[11]. This modification made the
resulting equations simpler and much easier to solve analytically,
but it also inadvertently discarded an entire class of Maxwellian
systems: those in disequilibrium with their active environment, able
to freely receive excess potential energy and net field energy, and
then dissipate that excess energy to perform work in an external
load.
To ease mathematical solution of the equations, Lorentz arbitrarily
and unwittingly threw away the electrical windmill and sailboat, and
retained only the rowboat.
Electrodynamicists and electrical engineers continue dutifully to
utilize the Lorentz-regauged subset equations. Consequently, our
present electrical power systems - which are designed and built
according to the symmetrized equations - will not and cannot receive
and use EM energy from the many "electrical winds" that can easily
be made electromagnetically [12].
By definition, our engineers build only the "first class" of
Maxwellian systems, and never build a system of the second class.
Most no longer even believe that the second class of EM systems
exists - because it does not exist in their archaic 137-year-old EM
model.
In short, this is the classic case in science where one branch of
the scientific community ardently defends an antiquated and
imperfect model, even though better models already exist in other
scientific branches.
Two
Kinds of Systems and Two Kinds of Thermodynamics
There are two major kinds of thermodynamics (the science of how
energy is dissipated and converted). First, there is the oldest
kind, for systems in equilibrium with their environment. This
equilibrium thermodynamics applies only to systems which do not
receive and use [13] excess energy from their environment. In short,
it applies to the rowboat, not to the windmill in the wind, the
sailboat, the waterwheel, the solar cell, or the heat pump, etc.
For such a system, one must always input more energy to the system
than the work we get back out of the system, because some of our
input energy is wasted in the system itself (against friction,
internal losses, etc.). So its coefficient of performance (work we
get out of the system divided by energy we ourselves input) is
always less than unity. Or in short, its COP<1.0. In the real world,
we can never break even in such a system
[14], because the systems
we build do have internal losses and inefficiencies.
Hence, all our conventional EM power systems exhibit COP<1.0, and
have done so for more than a century. Lorentz and our present
universities see to it that our engineers design and build only
those electrical power systems which self-enforce equilibrium
conditions, thus obeying the "old" thermodynamics.
The second kind of thermodynamics is for systems not in equilibrium
with their active environment. As an example, Ilya Prigogine
received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his contributions to this kind of
thermodynamics (i.e. the thermodynamics of systems far from
equilibrium with their active environment).
In short, this kind of thermodynamics applies to the windmill, the
waterwheel, the sailboat, the solar cell, the heat pump, etc. It
also applies to one class of Maxwellian systems, but unfortunately
that is precisely the class that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded by
his symmetrical regauging.
Because this type of system can freely receive and use excess energy
(so that it has a net nonzero field) from the environment, it can
output more work than the energy we ourselves input. The excess
energy (with appropriate net field) to do the extra work and power
the inefficiencies of the system is furnished by the external
environment.
The common home heat pump is a beautiful example of a system far
from thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment (the outside
atmosphere). By extracting heat energy from the surrounding
atmosphere and using it to heat the home, the heat pump under
nominal conditions has a theoretical maximum COP = 8.22
[15]. To
cool the house, the heat pump reverses to extract heat from the
interior air and dissipate it to the external atmosphere.
Even with its internal losses, a good home heat pump will produce a
CO = 4.0 under reasonable conditions (not too cold outside, etc.).
So COP>1.0 systems are well known - except in electrodynamics, where
Lorentz arbitrarily discarded them, where the electrical engineers
and power scientists continue to discard them, and where all our
electrical power systems for more than a century have been designed
and built in accord with Lorentz’s deliberate reduction of the
theory!
The "Perpetual
Motion Machine" Conundrum:
An Exercise in Very Bad Logic
The erroneous notion that all EM systems (rather than
just Lorentz-regauged EM systems) are "restricted by nature" to COP<1.0
has been ingrained in electrical engineers and electrical scientists
for more than a century.
Accordingly, an iron dogma has arisen around the issue. Yet this
dogma is refuted by every single charge and dipole in the universe
[16].
Nonetheless, the great majority of electrical engineers and
scientists firmly believe it is physically impossible and against
the laws of nature to build an EM system that produces more work
output than the energy we ourselves input
[17]. Proposing such an EM
system is considered to be proposing "perpetual motion machines"
that create energy out of nothing.
