Magic Asked, Magic Given

Subject: Response to your Editorial Opinion feature article, "Magicians

Wanted,"  in PE/Aug 2000:
To: Dr. Brian K. Schimmoller, Managing Editor            
Date: August 28, 2000

Dear Dr. Schimmoller:

To keep a little sense of humor about a serious subject, magic you have
requested so magic you shall have!

With your permission, I will present this "magic" below in the form of 10
questions and their extended answers.  I also attach a paper in Word 97
which is somewhat more formal and cites the appropriate technical references
needed to substantiate the theses advanced.  Please note that we also used
the subject matter below to propose a solution to the dark matter problem as
well as a solution to the long-vexing critical problem of the association of
the fields and potentials with their source charges.

Our last cited references (19) at the end of this present write-up are a few
serious scientific papers on extracting EM energy from the vacuum.

As you can see, we really do not have to wait until 2300 as you allowed in
your editorial, for the solutions of the future to be here today.  They can
be developed whenever the scientific community will permit it.

Very truly yours,

Tom Bearden
LTC, U.S. Army (Retired)
Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

1.  How can we extract usable EM energy from the vacuum, anytime, any place
in the universe, with ridiculous ease, and in any amount desired?

Piece of cake!  And yes, it is pure magic in a sense, but is a also a very
rigorous kind of physics.  It's a pity that the electrodynamicists have
largely ignored and arbitrarily discarded it from the energy flow theory for
a century.  They have ignored the broken symmetry of a dipole-proven in
particle physics for nearly a half century-in its vacuum flux exchange.

The classical electrodynamics model that is used to design and build
electrical power systems does not even include the vacuum interaction
itself, much less a broken symmetry in the interaction between the active
vacuum and the dipole.

By implicitly assuming (erroneously) an inert vacuum in their model, in
effect our energy scientists and engineers assume a system that is in
equilibrium with its external environment.  The Maxwell-Heaviside equations
themselves make no such assumption, and prescribe both open dissipative
systems having COP>1.0, and equilibrium systems having COP<1.0.  After the
arbitrary imposition of the Lorenz/Lorentz symmetrical regauging, however,
the reduced equation subset discards the open dissipative Maxwellian systems
and retains only those in equilibrium.  Therefore the arbitrarily limited
subclass of selected Maxwellian systems must obey classical equilibrium
thermodynamics with its infamous second law.

On the other hand, if the vacuum interaction with the power system and a
broken symmetry in that interaction are included, then the Lorentz condition
is broken.  One again has a Maxwellian model which includes open dissipative
Maxwellian systems having COP>1.0.  Rigorously such a system is not required
to obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics unless it itself voluntarily
forces the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition.  If the system does not
self-invoke that Lorentz condition in its use of its collected energy, then
the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium in their active
environment rigorously applies.  As you know, Prigogine received a Nobel
Prize for his contributions to that open system thermodynamics.

Let us demonstrate by simple logic that an EM system having COP>1.0 is
permissible.  For example,  see Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau.,
Foundations of Physics, Dover, New York, 1963, p. 217.   We know that the
entropy of non-equilibrium conditions cannot be computed, and the entropy of
a system not in equilibrium must be less than the entropy of the same system
in equilibrium. Thus the energy of an open system not in equilibrium must
always be greater than the energy of the same system when it is closed and
in equilibrium.

A Maxwellian system obeying electrodynamics with the Lorentz condition
applied, is a system in equilibrium.  If the system is lossless, its COP =
1.0.  Hence the same lossless system in disequilibrium with its active
environment can exhibit COP>1.0, since it has additional energy a priori.

Although that is a simple set of statements, the statements are quite
rigorous.  There is no law of nature that prohibits an open EM system in
disequilibrium with the active vacuum.  Hence there is no law of nature that
prohibits and EM system with COP>1.0.

So we are perfectly rigorous in discussing open dissipative EM systems not
in equilibrium in their active vacuum exchange.  These are permitted by the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, by the laws of physics, by the laws of
thermodynamics (disequilibrium case), and by the conservation of energy law.

Let us examine  EM systems with a known, proven broken symmetry in their
energetic vacuum exchange.

Every EM system contains dipoles,  In particle physics, every dipole is
already proven to be just such a broken 3-symmetry in the energetic exchange between the active vacuum and the dipole or dipolarity.

