| Date: Wed, 21 May 2003
12:12:06 -0500
Dear Eric,
Absolutely correct.
For the MEG (or for any other overunity power system; there are several
other legitimate candidates struggling with the development funding
problem also), one does not foresee any sudden and drastic upset of the
regular power grid! Why should there be? The market is so vast, and it
will take so long to even dent it, that we will still be using much of
that power grid 20 years after the overunity systems come on the
market. First task is probably emergency use, where things like
powerline failure in storms (or war) are addressed. Once robust and
dependable units capable of powering individual homes are developed,
then one will see a gradual interweaving and incorporating of such into
the power companies and power systems themselves.
After all, who better
knows the electrical needs of the cities, the communities, and the
states and areas than the power companies? They have learned it over a
great number of years and with great effort. One doesn't just "tinker"
and knock that all down. Further, there's a great deal of difference
between a power source and a power distribution system for a large area
or a large city. Decentralization does not and will not progress "all
at once". It will be a very gradual thing, and the eventual power
systems will be mixtures of hopefully the best that has been so
painfully learned over the years.
At least some of the
power companies are turned so that they would be willing to accommodate
such developments today, were they already finished to the "robust power
source" level. The power company cannot gamble on something not yet
proven in actual long term usage and experience! They would be breaking
their trust to the American people if they did. So they will move
cautiously and determinedly, once things are shown over time and
verified solidly.
The real problem is in
getting the funding to get to that "robust demonstrator and proven
performance period under actual working loads and minor grids" that is
the problem. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the scientific
community so bitterly opposes it. You have the example of scientists
stating flatly (and erroneously) that COP>1.0 means dirty old perpetual
motion and that it is totally impossible. That's sad, since a common
solar cell has a COP = infinity, even though its overall efficiency may
be only 17% and it wastes 83% of the solar energy input to it. It's
also sad that "perpetual motion" has become a catch phrase generating a
knee-jerk reaction without thought. Actually, Newton's first law is the
law of perpetual motion state. Once an object is placed in a state of
motion it will remain perpetually in that state of motion until and
unless an external force intervenes to change it into another motion
state. And then it will stay in that second state perpetually until
another external force intervenes, and so on.
So one certainly hopes
that perpetual motion is alive and well, and that Newton's first law is
okay and still working! Otherwise, all would be violent fluctuation and
the organized macroscopic world we live in and observe could not even
exist.
Further, that has
nothing at all to do with proposing a machine that continuously performs
work without any input. Such a proposal is ridiculous on simple logical
grounds. Work is rigorously defined as the change of form of energy
(NOT the change of magnitude of the energy in an external parameter, as
presently used in classical thermodynamics). So to change the form of
some energy in a process, the energy has to be input to it in the first
place, so there is some available energy to change the form of! It's as
simple as that, and it has nothing to do with perpetual motion.
Perpetual just means "continuously without cessation". And that is
exactly what an object moving in space does, until something
intervenes. An object in a state of constant motion also does not
require any input of energy to remain in that state of motion, and it
does not do any work either. As we showed elsewhere, the pundits from a
hundred years back to the present day make a grave logical non sequitur
in equating perpetual motion (Newton's first law) with the forbidden
notion that a machine can continuously work without any energy input
available to it.
'
Anyway, caught up in
such dogma, the scientific community does use its knee-jerk reaction and
objects to any notion of producing practical COP>1.0 EM systems that
extract their energy from the vacuum. This of course flies in the face
of decades of particle physics, where the asymmetry of opposite charges
proves to us that every dipolar circuit or system already continuously
extracts and transduces usable EM energy from the vacuum.
But since the
organized scientific community opposes all mention of development of
vacuum-energy-powered EM generators, that torpedoes all the normal
funding channels. It also subjects the persistent researcher to ad
hominem attacks, etc.
Nonetheless, some
progress is slowly being made, by several groups in addition to our
own. Further, at least we now have sufficient good science behind what
we are doing, that the young grad students and post doctoral scientists
are beginning to understand the area. Once enough of those young tigers
get unleashed, then in two years flat there will never again be an
electrical energy problem on the planet, save to build the power units
and get them to the areas where the power is needed.
Meanwhile, of course,
there are also some very powerful interests that do not wish that done.
So we will just have to see how it all plays out. In my view, the real
hope is the young future scientists and engineers who get into the
area. With enough of them taking it up, it will be done in spite of all
the opposition.
But as its done, it
will be a slow "growth" or "transformation", not an explosive thing
changing everything at once. And the power companies and their
expertise are going to continue to be needed, and they are going to
continue to be the companies that arrange for or bring the power to
where it is needed.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|