|Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001
With respect to the MEG, my inventor side and my scientific side are a bit at odds. As inventors, my colleagues and I cannot yet legally publish full replication details without placing our foreign patent rights in jeopardy. So while my scientific side says write it, my practical side says we can't. Further, I'm not the principal inventor; my colleagues are. It will be at least a year before full details can be revealed.
However, we have made a full disclosure (under strong nondisclosure agreements and non-circumvention agreements) with the National Materials Science Lab of the National Academy of Sciences in the friendly foreign nation where the research will be finished for development.
So hang on for awhile; we're getting there. However, I will have a most important revelation in my forthcoming book which will probably be published about mid-year 2002. I am just finishing the first draft of that "bombshell" chapter now, which discusses the problem of close-looping a COP>1.0 system for self-powering, and how to do it. This is information that to my knowledge no other overunity researcher has known in precise form, and certainly has not released it if he did. It appears that the only one who knew it (in a slightly different form than my supersystem concept, but equivalent) was Gabriel Kron. So at least we are moving a giant step forward in the legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems with the publication of the book.
Actually it's a no-brainer to see that COP>1.0 systems are permitted, since every charge and every dipole in the universe already proves it. This was my strong defense of the last MEG paper published in Foundations of Physics Letters. That paper was vigorously reviewed, and I wrote a very strong rebuttal to the notion that COP>1.0 systems are perpetual motion. On the basis of that rebuttal, the referees overruled the objections and the journal published the paper.
In not explaining the source charge problem, present classical electrodynamicists effectively assume that the charge freely creates all that EM energy it continuously pours out in 3-space in all directions, to establish its fields and potentials and their energy, reaching across all space.
Here's a gedankenexperiment, where we can play "perfect". In the lab, at the center of an origin we suddenly (instantly) produce a charge. Previously we have placed, along a radial line running out from that origin and across the universe, a set of perfect instruments that read EM potential intensity and field intensity. The instruments are evenly spaced at the distance light travels in one second. Remember, these are perfect instruments.
At the end of the first second, the first instrument reads -- and the reading thereafter remains and never falls back to zero. A second later, the next instrument reads and the reading thereafter remains, etc.
The fact that the when the readings occur they suddenly read and then remain, and do not fall back to zero, proves that what passed was the front of a continuous flow of energy, NOT a "pulse" of energy.
If we wait one year, we have now changed the energy density of a volume of space one light year in radius -- an enormous amount of energy --- just by suddenly paying to make that little charge. And the free flow of EM energy in 3-space is still continuing at exactly the same pace.
Yet we can prove there is no input energy flow to the charge, that is observable in 3-space.
Here we have the quandary of the "source charge problem" or the "problem of the association of the fields and potentials and their energy across all space, with their source charges. How do we explain that continuous outpouring of EM energy in 3-space? If you sum up all the energy we have now poured out into space, in that single year, it is enormously more energy than the work we paid to form the charge.
The charges in the original matter of the universe have been pouring out EM energy that way for some 14 billion years, and they are still going.
Any professor or electrodynamicist who does not solve that problem, is guilty of the widest assumption of perpetual motion machines of all time-- for he assumes that every charge and dipole in the universe freely creates energy from nothing, continuously, and pours it out at the speed of light.
Either we must completely discard the conservation of energy law altogether, or the flow must be entering the charge from the fourth Minkowski axis (assuming we are only using those 4 "degrees of freedom"). That axis is ict, in which the only variable is t. So if the energy is NOT being created, then it has to be coming from the time dimension.
Accepting the conservation of energy law, we conclude that the flow comes from the time dimension. In that case the charge is an "open" 3-space system, freely receiving EM energy from the time domain, transducing it into 3-space observable energy, and pouring out real observable 3-space energy.
If we discard the conservation of energy law and assume the energy is continuously and freely created "from nothing", we have falsified thermodynamics, both equilibrium type and disequilibrium type. We have also destroyed much of present physics, including the standard model.