Such a system in disequilibrium in its active environment is permitted to
exhibit five novel functions:  It can (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or
self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess
energy is received from the active environment, in this case the active
vacuum, (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is
received from the active environment, in this case the active vacuum, and
(5) exhibit negentropy.

None of our present electrical power systems demonstrate these five
functions overall, even though they all contain broken symmetries (dipoles).
It follows that their system design must include something which excludes
such open dissipative system performance.  The design does unwittingly
exclude such, as we shall see.

2.  Okay, suppose we model the vacuum interaction with our electrical power
system and a broken symmetry in that exchange.  How does that provide those
five functions for an open dissipative system far from equilibrium in its
exchange with its active environment?

In particle physics-but not yet even added to the EM model-every dipole is
already well-known to be a broken symmetry in its virtual particle energy
exchange with the active vacuum.  The definition of broken symmetry means
that at least a fraction of the received nonobservable virtual energy from
the vacuum is converted into observable energy form and re-emitted in that
form.  That is a negative resistor action-receiving energy in unusable form
from the environment and outputting usable energy in the circuit.

Hence the dipole (and any dipolarity such as a scalar potential) is such a
negative resistor-as is any isolated charge when its clustering virtual
charges of opposite sign are included; see the attached paper.  The dipole
receives EM energy from its active vacuum environment in unusable (virtual)
form and outputs it in observable and usable form.

So every dipole a priori already performs those famous five functions (see
the attached paper) we listed at the end of reply number 1 above.  Let us
discuss each one of those functions momentarily:

In 1903 Whittaker detailed the exact pattern of the reordering dynamics
(function 1), though no one thought of it in that fashion.  Function 2 is
obvious, since the charges spin continuously and we do not have to
separately "power" them.  Function 4 is also obvious, since the "load" (in
this case the real EM energy output) and the system power (the continuous
spinning of the charges) continues freely and indefinitely.  Function 3 is
obvious, since it is merely a subset of Function 4.  And function 5 is
performed, because a fraction of the vacuum energy is reorganized into the
Whittaker deterministic dynamic structuring, and this reordering spreads
from the dipole, once it is formed, at lightspeed in all directions.  The
reordering and its spreading outwards continues so long as the dipole (i.e.,
the  broken 3-symmetry) remains intact.

3.  Well, how can I mathematically prove that all this occurs from merely
making a dipole?  Particle physics and the virtual state are one thing, but
real power on the power line would seem to be quite another thing.

The dipole extracts and receives vacuum energy in unusable macroscopic form
and ordering, and outputs it in usable macroscopic form, with perfect
ordering and without the usual quantum mechanic randomness and statistics.
This can be understood by applying a long-ignored 1903 paper by the
well-known physicist E.T. Whittaker (cited).  We just apply Whittaker's
decomposition to the scalar potential existing between the ends of the
source dipole formed between the terminals of the generator or battery.

When we do, a startling thing emerges.  Because the dipole is a broken
3-symmetry, the energy flow symmetry we normally insist upon (i.e., the
conservation of energy in 3-space) relaxes to 4-symmetry energy flow (which
is conservation of energy in spacetime, not necessarily in space.  Energy is
conserved-but changed in form-between input energy flow from the time domain
(complex plane) and output energy flow in 3-space.  We no longer have to
conserve energy in 3-space a priori, but we only have to conserve it in
4-space.  Conservation of energy still applies, but the dipole dramatically
and permissibly violates EM energy 3-flow symmetry.

As Whittaker decomposition shows, the dipolarity will receive (and absorb) a
steady harmonic set of longitudinal EM wave energy from the imaginary plane
(in the time domain).  This received energy corresponds to what the
electrical engineer calls "reactive power".  Thus the dipole freely receives
a steady input of reactive power from the seething vacuum, because of the
dipole's broken 3-symmetry in its exchange with the vacuum.

After absorbing the incoming energy from the vacuum as reactive power , the
second half of Whittaker's decomposition shows that the excited charges in
the dipole re-emit that energy as real EM energy flow in 3-space, in all
directions.  We explain that process (due to the 720 degree spin of the
charges forming the ends of the dipole) in the attached paper.  Briefly, a
charge spins 360 degrees in the complex domain, during which time it absorbs
the incoming reactive EM power.  Then the excited charge spins 360 degrees
in real space, where its excitation energy is continuously released in all

Further, there is a rigorous, deterministic, total correlation between the
incoming reactive EM energy flow continuously absorbed by the dipole from
the vacuum from the complex plane, and the outgoing real EM energy flow
continuously emitted by the dipole charges into 3-space.

