The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



From: Tom Bearden
Sent: September 12, 2006


Negative Impedance: What It Is and How It Works

Dear Professor X:

There are essentially two different uses of the term “negative resistor” in electrodynamics.
The normal usage means a circuit element in which more electrical output power (VI) comes out than what goes in directly, in just that part of the circuit. However, the extra output power for that section is still taken from the main circuit, so the operator himself still has to input and pay for that extra energy himself. So the usual “negative resistance” circuit does not add a single watt of extra power to the overall circuit.

So that standard negative resistor concept and usage is not a big deal, and such circuit subelements are well-known to all good electronic engineers. Their problem is that one still has to input the extra energy oneself, and pay for it. We quote Wikipedia, which considers only positive energy EM and positive energy EM flow:

“….Negative resistance or negative differential resistance is a property of electrical circuit elements composed of certain materials in which, over certain voltage ranges, current is a decreasing function of voltage. This range of voltages is known as a negative resistance region.
     Some writers prefer to reserve the term negative resistance for situations in which the negatively-sloping portion of the load line passes through the origin, so that a positive absolute value of voltage is associated with a negative absolute value of current. Such a circuit must contain an energy source, and can be used as a form of amplifier. However, the use of the term negative resistance to encompass negative differential resistance is more common.
     Absolute negative resistances without an external energy source cannot exist as they would violate the law of conservation of energy.”

We note that an absolute negative resistance is permissible, without violating conservation of energy, so long as the active vacuum environment furnishes the extra required energy. The circuit then is merely a COP>1.0 system, due to an extra energy input from the environment, and analogous to a common home heat pump whose efficiency is only about 50% (so that half of all the energy input is wasted), but which receives so much excess heat from its external environment that it can still output three to four times as much heat energy as the electrical energy the operator must pay the power company to provide. So the COP of that 50% efficient heat pump is COP = 3 to 4, as is well-known.

So another occasional usage is when a circuit element does output more power (VI) than what the operator inputs, and the extra output power is not taken from the main circuit, but is freely received from the active vacuum environment via its ongoing interaction with the charges (particularly in that section). In this case, the operator does not have to input and pay for that extra input energy himself, since the active vacuum environment freely furnishes it.

This latter circuit is actually an asymmetric Maxwellian system, of the kind arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in 1892, and still arbitrarily discarded today in electrical engineering departments and texts.

This latter negative resistor case is almost always attacked or disputed, since – so the skeptics say – it must violate conservation of energy. To the contrary, it merely requires an input of extra energy freely from the local vacuum environment, which is additional to the energy input by the operator and paid for by him. The resulting negative resistance will not output more energy that was totally input from all sources, but it will output more energy than was input by the operator alone and paid for by him.

What is usually unknown by engineers (and even many scientists) is that the conventional strangled electrodynamics model so widely accepted has serious errors, such as assuming (1) a flat spacetime in which the circuit is embedded, and (2) an inert vacuum in which the circuit is embedded. In this seriously flawed 1880s/1890s EE model, then, there is no energetic interaction at all between the circuit and its local active vacuum/spacetime. The model simply does not include such an interaction because it assumes an inert vacuum. Most skeptics also do not realize that, since all EM fields and potentials and their observable EM energy are produced by their associated charges, and those charges have no observable energy input even though they have an observable energy output, the present CEM/EE model – and the skeptics who embrace it – is an unintentional advocate of creating energy from nothing , in total violation of the conservation of energy law!

Indeed – and here’s one to stretch one’s imagination! – it can even be argued (and it has been authoritatively stated!)  that in general relativity there also is no absolute conservation of energy law! While this aspect is not encountered unless appreciable spacetime curvature exists, it nonetheless seems valid for sufficiently powerful GR effects. This peculiarity of general relativity was first noticed by the great Hilbert, not long after Einstein advanced the general theory of relativity. E.g., quoting Hilbert:

"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.].

Quoting Logunov and Loskutov:

"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately, … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [Logunov and Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179.].

Penrose gives a good discussion on the situation vis a vis general relativity versus the conservation of energy law. Quoting Penrose:

“We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, whenever the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.]

