| Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
16:03:46 -0500 Thanks
Ken. We
do try to advance a solid technical understanding of what we are doing
and attempting, based on good physics.
E.g., no inert (no internal sources) system in equilibrium with
its environment can possibly produce COP>1.0.
To produce overunity, the inert system has to be in
disequilibrium with its active environment, freely receiving some
excess energy from it. In
that case, the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium
with their external active environment applies.
As is well known in such thermodynamics, such a system is
permitted to perform five "magic" functions: (1) self-order,
(2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the
operator inputs (the excess energy is freely received from the active
environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the
energy is freely received from the external environment, exactly
analogous to a windmill), and (5) exhibit negentropy. Every
charge and dipole in the universe already does all five of those
functions, yet receives absolutely no energy input in 3-dimensions.
For the solution to where the energy comes from, see my
solution to what has been called the most difficult problem in quantum
and classical electrodynamics: T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy
from the Common Dipole", on my website www.cheniere.org.
After publishing that
paper, I discovered very powerful support for my reinterpretation of
Whittaker's decomposition of the scalar potential; that support comes
from F. Mandl
and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, in Chapter 5.
Mandl and Shaw give a deeper coverage of the photon
polarizations. They also
strongly argue that the longitudinal and scalar polarizations are not
directly observable, but only in combination, where they manifest as
the "instantaneous" Coulomb (i.e., electrostatic) potential.
Transformed into wave language for the macroscopic world, that
precisely agrees with my reinterpretation of Whittaker's
decomposition. It also
establishes a new and highly preferred EM energy flow symmetry (and
corresponding energy conservation law) in physics, and particularly
gives the primary mechanism for that fifth "magic function"
(exhibit negentropy) that an open system far from disequilibrium is
permitted to do. A
windmill is a perfect example of an open disequilibrium system,
performing functions four and five of that magic "five"
permitted. If one puts
the windmill in a barn, so that no outside air can blow on its blades,
one will have to crank the windmill oneself.
As an analogy, all our present EM power systems are
deliberately though unwittingly built like "electrical windmills
in a barn". So even
though free "electrical winds" are easily available, none of
our present self-crippling systems take advantage of them, and in fact
their designers just ignore all such free EM energy flow winds. The
standard EM theory taught in electrical engineering has a math model
(after Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Heaviside-Maxwell
equations) that then addresses and models only those
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz systems that are indeed in equilibrium with
their two active external environments: (1) the active local vacuum
and its dynamics, and (2) the local curved spacetime and its dynamics.
Lorentz therefore simply discarded all permissible
overunity (disequilibrium) Maxwellian systems. Consider
the "supersystem", consisting of (1) the physical electrical
power system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its
dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their
dynamics. We already know
in physics that all three components of the supersystem do interact.
One cannot have an operating power unit sitting calmly on the
stand and running, unless these three parts of the supersystem are
indeed interacting. The
conventional electrical engineering model uses that highly truncated
Lorentz-regauged EM. So
that discards the active vacuum environment and also the active curved
local spacetime environment. Lorentz
did it diabolically, though unwittingly.
He changed the potential energy of the system twice, but
carefully selected (out of an infinite number of options) so that the
two free field forces that appeared were equal and opposite.
Hence the system freely changed its potential energy twice, as
assumed by the Lorentz regauging, but deliberately in such fashion
that all the energy is locked up in altered stress of the system.
In particular, the extra regauging energy is not allowed (by
choice!) to be discharged (that requires a force field) to do work in
a load. It
is totally this mathematical trickery and the ASSUMPTIONS that
accompany it, that has been responsible for our engineers building
only COP<1.0 systems for more than a century (since the 1880s). Yet
so ingrained has this crazy mindset -- that no COP>1.0 EM systems
are permitted by nature -- has become an iron dogma in science. It
follows that, in order to have a legitimate COP>1.0 EM power
system, one must first (at least in some part of the circuit) violate
that Lorentz condition. That
is, one must recover in his circuit or supersystem sufficient
interaction with the external parts of the supersystem, to provide and
inflow of excess potential energy, and at the same time he must not
SYMMETRICALLY do that "regauging".
