The Tom Bearden
Website

 

 

 

 

Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum"
Now available

Help support the research

 

To (correspondent),

Your polite and reasoned response to a typical ad hominem attack on free energy researchers is appreciated.

Let us dispense with the emotion and ad hominem attacks, which are not science but cur dog attacks, and which have no place in any scientific discussion.  Let us simply deal with the science involved and the proof of it.  Here is why one really can develop COP>1.0 EM systems, in accord with the laws of physics.

The coefficient of performance (COP) of a system is its useful output energy divided by the energy that is input by the operator only. The efficiency x of a system is its useful output energy divided by the total energy that is input from all sources. COP>1.0 implies only that the machine outputs more energy than the operator himself must input and pay for, with the extra energy being freely received from the active environment. COP>1.0 complies with the conservation of energy law. On the other hand, x > 100% would imply that the system outputs more energy than is input to it by all sources, which is obviously a violation of the conservation of energy law requiring that the system create energy from nothing. No legitimate overunity researcher has ever proposed that a system can have x > 100%, but only that it can have COP>1.0.

The standard vicious and extremely emotional attack on the very notion of COP>1.0 EM systems is eerie, particularly the total confusion in the critics' minds as to the difference between (i) permissible EM systems having COP>1.0 but efficiency of x < 100%, and (ii) perpetual motion machines purporting to produce x > 100% and thus purporting to create energy from nothing.

COP>1.0 — and even COP = as exhibited by a windmill, sailboat, or waterwheel — is not a violation of energy conservation, since the external environment inputs the additional energy. On the other hand, x > 100% implies that the system creates energy from nothing, so that it outputs more than is input to it from all sources. That violates the conservation of energy law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and any such purported system would properly be labeled a perpetual motion machine.

Presently the only serious group that do (though unwittingly) advocate x >100% (and even x = !) EM systems are the conventional scientists and electrical engineers! The standard classical EM model and electrical engineering — and every electrical engineering department, professor, and textbook — implicitly and erroneously assumes that the source charge freely and continuously creates observable EM energy out of nothing at all, and pours it out continuously in all directions at the speed of light, establishing its associated fields and potentials and their energy across the universe at the speed of light. Thus the standard scientific community erroneously assumes that every charge has an x = . The charge cannot exhibit x = , of course, or even x > 100% unless the entire conservation of energy law is wrong! Instead, the charge exhibits COP = , and x £ 100% since it freely receives all its input energy from the seething vacuum by absorbing virtual energy and transducing it into observable energy, which is then freely poured out in all directions at the speed of light. For this entire process, the observer/experimenter himself does not input anything to the source charge. Every EM field, potential, and joule of energy in the universe is produced in that fashion, via the asymmetry of the associated source charges in their energetic exchange with the active vacuum.

The severe classical problem of the source charge, modeled as freely creating energy from nothing, used to be begrudgingly admitted. It was known as the "source charge problem" or the "problem of the charge and its associated fields and potentials".  It could be found in books occasionally into the 1960s.  Then one day it just seems to have been very suddenly removed and thereafter it has been resoundingly ignored.  Many professors today and most of the students have not even heard of the "source charge problem", and have no inkling that they have been taught an EM theory based on every charge being a perpetual motion machine with x = .  The last thing that universities wish is to have to face again their own electrical engineering assumption of wholesale perpetual motion machines called "source charges", freely creating all EM fields, potentials, and their energy right out of nothing at all.

Little wonder that D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii, spoke of the source charge problem in these words: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." Yet as of the publication date of that book, the solution to that "most difficult problem" had already been proven in particle physics for 11 years. Obviously the particle physicists and the electrodynamicists were not communicating very well, and they still aren't.

The reader should note that the solution to the source charge problem has never been advanced in classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.  It has never been advanced by the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, etc. Apparently the leaders of the scientific community are not even interested in a solution to "this most difficult problem in electrodynamics".

The rigorous basis for the solution to the source charge problem was already provided by the prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang in 1956-57, the experimental proof of it by Wu et al. in early 1957, and — in an unprecedented speed due to the profound revolution in physics that had occurred so quickly  — the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the very same year, December 1957. The revolution of broken symmetry in physics occurred in a whirlwind of activity of less than two years duration!