So the formation of a dipole initiates and launches a spreading dynamic
giant negentropic reordering of a significant fraction of the surrounding
vacuum's energy.  This negentropic reordering of vacuum energy continues and
the reordered volume spreads from the dipole in 3-space in all directions at
the speed of light.  In matter present from the beginning of the universe,
its dipoles (and charges) have been pouring out enormous energy from the
vacuum via this process for some 15 billion years.  So long as the dipole
remains intact, the reordering continues, the reactive energy input to the
dipole from the complex plane continues, and the output energy flow from the
dipole in 3-space continues.

Here be energy dragons!  Here be energy magic indeed!  Here be negentropic
engineering, totally different from the kind of engineering we have all been
taught in electrodynamics and in electrical power systems.

Note what this does to the applicability of the second law of equilibrium
thermodynamics!  The dipole is not in equilibrium in 3-space (there it is a
broken symmetry, as is well-known in particle physics).  Instead, it is in
equilibrium in 4-space but not 3-space.  So it does not obey 3-space
disordering of the energy; instead, it accomplishes ordering of the vacuum
energy.  The reordering is free, and a compliment from nature herself.  We
do not have to fuel or power the process ourselves, once it is initiated.
We just have to let the dipole alone and let it remain intact.

We do not have to pay nature to do negentropy for us on a giant scale!  We
just have to permit nature to do it.   We first have to untie her
negentropic feet by breaking a little 3-symmetry in the energy flow
conservation process.  Once we do that, nature will pay us copiously for
permitting her to perform her beloved giant reordering of the vacuum energy.
In gratitude she will pour out the 3-space real EM energy flow component for
us to collect and use as we wish, so long as we do not destroy that little
bit of broken 3-symmetry that continues so long as the dipole continues.

4.  Doesn't all this violate the conservation of energy law, and in effect
constitute a "perpetuum mobile"?

Not at all.  It is no different from a windmill in a wind, except we have
stimulated a crazy energy wind in the time domain which strikes our dipole
charges.  The charges then transduce this "crazy time-domain energy wind"
into a 3-space normal energy wind that we can comfortably intercept, collect
and use to power loads.

There is no law of nature that requires us to input the energy to our power
system ourselves.  In fact, much of the "alternative energy" work-such as
wind farms, hydroelectric systems, wave-energy systems, solar cell arrays
etc.-is simply the harnessing of such "free energy sources" in nature and
using them to provide the inputs to our electrical power system.

Here we have initiated an already proven new natural energy flow source, the
active vacuum negentropy once we break some 3-symmetry in the vacuum's
energy flow, inducing giant negentropy into the vacuum.  This new natural
and ubiquitous source of energy flow is analogous to those presently being
sought and used in the alternative energy field-except it is available at
every point in the universe, and the energy gusher never "runs out".  It is
just a novel kind that our electrodynamicists have ignored, even though
particle physics experiments have proven it long ago.

For example, the AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study) is
vigorously pursuing this structuring of the vacuum energy and extracting
energy flow from it.  We now have nearly 90 papers being carried by DOE on
the DOE advanced electrodynamics website  Many of these papers are already
published in leading journals such as Foundations of Physics and Physica
Scripta.  Many of the others are in the referee process at present, and
several others have been approved and are in press (see endnote 19).

Maxwell's theory is purely a material hydrodynamic or fluid flow theory.  At
least in principle, anything that can be done in fluid flow systems can be
done in EM systems because the equations are identical.  Just as the
environment can have a "free wind" or "free river" for us to use, the vacuum
or spacetime environment can have an "electrical energy wind" for us to use.
And what I am proposing is how to make a continuing, free energy wind in the
vacuum that never ceases.

The broken symmetry effect of the dipole, and the resulting giant negentropy
created and spreading in the surrounding vacuum, is just the vacuum's way of
providing us with a steady, unchanging, indefinitely-lasting electrical
energy wind of great and enduring power.  Via the spin of the dipole
charges, nature even performs the fundamental transduction in form of the
incoming vacuum energy for us, much like the hydroturbines in a
hydroelectric facility transform water flow energy into mechanical shaft
energy for us.

