The Tom Bearden

Help support the research



Subject: RE: Mandelshtam paper
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:53:01 -0500

Dear Ashley,

 The paper is:

 Mandelstam, L. I.; and N. D. Papaleksi.  (1934)  "On the parametric excitation of electric oscillations," Zhurnal Teknicheskoy Fiziki, 4(1), 1934, p. 5-29.  Translation UCRL-Trans-10231, Univ. Calif., Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Feb. 1968.

            Abstract: An approximate theory is given for the excitation of oscillations in an electric oscillatory system without explicit sources of electric or magnetic forces, with the aid of periodic variations in the system's parameters.  The theory is based on general Poincaré methods developed earlier for finding periodic solutions of differential equations.  Detailed discussion is given of special cases of such excitation, with sinusoidal variation of self-inductance and capacitance in an oscillatory system having one degree of freedom, and also with self-inductance variation in a regenerated system.  Attempts to generate oscillations by a mechanical variation of parameters in systems with and without regeneration are described.  These experiments confirm the possibility of such excitation, in accordance with the theory.

 There are a whole series of related papers in the Russian and French scientific literature. According to these papers, the Russians did succeed in producing self-oscillating, self-powering systems.  Once one understands that any dipole (and hence any dipolar circuit) is a broken symmetry in the vacuum virtual photon flux, it follows that the dipolarity (of the source dipole formed in the generator, battery, or other power supply) -- once formed -- extracts energy from the vacuum, transduces it to observable EM energy, and outpours that EM energy from the terminals and along the conductors of the external circuit or system attached to the power supply.

 Energy from the vacuum powers and always has powered every electrical circuit we have ever built.  But the closed-current-loop circuit ubiquitously used in power systems self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging.  Hence it kills its own source dipole faster than it can power the loads, dissipating exactly half the energy it collects from that available gushing flow from the terminals to scatter the charges in the dipole and destroy the dipole.  The other half of the intercepted/collected energy is dissipated in the external circuit to power the losses and the load; hence less than half is used to power the load.  Thus less of the collected energy is dissipated in the load to power it, than is dissipated in the source dipole to destroy it and shut off the flow of free energy from the vacuum.

 This broken symmetry of opposite charges -- and hence of the common dipole -- was strongly predicted by Lee and Yang circa 1956.  It was experimentally proven in early 1957, and so revolutionary was the result of proven broken symmetry in physics that the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang at the end of the same year, 1957.

 Sadly, even though that has  been in particle physics for more than 40 years, it hasn't made it into power engineering and electrical engineering yet.  No electrical engineering department of any university in the Western world teaches what really powers an EM circuit or an electrical power system, and frankly they do not even know, even though it's over in particle physics and proven.  All the energy used by the circuit comes from the vacuum, via the broken symmetry of the source dipole.  One does not have to keep reproving that; its basis is already well proven in particle physics.  I continue to be aghast that the National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation will not force the change of electrical engineering and electrical power engineering to incorporate what has long been proven scientifically, including with the award of a Nobel Prize.  Indeed, unless it eludes me, I see nothing of any great interest in the energy research field on either of their sites.  I did purchase their review of the $20+ billion spent on energy research by the DoE, and was not very impressed with respect to anything new.  It was, however, impressive on increasing the efficiency of standard COP<1.0 systems. 

 The nation (either in the NSF or NAS, or in DOE) does not appear to be interested in where all the electrical energy actually comes from, and has no ongoing funded program in changing the circuitry and systems so that the dipole is either not self-destroyed by the system or is destroyed slower than the load is powered.  We need a crash national program in "energy from the vacuum", well-funded, and with the strong backing and approval of the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.  That is not going to happen, it appears.  We also need the NAS and NSF to lean firmly on all those universities and fund the rapid change of the stale, 137-year-old Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory.  If they did nothing else but force the development and experimentation with systems violating the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition arbitrarily applied to the theory since the 1880s, that would do the trick.

