Dear Don,

 

This type of ad hominem attack is to be expected from persons who have not the foggiest notion of what powers an EM circuit in the first place.  The tactic is to attack like a pack of cur dogs, and just as vociferously.  Their effectiveness, they think, is to be judged by how loudly they yell. 

 

We will answer it once and once only; there are far better things to do with one's time than to argue with dogmatists whose gambit is cur dog pack attacks.  That is not science; it is a cur dog fight.  One can discuss with a friendly and open minded skeptic who focuses on the science.  Those calling one names are not engaging in scientific discussion, but that same cur dog fight.

 

Let me put it clearly:

 

There is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even knows and teaches what actually powers an EM circuit.  Strong words, but absolutely true.  We will show why, and the reader can check it out for himself or herself. 

 

That situation is inexplicable and sad, since the rigorous basis for what powers an EM  circuit has been proven in particle physics since 1957, as witness the Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang that year for their work in the electroweak reactions and prediction of broken symmetry.  Lee and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956 and perhaps a bit earlier,  and Wu et al. proved it experimentally in early 1957.  So profound a change was that to all of physics, that in a nearly unprecedented action the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in Dec. 1957, the very same year.

 

Unfortunately the results of that profound change to all of physics --- and to all of electrical engineering --- has not yet made it into electrical engineering, even though 45 years have passed.  The electrical engineering model does not include the active vacuum, much less a broken symmetry in it.

 

Park and all such dogmatists never mention broken symmetry in the same breath as power systems, and neither do electrical engineers, by and large.  Not one of them has any deep knowledge at all as to what really powers the electrical  power lines and every dipolar EM circuit.  That lack of knowledge of the broken symmetry of any dipole (and any charge, as we shall see) is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  It is also why we continue to have power meters on our homes, and meters on the gas pump, and rape and pillage the planet and the biosphere to burn all that gas, oil, and coal, use all those nuclear fuel rods, build all those dams and windmills, etc.  NONE of that of itself ever added a single watt to the power line, and never will.  It only went into continuously remaking the source dipole, that our silly circuits are specifically designed to keep destroying faster than they power their loads.

 

The two papers on the MEG that were published in Foundations of Physics Letters were vigorously and professionally refereed, particularly the second one.  All those common charges of perpetual motion, etc. were levied very strongly.  We prepared a detailed rebuttal, citing the actual physics proof of broken symmetry of the dipole, and we also explained that source charge problem and challenged the challengers to provide an explanation in standard classical electrodynamics.  They could not do so, of course.  So the referees upheld the rebuttal, and the journal published the paper.  A scientific paper is referred and published based on being good science, not whether or not it agrees with the prevailing dogma.  Experiment will then prove or disprove it.

 

Note that the same dogmatists raising their voices so stridently against cold fusion, have just been given a mild lesson in what scientific method is all about, by the journal Science.  We applaud the editor for admonishing all vociferous and strident voices on both sides to cut the rhetoric; experiment will confirm or refute the reported experiments.  That's a call back to the scientific method, and we do applaud the editor of Science and his staff for giving a much needed lesson in what scientific method is all about.  There are now some 600 or more successful cold fusion experiments worldwide, in multiple labs, by multiple reputable scientists, and reported in the literature.   To offhandedly imply that all these experimentalists and experiments and scientists are charlatans or idiots is to offend the very dignity of the scientific community itself.  Reasoned skepticism is of course quite proper, but based on scientific objections and reasons, not just on the prevailing models.

 

The same considerations must apply to the question of whether nature permits COP>1.0 electrical systems.  Nature does indeed permit COP>1.0 systems; the common home heat pump with an efficiency of perhaps 50%, has a COP of about 4.0.  We explain the exact difference between efficiency and COP shortly.  There is absolutely nothing "magical' or "perpetual motion" in having COP>1.0, else we must give up all waterwheels, windmills, sailboats, etc.  Any system --- whether mechanical, chemical, electrical, or whatever --- that freely extracts and collects energy from its environment, is permitted to exhibit five magic functions, in accord with the well-recognized thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium in an exchange with their active environment.  Such a system is permitted by the laws of physics, thermodynamics, energy conservation, and  nature to exhibit: (1) self-ordering, (2) self-oscillation or self-rotation, (3) outputting more energy than the operator directly inputs (the excess energy is freely input from the active environment, (4) powering itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely input from the external environment), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

 

In 2000 we pointed out how and why every charge and dipole in the universe is already such a system, and proved it from particle physics.  The interesting thing was the giant negentropy of  the charge and the dipole.  That has in fact powered all EM circuits and power systems by energy extracted from the vacuum, from the very beginning.  It still does today.