Our electrodynamicists and engineers have just been napping a little bit for
a century.  They have not adapted the use of what has been shown by
Whittaker for nearly a century, or what has been rigorously proven by the
particle physicists for nearly a half-century.

The only oddities about this source of energy is that (1) it comes from the
time domain, i.e., from the complex plane, and (2) the spin of the dipole
charges absorbs the incoming energy from  the complex plane and transduces
it into an outflow of energy in real 3-space.

There is no law of nature that requires that energy flow be conserved in
three dimensions.  If we are working in four dimensions as is normal in
physics, then energy is required to be conserved in four dimensions, not
three.  So we have not violated the conservation of energy law itself.  We
have permissibly violated the additional condition of conservation of energy
in 3-space, but not the basic conservation law in 4-space.  Instead of
having energy flow 3-symmetry and conserving EM energy 3-flow, because of
its broken 3-symmetry the dipole "relaxes" to a more fundamental symmetry
mode: symmetry in 4-flow of the EM energy.  In that way it can and does
receive energy from the fourth dimension and output it in space.  And that
is the "magic".

In short, to the observer-who observes only 3-spatial entities-the dipole
unleashes a negentropic engineering process, ongoing and continuous, and
fueled by the vacuum energy itself.  Once we make the dipole, the 3-space
energy flow resulting from it is similar to nature making a current of air
in the atmosphere.  Only now we have created a great EM energy river in the
vacuum (in spacetime).  The free energy wind flow flows from the time
dimension into the dipole, and thence out into 3-space as long as the
negentropic process (the dipole) remains intact.  Once the dipole is
initiated, we do not have to dissipate any additional energy to sustain the
process.  In our paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," we have
also used this process to resolve the long-vexing problem of how the source
charge produces its fields and potentials and the energy in them.  One
simply considers the clustering virtual charges of opposite sign that
surround any "isolated" charge, and use each of the clustering virtual
charges with a differential "piece" of the observable charge at the center,
and the "isolated" charge becomes a set of composite dipoles, each having a
scalar potential between its ends and consisting of the Whittaker structure.

This of course places an entirely different light on the inappropriate
notion of "static" fields and "static" electromagnetics.  There are
equilibrium conditions in electrodynamics, but there is no true

We also have discarded the far too-narrow thermodynamics notion that a
system inevitably tends to more disorder with its continuing operation.  It
does so long as one does not invoke a time-reversal process-and the
inflowing phase conjugate Whittaker waves in the complex domain (time
dimension) represent a true time-reversal process.  So classical
thermodynamics and its notion of increasing entropy does not apply.  The
dipole, once made, initiates a giant reordering of vacuum energy and that
reordering proceeds in all directions at the speed of light so long as the
dipole is intact.  Yet electrical engineers do not even know it, and do not
take advantage of this common "magic" process in their system design.
Indeed, as we shall see, they build only those systems which kill the magic

So once the source dipole is established in the generator (or battery), the
dipole continuously receives EM energy from the vacuum in unusable form,
transduces it into usable form, and pours it out along the external circuit,
filling all space around that circuit with flowing EM energy.  The circuit's
surface charges intercept a tiny bit of that passing giant energy flow.
That intercepted bit is diverged into the wires to power the Drude
electrons, thereby powering the circuit (its loads and losses).

We can dissipate from the circuit only the energy that enters.  So our
circuit measurements - being dissipation measurements - will agree with the
Poynting component calculation (with the diverged component of the energy
flow, that enters the circuit), and hence with Lorentz's little surface
integration trick.

5.  It seems that the amount of energy extracted from the vacuum by other
recognized vacuum energy processes - such as the Lamb shift - is very small.  So
how much energy is extracted from the vacuum by this dipolarity's giant
negentropy process?

Don't discount the tiny Lamb shift!  Its energy density is greater than the
surface energy density of the sun.  However, since only a single electron - a
feeble charge of only 1.6 x 10(-19) - is involved, the total energy is
minuscule.  But if there were lots more charge involved, the energy could be
very large.