It must be ASYMMETRICAL, so as to permit a net force to be
present. This then allows
one to discharge the free regauging energy, in the load to do work.
Unless the regauging (change of potential and thus change of
potential energy of the system) is asymmetrical, then the prevailing
dogma rigorously applies and that system will not exhibit COP>1.0. There
are already known, tested, published overunity EM experiments in
physics, and it only takes one single white crow to prove that not all
crows are black. E.g.,
the Bohren experiment can be performed by any competent university
materials science lab or nonlinear optics lab, and it gives a COP =
18. Both the experiment
and its independent replication are published in American Journal
of Physics, 51(4),
Apr. 1983 So
the first thing a legitimate overunity researcher needs to tell you,
is exactly where and how his system is deliberately violating the
Lorentz condition. Unless
that is happening, the otherwise inert system is not overunity, and
cannot be overunity. Yet
one of the things so wrong with the present loose-knit "overunity
community" is precisely the absence of any such scientific
approach. But any
legitimate COP>1.0 system will have one section at least, which
violates the Lorentz condition. Also,
our most modern physics theory today is probably quantum field theory,
at least with respect to success in applying it all across physics.
One of the axioms of that theory is the gauge freedom axiom.
In short, this tells us that just changing the potential energy
of a system is not work and does not cost us.
To dissipated the energy or change its form to something else,
is work and that will cost us. But
just go freely change the potential energy of the system is cost-free
and does not require work. In
real systems, of course, we may have to pay a little for switching or
some such, but we do not have to pay for the energy in that increase. From
the gauge freedom axiom alone, the notion that cranking the shaft of a
generator introduces power to the external circuit is false.
ALL changes of potential energy to a system -- such as the
external circuit -- are free and must be free, or most of modern
physics has to be seriously overhauled to get that gauge field theory
back out of it. What
is so sad is that all the above is well-known physics, though it is
not in the electrical engineering curriculum.
And yet, at every university and every electrical engineering
department, to just advance the legitimate requirements for
permissible overunity EM systems is to automatically be labeled a
charlatan and a lunatic. But
this has always been the posture of the scientific community for
anything that is REALLY "out of the box" thinking -- to use
the prevailing "buzz words".
There are literally hundreds of examples, including the kinetic
theory of gases, continental drift, the amorphous semiconductor,
originally the conservation of energy law itself, Goddard's rocketry,
etc. I
see little change today in the scientific community's prevailing
attitude, from its historical condemnation of anything new and its
historical character assassination of the offending scientists. In
theory at least, science is supposed to be based on the experimental
method. If the experiment
refutes the accepted theoretical model, it is the model that must be
changed, not the mind of the experimenter. So
the Bohren experiment alone is sufficient to warrant the National
Science Foundation and National Academy of Sciences to go full-bore
into research in overunity EM systems.
There are other COP>1.0 experiments also, of course.
If Lorentz' other little integration trick (of integrating the
energy flow vector around any volume element of interest, therefore
neatly disposing of that part of the energy flow that misses the
collector and is not diverged) is ignored, then suddenly every dipolar
EM circuit we ever built is revealed as producing appreciably more EM
energy flow than we input to it.
Poynting never considered this component that
"misses" and is nondiverged, but only consider the component
that gets intercepted and caught.
That's rather like ignoring all the power output by a radio
station, except the little bit that I catch in my own individual
receiver. Heaviside did
discover that additional, rather large nondiverged energy flow
component accompanying every circuit.
But he could not explain where on earth the excess energy -- in
startling amount -- was coming from.
Neither could Lorentz. So
to prevent being labeled a perpetual motion nut, Lorentz neatly
disposed of it with that little trick. And
all the electrical engineers and power system designers continue to
use that same little trick, to ignore the energy the circuit did not
catch and intercept. What
a way to run a railroad. Anyway,
you might be interested in a very rigorous three scientific papers,
two on the MEG and one on many ways to go about legitimately
extracting EM energy from the vacuum.
These three papers are by M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E.
Bearden et al., and they are: "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 with
the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of
Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393 (in press). "Classical
Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from
the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517. Very
best wishes, Tom
Bearden, Ph.D. |