 

In that respect, let the dogmatists explain where the energy comes from in the Bohren experiment, the method it arrives and turns into real EM energy, and exactly why and how energy conservation is not violated even though 18 times as much energy is output as is input (by standard calculations) to the material and system by the operator.  Either they explain such proven and replicated physics experiments not taught in electrical engineering, or they have are not practicing scientific method where the validated and replicated experiment is king. 

 

All the theory in the universe cannot invalidate a single successful and replicable experiment.  A single successful and replicable experiment can invalidate any theory if it violates that theory's predictions.  That is called the scientific method.  The present great cry to uphold the accepted hoary old theories, regardless of experimental invalidation, is totally unscientific and a great miscarriage of the scientific method.

 

Every charge and dipole in the universe already completely answer all critics yelling that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible.  Every charge and dipole is quite happy to be a COP = infinity system already, always has been, and always will be.   The critics of course just sweep under the rug that their own model implies that every charge and dipole is a foul perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy out of nothing and continuously pouring it out.  More on that later.

 

One of the broken symmetries proven by Wu et al. and published  in 1957  is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, as on the ends of a dipole.  For the open-minded reader, let me explain what broken symmetry means, and what the broken symmetry of a dipole means with respect to powering any dipolar EM circuit.

 

Broken symmetry means that something virtual (shadowy, but real in a special sense and widely used in physics; it has real physical consequences, since it creates all the forces of nature) has become observable (real in the ordinary everyday sense that it can be detected, measured, observed, and used.).  The broken symmetry of the end charges of a dipole rigorously means that, once the charges are forcibly separated to form that dipole, the dipole (its end charges) continuously absorbs virtual (fleeting) photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates these "photon pieces" into real observable photons, and re-emits the resulting real EM energy in the form of real observable photons in all directions at the speed of light.

 

That is not this author's work; that is particle physics as justified by the award of a Nobel Prize.  It isn't even in the electrical engineering model, so no objection based on standard classical EM and electrical engineering concepts has any validity at all.

 

That's why a dipolar permanent magnet, with opposite magnetic charges on its ends locked in there by the material itself, continuously exhibits magnetic field in the space surrounding it (out to the ends of the universe, if the magnet has been around long enough).  There is a continuous and steady stream of EM energy, extracted directly from the vacuum and integrated into observable magnetic field energy, pouring forth from the dipolarity of that magnet.  At any external point in that stream, the steady flow will give a steady or "static" reading for the magnetic field and thus for the intensity of the flow at that point.  Actually there is no such thing as a "static" field or potential in the universe; simply check out Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the "electrostatic" scalar potential into bidirectional longitudinal EM waves, and his 1904 decomposition of any field and wave pattern into two such potentials comprised of bidirectional longitudinal EM waves.  The 1903 paper founded what today is known as superpotential theory.  The 1904 paper has been largely ignored by the academics, although it has been formidably weaponized by several nations, notably the Russians not long after WW II.  Application of Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers is responsible for the weapons that then Secretary of Defense Cohen referred to in 1997 when he stated:  "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."  Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn.  Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

 

A technical explanation of the interferometry used in such weapons is given by M.W. Evans et. al. (15 authors), "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.

 

So there are quite a few things in extended electrodynamics that the professional dogmatists do not know, that are true nonetheless. 

 

So making a dipole results in the free extraction of usable EM energy from the vacuum, continuously, by that dipole's broken symmetry.  So in terms of 45 year old theory and knowledge instead of more than a century old stuff, let us examine what really happens outside and inside a generator. 

 

First, we burn some hydrocarbon, say, to fire a boiler to make some steam to power a steam turbine to rotate the shaft of the generator.  All the drilling and transport of the fuel, its combustion, etc. is just to provide some mechanical shaft input energy to that generator.  Now let's examine exactly what happens inside the generator, once that shaft is forcibly rotated.

