Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:35:45
0600
Dear Mr. G:
The major barrier is the
use in electrical power engineering of the decrepit and seriously
flawed classical MaxwellHeaviside electrodynamics, which has come to
be dogmatically revered as if Moses brought it down off the mountain
on those stone tablets. It was indeed a monumental step forward back
there in 1865 (Maxwell's original paper) and for decades thereafter,
and it advanced science and technology tremendously. Even so, the
theory (model) was later sharply curtailed from that paper (from
Maxwell's 20 quaternion like equations in 20 unknowns, down to the
four vector equations later generated by Heaviside and others). Even
this much smaller subset was further curtailed (and very seriously
indeed!) by Lorentz's symmetrical regauging. The equations taught at
university as "Maxwell's equations" are actually
Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notation, as further
regauged by Lorentz. They are not Maxwell's original equations at
all. See the attached paper; we go into the history of this a bit,
including why Maxwell himself was engaged in mutilating his own
equations at the time of his death in 1879.
It is that Lorentz
symmetrical regauging of the equations  and the ubiquitous use of
the wellgrounded closed current loop circuit containing both the
external (transmission) circuit and load, and the basic source of
potential (i.e., the generator) in it  that is the problem. The
closed current loop circuit physically enforces
Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which in turn guarantees back emf (or
mmf) is equal to forward emf in our EM circuits and systems. Hence it
forces half of the free regauging energy (from the vacuum) appearing
in the external circuit to be used for nothing but destroying the main
source of potential (the main source of dipolarizing the circuitry).
The other half of the energy is used to power the loads and losses in
the external circuit. So less than half is used to power the load,
while a full half is used to destroy the source dipolarity. To RESTORE
the dipolarity requires that we then input at least as much as was
used to destroy it. Hence we are forced always to input and pay more
energy to restore the source dipolarity (that actually extracts the
energy from the vacuum) than we get out there as power in the load.
I.e., we always have COP<1.0 power systems, unless we ring in some
normal natural observable energy from the environment as from a
flowing river, blowing wind, solar radiation, etc.
Such a closed current loop
circuit and resulting EM system can never produce COP>1.0 from the
vacuum, even though all the fields and potentials and
energy appearing in the external circuit are extracted directly from
the local vacuum by their associated source charges in that circuit,
a priori. Simply look into the known polarization of
the vacuum that occurs from the presence of any charge, and then
examine what "asymmetry of opposite charges  i.e., asymmetry of that
dipolarization  means. It means that the beast directly absorbs
virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into
observable photon energy size, and reemits the energy as real,
observable EM energy emitted in all directions. We have previously
shown the solution to that "source charge problem", taken directly
from particle physics. We also showed the fundamental coherent
integration mechanism that is able to consume positive
entropy of the virtual state and produce negative entropy in the
observable state.
To get a government or the
organized scientific community of a nation to "move" and change things
in the energy field, one has to first get them to just simply but
rigorously examine the assumptions in the present MH
electrodynamics model used in electrical power engineering. You will
find, however, that not a single textbook or professor in all of
electrical engineering points out the fundamental assumptions of that
model! Anyone knowledgeable in modeling, already knows that all
models (1) have assumptions, and the model adequately describes only
those situations in which its assumptions hold, and (2) are imperfect
(Godel proved the latter fact in 1930, but it continues to be paid
only lip service by electrical engineers).
The major
terribly flawed assumptions inherent in the present sorry old
electrical power engineering model are:
(1) It still assumes a
material ether, more than a century after that ether was
falsified experimentally by Michelson and Morley. Not a single
equation was changed to eliminate the incorrect assumption of force
fields in vacuum that is in the equations. Force fields exist only in
mass systems, never in massfree space. Simply see
discussions by eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman in his
three volumes of sophomore physics; by John Wheeler; by Bunge; by
LIndsay and Margenau; and by many others. Note also that elementary
mechanics (in physics) still erroneously teaches a massfree force in
space, acting independently upon a mass. That is totally false, and it
is an error that has been propagated for several hundred years, and
continues to be propagated by the world scientific community
completely counter to logic.
(2) It assumes a flat
spacetime, falsified since 1916 by general relativity. The slightest
change of energy in either magnitude, direction, or flow is a
curvature of spacetime and dynamics of that curvature, a priori.
Further, that curvature and its dynamics also interacts back on the
mass system, as is wellknown but not included in the classical EM
model at all.
(3) It assumes an inert
vacuum, falsified since at least 1930 by modern particle physics. The
vacuum is known and proven to be in continuous and seething energy
interaction and exchange with every particle of mass in the universe,
including every particle in our EM circuit or EM system.
(4) It assumes that every
EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and
has been created by the associated source charges (all
electrodynamicists adhere to this assumption). The assumption is that
the source charge continuously pours out real photons at light speed,
thereby establishing and continuously replenishing its associated
fields and potentials, spreading at light speed. However,
the model assumes that there is absolutely no corresponding input of
EM energy to the charge from curved spacetime or from the active
vacuum. In other words,
(5) It assumes that every
EM field, EM potential, and every joule of EM energy is and has been
freely created from nothing at all, in total
violation of the conservation of energy law.
Note that assumptions (2)
and (3) assume away any energy received by the circuit from curved
local spacetime and/or
the active local vacuum, even though modern general relativity and
particle physics refute such an asinine assumption. But this is the
erroneous assumption that the "local space environment" consisting of
the active vacuum and curved spacetime dynamics is inert  ignoring
80 years of particle physics. Since producing COP>1.0 requires an
extra free input of energy from the active
environment, assumptions 2 and 3 are tantamount to assuming that
COP>1.0 EM systems can only exist if the local environment is active
with something "observable" like a river's current, a wind in the
atmosphere, or solar radiation. For such "conventional" or
observable active environments, COP > 1.0 and even COP =
Infinity systems are already in existence and accepted (the waterwheel
powered generating system, the hydroelectric system, the windmill
driven system, the solar cell array, etc.). Yet, given the proof of
the seething active vacuum, the universities and the scientific
community  and even Department of Energy  simply will not allow a
funded and deliberate task for developing energy from the vacuum
systems.
By erroneously assuming
away the active vacuum and curved local spacetime and their dynamics,
the silly model assumes away any ability to receive and freely
use excess energy from the vacuum/spacetime dynamics that
continuously interact with it. Instead, by assuming symmetrical
regauging, it assumes that all such excess energy freely received by
the system from the active vacuum and curved spacetime will be and is
"locked up" as physical stress in the system. It assumes that
none of this free excess environmental energy locked up as
system stress can then be used to power the load. And the closed
current loop circuit enforces that assumption!
So the problem is to get
the scientific leaders (the more influential the scientists who
recognize it, the better  Nobelists would be very appropriate) to
simply do a rigorous model reexamination of the hoary old electrical
engineering electrodynamics model itself. They have not done so in
more than a century, and present indications are that they have no
intention at all of doing such an examination, or permitting the young
graduate students and post docs to do it. Any of the grad students and
post docs trying to do so, will find their careers destroyed very
rapidly!
As another example, the
potential and thus the potential energy of a Maxwellian system can be
freely changed at will. That is accepted by all electrodynamicists and
gauge field theorists; it is simply regauging. (Oddly,
no texts point out that regauging changes the potential energy of the
system, and therefore there has been an energy exchange between system
and local vacuum/spacetime environment when the system is regauged!
But here even the gauge
theorists fall into the classical electrical engineering trap. They
almost ubiquitously assume that one will always be an idiot and change
both potentials (both phi and A) exactly so that the two new free
force fields that result in the system are equal and opposite 
by intentional design. That way, extra regauging energy
freely received from the external vacuum/spacetime environment can and
does appear in the regauged system, but the energy is locked up as
physical stress in the system with no net translation
force field available to dissipate that free stress energy to push
electrons as current through the load, thereby producing some "free
power" in the load. Jackson, in his Classical Electrodynamics,
e.g., clearly shows how this symmetrical regauging is done. Jackson
makes no discussion at all of the importance of asymmetrical
regauging.
Indeed, one cannot even
get an EM circuit or system to do "work" for one, unless one does
employ asymmetrical regauging (specifically, adding or
changing the voltage). Mere change of voltage to a system is work
free; however, if one has all the electrons freed and also has a
closed current loop circuit, one simply converts that asymmetrical
regauging to effective symmetrical regauging, and thereby one defeats
any "free" work that is done, by using half the collected energy in
the external circuit to destroy the source dipolarity one made in
order to introduce the excess voltage. This destroys the voltage going
to the circuit, and requires that the operator pay again and again to
continue to restore the dipolarity that his own circuit is continuing
to deliberately destroy faster than it powers its load. In short, we
pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its
own power generators and lose.
Power engineering ignores
the fact that, from a single fixed source of potential phi, one is
permitted to collect as much energy W as one wishes, by the simple
equation W = (phi)q. By simply having sufficient static charges q,
any nonzero potential phi can provide as much collected energy (on
fixed static charges q) as one wishes  so long as one does not
destroy the dipolarity that is producing phi. From a single fixed
source of potential phi, one could collect enormous energy on
substantial "fixed" charges q, then switch away the primary potential
source and complete the circuit with a dipole, then release the
charges so they can flow as current  and the excess freely collected
energy would dissipate in the load, freely producing some work. That,
however, seems too "complicated" a process for power engineering to
even consider, even though several means for "pinning" or "temporarily
pinning" electrons exist. Obviously, if one wishes to "sell" energy
to the unaware and naive customers, one must kill that silly
dipolarity that will sit there and furnish a flow of phi (a flow of
free energy!) indefinitely otherwise! Hence the need and requirement
for the symmetrized closed current loop circuit, absolutely designed
to destroy that dipolarity faster than the load is powered.
There is no law of nature
that requires one to symmetrically regauge, and the
closed current loop circuit is not a law of nature! The symmetrical
regauging was done by Lorentz merely to simply the equations and get
away from the tedious task of using numerical methods! Simply check it
out. In those days, scientists thought the potentials were
mathematical figments anyway, and the only real things
electrodynamically were the force fields. In symmetrical regauging the
equations, however, Lorentz directed all the electrodynamicists onto
their present track of deliberately designing and "fixing" the
Maxwellian system so it cannot physically produce COP>1.0 from its
seething vacuum/spacetime energy exchanges, regardless of how much
free regauging energy it actually receives from its vacuum energy
exchange and from its exchange with the local curved spacetime.
Any decent and rigorous
higher group symmetry EM analysis will show that indeed EM energy can
be made available from the local active vacuum and from curved
spacetime; e.g., particularly see the several very important published
papers by Evans in O(3) electrodynamics, in Foundations of Physics
Letters.
So we arrive at the
inevitable conclusion that the sheer continued malpractice of our
scientific community, in deliberately burying any possibility of
extracting EM energy from the vacuum in a fashion where it can be
freely used to power loads, is what is wrong and what has generated
the world energy crisis, the despoiling of the biosphere and deaths of
species, the suppression of struggling and impoverished peoples
worldwide, etc. Were it not so bizarre and so terribly inhumane in its
consequences, this absolutely stupid scientific error would be the
greatest joke on our scientific community ever promulgated. As it is,
borrowing Tesla's words, it is "...one of the most inexplicable
aberrations of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded".
If scientists have any
ethics left at all, they cannot in good conscience continue to ignore
the fact that they themselves, by promulgating such a horribly flawed
and universal bastardization of electrical science, are directly
responsible for the misery and starvation and deaths of continuing
hundreds of millions of persons worldwide. Yet in my old age I have
grown a bit cynical. These facts are easily established by any
competent scientist or graduate student who reviews the EE power
engineering electrodynamics model and examines its implied
assumptions. That none do that, that no textbook lists those
assumptions of the model, and that none even call such to the
attention of the students, is a travesty on the entire scientific
method and a total betrayal of scientific honesty, objectivity, and
ethics.
These are strong words
indeed, but they are true nonetheless. The deaths of those struggling,
long suppressed peoples are real. Those are real humans consigned
needlessly to hunger, starvation, disease, poverty, death  and
hopelessness. Any sharp young graduate student or post doc can easily
establish the true of these foundations assertions about the EE
model's assumptions, and then decide for himself or herself what is
responsible.
That the large
organizations of science and the leaders of the scientific community
have not even examined the assumptions of that model, and have not
already corrected its appalling errors, is simply inexcusable 
totally inexcusable, in the light of modern knowledge of
broken symmetry (as, e.g., the asymmetry of opposite charges  i.e.,
a dipolarity) since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and
Yang. Quite simply, it is known and proven that any dipolarity
(opposite charges) extracts virtual energy from the seething vacuum
and outputs real, observable EM energy in all directions. Yet no such
thing is even mentioned in the EE textbooks and courses.
A simple permanent magnet,
e.g., as a magnetic dipole exhibits the asymmetry of opposite charges.
Hence it continuously absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, changes
the absorbed differential of energy to a differential of mass,
integrates the consecutive integrals of mass coherently since mass is
unitary, and then reemits real observable photons at light speed in
all directions, producing and continuously replenishing its associated
"static" EM fields and potentials. Note that the associated fields in
space are made of photons (quanta), and a photon in space is moving at
light speed a priori. Hence the socalled "static" fields are
not static at all; instead, they are nonequilibrium steady state
(NESS) entities. In forefront thermodynamics, it is already
established that a NESS system is permitted to exhibit continuous
negative entropy (Evans and Rondoni). Every charge and dipolarity in
the universe already does exactly that, providing any number of
examples of what Evans and Rondoni proved theoretically. And
incidentally, totally violating the present statement of the second
law of thermodynamics, which is an oxymoron that has always assumed
its own contraction has first occurred. We have also restated the
second law in accord with modern knowledge and with the exhibition of
continuous negative entropy by every charge and dipolarity.
To spell all this out a
little further, I prepared (somewhat hastily  because of my
seriously deteriorated physical condition I have to work in little
snaps and surges) the paper on my website that deals with Precursor
Engineering. Here we discussed what can be done if one first corrects
the erroneous assumption of force fields in space from the models.
That assumption has effectively hidden the fact that one can engineer
the energy in space itself  i.e., the virtual
particle flux of the vacuum in particle physics terminology, or the
curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics in general relativity
terminology  and it is workfree. It is simply regauging and
sets of regaugings, and by the standard gauge freedom axiom that is
workfree. It is not only symmetrical regauging that
is workfree, but also asymmetrical regauging.
So all I can advise you to
do is to search out and find suitable sensitive scientists (the higher
their level the better) who still practice and uphold scientific
method, who are concerned about the continuing and increasing damage
to the biosphere and our fragile planetary environment, and make them
familiar with this problem. Persuade them to do or have their
assistants do the necessary rigorous review and reexamination of the
assumptions in the classical MH electrodynamics and electrical
engineering, and prepare the necessary papers containing the results
of that review. Then they should prepare a rigorous discussion of the
present power industry practices, and how it has been shaped and
distorted by these distorted assumptions of the standard electrical
power engineering model. Particularly the impact on the Earth, on the
peoples of the earth, and on the decline of species should also be
included.
Only when the scientific
community itself will prominently publish such a listing and admit its
long errors in this respect, can there be any hope that this terrible
faux pas will be corrected, the textbooks corrected, energy from the
vacuum systems rapidly developed and deployed, etc. Any hope of
funding the development and deployment of electrical power systems
freely taking their input energy from the seething vacuum/curved
spacetime can only occur after the scientific community  which so
adamantly opposes it or even any mention of it  changes and tackles
the task of developing and implementing just such systems.
Every graduating EE
student and physics student should be required to take at least one
seminar course where the limitations and assumptions
of the basic models  and particularly the EE model and the basic
mechanics model  are pointed out. To my knowledge, that has never
been done, and it is still not done anywhere today that I am aware of.
Yet it is sorely needed if ever we are to scrub out the long
accumulated horrible errors in some of these models. And if we are
ever to get those terribly suffering impoverished populations up and
moving, with a decent life and hope rather than the sheer despondency
that now is their lot.
Hope that helps at least a
little, and I attach a copy of the paper on
Precursor Engineering for
your information.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