So as can be seen, the “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, one must separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and then the problem is avoided! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Further, considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow, and dramatically increasing the local energy density because of that flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance. So in general the Killing vector “solution” is nearly always untenable, and thus is unsatisfactory.

I personally prefer to just leave that unresolved argument to the general relativists! As might be suspected, that aspect of the GR theory is seldom mentioned and is little-known. And for most normal situations and practical purposes, energy is (or may be considered to be) essentially conserved. But it is also true that in GR such things as energy, momentum, and angular momentum are relative, and not absolute at all. Even an actual physical event is relative. To one observer, an event (such as the violent death of an individual) can already have happened, whereas to another observer in another frame it has not yet happened at all. Each observer is correct relative to his own individual frame, but neither sees or experiences anything “absolute” in the general sense. 

Energetic spacetime also presents some very peculiar capabilities. E.g., if spacetime in a given region is curved and/or twisted in a certain way, a continuous “outflow” of energy occurs from that region outward to surrounding regions, as a dynamic constituent of that peculiar curvature/torsion. The energy outflow will freely continue so long as the curvature/torsion of that “distorted ST region” is not reversed or does not “decay”, and the decay time can be quite long. So a “static” curved spacetime source can furnish a real energy flow for an indefinite time, even as long as the universe persists. We may, of course, extend the GR model itself to include an active vacuum, in which case the conservation law can be restored by accepting that the continuous energy outflow means that the energy is extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum (seething curved/twisted dynamic spacetime). The source charge, e.g., can be taken as one concrete example of such a source, involving just such a region of sharply curved and twisted vacuum/spacetime, in the extremely small region of the source charge particle itself. On the other hand, that is also an extension to the “normal” conservation of energy law, by considering an additional source for the energy input.

So as an engineer, I personally prefer to maintain the long-trusted and demonstrated (at least in a single well-behaved frame!) conservation of energy law by an extension of it to consider both virtual state active vacuum and observable energy flow through space, associated with any source charge (or dipolarity). In modern physics, the so-called classical “isolated charge” is not isolated at all, but polarizes its surrounding space/vacuum with a virtual charge of opposite sign. So any observable charge is part of a source dipole ensemble a priori. Further, each of the two charges is considered infinite, and each also has infinite energy. It is just that the two infinite quantities mathematically have a finite difference, which is what our classical instruments observe and detect! E.g., quoting Nobelist Weinberg:
"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

Suddenly we see there are serious problems (flaws) in some of the basic assumptions and definitions of thermodynamics. In thermodynamics, a “closed” system is defined as a system wherein mass flow does not cross its boundaries. But energy flow across its boundaries is permitted. Well, today we know that energy and mass are the same thing. If mass is prohibited from crossing the system boundary, that is a form of energy that is not restricted from crossing the boundary. Also, an “isolated” system is defined as one in which neither energy nor mass crosses the system boundaries. Well, there exists no such system in the entire universe. Every electric charge and magnetic pole in every system is in a continual seething exchange of virtual energy and virtual mass with its local and surrounding vacuum. So suddenly that “definition” bites the dust.

There are thus quite a few things in thermodynamics – particularly the “old” equilibrium thermodynamics – that have been falsified and thus require that the fundamental model be changed.

And finally, thermodynamics presently really doesn’t deal with negative energy.  Yet the universe is teeming with it. So the present thermodynamics models still do not adequately “fit” the phenomenology we actually observe in the universe.

It is well for the engineer to remember that scientifically we actually know nothing absolutely! All we have are our models, and what the model predicts or the models predict is all we can know scientifically. Really good scientists are quite aware of this. E.g., quoting Hawking:
"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As given by George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775,]

Or as put very bluntly by Silverman for charge itself:

"The theory of quantum electrodynamics provides a comprehensive and (as far as experiment has been able to confirm) correct description of the interaction of charged matter with electromagnetic fields. And yet, curiously enough, we do not know exactly what charge is, only what it does. Or, equally significantly, what it does not do." [M. P. Silverman, And Yet It Moves: Strange Systems and Subtle Questions in Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. p. 127].

This is also true of energy. E.g., quoting Nobelist Feynman:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2].

