The Tom Bearden Website

Help support the research


Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:54:02 -0600

Dear Dr.

Pleased to meet you, and I'll try to explain the energy and powering of a circuit very simply.  Also will try to amplify some of the terms which may be unfamiliar.

In 1957, Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize for a discovery of profound implications to all of physics (and to chemistry, electrical engineering, biology, etc.).  That was the discovery of what is known as "broken symmetry".   Let me explain broken symmetry simply, in terms of energy.

In physics, empty space (which the physicists often refer to as "the vacuum") has been found to be filled with enormous energy and dynamics, but of a peculiar sort.  Particles of mass and energy (photons) are constantly being born right out of nowhere, but also then subside back into nowhere again very quickly.  Each particle exists for such an extraordinarily short time that it cannot individually be "observed", because it takes a tiny bit of time to "observe" it.  During the smallest observation time, that particle has already appeared and disappeared.  Such a fleeting particle is called a virtual particle.

Virtual particles can be demonstrated to exist by the forces they create (exchange with virtual particles creates all the forces of physics), and they have been.  So that is well-known in physics.  "Charge", e.g., is simply the interaction of virtual photons with a mass.  So a "charged mass" is one that is engaging in a violent ping-pong match with that virtual particle cauldron.  And that ping-pong reaches on out to the ends of the universe!  In short, all of space is playing ping-pong with every charge in the universe -- every electron, every proton, etc.

So in physics, empty space is simply the most energetic thing we can think of.  If the sheer raw energy in that seething cauldron of bubbles in one cubic centimeter of space (about the tip of one's little finger in size) could be cohered and condensed into matter, one would have -- according to leading calculations -- probably more mass than can presently be seen in the universe by the largest telescope.

For our purposes, all we need to know is that space is highly energetic, though in a novel fashion, and that it continually exchanges energy -- very violently -- with every charge.

Now back to broken symmetry.  Broken symmetry (simply put) means that something virtual (fleeting and nonpersistent) has become observable (stays around and persists). In short, it means that some of the ping-pong energy has been integrated into observable, hang-in-there and persist energy.

So if "some object" exhibits broken symmetry, for our purposes it means that the object absorbs virtual energy, then transduces some of it into real, observable energy, and re-radiates that transduced energy as real honest-to-God usable energy  that can be intercepted, collected, stored, and dissipated in loads.

One of the broken symmetries discovered by Lee and Yang was the broken symmetry of opposite charges -- such as are on the two ends of a dipole. What this means is that any dipole (or any dipolarity) is an entity (or region) where virtual energy is being transduced into observable energy.  In the case of the dipole, the charges on its ends are receiving unusable virtual energy from the vacuum and absorbing it, integrating those "little pieces" of energy into bigger pieces so that they get big enough to suddenly be observable and persist, then re-radiating those real pieces of energy (real photons).

Well, all one has to do is believe why Lee and Yang received a Nobel Prize! All one has to do to extract energy from the vacuum (from seething space) is to take advantage of its ping-pong game, and also create a broken symmetry condition.

For great simplicity, just pay to make a little dipole, by forcing some opposite charges apart.  That silly thing will then sit there and transduce its continuously received ping-pong virtual energy into real, observable photons, and re-emit those observable photons as real EM energy.  It emits that energy in all directions, continuously.

In other words, the simplest thing in all the world is to take EM energy from the vacuum and radiate it away like a great gusher, continuously.  The dipoles in the atoms of original matter in the universe, e.g., have been doing that continuously for some 14 billion years.  So the process does not "run down" and it does not "exhaust".  The only "fuel" is that vast ocean of extraordinarily intense virtual particle flux that we call "space".

This has all sorts of ramifications, but let me just concentrate upon electrical power systems.

Suppose we have a commercial power plant, where we are burning a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) in a boiler to make steam.  We use the steam to run a steam turbine, attached to the shaft of a generator.  So the purpose of burning the hydrocarbon (for now) is to rotate the shaft of the generator.

Well, when we rotate the generator shaft, internally we create a magnetic field inside the generator.  In the internal conductive path between its terminals, that magnetic field energy is dissipated upon the charges there, to do work on them.  The dissipation of the magnetic field energy forces the positive charges in one direction (toward one terminal) and the negative charges in the other direction (toward the other terminal).  ALL the magnetic field energy created by the rotation of the generator does that and nothing else but that.