 

We first point out that the precise definition of work is the changing of form of energy.  Increasing potential energy alone does not require work; if we change its form, then work is done upon the gadget or process that changes (transduces) the form of the input energy.

 

So we do "work" on the generator shaft to force the rotation of the rotor.  We change the form of the mechanical input shaft energy to magnetic field energy inside the generator.  Nothing magic so far.  In a perfect generator, we put in 1,000 joules of mechanical energy, and we transduce it into 1,000 joules of internal magnetic field energy.

 

So what happens to that magnetic field energy?  None of it goes out on the attached power line.

 

Instead, all the transduced magnetic field energy is dissipated on the internal charges in the generator, to force the internal positive charges in one direction and the internal negative charges in the other direction, thereby producing a source dipole inside the generator and between its terminals.  Understand, we have to pay for making that dipole.  That costs us.

 

However, what does the dipole do, once it is made?

 

Unless the Nobel Committee rescinds the Nobelist award to Lee and Yang, and unless the particle physicists disprove and discard the well-established (for nearly a half century) broken symmetry of opposite charges, that dipole will then extract real, observable EM energy from the seething vacuum indefinitely, so long as we leave it intact.  Don't destroy the dipole, and it will freely and continuously pour out gobs and gobs of EM energy in a steady stream, out of the terminals of the generator, filling all space around the external circuit or power line.  How much EM energy flow from the vacuum do you want?   You can have that much, easily.

 

And that is all a generator does; it makes that dipole, which then furnishes the energy outside the external power line, so that some of it can be intercepted and diverged by that power line into its conductors, to power up (potentialize)  the electrons with excess potential energy.  Just to increase the potential energy is not work; it is for "free" under the gauge freedom rule.  Every electrodynamicist in the world already freely changes the potential energy of the modeled Maxwellian system twice, when he applies the Lorentz gauge condition to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations. (Actually that's Ludwig Lorenz's symmetrical regauging condition; H. A. Lorentz adopted it later and the scientific community shorted Lorenz, giving the credit to Lorentz.  Check out J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 2001, p. 663-680 to set the record straight.)

 

Once the flowing EM energy --- freely extracted from the seething vacuum by the source dipole --- is pouring out of the terminals of the generator and filling space around the external circuit, then it's a "transmission and reception" problem, and an "energy collection and usage problem", as is well-known in Poynting energy flow theory in every major EM textbook. 

 

Here another interesting bit of history emerges.

 

Two scientists, Heaviside and Poynting, independently discovered the flow of energy through space, after Maxwell was already deceased.  Read the original papers.  Poynting never considered the magnitude of the entire energy flow pouring out of those terminals.  Instead, he only considered --- from the very start -- that component of the available energy flow that actually enters the circuit.  And he got the direction of the energy flow wrong by 90 degrees, being corrected by Heaviside.

 

Heaviside considered the entire energy flow in that surrounding space outside the conductors of the attached external circuit.  To his astonishment, he found that the remaining nondiverged energy flow component --- after the Poynting component is intercepted, diverged, and enters the conductors to power the circuit --- is many orders of magnitude greater than the small Poynting component that was caught and used!  In short, Heaviside discovered that, pouring out of the terminals of every battery and generator, there is far more EM energy flow rate than the rate of input of shaft energy to the generator or the rate of dissipation of chemical energy in the battery.  Zounds!  In the 1880s, the electron and atom and nucleus had not been discovered, there was no such thing as an "active quantum mechanical vacuum" because there was no quantum mechanics.  There was no such thing as "local curvatures of spacetime" because neither special nor general relativity had yet been born, and neither had QM or quantum electrodynamics or quantum field theory.  In fact, there was little resembling modern particle physics!  There also was no broken symmetry of opposite charges known yet --- that was to wait till 1956-57.

 

So there was absolutely no way Heaviside could possibly explain where all that fool energy was coming from.  If he spoke or wrote too plainly about its sheer magnitude, he would have been labeled an utter fool and a perpetual motion nut (yes, there were dogmatists like Robert Park back then also; the dogmatists have always dramatically slowed the progress of physics and cost the taxpayers billions).

 

So Heaviside (e.g., in his paper published in the Proc. Roy. Acad. Lond.) spoke obliquely of the magnitude of the intercepted and nonintercepted energy flow components by the direction of the flow component with respect to a convenient reference direction.  This way he "kept his head on his shoulders" so to speak.