Broken symmetry indeed ushered in a great revolution in physics. However, apparently in the ensuing 45 years it has not been able to make it across the campus from the particle physics department to the electrical engineering department. It has not galvanized the electrical engineering professors to change their century-old, terribly flawed classical EM model and include the active vacuum interaction with every charge, as well as broken symmetry in that interaction when the charge and its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign are considered — in the modern QFT view — as a special kind of dipolarity. Since they have not done that, they have continued to preach (teach is not the proper word here, because of the dogma) that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible, against the laws of nature, and perpetual motion nonsense. That of course is a blatant lie, since COP>1.0 EM interactions are already well-known in physics — e.g., the proven negative resonance absorption of the medium, in nonlinear optics.

One of the proven asymmetries in the vacuum energy exchange, experimentally shown by Wu et al., is that of opposite charges — such as are on the ends of a dipole or dipolarity.  In the modern quantum field theory view, the observable charge itself is a dipolarity consisting of an infinite bare charge in the middle surrounded by clustering virtual charges (also an infinite charge) of opposite sign in the vacuum.  The difference between these two infinite charges, however, is finite, and that difference is what the external observer sees when he is looking at that bare charge in the middle through the external clustering "Faraday screen".  All that of course is well-known in particle physics, and appears even in more popularized articles and books such as Steven Weinberg's  Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, written for educated lay persons. 

But the asymmetry of the charge and the dipole with its vacuum energy exchange still does not appear in classical electrodynamics or electrical engineering.  Nonetheless, if one accepts as a special dipolarity the QFT view of the "isolated source charge" together with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign, then the charge really does absorb virtual energy from the seething vacuum continuously, coherently integrate it into observable photons, and then emits those real, observable photons in all directions at the speed of light.  This of course completely resolves the source charge problem while saving the conservation of energy law, but it also points out the terrible obsolescence of the standard electrical engineering curriculum.  We published that solution to the source charge problem in 2000, kindly printed by Hal Fox in my article called "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.

The failure of classical electromagnetics and electrical engineering to grasp the significance of the source dipolarity's asymmetry also means that our scientists have totally missed the significance of Gabriel Kron's open path. Kron was never allowed to reveal its secret fully, but he did give strong hints. E.g., in a still-unidentified journal paper, Kron said:

"...the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously — following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum-point, the 'ground'). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix... which created 'lamellar' currents..." "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search." Gabriel Kron, "The Frustrating Search for a Geometrical Model of Electrodynamic Networks," Journal unk., issue unk., circa 1962, p. 111-128. The quote is from p. 114. We have a copy of the actual document, but with identifying marks removed.

Kron's open path was his discovery that lamellar currents move between the two charges of any dipolarity. We independently discovered this after years of struggle. The secret of Kron's open path and "lamellar" current appeared when we found that — in forward time — all EM energy comes from the time domain to the negative charge, thence to the associated positive charge (local polarization of the vacuum assumed), thence back to the time domain. Hence the "presence of EM energy in space" is actually a 4-circulation at each spatial point. In our new book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, we show how this circulation comes about, and also found its consistency with quantum field theory's associated scalar and longitudinal photons, as well as its consistency with a slight reinterpretation of Whittaker's 1903 longitudinal EM wave decomposition of the scalar potential.

Bedini and I will shortly file a patent application showing how to apply Kron's open path discovery to what we shall call "inverted circuits" that operate entirely different to present circuits in the textbook. To protect our intellectual property rights, no details will be given. However, it is certainly possible to use and apply Kron's lamellar currents to provide negative resistance in electrical power circuits, and we shall demonstrate it in actual working bench models developed by Bedini. Till our patent applications are filed, we can give no further information.