Most scientists consider the proponent of such EM systems a
"perpetual motion nut." Yet the very electrodynamics they themselves
use and teach already implicitly assumes that every charge and
dipole freely creates - and continuously pours out in all directions
- EM energy to change the energy density of spacetime and create
their associated fields and potentials.
In short, by their own "definition" and accusation, every one of
them is already a "perpetual motion nut" of the worst kind.
What is true is that it is physically impossible to build a system - electromagnetic or otherwise
- that outputs more work (conversion of
the form of energy) than all the usable energy that is input to it
and made available to it, either by the operator or by the
environment, or by both [18].
As an example, the Bohren experiment
[19] - replicable in any
good university physics laboratory - always outputs more EM energy than
the experimenter inputs (some 18 times as much). As another example,
every charge and every dipole in the universe already outputs EM
energy continuously, and we do not have to input any energy at all
once either the charge or the dipole is produced and simply left
alone.
A System
Continuously Extracting Energy from the Vacuum Can be Made for a
Dollar
Nature readily provides bountiful sources of unending EM energy,
free for the taking and using - anywhere, anytime. They are called
"charges" and "dipoles" - and often, source charges and source
dipoles.
As an example, simply place an electret or charged capacitor on a
permanent magnet so that the electric field of the electret or
capacitor and the magnetic field of the magnet are at right angles
to each other. That silly thing will sit there and pour out EM
energy in all directions, at the speed of light, so long as you just
leave it alone and do not destroy it.
One year after you create it, its outpouring of energy will have
reached a radius of one light year - out beyond the solar system - in all directions. It will have changed the energy density of that
vast volume of surrounding space of one light-year radius. And it is
still pouring out energy at the same rate, steadily changing the
energy density of still more space.
Even the "conventional" electrodynamicists agree that a flow of EM
energy is continuously emitted from that arrangement
[20]. However,
they are resoundingly silent on where that steady outpouring of EM
energy comes from and how it is input to the charge or dipole.
There is no detectable input of EM energy to the charge or dipole,
but there is a detectable and continuous output of energy from it.
Seemingly, every charge and dipole is creating energy out of
nothing, which of course totally destroys the conservation of energy
law if true [21]. But since classical electrodynamicists have not
been able to solve this conundrum, their textbooks have remained
very silent on this fundamental problem and its implications. By
their resounding silence, classical electrodynamicists implicitly
assume that every source charge and source dipole in the universe is
a perpetual motion machine, freely and continuously creating energy
out of nothing.
Either one rejects the energy conservation law entirely, or one
explains the source charge problem. There is no middle position,
because the source charge is real and it ubiquitously exists. And it
ubiquitously pours out that energy.
So we point the finger right back at the self-appointed critics and
ask in their own terminology,
"Who are the real perpetual motion
nuts here? You cannot logically consider and implicitly accept every
charge and dipole as a perpetual motion machine, freely creating
energy out of nothing at all, and then protest that there can be no
such thing as a COP>1.0 EM system!"
All the EM energy in any EM circuit or device comes from those same
source charges and source dipoles. If one cannot explain where and
how those charges obtain the energy to keep pouring it out, then one
knows absolutely nothing about what truly powers every electrical
circuit.
Since the energy being received is non-observable, it must be
received in some peculiar and normally unusable form. The charges
must then transduce the received energy into usable and observable
form and re-emit it in that new form, so that the circuit can catch
some of it and be "energized."
The source charge problem focuses one’s attention on the real
problem. Either we must discard energy conservation altogether, or
admit that every charge and dipole is already a COP>1.0 Maxwellian
EM system, freely changing the form of some unusual received energy.
It is continuously doing "free" work, since work is the changing of
form of energy and every charge and dipole is freely receiving
virtual EM energy and changing its form to observable EM energy.
Continuously!.
The quandary of the source charge and its continuous outpouring of
real EM energy has been called "the most difficult problem in
classical and quantum mechanics"
[22]. Until 2000 there did not
appear any classical solution to that long-vexing problem of the
association of the fields and potentials - and their energy - reaching across all space, with the source charge that produces
them.
But the basis for the solution has been present in particle physics
ever since the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957.