And the “EM force fields in space” that we study in classical electromagnetics and electrical engineering, also do not exist. There are no forces or force-free fields in space, but only in matter. So there are no electromagnetic force fields in space, but only in charged matter. Nobelist Feynman pointed this out in his three volumes of sophomore physics in 1964.  Quoting Feynman:

"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].

"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]

Further, Lorentz’s symmetrization of Heaviside’s severely truncated version of Maxwell’s theory also simply tossed out all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, and retained only symmetrical systems. This includes all systems that receive and use virtual state energy from the vacuum, and it includes the source charge, the electrical dipole, and magnetic dipole. All exhibit broken symmetry, as predicted by Lee and Yang and proved by Wu et al. in 1957.

The dipole (opposite charges) must exhibit broken symmetry, because that has been experimentally proved by Wu and her colleagues shortly after such was predicted by Lee and Yang. Further, broken symmetry means that “something virtual has become observable.” Quoting Nobelist Lee:
“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].

In particle physics, of course the virtual state vacuum/spacetime is already considered extremely energetic and active, and of course there are interactions ongoing between any circuit (particularly its charges) and the local active vacuum/spacetime. E.g., for a few quotations:

"…curved empty space is a dynamic entity, as competent to store and carry energy as are ordinary elastic materials and electromagnetic waves." [John A. Wheeler and Seymour Tilson, "The Dynamics of Space-Time," International Science and Technology, Dec. 1963, p. 62.]

"The electromagnetic field distorts space by creating regions of greater density of energy and stress … where lines of force are more closely spaced. But energy implies mass; and mass is the source of a gravitational field which, in relativity, is identical with a curvature of space. So, in essence, the curvature in space created by the electromagnetic field is the electromagnetic field; and this curvature can in principle be detected by purely geometric measurements." [John A. Wheeler and Seymour Tilson, "The Dynamics of Space-Time," International Science and Technology, Dec. 1963, p. 72.].

"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].

In the modern thermodynamics of nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems there are already known areas recognized to allow violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics (the older stuff that contains also some errors). To see a list of some of these areas, see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in the MEG and many other systems such as Bedini’s battery-charging processes) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and layered crystalline structures to invoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect). We strongly comment that these known, recognized mechanisms allow macroscopic and significant violations of the Second Law that are directly usable in real systems and circuits.

When one “potentializes a circuit”, one actually first changes the energy density of the local vacuum, or – more exactly – one actually changes the master potential (total energy density) of that vacuum energy. So one changes and potentializes (excites) the energetic local vacuum itself, so that it now contains extra energy and activity. The ongoing seething interactions between the now-excited local vacuum and each charge in the “potentialized circuit” are thus directly increased by this excitation of the local vacuum’s activity. The potentialization of the actual charges is just a cover story hiding the increased energetic exchange between the local vacuum and those charges in the circuit. The “potentialization of the circuit” is an effect that is generated by the primary “potentialization/excitation” of the local active vacuum/spacetime.

And that is the vacuum engineering process that is actually done and used when one simply adds voltage to a circuit to “potentialize the circuit”.  Potentializing a circuit or system is – to the system – a negative entropy operation, because it moves the system farther away from equilibrium (maximum entropy condition) and thus lowers its entropy. If we refer to the dissipation of usable potential energy from a circuit or system as “production of positive entropy in that system”, then algebraically we must refer to the addition of usable potential energy to that circuit or system as “production of negative entropy in that system”.

Note the following:

A circuit is said to produce or involve production of positive entropy, when it dissipates some or all of its usable potential energy.

Thus, a circuit must be said to experience or involve production of negative entropy, when it receives or absorbs (gains) additional usable potential energy.

Depotentialization involves positive entropy production.

Potentialization involves negative entropy production.

Both involve an interaction between the local vacuum and the charges in the circuit or system.

For a given set of charges in a given circuit or system, the EM energy is added by potentialization (excitation), and dissipated by depotentialization (de-excitation). Once we accept depotentialization as involving a positive entropy operation, then we must algebraically accept potentialization as involving a negative entropy operation. Oddly, the first is accepted in the teaching of thermodynamics, but usually the second is not accepted.

The statements hold without any change in the magnitude of charge. E.g., quoting Shrader:
"A source of electric energy does not increase the number of free electrons in a circuit; it merely produces a concerted pressure on any aimlessly moving electrons." [Robert L. Shrader, Electronic Communication, Sixth Edn., MacMillan/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1991, 1993 Imprint, p. 6.].

