|The Tom Bearden
|Subject: DoE Research and
funding: A "solution" already present for the world energy crisis but
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:06:55 -0500
Dear. Dr. X
Why should we fund the Department of Energy, when openly it does little or nothing at all (except its conventional prattle) to solve our escalating energy/oil crisis that is rapidly propelling this nation right down the tube? In fact, some folks may conclude that DoE is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Let me give you what may be a specific example. Please have some physicists check this, including those knowledgeable in quantum field theory and particularly group theory.
Please see Vijay K. Chandhok and Bao-min Ma. “Method for producing a noncircular permanent magnet”. United States Patent No. 4,915,891, issued April. 10, 1990. This is a process for easily producing a permanent magnet having asymmetric fields – e.g., laterally to the polar line.
All we are saying here is that (1) such an asymmetric-field permanent magnet can be readily made, with a high energy product, and (2) there are already patented processes for doing so. This patent is interesting because of the reaction it seems to have evoked in our own Department of Energy.
In other words, the normal bar magnet we buy and use has symmetry in its lateral field strengths left and right. The field on the left and the field on the right, at symmetrical points, are of identical strengths.
Let us now briefly review how we normally use these “symmetrical” magnets in our motors.
Suppose we have a simple rotor-stator magnetic motor, with one magnet on the rotor and one on the stator. Let the stator pole facing the rotor axis be a north pole. The rotor magnet has its south pole facing radially outward, so in its rotation the rotor south pole approaches the stator north pole and then departs on away from it.
In the forward mmf region, when the rotation of the rotor south pole is approaching the stator north pole, the force of attraction accelerates the rotation rate, FREELY adding angular momentum (energy x time) to the flywheel and the shaft, and the rotation of the flywheel is therefore freely storing this excess angular momentum (energy x time). This excess stored energy is absolutely free, and we need pay nothing at all for it after we pay for building the assembly.
But then the rotating rotor south pole passes on by the stator north pole and out of the “forward mmf” (acceleration) region. So now the system is in the “back mmf” (deceleration) region where the rotor south pole is departing from the stator north pole. The directionally reversed attraction of the stator north and the rotor south now decelerates the rotation of the accelerated shaft and the flywheel, precisely as much as it was accelerated in the just-passed forward mmf region. So the system (with its symmetric fields) now REMOVES and TAKES BACK all that free excess angular momentum that was added to the flywheel during the forward mmf (acceleration) region.
This is the standard symmetrical EM system that self-destroys any and all excess free energy input from the seething vacuum interaction. In 1892, J. P. Morgan elicited Lorentz to arbitrarily symmetrize the already-sharply-curtailed Heaviside equations. Lorentz was a great scientist, but was noted also for using other scientists’ work and taking credit for it. For the proof, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Discusses roots and history of gauge invariance, verifies that Ludwig Lorenz (without the “t”) first symmetrically regauged Maxwell's equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it.
Lorentz just arbitrarily applied the Lorenz symmetrization (and also took credit for it), thus arbitrarily discarding all remaining asymmetric Maxwellian systems from the budding Heaviside theory which was going to be used to set up the EE model to be taught in universities as the standard electrical engineering model.
So since day one, electrical engineering has been deliberately mutilated so that our EEs do not think, model, build, and deploy “naturally asymmetric” Maxwellian systems.
But back to our simplified permanent magnet motor, using only permanent magnets with laterally-symmetric field strengths.
In short, this beast now “takes back” all the free stored flywheel rotational energy it had just given us. There isn’t anything “magic” at all; it’s simply because of the built-in SYMMETRY of the system itself.
So we have DELIBERATELY built a self-symmetrizing-field permanent magnet system which will not give us any NET free energy to retain. It keeps giving us some free energy to the flywheel in the forward mmf region, but immediately takes it back from the flywheel in the back mmf region so we have nothing “net” to use freely to “self-power” the loads.