 

Enter H. A. Lorentz.  He well-understood the work of both men, and understood that the Heaviside nondiverged component was indeed there and real.  But even the great Lorentz had not the foggiest notion of where on Earth all that excess energy pouring out of a generator could possibly be coming from.  Even he would have been destroyed as a perpetual motion nut advocating violation of energy conservation, by the cur dog pack attacks that would have ensued if he strongly pointed out the magnitude of that excess energy flow.  They would simply have devoured him and destroyed him scientifically, as shown by many classic examples such as Mayer (modern form of energy conservation), Wegener (continental plate drift theory), etc.  A modern example was the terrible assault on the pioneers of ultrawideband radar, such as Harmuth and Barrett.  At the time of this feverish pack attack,  one could already buy a little working model UWB radar, used to detect voids in thick cement. There are hundreds of other examples well-known to historians of science.

 

Unable to solve this horrendous problem, and to avoid personal scientific suicide, Lorentz simply eliminated the problem itself!.  He reasoned that that vast Heaviside energy flow "has no physical significance," since it powered nothing and was just wasted.  He therefore integrated the entire energy flow vector itself around a closed surface assumed surrounding every volume element of interest.  This neat little trick arbitrarily discards the giant Heaviside nondiverged EM energy flow, while retaining the Poynting diverged (caught) energy flow.

 

Check Jackson and any number of other leading electrodynamics texts.  Almost all use a variation of Lorentz's statement that "it has no physical significance", in disposing of the fact that "the Poynting energy flow is not really the actual energy flow at a point in it, and it is indefinite".  E.g., Jackson --- one of the ablest electrodynamicists whose books have inspired millions, whom I greatly admire -- states it this way in his Classical Electrodynamics, second edition, 1975, p. 237:  "...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it.  Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences."

 

Our point is that it can indeed have physical consequences if one does something to increase the interception and collection.  As an example, by simply setting the intercepting charges (in the intercepting circuit) into particle resonance, each resonant particle will sweep out farther in its geometrical reaction cross section, and will intercept and collect addition energy.  See the Bohren experiment in Am. J. Phys. for this experiment; it produces 18 times as much energy out as the energy in (where the calculation of energy in is the standard calculation and ignores the present but unaccounted Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component).  In the same journal and issue, Paul and Fischer report replication and validation.  So the Bohren experiment clearly proves the existence of the long-neglected and unaccounted Heaviside excess energy flow component that is nondiverged and wasted in the usual case.

 

Any nonlinear optics lab in any university can easily do the Bohren experiment at will, and prove it themselves.  In science one does not have to continuously reprove that which is already proven; one just has to cite the literature.  The Bohren experiment is given in 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.

 

Heaviside was a hermit, and wound up most of his life in a tiny little garret apartment.  After his death, thieves ransacked the little apartment.  But later, beneath some floorboards where the thieves had missed them, there were found Heaviside's notes where he had gone back to his long-neglected huge component (often 10exp13 times as great as the intercepted Poynting component) and recognized that it also had gravitational implications.  It is after all real EM energy, and so it is a dramatic change to the local energy density of spacetime.  Hence it is a curvature of spacetime, which is gravitational a priori.

 

So Heaviside worked out some gravitational aspects of his long neglected theory.   Remember, that theoretical component is actually proven experimentally, e.g., by the Bohren experiment.  Any critic has to first refute the Bohren experiment, and many others, before such criticism has any validity.  This is already very solidly established, both theoretically and experimentally.  That it is still not added to electrical engineering is  a serious shortcoming of our electrical engineering departments, not a shortcoming in physics.

 

In honor of Heaviside, I resurrected his massive energy flow component --- which can be shown to be accompanying every field/charge interaction --- and nominated it for the long-neglected mechanism producing all that excess gravitation that is holding the spiral arms of the galaxies together.  That's 90% of the gravitation in there, and I believe it is time that Heaviside was given credit for his great discovery, so long suppressed by just calculating it out of there with a little integration trick.  In short, I think  Heaviside had already unknowingly solved the present "dark matter, dark energy" problem for positive gravity, way back there in the 1880s.

