|Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: More info please - XXXXXXXXXX Ministry of Energy
Dear Mr. S********
I'm very pleased at your response, interest, and open-mindedness; of course the proper scientific attitude is to be skeptical but also open-minded and reasonable. That is the attitude you've taken, and it is very much appreciated. One does not squander taxpayer funds on chasing butterflies, if one is a responsible government official! That fact is also appreciated.
I'll give you a small technical summary and background, and then pass this to our CEO, Dr. Lee Kenny for further response, since Dr. Kenny handles all matters on the MEG. He will need your contact particulars, so he can contact you or your office directly.
The fundamental problems are (1) the deep-ingrained scientific mindset that COP>1.0 for electrical power systems taking their energy from the vacuum is impossible and against thermodynamics and the laws of nature. It is not. There simply has to be a mechanism for the extraction of energy from the active vacuum environment, and the energy must be converted to usable EM form. In short, one has to build a sort of electrical windmill, and trick the vacuum into providing a usable free energy "wind". Since all EM energy flow comes from the vacuum via the source charges producing the fields and potentials and their energy, then that is doable a priori. All the EM energy in any electrical circuit comes from the charges in the circuit, not from cranking the shaft of the generator. Even EE basically agrees with that, though very reluctantly because they have no solution to the horrendous problem of how the charge extracts and converts the energy from its seething interaction with the quantum mechanical vacuum. Yet that mechanism has been completely established in physics since 1957.
In modern QFT, the charge polarized the vacuum, and so the bare charge in the middle (infinite, by the way) is surrounded by a clustering charge of opposite sign, made of virtual charges (also an infinite charge). The difference is finite, and that is what the observer sees of the "bare charge" in the middle, through the intervening shielding screening charge.
The charge ensemble is thus a very special dipolarity of opposite charges. As such, a priori it must exhibit the opposite charges asymmetry in its vacuum flux exchange. Briefly, the charge ensemble continuously absorbs virtual photons, coherently integrating the energy (as mass-energy virtual excitation) to observable size, then re-emitting the energy as real, observable photons emitted steadily in all directions. One does not have to reprove the charge polarization of the vacuum or the asymmetry of opposite charges; those are well-established in particle physics, but do not exist in EE theory.
Any nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system is permitted to do five magic things: (1) reordering, (2) self-oscillation or self-rotation, (3) output more energy (or useful work) than is input by the operator (the active environment inputs the rest; the efficiency of such a system is still less than 100%, for any real system such as a windmill or solar cell), (4) "power itself and its load" (common way of saying that the environment inputs all the energy, and the operator does not have to input any), and (5) exhibit negentropy. There is a fairly well-developed thermodynamics of such far from equilibrium systems, as you must be aware. Prigogine, recently deceased, received the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his contributions to such systems.
It's just that there's a long-standing knee-jerk scientific mindset against ELECTRICAL POWER systems being able to do that. (The fundamental electrical power system is of course the source charge, but CEM and EE do not even model a solution for it). Electrical systems are permitted to exhibit COP>1.0, and even COP = infinity, as witnessed by the common solar cell, which may have an efficiency (output energy divided by TOTAL input energy) of a nominal 17%, but its COP (output energy divided by OPERATOR's INPUT ENERGY ONLY) is infinity, because the operator input is zero.
On the other hand, the active environment inputting that energy to the solar cell is familiar and observable. The latter word is the key: OBSERVABLE is FAMILIAR and ACCEPTABLE. (VIRTUAL energy as useful energy of course is deemed dirty and unacceptable, even though every charge in the universe already falsifies that assumption that it cannot happen).
All energy in the vacuum is obviously in virtual (nonobservable) form. But it is real; in quantum field theory the exchange of virtual particles is modeled to generate all forces, including all EM forces (and therefore force fields).
And here's the gist of the problem. The hoary old electrical engineering and classical EM model used to design and build electrical power systems is seriously flawed, and that fact is well-known to foundations physicists such as Wheeler, Feynman, etc. For one thing, no force field exists in mass free space, a priori, since mass is a component of force by F = d/dt(mv) if we make the "=" sign an "identity" sign.