In short, the hydrocarbon combustion and subsequent chain of events does only a single thing: force apart the internal charges inside the generator and make a dipole or dipolarity between its terminals.

The generator does not send a single transformed watt of its shaft rotation energy onto the external power line.  It just makes that dipole.

Now back to Lee and Yang, the Nobel Prize, and the broken symmetry of that dipole, now that it's been made.

Once made, the dipole -- as certified by a Nobel Prize award -- continuously extracts (absorbs) unusable (virtual photon) energy from the seething vacuum, transduces it into real EM energy (real photons), and pours out that real EM energy in all directions.  However, with the dipole formed in the conductive path, the energy pours out of the terminals of the generator. Further, the external conductors of the power line (attached to the terminals of that generator) act as wave guides for that great stream of EM energy pouring out of those terminals.  So the energy flow roars out of the terminals and through space along and outside the external conductors.

That is the energy that roars out along the power grid, from the terminals of the generator.  It fills space around the external conductors, and is flowing essentially parallel to them.

In those conductors, some of the free electrons (Drude electrons) in the conductor are on the surface.  The surface charges and their fields extending out into space from the wire, intercept that great flow of EM energy in the surrounding space.  Some of that flowing energy is thereby intercepted and collected on the surface charges, forcing them laterally into the conductors and "potentializing the internal electron gas" in the conductors.  That is what powers the entire external circuit, which may be a giant power grid.

We stress that the electrons are not free to just whisk off violently down the wire, because they are repelled by all the electrons ahead of them (a very great number).  However, electrons have spin, and so (to first crude order) act as gyros.  Since they are longitudinally rather constrained (move usually a few inches per hour longitudinally in a circuit, with what is called the "drift" velocity"), the "gyro-electrons" precess at right angles. They cannot leave the wire, so they move laterally back and forth across the cross section of the wire.

Most of the potentialized energy collecting upon those electrons reaches on out into space at right angles to the wire's cross section.  That entire "excess potential" is withdrawn only a little bit into the wire, which has a limited diameter.  So most of the excess potential energy collecting on those electrons just remains out there in space, and is not "in the wire" at all.

In short, we catch and use only a small fraction of the available energy flow that is actually there in the surrounding space.

Two scientists (Heaviside and Poynting) simultaneously and independently discovered the flow of EM energy through space in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead.  Poynting (academician and Ph.D.) published prestigiously, while Heaviside (brilliant and self-taught, never attended university) published more obscurely (though later he also published prestigiously). There was quite some difference in the two theories.

Poynting never considered anything but the small fraction of the energy flow that gets collected in the circuit and used by the circuit.  The rest of that energy flow -- that misses the circuit entirely, is not caught, and is wasted -- does not even appear in his theory.  He also got the direction of energy flow wrong by 90 degrees.

Heaviside considered both the component of energy flow that is intercepted, caught, and used in the circuit, and the component that misses the circuit, is not caught, and is wasted.  He also corrected Poynting on the direction of the flow.  Heaviside also noted that the component of energy flow missing the circuit and wasted is much greater than the energy flow caught by the circuit.  However, he could not explain where such a huge energy flow -- much more than the energy being input into the shaft of the generator -- could possibly be coming from.  To prevent being called a perpetual motion nut, he spoke of the two components only in terms of "angles".  So he pointed  out that the energy flow component entering the circuit (caught and used) still leaves the remaining energy flow almost parallel to the circuit wires, hardly deviating it.

In short, he cleverly said that the remaining wasted energy flow was lots bigger than the deviated collected and used energy flow.

Lorentz, recognized as the greatest electrical scientist of his day, understood both the Heaviside theory and Poynting theory.  He understood that the giant unused and wasted energy flow component remained, after the circuit caught some of the energy and used it to power its loads and losses. But he also had no explanation as to where that startlingly large energy flow (when both components are counted) could possibly be coming from.

Even the great Lorentz did not dare to expose, maintain, and defend that extra "Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component", because of its tremendous and unexplainable magnitude.  So he did a very clever trick.  He reasoned that, well, it did not power anything, so it "had no physical significance " (Lorentz's words).  In short, he admitted it was there, but that it also did nothing  in the circuit.

So he simply integrated the energy flow vector (for the complete flow, including both components) around a closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest.  Of course that discards the nondiverged Heaviside component, and retains only the Poynting "caught and used" component.

So with that trick -- still being used today by all the electrodynamicists and electrical engineers -- Lorentz arbitrarily discarded that pesky and bothersome huge Heaviside component.

Now note how insidious that is.  When we "measure" in a circuit, we do so by taking a little energy --- that the circuit has caught -- and then dissipating it in our instrument.  So when we "measure the circuit", we will always be measuring "the Poynting component" of the energy flow, because that is all that is caught and available there to measure in the first place!

So our circuit measurements will always agree with the Poynting theory, and with Lorentz's integration trick.

And that nicely disposed of any need to explain where all that "2-component" energy flow is coming from.  The troublesome component was (and is) just arbitrarily discarded.

The only question remaining is, then why doesn't the circuit still catch and use more energy than we have to input to the shaft of the generator to make the dipole?  After all, the dipole -- now that it's been created -- will extract and pour out that energy freely, forever, and it is pouring out both components of the energy flow.  Since it will continue to pour out the caught Poynting component if permitted to remain, why do we have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator?

Let us reason together.  The power system is actually an open dissipative system, with the dipole freely receiving enormous "strange wind" from the vacuum (from its environment), and converting that to "useful EM wind to power the system".  Then why does the system not just act as a windmill, freely pumping water in the blowing wind?

The fact that we have to continually input more energy to that shaft than we are using in the loads on the power line, can only be due to one thing: That silly system has to be destroying that source dipole in the generator faster than it is powering the external loads.  In other words, since the only thing that our input mechanical energy to the generator shaft does is to make that dipole, the fact that we have to keep putting that energy in to continually remake that dipole,  means that we also have to be continually destroying that source dipole.

Well, something in the way we design the external circuit must therefore be causing the circuit to use more of its collected energy to kill the source dipole, than it is using to power the loads.  What could it be?

It's simple, innocuous, and diabolical.  It is easily shown that the closed current loop circuit -- where all the "spent current" from the loads and losses is returned back through the "ground line" to the "ground side" terminal of the generator-- is the culprit.

In short, every electron rammed through the loads and losses to power them (by dissipating some of their overpotential), is then forcibly rammed back through the terminals of the generator, right through the source dipole against its back emf.

The voltage across the back emf -- where all the spent electrons are rammed back through and against -- is precisely the same voltage across the external loads and losses.

So half the collected energy in the entire external circuit is used to ram the spent electrons back through the back emf of the source dipole, scattering the charges again and destroying the dipole.

The other half of the collected energy in the external circuit is dissipated in that circuit's loads and losses.

That means that less than half the external circuit's collected energy is dissipated in the load -- while a full half is used to destroy the dipole.

In short, the inane circuit is specifically and diabolically designed to destroy the source dipole faster than it powers the loads.

Well, to restore that now-destroyed dipole, we have to input at least as much energy to restore the dipole as was used to destroy it.  So we will always have to input more shaft energy than the energy we got dissipated in the loads to power them.

We have simply been repeating this insane mess for more than 100 years.  The U(1) electrodynamics used by electrical engineers --- who design and build our power systems --- does not even model the active vacuum and its exchange with every charge and dipole in the system, much less the proven broken symmetry in that exchange.

We pay the power component to deliberately engage in a gigantic wrestling match inside its own generators, and lose.  The electrical power system is built as if it were a crazy windmill, by analogy.  Suppose we built a windmill so that, the moment it started rotating, a feedback mechanism used half the collected energy in the blades to rotate the blades themselves so as to eliminate their angle of attack in the wind.  In that case, we would have to crank that windmill ourselves, to ever get it to do any work.