The asymmetry of two opposite charges, proven in 1957 by Wu and her colleagues; is indeed related to Kron's open path and lamellar currents. Consider this: Take any two charges, each located at a point one chooses anywhere in the universe, where the charges differ either in magnitude or sign or both, so that those two charges form a dipolarity. By the asymmetry of any dipolarity, that dipolarity continuously and freely extracts and pours out real EM energy from the seething vacuum by absorbing virtual energy, transducing it into observable photons, and pouring out those photons at the speed of light. This is also a source of previously unaccounted EM energy associated with all charged systems and regions such as the interactions ongoing in the spiral arms of galaxies. It is thus a source of additional gravity that has been unaccounted until the present.

Now note that a flow of energy also passes from one of the charges to the other. Indeed, since the two opposite charges are conjugates, a bidirectional flow of energy passes between them. These currents are special lamellar energy currents in the form of bidirectional EM wavepairs. These currents establish the existing EM fields and potentials between these two charges (these two points). The decomposition of the scalar potential and the formation of superpotential theory dealing with such "field and potential decomposition" was given by E. T. Whittaker in two seminal papers in 1903 and 1904. They are (i) "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 and (ii) "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. The latter paper established the present superpotential theory, further extended by scientists such as Bateman, Barut, Penrose, Debye, Casimir, Wolf, Bromwich and others.

The unaccounted production of excess EM energy in space, between any two such points of differing potential or charge, is a contribution to excess "dark" (unaccounted) EM energy which may well contribute to the excess gravity holding those spiral arms of the galaxies together, particularly when the nondiverged and usually unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component is accounted as well as the Poynting component. In our new book, Energy from the Vacuum, we have also proposed a solution to what is generating the excess antigravity accelerating the expansion of the universe, but will not discuss it further in this note.

Kron built true negative resistors on the Network Analyzer project for the U.S. Navy at Stanford University in the 1930s. Here is a quotation where he slipped this information through his censors as best he could:

"Although negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer, in practice it is more convenient to use a second type of circuit, in which the positive and negative resistances are replaced by inductors and capacitors and the dc currents and voltages are replaced by ac currents and voltages of fixed frequency. The use of the second type of interpretation is equivalent to multiplying the wave equation by i = Φ - 1." Gabriel Kron, "Electric circuit models of the Schrφdinger equation," Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 39.

Simply examine the first clause carefully: It states unequivocally that negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer — and that was at Stanford University. He also indicates that, before the wave equation is multiplied by i, one has true negative resistance, but afterwards one has the standard "simulation" transformation. The difference is significant: with a true negative resistance, indeed the system can be made self-powering (i.e., with COP = ). Kron slipped this information through his censors in the following statement:

"Now a value E of the negative resistances, at which the generator current becomes zero, represents a state at which the circuit is self-supporting and has a continuous existence of its own without the presence of the generator, as the negative resistances just supply the energy consumed by the positive resistances. (If the circuit contains inductors and capacitors, the circuit is a resonant circuit and it oscillates at its basic frequency.) … When the generator current is positive the circuit draws energy from the source, and when the current is negative the circuit pumps back energy into the source. At zero generator current the circuit neither gives nor takes energy, and theoretically the generator may be removed." Gabriel Kron, "Electric circuit models of the Schrφdinger equation," Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 41. His censors, however, did force the insertion of the word "theoretically" in the last sentence.

We also point out that the negative resistor action is occurring in the input section of the system, since it is feeding current back to the external power supply (the generator) and reducing the power draw from it. When the current from the negative resistance is equal to the generator's input, the input section of the system has sufficient current appearing in it from the negative resistance to power itself with that novel input.

Kron also sneaked through the information that he had made only a few such true negative resistors. Quoting: "When only positive and negative real numbers exist, it is customary to replace a positive resistance by an inductance and a negative resistance by a capacitor (since none or only a few negative resistances exist on practical network analyzers.)" Gabriel Kron, "Numerical solution of ordinary and partial differential equations by means of equivalent circuits." J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 16, Mar. 1945a, p. 173. Simply pay close attention to the last part of the sentence, enclosed in parentheses. The censors force him to add the words "none or".

