|The Tom Bearden
|Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004
Thanks D. D.,
We are trying to run down that discovery (made in 2000 and 2001) and see what happened to it.
For one thing, that speed of switching would be very useful with a material such as 2% Fe doped into Al, used as conductors in an external circuit, for statically potentializing and dipolarizing the external circuit without current draw, thus constituting a free regauging needed for a free energy process. The basic little equation is W = Vq, where W is the extra potentialization energy collected on charges q from static voltage V. Then the potentialization source could be switched away and the circuit re-completed by switching in a diode “shunt” where the potential source had been connected. In that way, the asymmetrically regauged (freely) external circuit then would discharge real current and voltage drop across the load, producing real power and work in the load. We mentioned this kind of thing in our book, Energy from the Vacuum, whereby the Drude electron gas’s relaxation time is lengthened (by the special alloy wire) and such switching used. It’s an absolutely genuine free energy process.
Most conventional engineers just cannot get it through their minds that all EM fields and potentials decompose into multiple sets of energy flows (Whittaker 1903 and 1904). Nor will they go check out the Whittaker papers (or google them on the web and freely download them) and see what has long been proven. A “static field” or “static potential”, contrary to what the electrical engineer is taught, is actually a continuous stream of real observable photons, flowing freely from the source charge or source dipolarity. This energy is directly extracted from the vacuum’s virtual photon flux, coherently integrated, and then output. It’s also a true negative entropy operation, in total violation of the present form of the Second Law of thermodynamics.
And let’s talk about that infamous “second law”. The greatest lie in all history has been the lie that the second law is inviolate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, its present form only applies rigorously to very near-equilibrium conditions. In short, the second law is nothing but a statement of a slightly excited (slightly potentialized) system, only slightly departed from equilibrium, then decaying normally back to equilibrium – which is the maximum entropy condition.
So the present statement of the Second Law actually only applies to a very narrow class of systems.
Since equilibrium exhibits maximum positive system entropy, any departure from equilibrium automatically lowers the system entropy. Hence departing far from equilibrium is a purely negative entropy operation a priori. For this reason, simple statistical fluctuation has long been recognized to violate the present Second Law. The reason is that, once the fluctuation begins, the system is momentarily departing from equilibrium and again that is a negative entropy operation. All leading thermodynamicists already acknowledge this, and there are various rigorous theorems and models for calculating such violations. E.g., a good reference is D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. The authors advance the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium. A further paper by Wang et al., experimentally shows that such purely statistical fluctuation violations can be at cubic micron level in a solution, and can last for up to two seconds. In water, a cubic micron contains about 30 billion ions and molecules. Hence the “chemical reactions can run backwards” for up to two seconds in a region involving some 30 billion ions! We have proposed that mechanism, where the normal law of attraction and repulsion of charges runs backward for awhile, as the mechanism allowing overcoming the Coulomb barrier that ordinarily prevents fusion reactions at low energy and at room temperature. If the barrier is reversed into an attractor rather than a repeller (between like charges), then H+ can momentarily attract H+, etc. If the attraction results in each penetrating to the strong force region of the other, then the two ions form a quasi-nucleus. The easiest decay of this quasi-nucleus as the fluctuation departure from equilibrium reverses and the departure subsides, is by quark flipping. The only difference in a neutron and proton is the orientation of one quark; so in a quasi-nucleus of two H+ ions while reversal is in effect, one can then have decay by one of the H+ ions flipping a quark and becoming a neutron, so that a nucleus of real deuterium emerges from the total reaction. Certainly this proposed mechanism for legitimate cold fusion should be thoroughly investigated, because all the various “parts” are already shown in known experiments.
A generalized form of the transient fluctuation theorem, due to Gavin Crooks at Berkeley, applies when one manipulates a system so as to change its free energy. See Blau, Phys. Today, Sep. 2002, p. 20. For the primary reference, see Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.