In 2000, the present author proposed a formal solution
[23]
consistent with quantum field theory
[24], particle physics
[25],
quantum electrodynamics [26], and re-interpretation
[12] of
Whittaker’s biwave decomposition of the scalar potential
[27].
We used the term "giant negentropy" since the charge and dipole
continuously absorb, cohere, organize, and re-emit energy from the
vacuum.
Since every charge in every circuit is already continuously
negentropic, then our building of entropic circuits using these
negentropic charges must involve some characteristic of circuit
design where we kill the negentropy. We will explain that aspect
shortly.
Our universities should - but do not - focus on the main problem:
How does one then intercept, divert, and collect some of that
freely
flowing EM energy so easily evoked by every charge and dipolarity,
and use it to freely power loads, without disarranging and
destroying the actual "power source"?
No university seems to be
working on that problem, nor is the Department of Energy, nor are
any of the great national laboratories. Nor are any of the great
scientific associations.
Yet that single problem is the only fundamental electrical power
problem. All the rest of the "recognized power problems" are just so
much psychological displacement activity so as not to have to
disturb the comfortable Lorentz-regauged and crippled classical
electrodynamics.
There is no problem at all in obtaining great rivers and gushers of
EM energy from the ubiquitous vacuum - cheaply, easily, and
enduringly. Every charge and every dipole already does that. There
is no problem in "producing the free electromagnetic energy winds"
needed to power even the greatest loads, at any place in the
universe, and at any time.
Instead, the only problem is in building a proper "electrical
windmill" to divert, collect, and use some energy from such a steady
electrical wind, without destroying the broken symmetry source of
the wind (the source dipole), and using (dissipating) that collected
energy to power our desired load.
All our present closed-current loop circuits are designed
[28] to
use half their freely collected energy to destroy the source dipole
(in the generator or battery). The other half of their collected
energy is used to power the external circuit’s losses and loads.
So more of the freely collected EM energy is used to destroy the
"wind" source, than is used to power the load! We then have to
continually input at least as much energy to restore the source (the
dipole), as was used to destroy it.
So we continually have to input more energy to restore the dipole - that the engineers unwittingly design and build the circuits to
deliberately destroy - than the circuit provides to power the loads.
All our engineers design and build electrical power systems that
destroy their free electrical wind sources faster than they power
their loads. Such inane power systems obviously provide COP<1.0,
because of the deliberate circuit design used by the engineers.
It is akin to building a magnificent but flawed sailboat, which - once it starts to move in the wind
- rapidly and continually lowers
its own sails faster than the wind can propel the boat. To keep the
boat going, one thus has to continually pay to keep raising the
sails that the boat itself keeps lowering.
Our electrical engineers and electrical power scientists are busily
engaged in perpetuating an analogous electrical power, and our
scientific community is busily assuring us that they are practicing
"advanced electrical science."
We pay the power company to engage in a giant sumo wrestling match
inside its generators, and to deliberately lose.
The
Modern Vacuum: Empty Space Has Unlimited EM Energy
"Vacuum" is what we usually think of as the empty space left after
all the air is removed. However, in modern physics it is well known
that space is not such an "emptiness" at all. Instead, it is filled
with energetic particles that appear and disappear with
extraordinary speed. Hence, "the vacuum" in physics is more like a
seething cauldron, boiling fiercely
[29]. The energy density of this
boiling is so great that it literally boggles one’s mind
[30].
A bit of "empty space" the size of a sugar cube contains enough
"seething electromagnetic energy" to power all the electrical loads
on earth for millions of years. Obviously, if we can extract just a
tiny fraction of this energy in electromagnetic form we can use it
to power our loads for free - or nearly so. We need only power the
"gating" or "switching" of the flowing energy, and thus cause a
great deal of work to be performed, even though we ourselves input
little or no energy.
Can the
EM Energy of the Vacuum Be "Tapped" and Extracted for our Use?
It’s widely believed that it is impractical to try to extract very
much usable energy from the seething, highly energetic vacuum. Oh
yes, everyone agrees that the tiny little Lamb shift
[31] of the
orbit of one electron in a certain atom is due to vacuum energy
interaction.