 

Another way one can catch more of the long-neglected Heaviside energy flow component surrounding every power line and electrical circuit, is simply to retroreflect it end to end, back and forth, so that it passes back across the circuit multiple times.  This is already occurring in intense laser interactions in random media; one must simply read the literature. (Lawandy, Mandel, Wiersma, Letokhov, Lagendijk, Koenderink, Rivas, etc.)  The only thing preventing these impressive results from achieving COP>1.0 is the use of operator input power to the pumping operation.  Self-pumping and self-oscillation are well-known in nonlinear optical materials; one is waiting for some enterprising young doctoral candidate to do it for his doctoral thesis.  An interesting paper to read is V. S. Letokhov, “Laser Maxwell’s Demon,” Contemporary Physics, 36(4), 1995, p. 235-243.  Letokhov considers a Maxwell's demon based on the use of selective interaction between laser light and atomic particles, including two versions (destructive and nondestructive) of the demon.  The destructive version is based on the velocity- and particle-selective resonant ionization of particles in the near field of laser radiation.  The non-destructive version is based on the dipole (gradient) light pressure force in near-field radiation effects. In short, you really can build a Maxwell's demon, in certain cases.

 

Oddly, Maxwell's theory and Heaviside's vector truncation includes two kinds of thermodynamic Maxwellian systems: (1) systems in equilibrium with an active environment (or in an inert environment), and (2) systems far from equilibrium in their energy exchange with an active environment.  The totally arbitrary Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations ---- just to give simpler equations whose variables could be separated, thereby allowing analytical solution rather than brute force numerical methods --- in fact discarded all those class 2 Maxwellian systems.

 

It isn't Maxwell's theory that forbids COP>1.0 EM systems!  It is in fact the arbitrary symmetrizing and truncation of the theory that tossed out all such systems.

 

By incorporating the closed current loop circuit in all EM power systems, our electrical engineers have only used circuits which self-enforce that Lorenz/Lorentz symmetry condition!  That is so easy to show that we leave it as the famous "exercise for the student".  Or just read any of my several papers showing it.

 

In short, our engineers have only designed, produced, and deployed electrical power systems that destroy their own source dipoles in the generators, faster than the caught energy in the external circuit can power the load.

 

We have this total myth that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible, only because they are impossible in any circuit which destroys all possibility in the way it is designed!

 

There's lots more.  From any EM field, say an E-field --- one can collect as much force as one wishes, if one has enough intercepting and collecting charges q.  That's the simple equation F = Eq.

 

From any scalar potential V, one can collect as much energy in a circuit as one wishes, if one has enough intercepting and collecting charges q.  That's the simple equation W = Vq.

 

So here is the proven situation in summary.

 

Batteries and generators do not directly power their attached external circuits.  Never have, never will.  Windmills, dams, steam power plants, etc. do not directly power their attached electrical power lines.

 

The seething vacuum and the dipole's proven broken symmetry in it, has powered every dipolar EM circuit ever built, and all those built today.  As we stated at the beginning, there is not a single electrical engineering department that even correctly teaches what powers and EM circuit.  Never has been one.  They simply have not changed the more than a century old foundations of their model to include what has already been discovered and proven in physics.

 

Now let me answer the "perpetual motion" critics, most of whom are completely unaware of the technical difference between efficiency of an EM system and coefficient of performance (COP) of that system.  There are basically two ways that you can get energy input into an otherwise inert system (one with no internal radioactive source, etc.).  (1) you can input all the energy yourself, and (2) you can trick the active environment to input some or all of the energy collected and dissipated by the system in its external load.

 

The efficiency of a system is the useful work out in that load, divided by the total energy input to the system from all sources (the operator, or the external environment, or both).  No system ever produces more than 100% efficiency!  Any real system has some losses, so the overall efficiency is always less than 100%.  Simply Energy In = Energy lost in the system processing + energy lost by dissipation from the load to do useful work.

 

The charge of perpetual motion only correctly applies if someone tries to say that a system has an efficiency greater than 100%.  That is a total non sequitur, and no serious overunity COP researcher is even suggesting such.  So why do the total skeptics keep insisting that such is claimed?  It isn't.  But it's a good disinformation tactic to fool the unknowledgeable lay person into thinking that something useful is being said by such totally misdirected charges.