The electric and magnetic fields are NOT defined in mass-free space at all! They are defined only as "what is diverged from that active entity in the vacuum", by an assumed unit point STATIC charge implicitly assumed at each and every point. At best, no university in Canada has ever calculated "the E-field"; it has only calculated the "point intensity" of that active entity in the vacuum, as determined by a unit point STATIC charge.
If, e.g., one has a "intercepting charge" that is goes into particle resonance at the frequency of the input energy fed to it, the resonating charge violates the textbook definition of the "field intensity". It sweeps out a greater reaction cross section in that "vacuum entity in mass-free space", and as a consequence it exhibits an output of energy (diverged from that active vacuum entity) that is greater than 1.0 times the input Poynting energy.
That is a well-known nonlinear optics phenomenon called "negative resonance absorption of the medium", and it has been known for some decades. E.g., please have your physicist check this reference: Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it (Poynting calculation assumed; there is much more input energy available with the Heaviside calculation that Lorentz taught everyone to arbitrarily discard). Metallic particles at UV frequencies are one class of such particles, and insulating particles at IR frequencies are another. See also in the same issue the confirmation by H. Paul and R. Fischer, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18, by extracting excess energy directly from the active vacuum.
I would be very surprised if you know a single electrical power engineer who is even aware of that experiment and its consequences.
We either believe the experiment and change the conflicting theory, or we do not practice scientific method at all.
And all it takes to prove that not all crows are black, is to exhibit one single good white crow. Negative resonance absorption of the medium (NRAM), known since the 1960s, is accomplished routinely in nonlinear optics departments every year, so there are lots of "white crows" already clearly establishing that energy from the vacuum can be extracted.
In your position, you can simply order an investigation performed of that area. Please do so. E.g., the IR region is HEAT.
And all our combustion of hydrocarbons and use of nuclear fuel rods at large power plants is merely to produce the heat necessary to boil the water and make steam to run the steam turbine to crank the shaft of the generator.
It would appear that the NRAM process should long ago have been developed to give a big heater with, say, COP = 9.0 or so, for heating those boilers in those power plants. Such would reduce the hydrocarbons consumed for that purpose by a factor of 9, e.g.. And it would give one a real option to those pesky nuclear powerplants with their long term wastes problems.
But merely check our own National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation. There also is no really "out of the box" thinking in energy going on there either. And there isn't going to be.
Now to the electrical engineering's classical EM model:
It only analyzes 1/3 of the system, judged by modern physics. It erroneously assumes the vacuum to be inert (falsified for 80 years), and assumes a flat spacetime (falsified for every change of potential and energy density, by general relativity for approaching a century). Well, the two IGNORED inactive media --- the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics, and the local active vacuum and its interactions -- comprise the active "environment" of any vacuum-power extracting system. If one's model already ASSUMES the environment is inactive, then building an EM power system is like building a windmill closed against any wind. One will obviously have to "crank the beastly generator" around oneself.
Further, the EE model assumes E and H force fields in mass free space, which is totally false. Simple take the definition of "force developed on one unit point static charge" and remove that part "on one unit point static charge" and substitute "in the absence of all static charge". The "definition" simply destroys itself. But sadly, in electrical engineering we quit thinking basics some hundred years or more ago.
The reason, of course, is that the original formation of the classical model ASSUMED the material ether filling all space. There was not (in the scientists' minds) a single point in all the universe where observable mass was absent. So the equations all assume that material ether. When that "luminiferous ether" was destroyed by the Michelson-Morley experiments, nary an equation in the Maxwell-Heaviside equations (as regauged symmetrically by Lorentz in the 1890s, throwing out all COP>1.0 EM systems receiving vacuum energy) was ever changed. Instead, one day they just sorta said, "Well, there is no material ether so we are not using one! Not an equation was changed, so THE EQUATIONS CONTINUE TO ASSUME THAT MATERIAL ETHER, WITH OBSERVABLE MATTER AT EVERY POINT IN THE UNIVERSE.
Further, there is a horrendous problem with the classical EM (EE) model that negates the entire model on energy conservation grounds. The model assumes that all EM fields and potentials and their energy, come from their associated source charges. Those fields are assumed made of photons, and photons in space are moving at light speed (else we have destroyed much of modern physics). So in short, every charge is pouring out real, observable photons continuously producing and replenishing its associated EM fields and potentials, spreading at light speed across the universe from the time of formation of the charge.