Well, it may seem tiny, but although the Lamb shift is a very small
effect of a single electron in a single atom, the energy density of
that interaction is greater than the surface energy density of the
sun![32]
And, oh yes, everyone agrees that the Casimir effect
[33] - a
vacuum-induced attraction of two conducting plates when separated
but close - also is due to vacuum energy interaction. But of
course they believe that it, too, is a very small effect, and not
worth practical consideration.[34]
Then the assertion is often made - particularly by electrical power
engineers, who normally are not well acquainted with modern physics
- that thermodynamics prohibits extracting and using vacuum energy.
That is quite untrue, as we have explained, and as Cole and
Puthoff
have rigorously demonstrated.[35] Thermodynamics does not explain
how to do it practically, but it does permit it technically.
The principle of superposition of charge and the field effects of
charges, ubiquitously assumed and verified in countless classical
experiments, also tells us a magnificent thing: The source charge
production of its associated fields and potentials is self-coherent.
This means that within reason, doubling or tripling the amount of
energy-collecting and transducing charged particles (source charges)
at a given point will give double or triple, and so on, the
resulting potentials and fields (gathered EM energy and local EM
energy winds) produced by that source charge collection.
So the proven broken symmetry of opposite charge collections - such
as on the ends of a dipole or dipolarity - need not be a small
effect at all! We can use as many unit charges as we wish in each
one of those "separated opposite charges" in a dipole, so long as we
hold the charges apart with a proper restraining dielectric.
In a normal electrical circuit (as between the terminals of a
generator or battery), we can have many positive and negative
charges involved, so that the EM energy extracted from the vacuum
can be very powerful. In other words, the dipole can readily be made
essentially as powerful as we need for our usual specific purposes.
We can easily produce a megawatt or even 1,000 megawatts of energy
flow per second by making a bigger dipole consisting of more
separated charges.
All we have to do is pay to make the dipole once, then leave it
alone and not allow it to be destroyed by the inane way that
engineers normally build their circuits and power their loads.
The latter problem - the only real problem preventing the engineers
from easily producing all the cheap, clean electrical power they
wish, without burning fuel, consuming fuel rods, building pipelines,
or building dams - arises because this technology is not being
furiously funded and worked on as a national Manhattan Project.
Indeed, the very notion continues to be castigated and ridiculed.
And that is perhaps the greatest scientific travesty of our times.
It simply reveals the "soft underbelly" of our present energy
science, which does not even include what powers its circuits.
Can an
Electrical Power System Output More Energy than We Input to It?
Hopefully, by now the reader will exclaim,
"Of course! Just pay to
make a source dipole. Prepare a suitable interception and collection
external circuit which will dissipate its collected energy in a
load, without destroying the source dipole faster than it powers the
load."
That’s all there is to it.
The only remaining problem is in that single phrase, "without
destroying the source dipole faster than it powers the load."
Since that is the problem, and the only problem, preventing a total
solution to the energy crisis forever, every university, every power
company, the NSF, the NAS, the Department of Energy, and every major
research lab should be working on it. But of course none of them is
working on it, interested in it, or funding it.
The problem calls for "out-of-the-box thinking," to use the
prevailing buzzword phrase presently in vogue.
Simply consider a charged capacitor or a permanent magnet. That
beast is freely extracting and pouring out real EM energy, from the
active vacuum, continuously. So how do we intercept some of the
energy flow, convert the intercepted energy to, say, oscillating EM
energy, and then use that energy to power a load - all without
destroying the magnet or killing the charge in the capacitor?
This is the problem, and work on it by our sharp young graduate
students and post-docs is something for which the National Science
Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences should provide
funding and which they should accord the highest priority.
That these and other agencies have not even recognized the primary
electrical energy problem yet is a sad commentary on our present
scientific acumen.
Why
Don’t Present EM Systems Power Themselves?
By now the reader hopefully will be able to see that our systems
don’t power themselves because our engineers specifically design
them so they cannot do it. The scientists and engineers themselves
are the greatest foes to cheap, clean electrical energy, a clean
biosphere, and a decentralized power system using no fuel.
The closed current loop circuit for power systems is regarded like
something that Moses must have brought down from the mountain with
him, carved on those stone tablets.
It isn’t.
To quote Nikola Tesla, who made practical generators and motors
possible with his discovery of the rotating magnetic field:
"Today’s
scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they
wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality."
Understand, a good model is essential to technology. But if the
model is inadequate, then it should either be corrected or a new
model should be substituted that is adequate.