In other words, lowering the entropy of a system (a negative entropy operation of/on the system) is marked by an increase of the pressure or force on the Drude electron gas, and increasing the entropy of a system (a positive entropy operation of/on the system) is marked by a decrease of the pressure of force on the Drude electron gas. In the negative entropy operation, usable potential energy flows into the local vacuum, and increases the energetic exchange between charge and vacuum. In the positive entropy operation, potential energy flows away from the local vacuum, lowering the local vacuum’s energetic exchange between charge and vacuum.

Once the local vacuum is potentialized (excited), it will freely alter its ongoing interaction with the local charges to give them extra energy and power (extra “pressure”), and it will continue to do so indefinitely – including freely giving energy to additional charges brought into the exchange region – unless a depotentializing operation is subsequently done to reduce the excess potential energy of that local vacuum back to its quiescent state. But that is the operation of an asymmetrical Maxwellian system a priori. Unfortunately, in 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations and arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, just to get simpler equations easier to solve. Hence he arbitrarily discarded from the model any ability to accurately describe all those Maxwellian systems where the (1) local interacting vacuum is potentialized, (2) the altered local vacuum is freely furnishing or creating excess energy (or “pressure”) to and on the circuit charges, and (3) the circuit is then using some of that excess free energy-from-the-vacuum interaction to power its loads, at least partly “for free” with excess energy that the operator did not have to pay for. Instead, the Lorentz-symmetrized equations now allow or prescribe only a  “symmetrical” circuit with equal and opposite forward and back emf (electrical circuit) or with equal and opposite forward and back mmf (magnetic circuit).

Since all our EEs are still taught only symmetrical circuit design and circuits, they only build circuits which deliberately depotentialize their local active vacuum so as to deny any practical circuit use of the interaction of that former potentialization of that local vacuum environment. For a system to exhibit practical use of the circuit’s ubiquitous interaction with the vacuum so as to freely power loads, it must be an asymmetrical Maxwellian system a priori – the very kind of permissible Maxwellian system that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded from the EE model and that all modern electrical power engineers still blindly discard.

Such asymmetrical Maxwellian systems freely taking and using excess EM energy from the local excited vacuum interaction are not prohibited by nature, but only by arbitrary symmetrization of the Heaviside equations – by Lorentz and by all our electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks.

So the true negative resistor, where the circuit is deliberately made asymmetrical so that one part of it can in fact freely receive use some of that available excess energy from its potentialized vacuum, has been arbitrarily though unwittingly eliminated from electrical engineering since Lorentz’s symmetrization of the Heaviside equations in 1892.

The fundamental charge and dipole are in fact true negative resistors.

Nevertheless, from time to time various inventors do stumble onto an asymmetrical Maxwellian circuit so arranged that a true “negative resistance” results. In that case, excess energy is received by the asymmetry from the seething virtual state vacuum and then used to help power the loads, rather than the excess energy being input and paid for by the operator.

Encouragingly, modern theorists and experimenters are beginning to close in once again on such asymmetric circuits and their engineering of the vacuum itself, and thereby circuits that are getting extra usable energy from the vacuum.  Chung’s negative resistor is one such development. We will mention another shortly (Solomon’s work).

In conventional CEM/EE theory, there are grave experimental anomalies that either destroy the conservation of energy law entirely, or require that all EM energy – in all fields and potentials – comes from the vacuum anyway, via that interaction between the potentialized local vacuum and the charges.

(a)     First, there is the source charge problem – how an ordinary charge just sits there and continuously pours out real, observable, measurable, and usable EM energy in all directions – while there is no observable energy input detectable by any known instrument. Either the outpouring of usable EM energy has to be obtained from the virtual vacuum, or else the charge freely creates all its output energy, and its associated EM fields and their energy, from nothing at all. In the latter case, that would destroy the energy conservation law and all of physics and thermodynamics along with it. So the source charge problem has been expunged from all the texts and EE curricula.