 

However, if you have the second case for energy input, you are tricking the environment to put in some or all of the energy.  If you can get the environment to input more energy than the system is losing in its processing, then hey!  You can cleverly (under certain circumstances) have the system run itself and power its load simultaneously.  Nothing magic; here the environment is happily furnishing all the energy for the losses and the dissipation in the load.  So the operator has to input nothing at all, if he has made the system self-switching and stable.  That's loosely known as a "close-looped" or self-powering system.  A windmill, sailboat, waterwheel, etc. are examples.

 

If you still have to put in the switching energy and perhaps a little of the other energy, then you still have an open system receiving excess energy from its environment, but you do not have to furnish all the energy.  To speak of this, this is where COP comes in.  COP may be defined as the total useful work out of the system, divided by the energy that the operator himself must input.  Notice it says nothing at all about whether or not extra energy is input by the environment, or how much.  It just measures "what you yourself have to pay for".

 

A windmill, e.g., has a poor efficiency (typically 35% or 40% for a pretty good one) but it has a COP of infinity!  So does a waterwheel, and a sailboat.

 

So when one speaks of "overunity", one is speaking of COP>1.0 which is perfectly permissible by the laws of  nature, physics, thermodynamics, and conservation of energy law.  No one in his right mind is advocating violation of any of those!

 

Now we come back to the crazy situation in EM circuits and systems and equations.  As stated, Lorenz and then Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all those Maxwellian systems that are open systems far from equilibrium with their external environment (in this case, the active QM vacuum and the local curvatures of spacetime).  The result has been a horrible emasculation of the EM theory, to ONLY cover and address that half of permitted Maxwellian systems that either are in an inert environment or in a net equilibrium in its exchange with an active environment.  Those RETAINED Maxwell systems are precisely the ones that have to obey the classical equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law.  The key feature of the EM systems built by our engineers for more than a century, has been that closed-current loop circuit.  That beast forcibly rams all spent electrons right back through the source dipole in the generator, using exactly half the externally intercepted and collected Poynting energy to destroy the dipole.   The other half of the collected external circuit energy is dissipated in the internal losses of the circuit and in the load.  So less than half gets dissipated to do useful work.

 

Let us reason together.  If you use half of something to destroy the source dipole and its extraction of energy flow from the vacuum, and you use less than half of that something to power the load, then that beast you built is destroying the source of EM energy flow faster than it can power its load.  Hold that thought.

 

Well, even in a perfect generator, you will have to input just as much energy to RESTORE that dipole, as the circuit dissipated on the dipole to DESTROY it.  That follows directly from the simple field equations.

 

But this means that, to keep the energy flowing out of the terminals so that the external circuit can continue to catch some and power the load, you will always have to input more shaft energy to the generator than the work you get out in the load.

 

Voila!  Our engineers have ubiquitously designed and utilized a self-enforcing COP<1.0 Maxwellian system.  Not because nature requires it, or physics requires it, or thermodynamics requires it.  Because the stupidity with which we have engineered all our electrical power systems self-enforces it.

 

We pay the electrical power company to have a continuous Sumo wrestling match inside its own generators, and continuously LOSE.

 

That's not the way to run an energy railroad, particularly since much better knowledge about what powers an EM circuit has long been available if we only apply in electrical engineering the proven facts of particle physics; to wit, the broken symmetry of that source dipole.

 

I challenge every skeptic to show an electrical engineering text or curriculum outline where the broken symmetry of the source dipole in the generator or battery is pointed out and addressed.  It isn't.

 

I challenge every skeptic to show me anything from the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Engineering, great national laboratories, etc. where the broken symmetry of the source dipole in the generator or battery is addressed.

 

There is no electrical energy problem, and there never has been, and there never will be.  The simplest thing in all the world is to  extract all the EM energy one wishes, from the seething vacuum, anywhere in the universe, anytime, for peanuts.  Just make a dipole or assemble the necessary charge.  Read my paper on Giant Negentropy to see how the "isolated charge" extracts EM energy from the vacuum and pours it out at light speed in all directions in 3-space, using that same broken symmetry of opposite charges.  An "isolated" charge is not such at all; it is well-known to be surrounded by clustering virtual charges of opposite sign (the well-known polarization of the vacuum).  So one takes a differential piece of the "isolated" observable charge, and one of those virtual charges of opposite sign while it exists.  That's a composite dipole, and it exhibits the same broken symmetry for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize.  Hence an isolated charge is simply a giant set of composite dipoles and broken symmetries of opposite sign.