Yet the model ASSUMES there is no input energy to the charge, because it assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime -- an inert external environment.
Hence the model assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and every joule of EM energy is and has been created freely from nothing at all, by the associated source charges.
We either have to change the old EE and CEM model, or we have to give up the conservation of energy law entirely, since then it is falsified by every charge in the universe.
The greatest "perpetual motion machines doing perpetual work with no energy input" advocates in human history are in fact our classical electrodynamicists, electrical engineers, their professors, and their textbooks.
Yet the solution to the source charge problem has been in particle physics since 1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for predicting broken symmetry. In the nearly half century since then, that huge revolution in physics has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the EE department, and gotten them to change their terribly deficient model.
Sadly, if the powers that be would simply fund some sharp young grad students on their doctoral programs, and some young post docs on their post doctoral work, and let them tear into this area, then in three years or less there would never again be an energy crisis anywhere on earth.
The problem is very simple: The "static" fields are really continuous flows of real photons and real EM energy, from their source charges and dipolarities, with the charges acting as NESS systems, in disequilibrium with their active vacuum exchange. The basis for this already exists in physics, and is easily put together by any graduate student.
The only energy problem is in how to extract some of the steadily flowing photon energy from the "static" fields being continuously replenished, and do it without destroying the source dipolarity in the extracting system, as all EEs are taught to do by use of the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit. That diabolical circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging, and forces all present electrical power systems to be COP<1.0.
Anyway, that gives you a sort of quick summary of the real problem. It is compounded by that small element of the scientific community that will defend the status quo to the death. That is why we don't have grad students and post docs even allowed to work the problem, except with "standard stuff".
So we have a situation where (1) the fundamental electrical power system theoretical model is terribly, terribly flawed, even though the necessary corrections are known, and (2) we have solid experiments (such as a source charge experiment and the Bohren experiment) long known, that clearly establish COP>1.0 EM systems using the vacuum/curved spacetime active environment can and do output excess usable electrical energy.
And we have also the situation where the entire scientific and engineering apparatus is resoundingly against the slightest mention of such things, and will resounding suppress any scientist or student who attempts to pursue them.
In the energy crisis, the orthodox scientific community will not only fiddle while Rome burns, but they will also help burn it.
As to our own MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator).
It is simply understood, if one understands the Aharonov-Bohm effect, proven now since 1959 in thousands of experiments and papers in physics, but not existing in electrical power engineering.
Simply put, by deliberately localizing the B-field from an input source in a local area (in our case, in the core of a special nanocrystalline magnetic transformer section core), nature is already known to provide an EXTRA energy reservoir, in the form of a curl-free A-potential in space outside the localization zone. One does not have to "reprove" that; one simply has to read some of the thousands of papers and experiments already in the literature. Anyone -- engineer or professor -- not understanding that fact already, and familiar with the AB effect (and its generalization to the Berry phase, then further generalization to geometric phase by Aharonov and Anandan) is not worth our time and trouble to mess with. We DO NOT build a "normal transformer" that has only a single input energy reservoir (the energy the operator inputs and pays for). In the MEG, we have that standard energy reservoir, and we also have a FREE second energy reservoir in the space outside the core, consisting of that extra uncurled A-potential ( done by the AB effect's self-regauging, and regauging is free by the gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory; again, something we do not have to "reprove" since every electrodynamicist accepts and uses gauge freedom).
Now it becomes very interesting. We have just violated the model that applies to every conventional EM transformer, generator, and power supply. All conventional generators have a single input energy reservoir. Usually the operator pays for that energy input; if he tricks the environment to inputting it, then he uses something like a windmill-driven generator, a hydro-electric generator driven by its hydraulic turbine, or the solar cell generator driven by its sunlight input.
In our case, we have deliberately used a special material and the AB effect, to trick nature into providing that second energy reservoir in unusual but usable form. So now the MEG is analogous to a common heat pump (which also uses two energy reservoirs, one input and paid for by the operator, and the other input by the environment. As is well-known, the heat pump has an efficiency 50% or less, but a common home heat pump also has a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. It requires a 2-reservoir system to get to such capability, and the second reservoir must be "for free" (with the operator only furnishing a bit of energy to compress it for more efficient heat removal).