(b)    Another grave anomaly is the fact that simply laying a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so that the E-field of the capacitor and the H-field of the magnet are at an angle – produces a true, certified “free energy machine” that steadily and continuously pours out real EM Poynting energy, without any further energy input by the operator. Again, either the energy steadily flowing is extracted from the local vacuum via the source dipolarities and their broken symmetry, or else the contraption is freely creating energy out of nothing at all. Again, this would destroy the conservation of energy law, and physics and thermodynamics along with it. E X H = S is a standard formula for S, the Poynting energy flow, and E and H may indeed be “static” fields.

Quoting Buchwald on the latter situation:
"[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44].

For the reader’s clarity, we point out that a magnetic “pole” is actually a magnetic charge.

Anyway, merely crossing the so-called “static” magnetic field of a magnetic dipole with the “static” electric field of an electric dipole produces an absolutely legitimate free energy device which continually receives virtual state energy from the seething vacuum interaction and steadily pours out real, measurable photons in a steady Poynting energy flow stream at light speed in all directions. In other words, it freely establishes a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system that continually absorbs virtual energy from the vacuum, transduces it into observable energy, and re-emits the energy as a steady and ongoing real EM energy flow.

And it also continuously violates the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics.

The so-called “free energy problem” is not a problem in producing real flows of EM energy from the vacuum! That is already universally and freely done by every charge and every dipole (and every crossed E and H field combination) in the universe! Instead, it is a problem of going back and learning to build asymmetrical interception and collection systems, of precisely the type that Lorentz discarded in 1892, and that all electrical engineering departments, professors, and texts still arbitrarily discard. Presently we only build symmetrical Maxwellian systems which – when they intercept the free energy flows from the vacuum that are being provided by the source dipolarity – deliberately take half the received and collected free energy and dissipate that half to do nothing but destroy the source dipolarity of the generator by doing work to scatter its charges. Since a real system has at least a few losses in its external circuit, the present symmetrical EM systems actually kill their own extraction of free EM energy from the vacuum, faster than they collect and use some of it to power the loads and losses.

Cranking the shaft of a generator has nothing directly to do with the flow of EM energy that pours out of the generator terminals and through space outside and along the conductors of the attached external circuit! Specifically, the mechanical energy (or part of it) is not changed in form to provide the Poynting energy flow pouring from the generator terminals. That energy flow comes directly from the virtual energy of the vacuum, extracted and transduced into observable energy via the dipolarity inside the generator, once the internal dipolarity of the generator has been physically established. For a diagram showing how a generator actually powers its circuit, and what cranking the shaft of the generator actually does, and where the outpoured energy from the generator terminals comes from, and why it is not self-sustaining in our present generators and circuits, see T. E. Bearden, “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B.”

Because of the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges (i.e., of a dipole), any permanent magnet or charged capacitor (or electret) produces a steady flow of real EM energy (real photons) from the vacuum, establishing and continually replenishing its associated static fields. Any so-called “static field” is actually such a steady flow of real energy. The static EM field is made of finer parts (photons) in continuous motion, as pointed out in the beautiful “unfrozen waterfall” analogy by Van Flandern. Quoting:

 “To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

Indeed, a permanent magnet in one’s hand, or a charged capacitor or electret in one’s hand, constitutes a working, operational “free energy from the seething vacuum” device, but one which only produces a rock-steady outflow of photons, continually establishing and replenishing their “static” field(s). All “static” EM fields and potentials are thus “static” in the sense of being composed of smaller parts in continual motion and replacement – like an unfrozen waterfall in the analogy advanced by Van Flandern.

To further develop the presently restricted old EM theory, encouragingly there are again leading theorists who are pursuing energy from the vacuum. E.g., quoting M. W. Evans:
"…the acceptance of a structured vacuum described by an O(3) gauge group leads directly to the existence of novel charges and currents in the vacuum. These are conserved, or Noether, currents and charges and are clearly topological in origin. They spring from the fact that the vacuum is a topological space. Four such entities emerge: [1] A topological vacuum electric charge, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [2] A topological vacuum electric current, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [3] A topological vacuum magnetic charge, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth. [4] A vacuum topological magnetic current, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth.

            Each of these four objects can provide energy, which can be loosely termed 'vacuum energy': energy coming from the topology of the vacuum." [Myron W. Evans, "O(3) Electrodynamics," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 Vols., edited by M.W. Evans, Wiley, New York, 2001, Part 1, p. 84].