 It would seem they do not have the perspicacity to even see that, or else do not intend to change the very comfortable "status quo".  Hence they maintain the same system where no electrical engineering student is taught what really powers an EM circuit.  And EM systems far from equilibrium with the vacuum exchange and with local curved spacetime, are very firmly discarded -- the conventional classical electrodynamics after Lorentz regauging assumes a flat local spacetime (falsified by general relativity now for nearly a century) and no net interaction with the local active vacuum (falsified in particle physics for nearly a half century).

 That's how sad the energy science situation is, in our nation and in our scientific community.  As Max Planck said, "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.  What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

 It appears that we shall have to wait until the present leaders of the scientific community -- who strongly oppose the proven energy from the vacuum -- die off and reduce the adamant opposition.  However, with this war now ongoing, if it escalates to the point where oil supplies etc. from the MidEast and elsewhere are disrupted, then we shall be in an energy crisis that will curl one's hair.  Notice that some fellow recently shot a hole (with a common rifle) in the Alaskan pipeline, which is some 800 miles long.  Were terrorists to shoot a hole every few miles, that would be hundreds of holes, and fixing that thing would be an enormously difficult task.  That's just one example of what could be in store if escalation occurs.

 But one must keep one's sense of humor. I've taken quite a pounding for pointing out that generators and batteries do not power their external circuits, and the proof is already in particle physics.  But it is quite true.  All the coal and oil and natural gas every burned; all the hydrodams ever built to turn the shaft of generators, all the windmill generators, etc. have never used any of their available internal energy gained from all that, to power their external circuits!  They only used it to make the source dipole, which the conventional closed-current loop circuit then destroys faster than it power the load!

 It is just as sad that the environmental community -- desiring cleaner energy and restoring the biosphere -- is not aware of the most direct and permanent way to do it.  Their scientific advice comes from those same institutions that are defending the problem.  So those who could get this done, are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

 Well, it takes at least as much energy -- as was expended as work on the dipole to destroy it -- to restore the dipole again, for a 100% efficient "dipole-making" generator or battery.  So that means that, using the conventional circuits, one always will have to input more energy to the shaft of the generator -- to continuously restore the dipole that the circuit itself is designed to continuously destroy -- than we get out in the load.  That guarantees a COP<1.0.

 Hence the sheer inanity (I use that term for something perpetuated and defended even nearly a half century after being proved to be the problem) of continuing to develop and build the same old planet- and biosphere-polluting power systems we have always built, and use the same gas-burning cars we have long used, and teach and defend the same old tired electrical engineering we have always taught.  It doesn't have to be that way at all, but changing it will "sidetrack" much of the established scientific community and much of the multi-trillion dollar present power industries worldwide.  Electrical energy is free from the vacuum (actually comes from the time domain, and by "using" or converting a little time into lots of energy).  Just make a dipole and then do not destroy it, but capture some of the free energy it pours out forever thereafter, and dissipate the collected energy to power the load, without using half of it to destroy the source dipole.

 Isn't it strange that electrical engineers are not taught to calculate the electric field nor the potential, but only what is diverted from the field and the potential by an assumed unit point static charge?  Nary a textbook in the U.S. shows any calculation of the actual field itself (prior to interaction) or the potential itself.  Never has.  Doesn't now.  And it's a sad commentary that this is not made crystal clear to the young grad students. It isn't.  

At least 50 real devices achieving COP>1.0  have been suppressed, by several nations, over the decades, starting from Tesla, to Moray, Kron, and many others.  An overunity circuit was actually placed in the first Minuteman ICBM, then rapidly changed so that it did not exhibit COP>1.0, to prevent burning out the following electronic stages.

 I think the paper was translated for NASA, which means it is a government-produced paper probably carried in the NTIS system.  Unfortunately I do not have the NTIS number.

 Hope that helps.

 Tom Bearden

 Subject: Mandelshtam paper
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:48:21 +1300

Trying to find source of Mandelshtam paper "On the parametric excitation of electric oscillation"
Thanks for very informative web site

Ashley G
New Zealand