Thus our "heat pump" problem is to convert the uncurled A-potential energy into usable EM energy, and then to collect and receive some of that free excess "environment" energy from that second energy reservoir. In our case, simply perturbing the input signal sharply also perturbs the external uncurled A-potential, producing E-field energy by e.g. E = - dA/dt. Note that by adjusting how sharply we perturb the input signal to the first reservoir, we determine the magnitude of those produced E-fields in the space outside the core.
In that way, we have large and "free" E-fields in space to interact with and take energy from, as well as having all the normal B-flux confined to the core (the normal transformer action). Viewed this way as a two-energy-reservoir system where one of the energy reservoirs is for free or nearly so, we can optimize the E-field energy interacting back on the output coils, in addition to the input B-field energy in the core. So our output coil is used both as an INPUT coil for the environmental energy, and also as an output coil for the normal energy input. The result is that the output coil receives energy from both reservoirs, with the second input (from the perturbed A-potential) being greater than the B-field flux energy input in the core.
So just like a heat pump, we can permissibly receive MORE energy in the output coil than we ourselves pay for on the input, and therefore the unit can output MORE energy than the operator himself pays for inputting. It DOES NOT output more energy than the TOTAL energy input! It is just like a heatpump: Its overall efficiency is less than 100%, but its COP is permissibly greater than unity. It also is perfectly in accord with EM theory when REGAUGING is also accounted, and it is consistent with physics and thermodynamics.
There are, of course, a few eccentricities, just as with any new highly nonlinear system. One has to take care to get the various inputs synchronized, so they are additive rather than subtractive, or one will build a WORSE transformer than a normal single energy reservoir transformer. One also has to use higher group symmetry EM to even model it; the classical EM theory and electrical engineering CANNOT model it at all. One has nonlinear oscillations, so nonlinear oscillation theory is required, NOT ordinary linear oscillation theory and LC resonance. Further, one must control the oscillations, and that requires nonlinear oscillation theory, NOT the standard linear control used by EEs. Finally, chaotic oscillations can also arise, so one must deal with control of chaotic oscillations.
As described, the MEG is not a simple device at all! The reason we don't already have it on the market is simple: We have a successful little series of bench experiment devices, that prove the principle. We do NOT have a scaled-up multi-kilowatt device ready to power homes and offices, and we are a full year of very hard work with a specialized nonlinear team to get to that point. When one prices the instrumentations needed, the specialists needed, the lab setup needed, etc., one has a 9 million dollar project for that year, to the first prototype production power unit.
All five of the inventors are aerospace engineers very familiar with nonlinear research programs in aerospace, as in ballistic missile defense, re-entry problems, nonlinear command and control problems, etc. The problem is certainly a "doable", but it is not quick, it is not cheap, and it is not easy.
Note that we do not sell stock to an exploitable public, because we still regard this project as a risk venture until we get to the pre-production stage, with the nonlinearities completely managed, math models completed and fitted to a large number of phenomenology experiments, and an experienced team ready to get full tilt into prototyping real systems of various sizes.
So we are seeking and have sought a single large risk venture partner, to get on with the necessary research effort to move this from interesting lab experiments to ready-prototyped real power systems.
With that explanation, I must now pass you to Dr. Lee Kenny, who is CEO of our little company, Magnetic Energy Ltd. and is responsible for all matters and contacts concerning the MEG. Dr. Kenny travels frequently, but he will be in touch with you directly.
We will need your necessary contact particulars for him to contact you personally.
We very much appreciate your interest.
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: More info please
The presentation implies that lab tests have been successfully conducted and widely replicated. If so, the technology should be pursued with the considerable discretionary resources available to most governments, including ours.
I've been in the energy business for 30 years, never heard of your organization or Mr. Beardon. I am aware of the quantum arguments and Tesla's ideas (and many others, such as Mr. Randall Mills' hydrogen model). In principle, I'm sold on on your somewhat Hawkingesque approach.
I guess what I'm asking for is a more compelling argument that you are on to something. We have to decide on the disposition of several billion dollars in the near term, perhaps your technology might fit in somewhere.