For that very reason, the old classical thermodynamics of systems at or near thermodynamic equilibrium is passé when one is dealing with energy from the vacuum COP>1.0 EM systems. For that work, one must pass to the well-known thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium. Such a system can exhibit five “magic” functions that defy the old classical “near equilibrium” mess. The five functions are: The system is permitted to exhibit (1) self-ordering (negative entropy by another name), (2) self-oscillation or self-rotation, (3) output of more energy than the operator himself inputs and pays for (the excess input energy is in fact freely input by the active external environment, analogous to a common home heat pump), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the input energy is freely input from the active external environment, and the operator himself does not input any energy at all; this is COP = ¥ operation, similar to a windmill-driven power system, a hydroelectric power system, or a solar cell array driven power system), and (5) exhibit negative entropy (its strong departure from equilibrium is a negative entropy operation a priori).
And it would really be nice if all the would-be free energy skeptics out there who have learned to spell “perpetual motion” would understand that Newton’s first law is indeed the law of perpetual motion! If one places an object or system in a state of motion, it will forever remain in that state of motion unless an external force intervenes to change it. Without external interference, the state of motion is perpetual, once achieved. Now try to visualize a universe where an object once placed in motion would not stay in that state of motion automatically and a priori! That means its state of motion would fluctuate or vary randomly its state of motion – and the ordered observable universe we see around us would not exist at all, since its fundamental ordering would have been destroyed.
For those who wish to experiment themselves, one can perform one’s own recognized perpetual motion experiment to prove that perpetual motion lives and is a normal part of nature. From several companies, one can buy a little kit (for a few hundred dollars) that allows one to perform a true perpetual motion experiment. One uses a shorted or closed superconducting loop, and initiates a current in it. That current will then continue to circulate quite freely, for as long as you choose to observe it. By running the experiment for some years and very carefully measuring, scientists have determined that the expected half life of that current (i.e., the time required for it to reduce by half) is something like 10exp23 years – a staggering length of time that is many, many orders of magnitude greater than the age of the present universe.
Note that perpetual motion does no work, and requires no further input of energy once the state of motion is established. Energy input is to required to change the state of motion, not to maintain it.
It was therefore astonishing that a simple logical analysis of knee-jerk statements equating perpetual motion (Newton’s first law) as being forbidden, had not been done in the century such statements have abounded. As odd as it sounds, this means that most scientists and engineers have just automatically accepted that perpetual motion also equates to “a continuous working machine without any input energy at all”, which would of course violate the First Law, the conservation of energy. We took a well-recognized statement to that effect (Planck’s statement, though we were certainly not picking on Max Planck; everybody else was making similar statements!) and did a simple logical analysis. The Planck statement is as follows, quoting: “It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.” Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.
The statement contains two premises, being (1) it is impossible to obtain perpetual motion; and (2) no machine can do work without a necessary energy input. Then with the “i.e.,” he further directly asserts that the two premises are identical, and considers that as proving the first premise.
Let us look at that, from the standpoint of logic.
The first premise is false, because it requires the total abandonment of Newton’s first law. The second premise is quite true. But then equating a true premise to a false premise, and asserting this proves the false premise, is an elementary logical non sequitur.
Any university sophomore who knows a little symbolic logic could easily show that. So for more than a century, most scientists and engineers have just been regurgitating the “dirty old perpetual motion machine” thing as a knee-jerk reaction, never even examining what they are really saying or assuming. And they are still at it, in great hue and cry.
Perpetual motion is alive and well. It is experimentally verified, not only by superconductivity as discussed, but also by every mechanical motion in the universe, and by every charge and dipole in the universe, which continuously outpours real observable photons without any observable energy input. The necessary energy is indeed input, but not in observable form. Instead, it is input in virtual energy form, from the seething vacuum interaction. The solution is known a broken symmetry (and specifically as the broken symmetry of opposite charges). It has long been known (since 1957) and proven in particle physics, but it does not even exist in the classical Maxwell-Heaviside EM model (CEM) or in the standard electrical engineering (EE) model.
Again, the CEM and EE models have the following totally awful foundations errors:
(1) they still assume the old material ether, which was falsified in 1887.