So the stale old assertion that "good scientists" have never produced COP >1.0 or COP = electrical systems is false. Kron was one of the greatest electrical scientists ever produced in this nation. And he did produce true negative resistors that allowed self-powering of the Network Analyzer, two decades before the discovery of broken symmetry in physics. However, he was never permitted to clearly reveal his momentous discovery, though he tried to do so through his censors. The best that conventional scientists appreciated of Kron's work is summed up by Lynn and Russell as follows:

"Kron has never published details of his method of making the polyhedron self-organizing, although his published results show that in this state it has some remarkable properties, associated with harmonic integrals on multiply connected spaces." J. W. Lynn and R. A. Russell, "Kron's Wave Automaton," Journal Unk, date unk, p. 131.

But to return. Regardless of the great revolution spurred by the discovery of broken symmetry, the electrical engineering model still does not model the active vacuum, its energetic exchange with the charge, and the proven broken symmetry in that exchange.  The model still assumes the charge just creates from nothing all that energy it pours out continuously — which outpouring is not only negentropy but steadily and continuously increasing negentropy, in total violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Ironically, those academic arch skeptics who condemn overunity researchers as perpetual motion nuts, are themselves the world's greatest though unwitting perpetual motion advocates (or "nuts", if they prefer that appellation) in human history.  Their model does not include the active vacuum, much less the continuous energy exchange between vacuum and charge, or a broken symmetry in that exchange. They just assume that all EM energy — every joule in the universe, whether in matter or space — is freely created out of nothing by the source charge.

Bluntly put, with the possible exception of Gabriel Kron, there is not now and there never has been a single electrical engineering department, EE professor, or EE textbook that even knows what powers an electrical circuit.  That is, there is no inkling that all the EM energy in every circuit and EM system comes directly from the seething vacuum via the broken symmetry of the source charges and the source dipolarities.  It does not come from the shaft energy input to the generator, or from the chemical energy dissipated in the battery.  That this is still so universally unknown is sad, but that is the fact of it.  It is excusable until 1957 and the discovery of broken symmetry, with the quick award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.  It is inexcusable since then.   That is a sad commentary on our National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, universities, etc.

The well-known "negative resonance absorption of the medium" effect is also replicable by any nonlinear optics department, and — as shown by Bohren in Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327 with independent replication reported by Paul and Fischer in the same issue — it outputs 18 times as much energy as one inputs.  We also explained that long ago, as well as where the excess energy comes from.

Further, the source dipole in a generator or battery — once formed — actually extracts enormously more energy from the vacuum and pours it out of the terminals, than the silly external circuit catches and utilizes.  This was discovered in the 1880s by Heaviside, to the consternation of the less than three dozen electrical scientists in the world at the time.  No one had the foggiest notion as to where such an enormous outpouring of energy could be coming from, filling all space around the external conductors attached to the generator terminals.

So Lorentz just arbitrarily discarded it from all accountability, stating that this extra nondiverged Heaviside component "had no physical significance" because it did nothing and powered nothing.  The neat little integration trick (integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around every volume element of interest) that Lorentz used to discard any accountability of the Heaviside component, is still used by electrodynamicists and electrical engineers.

Few of the professors even know it anymore, and almost none of the students know it except for the extremely rare one that has gone back and read the original Heaviside and Poynting papers that founded energy flow theory in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead.

Prior to his death, Heaviside did realize the gravitational implications of his huge nondiverged energy flow component associated with every field and charge interaction. He worked out a theory of the gravitational impact of that huge energy component, and his notes with the theory were found beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment in 1957 (the same year as the proof of broken symmetry). In honor of Heaviside, we have nominated that huge unaccounted EM energy component as the long-sought source of the extra gravity holding the arms of the spiral arms together — as a proposed solution to the dark matter problem. Applying the unaccounted Heaviside component to my own theory of the source of antigravity (T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, "Chapter 8: Approach to Antigravity"), we have proposed a possible solution to the dark energy problem — the missing source of the antigravity that is accelerating the observed expansion of the universe.

Now let us deal with the infamous second law of thermodynamics, which — insofar as electromagnetics is concerned — is as dead as a doornail.