In the usual dipole, much more charge is involved.  Hence the energy that is
extracted from the vacuum by the dipole is enormous.  A nominal simple
circuit's source dipole in its power source (e.g., generator) actually
receives and outputs about 10 trillion times as much energy as its
conventional external circuits are able to intercept and collect.  All the
rest of that outpouring of energy fills all space surrounding the external
circuit, out to an infinite radius, and is generally parallel to the
conductors. Except for a tiny, tiny "sheath" of this energy flow that
strikes the surface charges in the circuit conductors and components, that
enormous energy flow misses the circuit and is just wasted.

Heaviside discovered the enormity of this nondiverged energy flow in the
1880s, but spoke of it cautiously in terms of the angle of the energy flow
component with respect to the conductors.  He had no notion as to where it
was coming from, and he had no wish to be attacked and destroyed as a
perpetual motion nut.  But he clearly discovered it; see his original papers
(cited in the attached paper).

Poynting never even knew of the giant nondiverged component, or never
considered it.  From the beginning he only assumed the feeble amount of
energy flow that is intercepted by the circuit and diverged into the wires
to power the Drude electrons.

Lorentz knew of this giant, startling energy flow component uncovered by
Heaviside, but neither he nor Heaviside (nor anyone else) could explain such
a startling and enormous flow of energy pouring from the terminals of every
battery and generator, and almost all of it missing the circuit and not even
being utilized.  Further, to advance such a claim would have been
professional suicide.

Unable to solve the problem, Lorentz just eliminated it-reasoning that all
that enormous energy flow that missed the circuit entirely and thus did not
power anything, was "of no physical significance" (Lorentz's term).

So he simply discarded that huge "Heaviside" component with a neat little
integration trick.  His little closed surface integration of the energy flow
vector itself, around any volume element of interest, discarded all the huge
Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component while retaining the tiny
Poynting diverged energy flow component.

One can see a neat little illustration of the energy flow surrounding a
circuit, in John Kraus, Electromagnetics, 4th edition, p. 578, Figure 12-60,
a and b.  We cite a 1902 book by Lorentz himself which shows the trick,
although he is believed to have advanced in circa 1889-1990 or so.  Kraus
shows how much of that available but ignored energy flow can be intercepted
at each spatial point by inserting a unit point static charge.  The more
charge one inserts at each point, of course, the more energy one intercepts
and diverges at that point.

The cited Bohren experiment proves that the extra energy flow is there and
it is real.  That experiment outputs some 18 times as much as is input by
conventional Poynting "static charge interception" (reaction cross section)
calculations only.  If one includes the unaccounted nondiverged Heaviside
input component that Lorentz discarded, one sees that the extra Bohren
energy was input all the time-and it has just been ignored for over 100

Please see the attached paper which has been published in the Proc. IC-2000
in Russia.

6.  Are you saying that generators  and batteries do not use any of their
available energy (the shaft energy we input to the generator, or the
chemical energy available in the battery) to power their external circuits
and loads?

Precisely!  Neither a generator or a battery uses its available energy to
add a single watt to the power line.  Batteries and generators use their
available energy to make their source dipoles, nothing else.  All that
burning of hydrocarbons, usage of nuclear fuel rods, and hydroelectric dams
with hydroturbines furnishes energy only to produce the source dipole in the
generators.  All that destruction of the biosphere does not of itself add a
single watt to the power line.  Never has, never will.

Let's look at a generator, for example.  Typically, we may burn some
hydrocarbons to heat water in a boiler and make steam.  We may use the steam
then to power a steam turbine attached to the shaft of the generator, to
input shaft energy into the generator.

As the generator shaft is forcibly turned, it makes a magnetic field inside.
In the perfect machine, all the shaft input energy would be converted into
this magnetic field energy.  This magnetic field then performs work on the
internal charges of the generator, to force them apart (positive in one
direction, negative in the other) to form the generator's source dipole
connected to the generator terminals.

And that is all that the shaft energy input to the generator does!  That is
all that the generator does.  It receives shaft energy and uses it to make
the source dipole, nothing else.  It does not add one watt to the power line
as a result of all that shaft energy input to it.  It just uses that shaft
input to make that source dipole.

A battery works analogously.  It dissipates some of its chemical energy to
force the charges apart (in the chemistry) between the plates.  This creates
the dipolarity of the plates, where that dipolarity serves as the source
dipole.  The chemical energy does not add a single watt to the external
circuit; but only makes that source dipole.

In each case the source dipole, once made, serves as the negative resistor
that receives EM energy from the vacuum from the complex plane, transduces
it into 3-space EM energy, and pours out the 3-space energy flow from the
terminals, filling all space around the external circuit (out to a radial
distance approaching infinity).

7.  Then why do we have to keep feeding shaft energy into the generator and
keep recharging batteries?  How are the external circuit and its loads and
losses actually powered, if not from the input shaft horsepower to the
generator or the chemical energy available in the battery?

First, let me explain that electrical engineers often do not realize the
difference between energy flow rate and power.  There is no power at all in
an energy flow unless there is a rate of changing of that energy flow.  No
change, no power!  An energy flow of a trillion joules per second has zero
power unless diverged or changed in some fashion.

Also, our engineers do not calculate (and never have) the actual EM energy
flow input.  Instead, they calculate only the Poynting component of that
energy input.  In fact, they usually calculate the energy dissipation in the
input, and call that the "energy input".  It is not.

So then they speak of "drawing power from the generator or battery" which is
a gross non sequitur.  Rigorously, power is the rate of doing work.  Work is
the changing of the form of energy.  Hence power is the rate at which the
form of energy is changed.  Also, power obviously exists and is on-going
only in that "intercepting and form transducing" element that is doing the
change of form of the energy.  Most sophomore physics books (I checked a
dozen or so) and most electrical engineering texts are grossly in error in
their discussion of this area.

The situation is a little better for mechanical energy input, such as shaft
energy.  Note immediately that the engineering term, "shaft horsepower"
already deals only with the dissipation.

But for EM energy input, we have to be very, very careful because our
engineers and scientists calculate the dissipation, and that was only the
Poynting component of the total EM energy flow input.

So yes, we do have to continuously "feed" energy into our generators and do
work on them in the process, so they can continuously perform work on the
scattered dipole charges to reform the dipole.  In a 100% efficient process,
we will have to input as much energy to dissipate on the scattered charges
and restore the dipole, as the circuit dissipated to kill the dipole in the
first place.  We also have to continually recharge the batteries and change
their chemistry back to the charged state, because the battery must
continually expend chemical energy (changing the chemistry more and more
into the discharged state) to restore the dipole that the circuit keeps

So the reason we have to keep feeding energy in, is simple. Because of the
way we design our electrical circuits!

Our engineers carefully design every electrical power system to use a closed
current loop circuit.  In short, each potentialized electron in the external
circuit that passes through the external loads and losses, expending its
excitation energy there, requires that a spent electron be forcibly rammed
back from the ground return line, up through the primary source dipole
against the potential and against the emf.

Visualize a simple DC circuit: current i  is forced against the back emf of
the dipole for a given time, against potential V, and the same current i in
the external circuit goes through the same forward potential drop V for the
same length of time.  Same power, same length of time, same energy

So every circuit our fellows design and use, expends half its feeble
excitation energy-gleaned from the Poynting energy flow component it
intercepts-to destroy the source dipole.  The other half of the excitation
energy is used to power the loads and losses of the external circuit.  That
means less than half the collected excitation energy is expended in the
load.  But then to replace the destroyed dipole, we have to input as much
additional shaft energy to the generator as it took to destroy the dipole.
Hence we always have to input more shaft energy than the work we get out in
the loads.  In the case of the battery, we have to expend more recharging
energy than the work we get out in the loads.

Quite simply, whether it is a battery or a generator, killing the dipole is
a "discharging" process, while restoring the dipole is a "charging" process.
Since our engineers build all the power systems to use half their excitation
energy to discharge themselves, then we must input at least that much to
recharge them.  Every power system our fellows build is such a contraption.
Obviously the COP of such a contraption is forcibly guaranteed to be
COP<1.0.  The circuit actually self-enforces the Lorentz symmetrical
regauging condition during its excitation discharge.

Once the dipole is made, the excitation of the external circuit is for free!
That is rigorously only a change of gauge in the external circuit.  In the
most advanced theory we have-gauge field theory-gauge freedom or the ability
to freely change the potential at will, is assumed from the getgo.  All
electrodynamicists therefore already assume that the potential energy of any
electrical system can in theory be changed at will and for free.  (In the
real world we will have to pay a little switching costs perhaps).

Gauge freedom also applies at any time, including a second time to a circuit
whose potential energy we have freely increased in an earlier regauging.  In
short, in theory we can now regauge this free excess energy by discharging
it separately in a load, thereby powering the load freely except for some
switching costs.  In theory, the COP of this system will be the energy
dissipated as work in the load, divided by the energy dissipated in the
switching costs.  It is accented that objecting to this procedure is an
objection stating that gauge field theory is in error.

So if we accept gauge field theory, rigorously it follows that COP>1.0
systems using asymmetrical self-regauging are permissible.  Otherwise, all
gauge field theory is wrong.  Of course, our own view is that the gauge
field theorists are correct, and the hoary old EM foundations from the 1880s
are in serious error in some aspects and assumptions, as continued and still
taught and utilized.

For those befuddled fellows who adamantly oppose those two free asymmetrical
regaugings, we will let them argue it out with the gauge field theorists.  I
think the gauge field theorists will win!  Also note that any system that
freely receives energy from its environment in fact asymmetrically regauges
to an excited energy state.  So the electrodynamicist already uses free
regauging when he excites the circuit by applying voltage to it.

However, the Lorentz condition requires two simultaneous regaugings which
are in perfect opposition force-wise.  This means that the net force then is
zero, and such a system cannot dissipate energy freely in the load, whether
or not the initial regauging energy is free.  The conventional circuit
design uses symmetrical self-regauging in the discharge of the excitation
(regauged) energy in the circuit (i.e., from the circuit back to the vacuum)
such that it destroys the dipole faster than it powers the load.  And that
circuit design absolutely forfeits any ability to produce a COP>1.0 power

8.  We have been repeatedly informed that extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum will be the most difficult technological accomplishment possible.  The consensus of the world scientific community is that such a "vacuum energy" technology cannot be developed before the next century.  Why does the scientific community honestly - and obviously so strongly - believe that?

         The scientific community is responding to the issue based on the electrical
science it presently recognizes.  Unfortunately that science - at least with
respect to electrical power systems-largely utilizes an electrodynamics that
is some 136 years old, with the primary equations unchanged since (1)
Maxwell's seminal paper in 1864, published in 1865,  (2) Heaviside's
restriction of the quaternionic theory of Maxwell to a much simpler vector
Maxwell theory (and tensors do not recover the higher quaternion topology),
(3) first Lorenz and then Lorentz's further change of the equations to make
them mathematically simpler so closed solutions could be available-which
arbitrary discarded the entire class of open Maxwellian systems far from
thermodynamic equilibrium in their exchange with their external environment,
such as with the active vacuum, and (4) Lorentz's arbitrary discard of the
vast Heaviside nondiverged EM energy flow component filling all space
surrounding every present electrical circuit, which already is extracted by
the active vacuum.  Further, the impact of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of
the scalar potential into a harmonic set of phase conjugate longitudinal EM
wavepairs, where each pair is a longitudinal EM wave in 3-space and its
phase conjugate replica wave in the complex plane (in the time domain) was
missed because the paper was essentially just ignored.  In this way, the
negative resistor nature of the dipole-continuously fed EM energy from the
time domain, and continuously emitting EM energy in 3-space- was not
recognized until recent work by the present author revealed it.

         When Maxwell's theory was published, the electron had not been discovered,
the atom had not been discovered, the molecule was simply a volumetric thing
without structure, and positive charges in the atomic nucleus in a copper
wire were not known.  The prevailing theory assumed the ubiquitous
luminiferous ether filling all space, so that there was not a single point
in all the universe-so the theorists believed-where mass was thought to be
absent.  There were also very few electrodynamicists on Earth, only about
three dozen in all.  When Maxwell published his book in 1873, Heaviside was
just teaching himself calculus and differential equations.

Electricity was considered a thin material fluid flowing from the high
pressure (high potential) side to the low pressure (low potential) side.  It
was thought or visualized to flow through the wires analogous to the flow of
a fluid through pipes. The Drude electron gas was obviously unknown, since
the electron was unknown.  Hence the difference between electron velocity
down the wires and the flow of the signal down the wires was unknown, since
electron drift velocity was unknown.