We note Bo Lehnert is an important scientist in the Swiss Academy, while Harmuth and Barrett are pioneers of modern ultrawideband radar, which was considered impossible and viciously opposed when first proposed.

Rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides EM systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

Evans, of course, has now successfully developed what appears to be the first highly successful unified field theory – the Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory – and it may prove to be one of the most exciting developments in physics.

For rigorous theoretical proof that real physical systems are allowed to produce continuous negative entropy, in violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics, see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.

We nominated the source charge and dipole as concrete examples of real physical systems that do exhibit such violation.

Indeed, Maxwell himself (he was also a thermodynamicist of note) was fully aware more than a century ago that the smaller parts of real macroscopic systems do in fact continually and appreciably violate the hoary old second law anyway. Quoting Maxwell:
"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

See also G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.

This paper experimentally demonstrated the operation of the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption (production of negative entropy) is experimentally shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.

A simple field gradient (e.g., a gradient of the energy density across a vacuum region) can in fact cause the excited vacuum to steadily emit extra energy, as it does in and from a charged capacitor or electret, or in and from a permanent magnet. After all, a dipole in one sense involves a change in energy density of spacetime, between one pole (charge) and the other.

A true negative resistor also often involves negative energy rather than positive energy. Again, a sharp field gradient across a small region of space will generate “anomalies”. Specifically, a sudden field gradient will generate a surge of extra electrons lifted directly from the local Dirac sea vacuum itself, giving a sudden momentary surge of ordinary electrons (often called the “Lenz law” current). At the same time, the remaining but unaccounted Dirac sea holes – from which the electrons were suddenly lifted – are negative mass-energy electrons. As such, they move in the opposite direction as the positive mass-energy electrons that were lifted out of the sea.

As a source charge, a Dirac hole (negative mass-energy electron) continuously emits negative-energy photons, thus establishing and continually replenishing associated negative energy EM fields and potentials spreading at light speed. The negative mass-energy holes also gravitationally repel normal mass, and are in turn repelled by it, so the holes tend to migrate away, particularly from sharp gradient processes in the sun, planets, etc. The resulting cumulations of Dirac holes in deeper space is the so-called “dark matter” the astrophysicists are so avidly seeking. Their associated negative energy fields are the “dark energy” also so avidly sought by the astrophysicists. If we develop the use of Dirac holes (dark matter) and their negative EM energy fields (dark energy) in laboratory equipment, we also can then rapidly develop practical antigravity devices and systems.

Indeed, both dark matter and dark energy can be easily evoked in real “sharply pulsing” EM circuits in the laboratory, and their strange phenomenology can be directly studied on the bench. Bedini, e.g., has been using dark energy (pulses of negative EM energy) in his patented battery charging processes for some time now, but refers to it as “radiant energy” (which was Tesla’s term for the odd energy being seen).

There also are significant antigravity implications of resonance in very strong negative energy regions – such as in the binding energy of the nucleons of a nucleus. The Sweet device experimentally demonstrated proof of this fact.

The Sweet VTA device – a further extension of the great Gabriel Kron’s negative resistor developed at Stanford University on a Navy contract in the 1930s – resulted in an output of almost entirely negative EM energy. The reason was that Sweet established self-resonance in the binding energy of the nucleons in the barium atoms in his conditioned barium ferrite magnets. Since binding energy is negative energy (already commonly known and so accepted), and since the EM fields are extraordinarily powerful at the short distances between nucleons in a nucleus, then his device was outputting oscillating negative energy at very high gain. The unit had a COP = 1,500,000 in its 500 watt version, and this could be increased by simply adding extra load impedance! One had to be careful in such addition, because evoking too high a COP would result in direct explosion (like a hand grenade!) of the barium ferrite magnets. Sweet in fact exploded several such magnets, fortunately without being wounded or killed. We will further discuss the Sweet VTA and its antigravity experiment shortly, after first explaining a bit more about negative EM energy and its strange behavior.

We return to Sweet’s device in a moment, but first digress to discuss the strange behavior of negative energy EM energy flows, as compared to the standard positive energy EM energy flows.