But our electrical power engineers and most of the scientific
community have developed a mindset where
-
the closed current loop
circuit,
-
Lorentz symmetrical regauging, and
-
COP<1.0 electrical
circuits...
-
...are considered as iron laws of nature.
They are not such at
all, but merely the self-limited and self-enforced contrivances of
human beings.
And we should always remember one succinct statement by Evans
[36]:
"No theory can falsify a successful and repeatable experiment, but a
single successful and repeatable experiment can falsify any theory."
We borrow a quote from Tesla on another subject
[37] and hope that it
comes true for the present dogma that only COP<1.0 electrical power
systems are possible:
" . . . in a short time it will be recognized
as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the
scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history."
What Is
Significant About More Modern Kinds of Electrodynamics?
The present Lorentz-regauged Maxwell-Heaviside theory effectively
assumes an inert vacuum - falsified for half a century by quantum
mechanics and particle physics - and no curvatures of local spacetime
- falsified for nearly a century by general relativity.
Since the active vacuum and the local curvature of spacetime
- and
their dynamics - are the "active external environment" for an
electrical power system, then present power engineers and classical
electrodynamicists assume away any and all net interactions of the
system with its external active environment. That is how the COP>1.0
Maxwellian systems are arbitrarily discarded, and only electrical
power systems that self-enforce COP<1.0 are designed, built, and
permitted.
To then drum into the students’ heads that this travesty represents
a "law of nature" is ludicrous. It has become disinformation,
propaganda, and dogma, and it is against the very spirit of
scientific inquiry and scientific reasoning.
The proper scientific frame of mind is skepticism tempered by
open-mindedness. If one is skeptical and dogmatic, one is not
scientific, regardless of one’s pedigree. If one is open-minded and
not skeptical, one is scientifically naive.
Meanwhile, much more modern systems of electrodynamics have been
developed in particle physics and elsewhere. In modern theory, the
models are based very powerfully on the theory of groups. Groups
have symmetries, designated by such expressions as U(1), SU(2),
O(3), etc.
The higher the group symmetry utilized by an algebra, the greater
range of physical phenomena the algebra can be applied to and can
model.
A particularly good higher group symmetry electrodynamics, in this
author’s opinion, is the O(3) electrodynamics founded by Evans and
Vigier and further expounded by Evans.[38]
Evans has shown that O(3) electrodynamics is a part of the Sachs
unified field theory electrodynamics.[39]
Thus, O(3) electrodynamics can be used not only for "normal"
electrodynamic modeling but also for "exotic" unified field theory
modeling. Further, it can be used for engineering, so it permits the
development of a drastically extended electromagnetic technology
which can eventually engineer many new things,[40] including antigravitational
effects.[41]
At least one highly successful antigravity experiment was performed
by Sweet, in an experiment designed by the present author.[42] The
weight of an object was steadily reduced by 90%, on the laboratory
bench.
Footnotes and
references:
-
Lee and Yang strongly predicted
broken symmetry in 1956; see T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity
Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, 104(1),
Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; - and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on
Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge
Conjugation," Physical Review, 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.
-
Wu et al. experimentally proved
broken symmetry in 1957; see C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W.
Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test
of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol.
105, 1957, p. 1413.
-
So revolutionary to physics was
this discovery of broken symmetry, that the Nobel Prize was
awarded to Lee and Yang in the very same year that Wu
experimentally proved it. For Lee's Nobel acceptance speech,
see T. D. Lee, "Weak Interactions and Nonconservation of
Parity," Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1957. In T. D. Lee,
Selected Papers, Gerald Feinberg, Ed., Birkhauser, Boston,
1986, Vol. 1, p. 32-44.
-
James Clerk Maxwell, "A
Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal
Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459.
-
See Terence W. Barrett, "Tesla's
Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales
de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41.
Tesla was able to shuttle the potential (and the energy)
around in his circuits at will. Barrett, one of the pioneers
of ultrawideband radar, extended Tesla's method and obtained
two U.S. patents for use in signaling science: See T. W.
Barrett, "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No.
5,486,833, issued Jan. 23, 1996; - "Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning
Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms
and RF Phase Conjugation," U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691, issued
Feb. 20, 1996.