The second law of thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics.  Some years ago Denis Evans et al. of the Australian National University advanced the rigorous transient fluctuation theorem (D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, Phys. Rev. E, vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645), which quickly had other supporting work shown by other researchers. (A good little overview article is Steven K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems," Physics Today, 55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21.).  Recently (July 2002) Evans and his colleagues have rigorously shown experimental violation of the second law at the micron (colloidal) size level and for up to two seconds.  Published as G. M. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 89, 2002,  050601, this  experimentally proven violation of the second law dramatically extends the permissible violation zone from the microscopic to the colloidal level.  The second law has always been violable for a single charge, atom, molecule, or small group of molecules.

But the new experimental demonstration by Evans et al. now clearly shows that in real chemical solutions "reversal zones" do occur where reactions permissibly run backwards, at up to colloidal level in size and for up to two seconds in duration!  Evans et al. have commented that this certainly does affect chemistry quite strongly. As an example, in our cited book, in "Chapter 10: Cold Fusion: Low Spatial-Energy Nuclear Reactions at High Time-Energy," we have used the occurrence of just such "reversed zones" in cold fusion experiments as reversing the Coulomb barrier into a Coulomb attractor where like charges momentarily attract. Hence two H+ ions (protons) can attract so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other, forming a quasi-nucleus. As the reversal zone subsequently decays, the preferred decay mechanism for the excited state of the quasi-nucleus is by quark flipping. A quark flips in one proton, turning it into a neutron, and thus yielding a nucleus of deuterium. Two D+ ions in a deuterated solution can draw together into such a quasi-nucleus, and need not even flip a quark when the reversal zone decays. Instead, they just tighten into a full nucleus of a helium ion (an alpha particle). The only reason that transmutations do not occur in normal chemical solutions is in fact the Coulomb barrier. With the proof by Evans et al. that reversal zones do occur up to micro size and for up to two seconds, it means that for such lengths of time the Coulomb barrier can be and is sometimes reversed. Hence the mechanism of cold fusion as a fundamentally new kind of nuclear reactions using reversal zones permitted and prescribed by the transient fluctuation theorem (and proven experimentally) is now proposed.

We also go further: At least for electrodynamics, the failure of the second law is complete, and this can easily be shown.

The violation of the second law of thermodynamics is total for electrodynamics as follows: It is well-established that the source charge does pour out observable EM energy in all directions at the speed of light, without any observable energy input.  It does it continuously, so the charge represents a continuous and indefinite violation of the second law, because it exhibits increasing negentropy (production of order), steadily, in contradiction to the second law's proclamation of progressive entropy (increasing disordering).  Further, the observable photon energy poured out is itself not disordered but is perfectly ordered macroscopically, to any size magnitude one wishes (even across the entire universe) and for any length of time one wishes (including for the 14 billion years of the observable universe).  The charges in the original matter have done it continuously since the beginning, and their ordered fields and potentials (and their energy) reaches across the observable universe. 

At a point at any radial distance from the source charge, if one knows the source charge magnitude, etc. one can calculate the value of the field, its direction, the value of the potential, and also the direction of the vector potential.  In an ideal case one can then measure those entities at that point to experimentally prove it.  This ordering of the expanding EM fields and potentials and their energy, increasing at the speed of light, is trivial and is used every day in electrodynamics, but it is fundamentally significant for thermodynamics also.  The macroscopic ordering of the EM field formed by the source charge is deterministic, not "statistical" (or so one can certainly argue, based on untold numbers of experiments).  In turn, that macroscopic determinism of the fields and potentials and their organized EM energy totally violates the statistical basis of statistical mechanics, hence it totally violates the entire basis of the second law of thermodynamics.   The second law applies only to statistical things, not to deterministic things.

All electrodynamics — the source charge, the associated fields, the associated potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe, whether in space or in matter — comes from the vacuum via this asymmetry of the source charge and the macroscopic ordering of the fields, potentials, and their energy, and as a total violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  Even the staid old electrical engineering departments implicitly assume this, though unwittingly.

So classical electrodynamics by its very existence totally contradicts the second law of thermodynamics in the macroscopic universe, to any size desired and for any time duration desired.  The second law is thus falsified experimentally, at least for electrodynamics.