Positive energy EM energy flow is a flow of “naturally divergent” EM energy. The energy is always trying to diverge out away from its direction or path of flow, and escape back to the environment. What we call “conductivity” is the ability of the path or conductor to hold that divergence effort in check along that conductor or path. So along a perfect conductor, one will have the same amount of positive energy flow out of a conducting section, as one had going into that section.

What we call “impedance” is a priori a lowering of the conductance. So if the positive energy flow meets an impedance in its path, in that impedance the conductance is lowered, and so in the impedance section the flow is not totally held in along the line of flow. Hence part of the positive energy flow will be diverged out of the impedance and away from the intended path, back to the external environment. Hence the positive energy flow exiting the impedance and along the original path of flow, will be less than the amount of positive energy flow entering the impedance region.

Negative energy EM energy flow is a flow of “naturally convergent” energy. Excess negative energy flow is always trying to converge – from the external environment – into that line or path or conductor of negative energy flow. What we call “conductivity” is – in this case – the ability of the path or conductor to hold back that excess environmental negative energy that is trying to converge into the flow along the path and thus enlarge that flow. In a perfect conductor or path, that “holding back” the excess convergent negative energy is 100% successful. So from any section of a 100% conductive path, the negative energy flow exiting that section along the original line of flow will be equal to the negative energy flow entering that section along the path.

But when the negative energy flow path contains an impedance, that impedance again is a “reduction” in the normal holding action of the conductive path. Hence for a negative energy flow, in that “standard impedance” region the “hold-back the extra in-converging action” is reduced. So excess negative energy flow-in from the external environment will be added to the original negative energy flow through that impedance region. Hence the negative energy flow exiting the impedance section along the original flow path and direction, will be greater than the negative energy flow entering the impedance section along the original flow path and direction. In short, the ordinary impedance (of an ordinary resistance, capacitance, or inductance) will act as a “true negative impedance”, with an automatic gain in the throughput of negative energy across it. The excess negative energy of course is furnished freely by the surrounding vacuum environment.

And that action produces a “true negative resistor”. Actually the impedance (e.g., a resistor) is totally normal; it is the particular type of EM energy flow – along with its fundamentally particular behavior – that has changed.

With positive energy flow, impedance “feeds energy away from the path and back to the active environment”, decreasing the flow of positive energy proceeding further in the circuits. This is known and evidenced as “losses” in the energy flow of the operating system, or just “system losses” for short.

With negative energy flow, impedance “feeds excess energy flow from the active environment into the ongoing flow”, increasing the flow of negative energy occurring in the circuit. This is known and evidenced as “free gains” in the energy flow of the system.

If one charges a battery, e.g., using negative energy – as in Bedini processes – one sends iterative negative energy pulses to the battery, with the battery seemingly connected “backwards”. The charging process cares not whether it receives positive energy from one direction, or negative energy from the other direction. If it receives positive energy, some of the input energy is lost back to the environment due to the impedance of the battery, and so the COP <1.0 of the charging process. On the other hand, if it receives negative energy, some excess negative energy will also be gained directly from the local vacuum environment, due to the same battery impedance. Hence the overall COP>1.0 for the negative energy charging process.

This is a true “overunity” COP process used routinely by Bedini for years. It gives him a very good COP>1.0 battery charging process, where COP = 3.0 to 8.0 is readily achieved once one has worked out the control and use procedures for using negative energy.

And here is what almost seems to be “sheer magic”. Note that “negative resistors” in the sense spoken of here, for real negative energy flow, can be serially “staged”. Ten stages of such serial negative resistors, each with gain 10, will result in an overall gain of 10 billion! All the enormous extra energy has been freely received from the seething active external vacuum environment.

To change negative energy back into positive energy is also straightforward. Simply charge a capacitor (reversed) with negative energy. Then switch away the capacitor and switch it into another circuit, connected normally. The capacitor will now discharge ordinary positive energy in that second circuit, in quite ordinary fashion.

Indeed, some conventional but forward-looking scientists and engineers at various universities are now experimenting with negative energy EM energy, and they are getting and reporting solid results.

E.g., see Dan Solomon, "Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory," Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117–122.