So, to make that symmetrical-field magnet system rotate, we have to (usually) put in a coil in there, say, in the stator’s back mmf region, and then we pay to adroitly put in some external current and energy to that coil during the back mmf functioning so that the coil’s resulting magnetic field adds algebraically to – and overcomes -- that back mmf field. For simplicity, let’s say we simply “zero” the NET back mmf field with our coil and our input of energy to it. But we pay for the input energy to break the symmetry of the primary symmetric system.
Now with our paid input the NET back mmf field is zero, so the system now is ASYMMETRIC with respect to its forward and back mmf field regions. And now system continually accelerates on each rotational cycle due to its unrestrained forward mmf, without “taking back the extra free angular momentum” in the back mmf region. We can now place a properly matched drag load on that shaft, and the LOAD now freely takes back the flywheel’s free acceleration energy, so that the system now steadily powers itself and its load, and rotates continually in doing so.
The energy we ourselves continually pay to input does one thing and one thing only. It makes the net “lateral fields” of the stator permanent magnet regions asymmetric. In short, the net back mmf field is less than the forward mmf field, and that DEFINES an asymmetric system.
We do not pay to “power” the system itself. Instead, we only pay to provide a proper broken symmetry in the system, and then the interacting vacuum (exchange of virtual particles between interacting charges etc. produces all EM forces; see standard quantum field theory) provides the necessary energy to power the system and its load.
As Nobelist Lee pointed out, whenever we have a broken symmetry (and any dipole is a proven broken symmetry) then something virtual has become observable. It is the BROKEN SYMMETRY established between back mmf and forward mmf regions of the cycle that “powers the motor and its load”, using virtual energy translated directly from the active vacuum (magnetic polarity is magnetic charge, and two unlike charges are a proven broken symmetry, continually emitting observable photons by absorbing and cohering virtual photons from the seething vacuum). That gives us the ongoing “static” field of the permanent magnet in the first place.
The magnetic field is not a
“static” system at all; it is a nonequilibrium steady state (
Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts (photons) in continuous motion:
Oh, someone says that we cannot have little parts or systems that freely extract and pour out real EM energy from the virtual state vacuum? Nonsense! Every charge (which polarizes its surrounding vacuum with opposite charge, thus being part of a dipolarity) and every dipole already does this, and that is proven since 1957.
easily extract all the
free EM energy flow from the vacuum that we wish to! Anywhere,
anytime! One can easily (for a couple of dollars) make a little gadget
that will sit on the bench and freely pour out real Poynting EM energy
flow, till the end of time if one just lets it alone and does not let
its configuration be disrupted. Here’s how:
In case one assumes the “finite value” for the charges that is erroneously used in EE textbooks and theory. Every charge – even a single electron – actually involves two infinite charges of opposite sign, each having infinite energy! Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:
Also, isn’t it interesting that our EEs are not taught group theory (which has been in our universities since 1870), and thus do not actually know what powers an EM circuit? Again quoting Weinberg:
So it is the broken lateral symmetry (for which we usually PAY to get established in the otherwise SYMMETRICAL systems that our EEs always build) of the net fields in forward and back mmf regions, which then actually furnishes the energy flow that powers the permanent magnet motor and the load, once we pay to break that normal lateral symmetry.
Here’s the magic point. Nature itself does not care how that broken symmetry is obtained, but only that it is there and present and acting. Get the materials to give that asymmetry to you “for free”, and you will not have to continue inputting energy to break the symmetry!
That violates the hoary old second
law of equilibrium thermodynamics, you say! Of course! Nothing wrong
with that. Every EM field and potential is a violation of the old
equilibrium second law, because it is a “system” that is in
nonequilibrium between the virtual state vacuum fluctuations and the
emitted observable photons in those fields and potentials. And modern
thermodynamics permits the violation of that old “second equilibrium
law” at will. E.g., see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern
Thermodynamics: From He
Indeed, in real systems the old second law is always being violated at sufficiently small regions anyway. Even Maxwell – who was also a noted thermodynamicist of his day – was aware of that. Quoting Maxwell:
In modern thermodynamics, we can
also even design and build and use systems which produce continual
negative entropy. E.g., see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni,
"Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady St
Indeed, the introduction of increasing disorder can and does paradoxically lead to the production of ordering at the next higher level. See M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, "Pattern formation outside of equilibrium." Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(3), July 1993, p. 851-1112. This is essentially a graduate level textbook on self-organization of systems not in equilibrium. It includes a bibliography of several hundred references.