-
As stated, when Maxwell died, he
himself was engaged in converting his own quaternion-like
theory into the much simpler vector theory. See Maxwell,
James Clerk, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1873, Second Edition 1881 (Maxwell
was already dead), Third Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, 1891.
Foreword to the second edition was by Niven, who finished
the work as Maxwell had dramatically rewritten the first
nine chapters, much new matter added and the former contents
rearranged and simplified. Maxwell died before finishing the
rest of the second edition. The rest of the second edition
is therefore largely a reprint from the first edition. The
third edition edited by J. J. Thomson was published in 1892,
by Oxford University Press, and later was published
unabridged by Dover Publications, New York, 1954. J. J.
Thomson finished the publication of the third edition, and
wrote a "Supplementary Volume" with his notes. A summary of
Maxwell's modified equations are given in Vol. II, Chapter
IX of the third edition. However, Maxwell had gone (in his
second edition) to some pains to reduce the quaternion
expressions himself, and therefore to not require the
students to know the more difficult calculus of quaternions
(so stated on p. 257).
-
Actually the first "symmetrizing"
truncation of Maxwell's equations was by Ludwig van Lorenz,
shortly after Maxwell's 1865 definitive paper was published.
See Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with electrical currents," Philosophical
Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301. In this paper L. V.
Lorenz gave essentially what today is called the Lorentz
symmetrical regauging. However, when H.A. Lorentz, then
perhaps the greatest electrical scientist, regauged the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations in the 1880s, the H. A. Lorentz
regauging was adopted because of Lorentz's prestige.
-
The symmetrized systems can and
do receive the excess energy only in the form of a net
force-free stress potential (simply examine the regauging
equations and the regauging condition). With no net force
available to dissipate the stress potential energy, no net
work can be done by the excess stress energy received. That
is precisely what the Lorentz condition means, in simpler
terms. The closed current loop circuit automatically
self-applies Lorentz regauging, by making the back-emf
precisely equal to the forward emf, so that the collected
energy becomes stress energy with no net force fields
self-generated by the system itself. In that case, the
operator must continue to input some form of net work and
net force field, for which the system will respond by using
it to produce the back emf. In that "using it," the system
is able to power a load to that extent and that extent only.
The known absence of Newton's third law from electrodynamic
fields already assures us that back-emf equal to forward emf
is not a law of nature in electrodynamics. Yet mainstream
electrical engineering persists in assuming that it is.
-
Disequilibrium systems produce
net force fields along with receipt of the excess energy - something we have called "asymmetrical regauging." This
violates the Lorentz condition, and the system can then
utilize this net force to dissipate the net energy received,
thus performing some "free work." This is no more mysterious
than a windmill receiving energy and net force from the
environment, and using that force to dissipate the energy
and do free work. To imply that it is somehow a violation of
natural law or a violation of energy conservation is simply
ridiculous.
-
To see how this is done, see J.
D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition,
Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 219-221; 811-812.
-
Again, a system in equilibrium
can and does receive excess energy from the environment, but
it also immediately returns the energy. The "force in" and
"force out" balance to a net zero, so input of additional
energy just results in the production of excess system
stress, but no free work in an external load.
-
Any dipole (such as a permanent
magnet) or charge pours out EM energy in all directions at
the speed of light - and hence produces a continuous "free
electromagnetic wind." If we leave it intact, the dipole or
the charge will pour out such energy indefinitely. The
dipoles and charges in the original matter of the universe
have been doing it for some 15 billion years, and they are
still doing it. So the process does not "run down." Every
charge and dipole in the universe exhibits giant negentropy,
producing all that EM energy and the EM fields and
potentials in nature. Yet for more than a century we have
designed and built only entropic systems. We have steadily
despoiled the biosphere in the process.
-
We stress this point most
strongly. Such a system may freely receive excess energy
from its environment, but it self-enforces equilibrium by
applying some form of Newton's third law, to negate any net
force fields resulting from the excess energy. Consequently,
this system can change its stress energy, but not its usable
net field energy to do external work. It can only change the
equilibrium condition, with a change of stress potential as
it changes the conditions of equilibrium.
-
Superconductive sections in a
system are often touted as COP = 1.0 systems, by
implication. However, when the cryogenics overhead we must
pay is counted, they are grossly underunity.
-
David Halliday and Robert
Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, Third Edition Extended,
Wiley, New York, 1988, Vol. 1, p. 518.
-
E.g., see M.W. Evans, P.K.
Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3)
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1),
Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; - "Explanation of the Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4),
2001, p. 387-393.. The tired old "perpetual motion nonsense"
charge was strongly raised in the vigorous refereeing of
these two AIAS papers. To refute the charge raised against
the latter paper, I prepared a vigorous rebuttal, "On
Permissible COP>1.0 Maxwellian Systems: A Reply to the Board
Member," and submitted it to the referees and editors. Based
on the paper, the referees and editors overruled the
objections and published the second paper because every
charge and every dipole in the universe already clearly
demonstrates a COP>1.0 Maxwellian system. We challenged the
classical scientists to provide a solution to the source
charge problem in their Lorentz-regauged theory, then showed
the solution which can only appear in a higher symmetry
electrodynamics - such as the O(3) EM or the Sachs EM used
in the two papers. The old EM assumes an inert local vacuum
and a locally flat spacetime, both assumptions being long
since refuted in modern physics. And every charge and dipole
demonstrates the falsity of those two assumptions, as is
easily demonstrated on the lab bench.
-
Except the classical
electrodynamicists who have not resolved their own source
charge problem, no one advocates that an EM system can do
more work in a load than the total amount of usable energy
that is input to it! Instead, one advocates that it can do
more work than the operator inputs; the remaining energy is
freely input from the active external environment due to the
disequilibrium (the broken symmetry) condition. The broken
symmetry also specifically implies violation of the Lorentz
symmetry condition, a priori.
-
The reason is extraordinarily
simple, once one makes clear definitions of terms. Work
rigorously is a change the form of energy. A priori, an
inert system cannot "convert the form of energy" it has not
received and collected. But it can receive additional energy
from the environment and convert more than the operator
himself inputs, in which case the environment freely inputs
the remainder of the input energy being converted in form!
-
Craig F. Bohren, "How can a
particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"
American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.
Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more
energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic
particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such
particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies
are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on
"How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on
it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren
experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.
-
As an example, quoting Jed Z.
Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44: "[Poynting's
result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant
magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field
is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic
phenomena are static."
-
The key is in that word
"detectable" - or as the physicist would say, "observable."
The experiment rigorously demonstrates that, if the law of
energy conservation is valid, then the charge and the dipole
must be continuously receiving energy (from its external
environment) in nonobservable (virtual) form and integrating
it into observable form. And so it is, as has been known in
particle physics for 45 years. In the case of the dipole, it
is due to the known broken symmetry of the opposite charges
comprising the dipole. In the case of the charge, when one
accounts the clustering virtual charges (from quantum
electrodynamics), then the charge is actually a set of
composite dipoles, each exhibiting the required broken
symmetry. Hence, charges and dipoles freely absorb (receive)
virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum (particle
physics proves this), integrating the absorbed
"disintegrated" energy into observable form, and re-emitting
real, observable EM energy in all directions, continuously.
That this has not yet appeared in the electrical engineering
model is strictly the fault of the leaders of the scientific
community who have not enforced its inclusion. Consequently,
the electrical engineers do not even understand what powers
an EM circuit or system. It is energy from the vacuum,
extracted and integrated by the source charge and the source
dipole.
-
E.g., see D. K. Sen, Fields
and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968,
p. viii.
-
T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy
from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St.
Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also
published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p.
11-23. Also carried on DoE restricted website and
cheniere.org.
-
F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum
Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Chapter 5.
-
With the broken symmetry of
unlike charges and with the Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and
Yang in 1957.
-
With the fact that virtual
charges of opposite charges cluster around an "isolated"
observable charge. One differential piece of the observable
charge and one clustering virtual charge of opposite sign
comprise a composite dipole. The "isolated source charge"
may thus be treated as a set of composite dipoles. The
broken symmetry of opposite charges solves the problem for
any dipole, and thus for the "isolated" charge as a set of
composite dipoles.
-
E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial
Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,"
Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
-
By use of the conventional
closed current loop circuit, where all the current in the
external circuit (through the losses and the loads) is
returned by a "ground return line" back through the source
dipole that is freely extracting the EM energy from the
vacuum and radiating it. This "spent" current must be
forcibly rammed back up through the source dipole itself,
scattering the charges and destroying the dipole. We must
then input additional energy to the shaft of the generator,
to rotate it and restore that dipole.
-
For a good description of the
modern vacuum, see I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's plenty:
The vacuum in modern quantum field theory," Contemporary
Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391.
-
E.g., see R. Podolny, Something
Called Nothing: Physical Vacuum: What Is It?, Mir
Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 181. In mass units, the energy
density of the virtual particle flux of vacuum is on the
order of 1080 grams per cubic centimeter.
-
Willis E. Lamb Jr. and Robert C.
Retherford, "Fine structure of the hydrogen atom by a
microwave method," Physical Review, 72(3), Aug. 1, 1947, p.
241-243. Lamb received the 1955 Nobel Prize in physics
jointly with Polykarp Kush for experiments measuring the
small displacement later called the "Lamb shift" of 0+ne of
the energy levels in atomic hydrogen.
-
E.g., see W. T. Grandy Jr., "The
Explicit Nonlinearity of Quantum Electrodynamics." in The
Electron: New Theory and Experiment, David Hestenes and
Antonio Weingartshofer, Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, 1991, p. 149-164. Quoting, p. 150: ." . .the energy
density associated with the Lamb shift would produce a
Poynting vector about three times the total power output of
the sun, and a gravitational field disrupting the entire
solar system!" We comment that the reaction is ongoing in a
maelstrom of additional such violent interactions, and so - even though each of these fierce interactions might be
energetic enough to disrupt the entire solar system - the
net summation is a very tame little thing confined to
shifting that single little electron, while still
participating in the fluctuations of the vacuum energy
elsewhere. The summation of infinite things to leave a
manageable finite thing, is well known and used in particle
physics, where it is often referred to as renormalization.
-
H. B. G. Casimir, "On the
attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,"
presented at a meeting of the Royal Netherlands Academy of
Arts and Sciences on 29 May, 1948. Published in the same
year in Proceeding Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Vol. 51(7), 1948, p. 793-796.
-
A very accurate modern
measurement of the Casimir effect is given by S. K.
Lamoreaux, "Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to
6mm range," Physical Review Letters, 78(1), Jan. 6, 1997, p.
5-8.
-
Daniel C. Cole and Harold E.
Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum,"
Physical Review E, 48(2), Aug. 1993, p. 1562-1565.
-
Myron W. Evans, private
correspondence.
-
Nikola Tesla, "The True
Wireless," Electrical Experimenter, May 1919. Heaviside was
speaking of Hertzian (transverse) EM waves in the vacuum.
Indeed, with Whittaker's bidirectional longitudinal EM wave
decomposition of the scalar potential, and by quantum field
theory's finding that the time-polarized photon and
longitudinal photon, when combined, are observed as the
instantaneous scalar potential, one can make a very good
case that the EM waves in space are longitudinal EM waves
anyway. This is particularly interesting since nearly a
dozen nations have already secretly weaponized longitudinal
EM wave technology.
-
Particularly see M. W. Evans,
"O(3) Electrodynamics," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second
Edition, 3 vols., Edited by M.W. Evans, Wylie, New York,
2001, Part 2, p. 79-267. Evans also has more than 600 other
papers in the scientific literature.
-
M. W. Evans, "The Link Between
the Sachs and O(3) Theories of Electrodynamics," in M. W.
Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, , 3
vols. Wiley, 2001; vol. 2, p. 469-494; M.W. Evans et al.,
"Derivation of O(3) Electrodynamics from the Irreducible
Representations of the Einstein Group," Foundations of
Physics Letters, 2002 (in press).
-
E.g., M. W. Evans et al.,
"Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator
with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters,
14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; - "Explanation of the Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4),
Aug. 2001, p. 387-393.
-
M. W. Evans et al.,
"Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 2002 (in
press).
-
Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden,
"Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy,"
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts,
1991, p. 370-375. Sweet's device produced 500 watts for a 33
microwatt input. A highly successful anti-gravity experiment
was also performed, and is reported in the paper.
Unfortunately Sweet later died and never fully revealed the
activation secret by which barium ferrite magnetic materials
could be in strong self-oscillation at 60 Hertz. Weak
self-oscillation of such permanent magnetic materials at
higher frequency is known, of course. E.g., see V. S. L'vov,
Wave Turbulence Under Parametric Excitation: Applications to
Magnets, Springer Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1994.
|