(2) They still assume force fields in vacuum, which is a total non sequitur. Mass is a component of force, via F ºd /dt(mv). Hence force only exists in material systems, due to the interaction of the force-free fields as they actually exist in free space. Eminent scientists – such as Nobelist Feynman, John Wheeler, Lindsay, Margenau, Bunge, etc. – have pointed this out, but the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Engineering, the Department of Energy, the national labs, and the universities and their electrical engineering departments don’t seem to be able to get the message and correct the seriously flawed old CEM and EE models they continue to perpetuate erroneously.
(3) They assume a flat spacetime, falsified by Einstein in 1915 and 1916.
(4) They assume an inert vacuum, falsified since at least 1930.
(5) Hence they assume an inert external environment, totally falsified in physics. But this assumption in the model means that the model does not recognize or prescribe any means of extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum or from local curved spacetime. In short, this assumption would in fact prohibit every source charge from producing the EM fields, potentials, and flows of EM energy associated with them.
(6) They assume that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created out of nothing at all, by the associated source charges. This of course is in total violation of the conservation of energy law. So today, the only folks who really and totally believe in the distorted “perpetual motion machines illogically equated as perpetual working machines with no energy input”—in the sense misdefined by Planck are – yep, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Engineering, the Department of Energy, the national labs, and the universities including the Electrical Engineering departments. And of course we must not leave out the electrical power engineers themselves.
(7) With Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging, the models assume that no excess energy can be added to the circuit in an asymmetrical way so that it can be used to power the circuit and the load. To simply potentialize an electrical circuit or system, one has to violate Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging.
(8) Electrical engineers do not calculate the EM field in space, and never have. Instead, they calculate the effects of the interaction of that mysterious force-free field with charged static matter, and assume that this “effect in matter” is in fact what “exists as the causative field in space”. That of course is a total logical non sequitur. At best the procedure yields an indication of the intensity of the interaction of the real force-free EM field with charged matter, and so the “E” field in EE and CEM is not really the E-field itself, but is its implied “intensity” using that static matter interaction as the “observing” experiment. Jackson (incidentally, one of my “heroes” who does a far better job than most), shows how the electrodynamicists dispose of the problem by avoiding it, in this statement: "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." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, p. 249].
(9) By use of the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit where the “external source” of potentialization is connected into the same closed current loop as the loads and losses, the actual practice of CEM and EE arbitrarily discards all permissible COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems freely receiving and using excess energy from the vacuum.
(10) They assume that only Poynting’s energy flow component – the part of the external EM energy flow outside the conductors that gets diverged into the conductors to power the electrons – is available with respect to an electrical circuit. On the contrary, Heaviside’s nondiverged component, arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz and still arbitrarily discarded by our engineers and scientists, is ignored. The Heaviside component is often a trillion times as great in magnitude as is Poynting’s component. Further, when the area of “negative resonance absorption of the medium” is closely examined and its thermodynamics forcibly stated, the self-resonance of the potentializing charged particles in the frequency of the energy being fed in, results in COP = 18. The scientists themselves go to great pains not to discuss the thermodynamics, but only to state that the “reaction cross section” changes. Which it does, and so does the thermodynamic COP. So sadly, a single large power generating plant (say, a 1,000 Megawatt plant) generates enough EM energy flow from the vacuum to power every electrical load on earth, were the Heaviside component not ignored but also captured and used. And electrical engineers and EE professors no longer are aware that such tremendous power flow from every generator and battery (and in fact from every dipole) already exists.
Anyway, it is just such long-ignored things that have made the energy crisis we are in today, and that is steadily setting our nation up to a total economic collapse, perhaps in as little as three years or so.
The energy crisis could easily be solved once and for all, if the U.S. scientific community would simply fund it and allow it. Simply check out the main web sites for the NAS, NSF, NAE, DoE, etc. and look for anything innovative and useful being solidly funded in the area of extracting EM energy from the vacuum – even though every joule of EM energy in every circuit and EM device already is extracted directly from that same vacuum. Look for any well-funded graduate research and post doctoral research programs in such an area – at least one that involves the errors in electrical engineering models. You will not find such programs, I believe. Nor will you find a single standard EE textbook or paper that discusses the foundations assumptions of the CEM and EE model, and points out the terrible errors incorporated.