Quoting Kondepudi and Prigogine:
Every source charge and source dipole is just such a system. In absorbing highly disordered virtual (subquantal) photons from the virtual state vacuum interactions, it produces and emits ordered (quantal) photons in the observable state. It therefore continually consumes positive entropy in the virtual state to produces negative entropy in the observable state.
We can be stupid and continue to use asymmetric permanent magnets, so we will have to continuously pay for input asymmetrizing energy. And since no physical process is ever 100% efficient, we will pay more for the “asymmetrizing input” than the output power in the load that we get from harnessing the “asymmetric output power”.
But now suppose we get smart. We bring in another two identical permanent magnets, but where the lateral field strengths of each magnet are asymmetrical. As one of these magnet lays on the bench, its left field – say – is stronger than its right field. If I flip it over, then the left field is WEAKER than its right field, laying in that position.
Now arrange the stator magnet and the rotor magnet (using these magnets) so that in the forward mmf region the strong fields sides of the two magnets are facing, and in the back mmf region the weak fields sided of the two magnets are facing. Do not use a coil or any other external energy input. The net “broken symmetry” of forward and back mmf regions now will freely power our system and our load, with energy absorbed in virtual form from the seething virtual state vacuum interaction.
In modern quantum field theory, we simply cannot ignore the vacuum interaction (while the sad old 1880s electrical engineering model totally ignores it). Indeed, all forces are due to that interaction. Quoting Aitchison:
Now during the forward mmf region (strong field sides facing), the rotor and flywheel will be ACCELERATED more than is paid back in the back mmf region (weak field sides facing). So now the flywheel will freely store excess angular momentum on each rotation. We can therefore attach our “drag” load, matched, and this unit will sit there and power itself and the load, continually. The input energy is freely coming from the virtual state vacuum fluctuations, being absorbed and integrated to quantal size and re-emitted – per the very definition of “broken symmetry of a dipolarity”.
If you do not believe it, just model it on a good simulation program, and watch it happen.
Now let us look again at that
But let us also look simultaneously at a following International patent by one of those two inventors. See Vijak K. Chandhok, WO/2001/084569 A1, “Method for Producing through Extrusion an Anisotropic Magnet with High Energy Product”, International patent, 9 Mar. 2001. Let us particularly look at the following note:
Isn’t it interesting that one of
the two inventors has been given a
In essence, the DoE has simply assumed control of this patented process, using a government grant to do it.
Then the SAME inventor obtained a
What are we to make of all this?
My tentative conclusion is that (1) the DoE deliberately “appropriated” control of a patented process for easily making asymmetric-field permanent magnets. (2) It stated its “certain rights” claim in the international patent, which translates to its direct assumption of control of the patent.
If true, this means that, since 2001, the U.S. DoE has
(a) had permanent magnets with laterally asymmetric fields, as we discussed above.
(b) It has thus had self-powering permanent magnet motors and generators since at least 2001.
(c) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. President.
(d) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. Congress.
(e) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. Scientific community.
(f) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the American Public.
In short, if my tentative conclusion is correct, the DoE has had a direct, cheap, clean, permanent, and eminently practical solution to the energy/oil/fuel crisis since at least 2001, and has kept it deliberately hidden and “unavailable”, while the entire nation steadily advances to being flushed down the toilet by the rapidly escalating energy/oil crisis.
As an ex-military officer, if that conclusion is true, then our own DoE is guilty of the highest form of treason.
Please do your own investigation of these three patents and that situation, using some good PHYSICISTS, and let me know your own conclusions.