But the case against the second law is still stronger. Our most modern and successful theory — arguably — is quantum field theory. In that theory, the gauge freedom axiom allows the potential energy of any EM system to be freely changed at will. Usually symmetrical regauging is used by the electrodynamicist, where the potential energy of the system (or the model for a vast ensemble of systems) is changed twice simultaneously, but just so that the two extra, free force fields resulting from the two free energy changes are equal and opposite. When the system's potential energy is freely changed in this very special fashion, the excess free energy added to the system is "locked up" so that it performs internal work only, creating an altered stress in the system. Such "bottled up" stress energy cannot be used to translate electrons through the external loads and do useful free work, because the net translation force is zero a priori. Instead, the excess free energy can only be used to create an altered stress condition in the system itself, even though work is being accomplished upon the system continuously.

We accent, however, that since the operator or researcher does not input the excess energy freely appearing in the system as a result of regauging, then the energy must freely come from the vacuum environment, else the gauge freedom axiom itself contradicts the conservation of energy law and allows free creation of energy from nothing. We have already pointed out an experimental source charge example — and the solution to the source charge problem — proving that all observable EM energy comes from the vacuum anyway, via the asymmetry of the source charge in its energetic exchange with the active vacuum. Again, that is fully supported by the experimental demonstration by Wu et al. of the broken symmetry of opposite charges.

However, if one is free to change the system's EM potential energy twice at will, then certainly one is free to change it once at will, a priori. There is no law of nature that states that a peculiar two changes specifically chosen to produce equal and opposite force fields must be accomplished. So one is implicitly free to asymmetrically regauge the EM system, i.e., change the system in such fashion that a net free forcefield results in addition to the system's net free change of potential energy. A simple example is to just change the voltage of an electrostatic system where the current is not allowed to move.

We now point out that any free positive change of EM energy in the system, via regauging of either kind, is a negentropic action. This action is repeatable, since one is free to do it when one wishes and as many times as one wishes, according the gauge freedom axiom. So here again, one sees that progressively increasing giant negentropy is in fact permitted and prescribed by the gauge freedom axiom, and is experimentally demonstrated by every charge in the universe. The gauge freedom axiom is not limited to microscopic or mesoscopic systems, but is equally applicable to microscopic systems of any size magnitude and any time duration.

The well-known, universally accepted, and universally utilized gauge freedom axiom thus falsifies the second law of thermodynamics, and this violation can be experimentally demonstrated with ease. Simply keep increasing the static voltage of a circuit in which the current does not move, at least momentarily.

Now note that the quite old thermodynamics definition of "closed system" is one that is closed only to mass exchange across its boundary.  The definition deliberately assumes that energy flow across the system boundary is unrestricted!  So a "closed system" thermodynamically is entirely an open system with respect to energy flow.  Hence such a "closed system" can in fact be an open system with respect to energy exchange, far from equilibrium with its active environment such as the active vacuum! And so it is, as every charge proves conclusively, since every charge is precisely in such a far from equilibrium condition, totally violating Lorentz's symmetrical regauging requirement.

Further, entropy (disordering) always has implicitly assumed that some negentropy has first happened earlier, to provide the initial order that is then to be progressively disordered.  In other words, entropy can exist or occur only after negentropy has first occurred.  One first has to have the order created, before it can subsequently be disordered by entropic interactions. The very concept of entropy thus assumes its own contradiction, so it is an oxymoron and always has been.

Also, it follows that the second law has always implicitly assumed its own contradiction, a priori, hence the second law is revealed as an oxymoron. It has always been an oxymoron.

The second law should be exactly restated as follows: "First a negentropic process occurs, producing some initial order to start with.  Then that existing order can be progressively disordered by subsequent entropic interactions, if no additional negentropic interactions occur and intervene.  If additional negentropic interactions occur and intervene, then the overall performance of the system containing the initial order may exhibit either net entropic interaction, net negentropic interaction, or neither entropic or negentropic interactions but stable order — the presently recognized "stable disequilibrium" state condition in thermodynamics."