Ah well! Perhaps one day we will somehow have a change in the solid front of the scientific community, so that the foundations of CEM and electrical power engineering will finally be examined and corrected at last. We have strongly suggested that a standard funding program to fund some of the sharp young grad students and post docs in this area, would bear revolutionary and amazing fruit – and quickly solve the energy crisis for once and for all. The suggestion has fallen on deaf ears, to put it mildly.
That is not what those controlling the scientific funds wish. Instead, all the special interests are salivating, thinking of the billions of taxpayer dollars that are going to be – and that are being – unleashed on their own favored areas. The nuclear scientists are salivating at the thought of resuming massive building of nuclear power plants. Never mind the total dependence on the centralized power grid, or its horrible vulnerability – or the fact that it is not going to remain intact much longer. And never mind the unsolved problem of nuclear wastes. Or don’t consider what happens if a single DC 747 jet flies into the containment building of a nuclear power plant. Or if rather portable EMP “shooters”, transportable in large SUVs and in private vans, zero in on the electrical controls and knock them out easily. We are at war, fellows! And one must consider what the other side is capable of doing, before one waxes eloquent on all the proposed “special interest solutions”. The hot fusion fellows are salivating at the coming additional billions and additional 50 years of funding, for their big accelerators etc. The fuel cell folks are running like a pack of baying hound dogs chasing a fox; they are well aware that they have a leading role in the diversion of billions of research funds, etc. and they are literally dragging the Big Three of the auto industry along with them, protesting all the way. There is a struggle for more windmill generating farms, solar power cell arrays, etc. but unfortunately even massive programs in those areas cannot and will not solve the coming catastrophic energy problem. The numbers for the world’s proven oil reserves are now being quietly adjusted; there has not been nearly as much actual reserves as previously reported (having lots of reserves reported, you see, is bully for the stock prices of one’s energy company). Natural gas, being increasingly used because it is cleaner burning, is in even shorter supply than oil, and there is no major gas producer (such as Saudi Arabia in the oil production business) which can step up to the plate and readily and substantially increase production. The so-called “hydrogen” era is a misnomer; one uses more energy making the hydrogen than one gets in using it, and presently most schemes are planning on taking the hydrogen from natural gas – already in critically short supply.
We do have sufficient coal to get by for decades, if we can keep the central power grid up and running. But the coal plants we have (and the 100 or so on the planning and construction board now) are rather dirty. They also depend on use – and survival – of the centralized power grid. With serious terrorist activity against it, that is a rather forlorn hope. The terrorists already have the capability and assets in country to effectively negate the central power grid. They certainly have the intent, and appear to be waiting only for the order to commit the resources. So coal will not save us, even though we have plenty of it, once the central power grid goes down.
Meanwhile, the oil refining facilities are already stretched to full capacity (94%, which leaves very little down time for necessary maintenance, etc.). Even having more oil, will not necessarily resolve the fuel-at-the-pump crisis that is coming. Even committing the national oil reserve cannot resolve it, if the oil cannot be processed into fuel with sufficient speed.
Very few people wish to even speak intelligently on the horrible vulnerability of the central power grid. Its so-called “control” system violates every principle of control theory for multiple loop servosystems. Adding “competition” and forced transmission of “gambling energy” purchased by stock market manipulators and entrepeneurs is also not a part of a real power distribution control system, but is a very odd factor which thoroughly interferes with good control.
And make no mistake, the terrorists already have sufficient assets inserted in this country to lay down the centralized power grid for long periods of time, at will. Piece of cake. Consider how vulnerable every pipeline is, to simple guerrillas and shaped charges. And how terribly vulnerable is every refinery (one of the major TV shows recently just walked right into a refinery facility, and walked around filming as they wished for some time before anyone even saw them). The terrorists have already been shown discussing various means of hitting the U.S. economy, and by their attacks now on the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq, are showing they fully understand the terrible sensitivity of our economy to oil and its related problems and short supply.