 

That was the explanation for the long-vexing source charge problem --- the problem of how on earth a little charge can sit there and continuously pour out real observable EM energy in all directions in 3-space, establishing its fields and potentials and their energy across all space --- without any input of real observable EM energy. That was called the "most difficult problem" in quantal and classical electrodynamics (Sen).  Yet the basis for its solution had been in particle physics since 1957.  I did nothing spectacular or brilliant; I just applied what particle physics had already proven and well knew.

 

Now take the standard electrical engineering model.  It does not even include the active vacuum environment, much less a broken symmetry in the exchange of every charge in every circuit, with that active vacuum.  One does not have to reprove that exchange and broken symmetry; it has long since been proven and recognized in particle physics.  But it is not even incorporated in electrical engineering and particularly in power engineering.

 

Here's just how stupid and asinine it is.  The standard electrical engineering model already rigorously excludes every charge and dipole in the universe, implying they are perpetual motion machines of the greatest kind, freely creating EM energy out of nothing and pouring it out, and doing it continuously.

 

So the dogmatists and extreme critics  need to take their own medicine.  They themselves are already the greatest perpetual motion nuts on earth, because of the model they uses.  That model "eats itself" if applied to a charge and a dipole --- and to what powers an EM circuit.

 

Here's the challenge.  Provide a standard electrical engineering model solution to the long-vexing source charge problem, or shut their face and recognize they themselves are the greatest advocates of perpetual motion machines.

 

In our wildest imagination, the legitimate COP>1.0 EM researchers have never approached such total perpetual motion nonsense as is already implicitly and totally advocated by the dogmatists.

 

One either reads the literature and finds out what science has already discovered and proven, or one is a dogmatist resisting already proven scientific knowledge.  It appears we have far too few people who are reading the literature.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tom Bearden

---

 

Subject: MEG gets it from APS

Please  Post  and  Repost   World  Wide  and  All  News  Services

See  that  Every  Senator,  Representative  and  The  Commissioner  for  Patents  Knows

Bob  Park  is  the  Known Goon  that  intimidates  and  slanders  the  US  Patent  Office  when  they  use  their  intellect  in  place  of  Dogma.  Sad  to  say   Park  usually  wins.  He  uses  all  sort  of  lies  and  fact  twisting,  a  sample  of  which  is  the  statement  below  where  he  knowingly  lies  about  Joe  Newman.  A  very famous  Federal  Court  Case,  over  the   stupidity  tribute  extracted  by  Park through  intimidation  of  the  US  Patent  Office  was  reversed  by  the  Federal Judge,  who  sided  with  Newman  and  ordered  a  Patent  awarded.  Park  is fully  aware of  this  and  knowingly  rape's  the  media  as  a  form  of  self  gratification
in  perpetuate  his   Dogmas.   A  Class  action  suite  for  this  ridicules  posturing  and  it's harm  to  society  by  denighing   useful  technology  is  paramount.
      He  should  be  ordered  into  Exile  as  a Traitor  against  humanity,  declared   Persona  Non  Grata  and  stripped  of  all  His  Degrees,  acquired  wealth  and  sent  penniless  into  exile,  preferably  where  the  headhunters  practice  their  Dogma. 
       He  has just  started  his  song  and  ritual  of  intimidation  of  the  Patent  Office with  regards  to  the  MEG.   They  should  immediately  get  a  Court  Order  requiring a  Huge  Bond  be  Posted   by   the  APS  and  Park  such  that if  they  interfere  in any  way,  arms  length  or  associates  who  have the same  Dogma's  that  they  all  end  up  paying   Horrendous  Damages  to   all  those  previously   caught  in their  web.    Park  is  already  involved  in  Several  Legal  Actions.   Simply  join forces.   The  Patent  Office  should  be  asked  publicly  in  such  a  way  that
they  can   not  crawl  in  their  Hole.  I  bet  they  would  love  to  get  Park  of  their back  is  high  on  their  list of  things  to  do.

Take  Care,          

 

Dr.  Smith