The Tom Bearden


Subject: RE: ChipCenter: The Web's Definitive Electronics Resource
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:10:49 -0500

I appreciate the information, and had not seen the website.    

Our group is indeed familiar with the problem he ran into; and he is correct that this can yield lots of surge power, enough to make solid state components die.    

The mechanism producing the huge surges is the time-differentiation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect -- an effect well-documented in physics but not present in classical EM theory.   It also can produce more power than one inputs, and permissibly since during the time derivative's existence, the system is an open system freely receiving excess energy from the active vacuum's suddenly and violently altered ambient potential.  From any potential, the amount of energy one can collect is limited only by the amount of intercepting/collecting charge.  This is easy to see for the scalar potential, phi, by the well-known and very simple equation W = [phi]q, where W is the energy diverged and collected from the potential having intensity [phi], by intercepting charges q.    

Note that a non sequitur exists in the minds of most conventionally trained engineers.  They have never been taught to calculate the "magnitude" of the scalar potential at all, and no textbook contains a prescription for doing that.  Instead, we all were taught to calculate the "amount that is deviated from the potential, by an assumed unit point charge placed at each point in space occupied by the potential".   In the texts, that is very sloppily called the "magnitude of the potential" which is totally false.  That is how much energy a unit point static charge at a single point will diverge FROM that potential (which is not a scalar entity at all, but a set of bidirectional EM longitudinal waves flowing steadily from the source charge(s) establishing that potential).  At best, that is an indication of the intensity of the potential at each point in space it occupies.    

Also, changing the potential alone is free, even in conventional classical EM theory, and particularly in gauge field theory where gauge freedom is an axiom.   This means that, underlying both classical and quantum field theory, one is free to change the potential energy of an EM system at will, for free, by changing JUST the voltage.  In real life, one must pay for a little switching work, but that can be made very small these days.    

So the ORDINARY theory already states that one is free to increase the energy of an EM system at any time, simply by changing the voltage.  If one is not hung-up on the prevailing mindset, one then realizes that one is also free to "dump that free energy" into a load and power the load, again having to pay for a little switching costs.    

The conventional theorists cannot have it both ways.  Either the gauge freedom axiom is false, which destroys gauge field theory (our most modern and advanced theory) or one is free to add energy to the system at will.  And then one is also free SEPARATELY to discharge that energy in the load.    

In short, either the conventional theorist must give up or totally alter gauge field theory --- which would have profound impact all across physics  --- or overunity electrical power systems are possible and permitted by the laws of nature.

Note that the gauge freedom axiom DOES NOT advance the mechanism(s) by which the excess energy appears in the system at our will (when we exercise our right to use the axiom).  Here again we have a bit of a quandary.  Either gauge freedom destroys the entire notion of energy conservation, or there must be a mechanism (or many mechanisms) and a source (or several sources) for that "sudden regauging receipt of excess and free energy into the system".    

And so there is and are.    

Present U(1) electrodynamics -- particularly as used in electrical system analysis --  makes two totally invalid assumptions: (1) that the local spacetime is flat, and (2) that the local vacuum is either inert or the system is in net equilibrium with it.   Let's look at those two assumptions.    

General relativity tells us that, whenever the energy density of local 3-space is altered, a curvature of spacetime has been created.  So just to have a potential on a circuit, or oscillating EM energy in an EM wave in space, is to prove conclusively that the local spacetime is curved by that change of energy density.  So that falsifies the assumption, which means that it must be relegated to an "approximation" rather than a "law".    

These days, particle physics has long since rigorously established -- both theoretically and experimentally -- the active vacuum and its violent interaction with every charge and every dipole.  One does not have to prove that; it's already long since proven.  However, the second assumption in classical electrodynamics is thus false, since physics assures us that every charge and every dipole in our circuits is eternally in violent energy exchange with that active local vacuum.   Well, the active vacuum together with the local spacetime curvature constitute the active environment in which the electrical system resides.  In making those two assumptions (more than 137 years old!), the conventional classical theory assumes that absolutely there can be no net energy exchange between the system and its local environment.  (This also follows from Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations back there in the 1880s; until that regauging, the equations DID NOT assume away the local active environment and permissible net energy exchange between the system and the environment.  But those equations were nonlinear and difficult to solve.  So Lorentz "fixed" them, by ironically assuming that one would be stupid and build in a "genie" in his EM system, so that the Genie would always interact with the system and force it into equilibrium with its active environment.  He exercised the gauge freedom axiom (changing the potential energy of the system) twice, but only highly selected so that the two changes produced equal and opposite forces.  In short, so that no new NET force was produced.  However, TWO new forces were always produced, which clearly changes the "stress" of the system and the system's stress energy.    

So Lorentz selected only a single, very carefully crafted way of changing the potentials of a Maxwellian system.  He deliberately chose the only way to change them and PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING ABLE TO USE ANY OF THE EXCESS EM ENERGY THAT COULD BE PRODUCE BY THIS REGAUGING.   That is why it is "symmetrical" regauging.  When symmetry exists, a conservation law exists.  So he applied a "system conservation" process which does freely change the potential energy of the system, but also "locks all the excess energy up" in altered stress inside the system itself.  He eliminated any net force (which would have been a relief of that stress energy) to use that free energy and perform work with it, freely for us.    

In short, the standard Lorentz symmetrical regauging (and further reduction and simplification of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations) arbitrarily discarded all those permissible Maxwellian systems that are asymmetrically regauged so that they (1) receive the free regauging energy, and (2) also retain a new net force (a means of dissipating that energy).    

So the new equations were for a system in self-enforcing equilibrium in its constant energetic exchange with the local curvature of spacetime and with the local active vacuum exchange.   In short, Lorentz discarded all EM systems far from equilibrium in their regauging energy exchange with the active vacuum and with local curved spacetime -- i.e., that are far from equilibrium in their exchange with their active environment.    

Hence he deliberately and arbitrarily selected only that subset of Maxwellian systems which obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics.  Such systems can never exhibit COP>1.0, since they can never receive and use any excess free energy from their active environment.    

By analogy, Lorentz took the set of "Maxwellian windmills" and eliminated all those windmills that have  a free wind.  So he left a crippled model for only those windmills that one will either have to (1) crank around oneself, or (2) expend energy to provide a wind to power the windmill.    

But every text today still teaches (particularly to the electrical engineers who design and build all our electrical power systems) to design and build only those systems that are symmetrically self-regauging (that is what the closed current loop circuit does).    

By analogy, they build fine windmills, but only those which have a feedback from the turning of the shaft to the blades, so that once the power starts, the windmill also begins rotating its blades so there is no usable angle of attack, stopping the windmill.    

It can easily be shown that the conventional closed current loop back through the primary source dipole, uses precisely half the "intercepted and collected" energy in the circuit to destroy that dipole (kill that wind for the windmill).  The other half is used to power the external circuit's load and losses.  Hence more of the collected power is used to destroy the free wind (furnished by the dipole once made; see my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," on my website  So the silly circuit sits there and destroys the "free energy wind" faster than it powers its load.  Then we have to pop in more energy ourselves, to remake the source dipole in the generator!    

And this is what our universities continue to teach our power engineers to do, and be proud of it!    

Anyway, thanks for the cue to the website, where at least one person back in his university days did notice what happens in a circuit when that assumed Lorentz symmetry is sharply broken.    

Very best wishes,    

Tom Bearden