That statement agrees with experiment and broken symmetry, etc.  It agrees with the continuously increasing negentropy resulting from the source charge.  It agrees with the solution to the long-vexing source charge problem, which I published in 2000, based on the theoretical and experimental proof of broken symmetry of opposite charges (such as are on the ends of any dipole, and are involved in any dipolarity).  It agrees with the demonstrated stable disequilibrium states. And it permits a proper science to be formed for the pursuit of practical COP>1.0 EM power systems, based on experiment as well as theory.

In fact, that restatement of the second law now is consistent with the gauge freedom axiom, which in turn permits the operator to directly engineer negentropy — including increasing negentropy — freely and at will.

Classical electrodynamics is a material fluid dynamics theory, for that is what Maxwell wrote.  Anything that fluid systems can do, in theory an EM system can do, particularly in Maxwell's original quaternion and quaternion like theory involving 20 equations in 20 unknowns.  A windmill, e.g., has a COP = , as does a waterwheel in a river, a sailboat, etc.  Hence COP = EM systems must exist, since the EM model is a perfect analogy to the hydrodynamics model.  And so they do.  They are called "source charges" and every charge in the universe is one.  In short, that is experimentally proven, and no amount of theory can refute it.

The electrical engineering model, however, does not model the "active environment" of the "electrical windmill", so it assumes there can be no "free electrical wind" from the active vacuum — in total violation to the broken symmetry of every EM dipolarity in its energetic exchange with the vacuum.  If the classical assumption — inserted by Lorenz and then Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the equations — is so, then there can be no COP>1.0 EM systems built (at least in accord with that seriously restricted and "special case" model). In fact, when first Lorenz in 1967 and later Lorentz symmetrically regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, that simplification of the equations actually discarded all Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium (including the source charges themselves and therefore all EM fields, potentials, and energy by inference) in their energetic exchange with their active environment.  So Lorenz and then Lorentz (who got all the credit) arbitrarily discarded that entire vast class of Maxwellian systems permitted to exhibit COP>1.0, and even COP = His symmetrical regauging actually prohibits the source charge, and hence the resulting fields and potentials created by the source charge, and every joule of EM energy in the universe as a result. And it was done just to simplify the equations for analytical solution, instead of having to use numerical solution in almost every case.

All that is rigorous and is based on solid physics already in the literature.  It also clearly establishes that COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems are indeed permitted by the laws of nature and the laws of physics — e.g., as shown by every charge in the universe, the negative resonant absorption of the medium (in nonlinear optics), etc.  COP>1.0 EM systems and even COP = EM systems are also permitted by the proper restatement of the second law of thermodynamics.

Whoever wishes to assault overunity researchers with the label of "perpetual motion nuts" must first give a purely classical explanation of the source charge problem and where and how the source charge observably gets all that energy it continuously outputs.  Else he himself is guilty of being a part of the greatest clan of perpetual motion nuts in all history — the conventional scientific establishment still advocating a seriously flawed EM power system model which excludes the proven vacuum interaction and thus any asymmetry in that interaction. He must also falsify the gauge freedom axiom, and prove that one cannot freely change the voltage of an electrostatic circuit, where the current is zero.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

-----------------------------------------

P. S. Overunity EM systems are highly nonlinear systems. Hence they become sensitive to initial conditions.  Many such systems exhibit peculiar phenomena as a result: you can sometimes turn it off, and the next time it starts it will behave differently with different COP.  By starting and stopping it several times, one can adjust back to a more usual "initial condition" so as to resume performance.  There is also much other odd phenomenology involved that does not appear in the textbooks.  There is, e.g., a decay mechanism that nature uses for such "excited" far from equilibrium states.  We have included much of this new phenomenology and the "decay mechanism" (and how to solve it) in our cited book, Energy from the Vacuum, 2002. The trick the researcher has to learn how to do is to establish what is known in advanced thermodynamics as a stable disequilibrium state.  See discussions in Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, Wiley, 1998 (corrected edition 1999).  Also see p. 459 therein for a summary of several known areas that seriously violate thermodynamics theory, and are recognized to do so.

TEB