   Abstract: “In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. It will be shown that this is not, in fact, the case and that there must exist states in HT with less energy than the vacuum state. It will be shown that energy can be extracted from the HT vacuum state through application of an electric field.”

Our comment is that adding a field (e.g., a gradient of a potential) across a region of space is a violation of Lorentz symmetry, since the “uniformity” and thus the symmetry of the vacuum energy density is directly altered in that region. Also, one should note the importance of Physica Scripta, which is the journal produced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences – which awards Nobel Prizes. Solomon references work in this area, performed by himself and several other researchers for some time (since 1999). Quoting Solomon (clearly showing the involvement of negative energy):

“In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. …this is not, in fact, the case and states [exist in HT] with less energy than the vacuum state. …energy can be extracted from the HT [hole theory] vacuum state through application of an electric field.”

If this group continues and grasps the fact that the Dirac holes are the astrophysical “dark matter”, and their resulting negative energy fields are the astrophysical “dark energy”, they will have solved the problem of dark matter and dark energy, etc., and will likely be given the Nobel award.

To show additional importance of negative energy EM energy work, we return to the Sweet device – a derivative and extension of Kron’s true negative resistor at Stanford University in the 1930s. Since Dirac holes (negative mass-energy electrons) are produced, and since they produce antigravity rather than gravity, it meant that the Sweet device could be used to examine actual practical antigravity. By much back-of-the-envelope calculation, estimating, and guessing, I designed an extension to the Sweet unit that should produce measurable and testable antigravity but remain safe in the laboratory and not explode Sweet’s barium ferrite magnets. I convinced Sweet to build the extension – which was basically an additional load impedance, which could be switched in 100 watts at a time for five additional steps. He then performed the antigravitational experiment in California, reading the results on the phone to me (I was here in Huntsville, Alabama). As he switched in each 100 watts, Sweet meticulously measured the weight of the VTA itself on the bench and reported that weight. The unit steadily and smoothly lost 90% of its weight on the laboratory bench. This had met the purpose of the experiment. I prepared a paper for a symposium, which among other things showed a graph of the actual results of that experiment. I put Sweet’s name first on the paper since he was the actual inventor, not me. The paper is Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proc. 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.

Shortly afterwards, a very professional attempt was made on Sweet’s life, although by a sheer quirk of fate he survived. He was continually called at all hours of the night and his life threatened. He was accosted in the supermarket etc., and also repeatedly threatened in broad daylight. Sweet was quite feeble, and this so frightened him that he refused to try to do anything further with the antigravity unit, in fear for his life. But before he died, he told me that he also (later that same day of the original experiment) pushed the unit even more, to 1500 watts instead of the 1,000 watts of my designed experiment, with the unit tethered by a cord to a bedpost in his apartment. According to Sweet, the unit levitated to the end of the cord and tugged tightly upward on it. He put another cord on one side, so he could tilt that side up and down. By tilting that side down, the unit would fly around in a circle on the tether cord. Tilting the side up, the unit would reverse and fly around in a circle in the other direction.

So one of the things that also comes out of true EM negative energy experiments and research at high gain is the development and usage of practical antigravity. Since “dissipated” negative energy is cooling rather than heating, the use of negative energy for electrical power would also greatly decrease the present electric power production’s contributions to global warming. Because amplification of the COP is so easy (merely increase the load impedance, and the environment automatically inserts more negative energy, freely!), it means that eventually a power supply for New York City could be a simple flashlight battery (or electret, or charged capacitor) powering a very small negative energy generator, whose negative energy flow output was directed along a conducting path (transmission line) having a series of impedances. Development and use of negative energy systems will also usher in the entire age of “decentralized” electrical power systems.

In summary, not only do we need to unleash our sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists on correcting the sadly flawed old CEM/EE model, but we also should unleash them on developing and applying negative resistors and particularly the use of negative EM energy in real circuits and systems.

What is so desperately needed is for the scientific community to dramatically increase funding efforts in negative energy such as that by Solomon and his colleagues, and insist that the present flawed electrical engineering and equilibrium thermodynamics models be corrected and upgraded. If that is done, it will truly usher in the real science of the 21st century very quickly.

We need to always follow Einstein’s poignant admonition:

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." [Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii.]

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden