|The Tom Bearden
|Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004
Attached is the informal precursor engineering paper, dealing in general with what happens once one corrects the conventional error (in basic mechanics and in classical EM and electrical engineering) that force fields exist in mass-free space. Actually it is already recognized (Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Lindsay, Margenau, and many others) that force fields only exist in matter a priori. The field as it exists in a region of space is simply a curvature or torsion of spacetime in that region (general relativity view), or a change in the virtual particle flux of vacuum in that region (particle physics view).
To show how our classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineers give very short shift to the fact that force fields cannot exist outside matter, one quotes Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, 1975, p. 249. Jackson states:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field."
There you can see the problem. Our scientists continue to falsely assume that force itself exists independently in mass-free space, while begrudgingly accepting that measured force is always the effect of the interaction of the field (as it really exists) and charged mass. Note that logically this confuses unobserved cause with observed effect. We are not picking on Jackson; he is a very able scientist who has made enormous contributions! He lent vastly needed clarity (and some say, dignity!) to the brawl in CEM that rather much existed unchecked prior to his work. It’s just that our entire scientific community has followed this same blind path for over a century, and it apparently has no intention at all of changing and correcting these tremendous errors.
The implications of course are that force is an effect of an ongoing action, not at all a primary cause. It is therefore that ongoing action (of the real causative agent with mass) that should be intensely studied in physics. But there seems to be almost no study of it permitted (funded). Instead, most of the funding goes into efforts where force is considered primary cause. Hence we fund the further work or development of entropic systems, while totally neglecting even starting the development of negative entropy systems (at least in the electrodynamic area). The solution to the rapidly escalating energy crisis (which is likely to collapse the economy of the United States) is to take the energy cleanly and freely from the local environment—the subtle environment consisting of active vacuum and distortions of spacetime.
We may take “distortion of spacetime” as the rigorous definition of “energy” (GR view). By “distortion” we mean either curvature of twisting.
We may also take “change in the virtual particle flux of vacuum” as the rigorous definition of energy (particle physics view).
This leads to the “supersystem” concept shown in my book, Energy from the Vacuum. Every EM system ever built was and is in continuous energetic exchange with its active vacuum environment, and therefore with its active spacetime curvature/torsion environment. All the forces in the dynamics of the system are continually produced by the interaction with the system charges and masses of those ST curvatures/torsions and/or those alterations in the virtual particle flux of the local vacuum.
Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations is somewhat insane, because it arbitrarily discards all that class of permissible Maxwell systems that asymmetrically regauge, and therefore receive, transform, and utilize excess usable energy freely from the vacuum/curved spacetime. The symmetrically regauged system just locks up all extra vacuum energy freely received, converting it into stress in the system. So a symmetrically regauging system would seem to be a very undesirable way to go! But for those large powerful financial interests which rake in a $trillion or so from energy each year, it is the only desirable way to go! That firmly keeps that power meter on our homes (and the costs rising) and the gas pump meter on our automobiles. And it keeps the citizens as “milk cows” being steadily milked economically. Understand, if the conventional path were the only path, then that would be appropriate. But it is not the only path at all, simply by reading our own developed physics.
Also somewhat insane is the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit containing the “external source of potentialization” connected into it. That makes the dipolarity of the external source a “circuit load” to be “powered” by the external circuit using half its freely collected energy to destroy that very dipolarity of the source, thereby strangling the free flow of energy from the vacuum. The inane symmetrical circuit deliberately and physically makes the back emf equal to the forward emf, thereby self-enforcing Lorentz symmetrical regauging. When one tracks the interactions, the end result is to arbitrarily allow the production of only COP<1.0 electrical power systems. And this is precisely what keeps those power meters on our homes and offices, and that gas pump meter on our vehicles.
In short, not only do our engineers blindly discard the available COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems and processes theoretically, but they also unwittingly see to it that their circuits will physically do just such discarding in any real electrical power system they build and place on the market.
Our fellows have neglected the fact that energy occurs as a flow process, not as “fixed ears of corn in a corn crib”. The fact that EM field energy and potential energy always occurs as a set of flow processes, has been in physics (but much neglected) since 1903 and 1904, with the Whittaker decompositions of field, wave, and potential into sets of bidirectional longitudinal EM waves. Most professors in electrostatics also neglect to mention that a “static” field is still quantized into photons, and photons in space are moving at light speed. So a “static” field is actually a giant steady-state energy flow (photon flow). Since the source of the field is thus continuously outpouring real energy, then the question (for energy conservation) is: Where is the energy input coming from, and in what form is it received? That’s the “source charge problem”—the one they hope the students do not realize and begin questioning about.
Whittaker’s second paper (in 1904) did initiate that entire branch of electrodynamics known as “superpotential theory”. But his first paper (in 1903) showing a far more fundamental “internal” longitudinal wave electrodynamics comprising all the “conventional” stuff continues to be almost stone-walled.
However, the internal dynamics comprising a “static” field or potential means that, by simply establishing a “static” potential or “static” field or potential, one actually has established an entirely free flow of EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum itself. To prevent the engineers from knowing that one, the century-old problem of the source charge and its associated fields and potentials has been scrubbed right out of the electrical engineering texts and the CEM texts.
So the real science is to treat this analogous to a triode, where by doing some straightforward things such as make a static potential, nature provides an entirely free and indefinitely persisting set of energy flows—all real energy flows extracted from the vacuum.
Considering this “free energy flow”, once established, as a “free cathode current that is also limitless”, one need then pay only for the “grid and grid signal” to direct, amplify, and utilize the resulting effect (the plate signal or engine) very powerfully.
The result is a negative entropy engineering, where the required energy is largely furnished freely by the “external environment”. It’s very akin to the solar cell array power system, except in that case the external active environment—the solar radiation—is conventional and comfortably understood. The vacuum/curved spacetime environment is not conventionally comfortable or well understood, because our scientific community adamantly refuses to do anything really innovative and constructive in trying to solve the energy problem. If funding and programs were available, our young doctoral candidates and post docs would chew this area up fairly quickly, because the bits and pieces are there in the literature, just not drawn together.
Anyway, hope you find the informal precursor paper of interest.