So for the first case -- the charge is an open system far from 3-space equilibrium but in 4-space equilibrium with respect to EM energy flow -- I am permitted to have a COP>1.0 system due to the five "magic" functions that a disequilibrium system is permitted: Such a system can (1) self-order, (2) self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than the operator himself inputs (the excess is freely received from the active environment), (4) power itself and its load (all the energy is freely received from the active environment -- the electrical equivalent of a windmill in a wind), and (5) exhibit negentropy. Every charge and dipole in the universe already performs all five of those magic functions.
In the second case, the conservation of energy law is discarded and the creation of energy from nothing is recognized. So in that case, I am still permitted to build a COP>1.0 system, since in theory I can develop one that creates energy out of nothing, just as the source charge does.
Either way, the perpetual motion critics lose. They simply have not thought the problem through, but have "hidden" and ignored it.
Further, consider the observable charge as a set of composite dipoles, where each dipole is comprised of (1) a differential piece of the observable charge we formed, and (2) one of the clustering virtual charges of opposite sign, which standard QED already shows and has established. In that case, the charge is a set of dipoles.
Well, I do not have to reprove the fact that opposite charges -- such as the ends of a dipole -- form a broken symmetry in particle physics. Lee and Yang got the Nobel Prize for it, in 1957 -- the same year their prediction of broken symmetry was experimentally proven by Wu et al. So the broken symmetry of the dipole -- and therefore of any set of dipoles such as the observable charge with its clustered virtual charges of opposite sign -- is proven, as recognized by the Nobel Committee.
By the very definition of broken symmetry, something virtual has become observable. So that charge as a set of dipoles, and as a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum, HAS to be transforming some of its continually absorbed virtual energy into observable (3-space) EM energy, and emitting the energy in that form.
Again, to argue that no electrical system can take energy from the vacuum is rather stupid in the face of what has already been proven in particle physics, whether or not it has been accepted in electrical engineering.
Summing: We know the energy is being received by the charge from the "vacuum", since the charge with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign can be treated as a set of dipoles (each dipole consists of a differential piece of the observed charge we made, plus one of the clustering opposite virtual charges while it exists). But opposite charges -- such as the ends of a dipole -- are a proven broken symmetry in physics. This means a priori that something virtual has become observable. So in particle physics model, the charge we made continually absorbs virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum, integrates it (via its spin) into observable photon energy, and pours out the observable energy in all directions -- matching our gedankenexperiment.
We point out that virtual charges exist in time, as do observable charges, but cannot be individually observed. But since time differentiation d/dt (LLLT) produces LLL observation, then time-integration of LLL (virtual) can produce (LLLT again, followed by d/dt(LLLT = LLL observation of the integrated energy as observable energy.
Anything existing in time can be taken as part of the "structure" of time, simply by fixing the other degrees of freedom. Hence we may consider both the virtual photon and the observable photon (each of which is energy x time) to be integrable and differentiable, one into the other. Note that only one part of the photon is quantized; the other part is not quantized.
So in a peculiar sense, the particle physics view of "virtual energy feeding the charge which continuously emits 3-space observable EM energy" is consistent with the energy coming from the unobservable time domain.
We also pointed out that quantum field theory strongly supports the thesis also; e.g., Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chap. 5.
An important thing to remember is that one's choice of units in one's physics model is totally arbitrary. One can make a perfectly valid physics model using only a single fundamental unit (it is done and used in one branch of physics, based only on length). Suppose we choose the joule as the only fundamental unit. Then everything -- mass and time as well -- becomes a function of energy. Mass as a function of energy is familiar since the dawn of the nuclear age. Less familiar is time as a function of energy. But it is perfectly valid. Else we have destroyed physics itself.Just now I'm hanging on with oscillation between moderate and severe hypoxia. But we will get the book finished no matter what.
Meanwhile, best wishes in your studies and contemplations.
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:42:42 -0600