The Maxwell theory is pure hydrodynamic theory (see precise analogy, appended below).  Anything a material fluid system can do, the Maxwell systems can do.  That includes having windmills turning in a free wind and powering their loads, without operator input.  But first the engineering model has to include those Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium in their exchange with their active environment (curved local spacetime and the active vacuum).  The present electrical engineering model, after Lorentz, eliminates (arbitrarily, by Lorentz regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations) any net energy being received from either of the two components of the actual environment.  The model's arbitrary assumption of flat local spacetime has been falsified by general relativity for nearly a century, and its assumption of symmetry (equilibrium) in the vacuum exchange has been falsified by particle physics for nearly a half century.  Still, the same old "seriously flawed and incomplete electrodynamics model" is still being proudly used to design and build all our electrical power systems.

The standard electrical engineering model flatly and arbitrarily discards what actually powers an EM circuit, and we have never produced a single electrical engineer who knew what powers his circuits and the power grid. We don't produce them today.

There is not a university or electrical engineering department in the United States that teaches what powers an EM circuit, and what powers the grid. There never has been one.

The Department of Energy, NSF, and NAS have no ongoing programs to examine this area, and to design power circuits that are not closed current loop circuits, and that therefore need not kill their source dipoles faster than they power their loads.  In fact, neither of the three agencies even knows what powers an electrical circuit.

Neither do the great national laboratories nor the private labs.

So we continue to rape the earth, pollute the biosphere, foul the air, etc. just to get that dipole continually remade, that our engineers specifically arrange to be killed faster than the load is powered.

To paraphrase Tesla, it's one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind ever recorded in history.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Exact fluid Analogy for Maxwellian Electrodynamics, modified for broken symmetry

Considering and adapting the material fluid analogy approach of James Clerk Maxwell:  The intensity of the vacuum virtual particle flux may be treated as the intensity of a potential, thus by analogy corresponding to pressure in a fluid.  Polarity (charge) is a process for establishing a change in the intensity of the vacuum potential-and thus  a change in the ambient pressure of the vacuum fluid.  Difference between vacuum pressures at two separated points creates a force upon any charge placed between those two points. Just as a differential in pressure between points in a fluid induces currents, a differential in vacuum pressure induces energy flow currents in the vacuum fluid, which are called 'fields'.  All EM circuits, charges, potentials, and forces in electrodynamics involve altering the vacuum to include altering  its pressure and thereby producing the forces that the resulting pressure gradients (fields)  induce upon charges.  All observable EM energy in space is EM energy intercepted and collected on charges, and the spatial EM energy comes from the vacuum  via these fundamental vacuum-engineering dynamics.

Additional remark:  A charge can be shown to be pouring out EM energy flow continuously in all directions in 3-space, without any input of 3-space energy at all.  Either we must surrender the conservation of energy law entirely, or we must be able to explain where the input energy to the charge comes from.  Since it is not coming from 3-space (by experimental demonstration), then it can only be coming from the time-domain (in Minkowski space) or from the virtual state (particle physics view).  This problem has been called the most pressing problem in classical and quantal electrodynamics.

The charge can also be shown to constitute a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, and we did that in 2000.  We also found how the EM energy actually is input to the charge from the time domain.  Further work in 2001 allowed a solution to the nature of charge itself, and --- for the first time--- a rigorous definition of charge.

In 2001 we also uncovered powerful support for our solution, from quantum field theory.  We were able to connect it to wave theory exactly, by noting an error in Whittaker's 1903 interpretation of his decomposition of the scalar potential.

So the solution is consistent with particle physics, with quantum field theory, with higher symmetry electrodynamics [such as O(3)], and with Whittaker's reinterpreted decomposition of the scalar potential.

Because of this powerful support, we now feel confident that our solutions to the nature of charge, to the mechanism for the ongoing process represented by charge, and to what actually powers an EM circuit, are all very probably correct, since they also match experiment.

We have already run into very strong applications in energy systems, and --earlier this year -- into an application in biochemistry that may have far-reaching medical implications.  I'm under rigid nondisclosure on the latter, since it is a development by an outside company which has developed a process for making and stabilizing (and then using) "impossible" molecules forbidden by present theoretical models.  They actually have been applying a process similar to the one that Bedini and I filed a patent application on, for the purpose of a process to close-loop a COP>1.0 EM system for self-powering.

Tom Bearden