In warfare, there is an iron rule. Hit the enemy where he is most vulnerable. And probably the greatest vulnerability in the U.S. is its centralized power grid and system. It is so terribly vulnerable that no sane terrorist will ignore it, when the “coordinated attack time” comes and the orders are issued.
Make no mistake, the terrorist assets in country also include anthrax, smallpox, etc. and probably a few nuclear weapons or nuclear material for dirty bombs. Smallpox, released in any major city on earth, will eventually kill about one third of the human population. Recently, the Yakuza crews on site in Russia and manning scalar interferometer weapons leased from the KGB/FSS, also zeroed in on the Yellowstone caldera, believed to be the largest supervolcano on earth. A violent eruption of that supervolcano could do grave damage to North America, perhaps even destroying most of it. We of course have other volcanoes that are also quite vulnerable to initiation. Certainly in 1997 the U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, confirmed publicly at a conference in Georgia that terrorists are already using “electromagnetic weapons” to initiate volcanoes into eruption, cause earthquakes, and engineer our weather and climate. The Secretary almost certainly was referring to the scalar interferometer weapons, and may have in fact been referring to the Yakuza manning those leased weapons in Russia.
Now imagine what such weapons will do to the central power grid, once the same Yakuza unleashes them. Forget all the semiconductors and electronics; they will be destroyed. And they can be kept destroyed, very easily, by two or three of those weapons. Again, there is an iron dictum in war: hit the enemy where he is most vulnerable, and hit him with the weapon to which he is most vulnerable and unable to defend against.
When the total energy problem is examined in all its glory, one is left with the notion that only a single really viable solution exists: That solution would be to quickly mount an all-out attack – a Manhattan Project, e.g. – and quickly develop electrical power systems for extraction of excess EM energy from the vacuum. The Takahashi COP>1.0 motor/generator is easily built by any electrical engineering department, and they can even understand its operation (but not where the excess energy comes from and how). The Kawai engine can be built just like the patent with a bit more effort, and the COP will be about double the initial efficiency of the motor. Start with an 80% efficient Hitachi motor off the shelf, and the Kawai process when efficiently applied will double its forward emf and therefore produce COP = 1.6. The Johnson permanent magnet motor effect – evocation of the now well-known extra and very powerful exchange forces in multiple magnet assemblies – can also be quickly developed if the physics department does it, so that proper materials science is used. Unfortunately most electrical engineers think a magnet is just a bar with a north pole at one end and a south pole at the other. Leave it to the electrical engineers, and most will not even know what the exchange force is, or how it is evoked. (Hint. There is a neat little discussion of the exchange force in Feynman’s three volumes of sophomore physics). So yes, one can indeed make a legitimate all permanent magnet motor-generator capable of powering itself and its load, while complying with the known laws of physics and the known laws of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics. This is no conceptual problem, once one realizes that the “static” field from a magnetic dipole is actually a steady outpouring of real observable EM photons, and thus a set of free energy flows. The necessary replenishment energy is continually absorbed from the seething vacuum by any dipole, as proven by the asymmetry of opposite charges, part of what Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize for in 1957.
That nothing along these research lines is being done by our scientific community, also tells you exactly why. The funding is not marked or allowed for such projects. Period. Very powerful self-interests in the organized scientific community oppose anything and everything that might impact their own favored WPA programs. The upper levels of the organized scientific community will just destroy any lone professor or department that tries to buck the prevailing tide of all those special interests.
Let us hope that the young grad students and post docs will nonetheless get the message, understand the principles, and then get the business of “energy from the vacuum” done in spite of the scientific community. That will take some time, but if by some miracle we do survive for the next decade, hopefully the young researchers coming on will get it done.
Meanwhile, one recalls the words that Will Rogers used to describe politicians: “There’s nothing wrong with our politicians! We have the best politicians that money can buy!” And one begins to wonder if such remarks also apply to our present organized scientific establishment, or approach it so much that it is very uncomfortable. It has also started to occur to at least some of the leading journals, who are now beginning to question research results depending upon what funding source provided the funds. After all, “independent replication” in scientific method must also include independence from the bias or intent of the funding organizations or sources.