 Maxwell wrote a material fluid flow theory, deliberately designed to (1)
capture magnetism and electricity in the same theory, and (2) capture
mathematically the gist of Faraday's experiments.  Maxwell simply assumed
the transverse EM wave in space, from Faraday's notion that his, Faraday's,
lines of force were physical and material things under stress, rather like
taut strings, and that field perturbations were "twangs" of those "taut
strings".  That assumption and the fact that the measured electron wiggle
waves in the receiving wire antenna are lateral waves (the longitudinally
restrained, spinning Drude electrons act as gyros, and precess laterally
when force is applied longitudinally) are the only bases for the notion of
transverse EM waves in vacuum.  Indeed, they are not transverse EM waves at
all, but are pseudo-longitudinal EM waves.  Note that the vacuum, having an
energy density in modern terms, is therefore a potential.  Further, that
potential decomposes into Whittaker's harmonic set of longitudinal EM
wavepairs, with half incoming into 3-space from the time domain (complex
plane) and half outgoing in 3-space.  This reveals (1) the negative resistor
action of the common potential, and (2) the fact that the vacuum is a plenum
of longitudinal EM waves-half of them in the time dimension and coming into
3-space to be received upon the virtual charges of the vacuum, and the other
half radiating as a longitudinal EM waveflux in all directions.  The modern
electrodynamicists have just not yet absorbed the impact of these very
recent discoveries.

So the scientific community is still just at the verge of absorbing the
impact of these recent findings.  Hopefully they will then quickly begin to
change the prevailing mindset.

Once that mindset changes, then there is likely to be a great and rapid
revolution in electrodynamics, physics, and electrical power systems.  The
problem of power systems extracting their energy from the vacuum, and
powering themselves and their loads, can be solved in four to five years,
given the proper scientific team, the mission, and the funding.

9.        If the foregoing is true, then what are we paying the power company for?

The answer may surprise you, and once again one must keep one's sense of

First, we pay the power company to have a giant Sumo wrestling match inside
its generators and lose.

         We pay the power company to waste about ten trillion times as much energy
as it catches and utilizes.  In other words, we pay it to use only energy
interception processes having an incredibly poor efficiency: almost but not
quite zero!

         We pay the power company so that all that wasted, nondiverged Heaviside
energy from so many power systems radiates through the atmosphere and
biosphere, continually and weakly interacting with the charges encountered
in the atmosphere and in matter (including living bodies), producing a low
level background scattering, "heating", and nonlinear phase conjugate EM
wave interaction set that does not yet appear in the global warming
scientists' calculations or in the repertoire of scientists studying EM
biological effects.

         We pay the power company (and the universities) to continue to calculate
and use the reaction cross section of the field and potential, rather than
the magnitude of the field and potential themselves, and to believe that
they have thereby calculated and accounted for the fields and potentials and
their energy.  Note that, a priori, the amount of energy diverged from a
field by a unit point static charge at a point, is not at all the magnitude
of the field itself.  Neither does the same setup (with divergence of energy
flow from a potential around a unit point static charge, where the potential
is a flow of EM longitudinal waves, per Whittaker 1903) provide the
magnitude of the potential itself.  What is diverged from a mighty river of
energy-or a set of such rivers-around a "little fixed standard rock" in the
river's flow, is not the magnitude of the river!

We pay the power company to continuously use its feeble little bit of
collected energy in its power lines to destroy the source dipole in the
generator faster than it powers the load.

We pay the power company to burn enormous amounts of hydrocarbons, consume
nuclear fuel rods, build massive dams, etc. in order to continuously restore
the very dipoles it designs the electrical power systems to destroy faster
than they power their loads.

We pay the power company to ignore (1) the proven vacuum interaction with
the charges and dipoles in its systems, (2)  the giant negentropic
reordering of that vacuum energy by a dipole, (3) that vast unaccounted
Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component surrounding all its power lines,
and (4) the broken symmetry of the source dipole in its violent and
energetic exchange with the active vacuum.

We pay the power company (and the universities) to ignore what has already
been proven for nearly 50 years in particle physics, and what has been shown
by Whittaker for nearly a century.

We pay the power companies to build vast giant interlocking power grids,
increasingly vulnerable to manmade incident and natural calamity, so they
can continue to design and use the same basic approach in EM power systems,
just varying the individual component subsystems and their design
efficiencies, all remaining under COP<1.0.

We pay the power company to guarantee the greatest national difficulty
possible when in the future our cities and population centers are hit by
professional terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction.

We pay the power company to require energy resource companies to have to rip
the coal from the earth, extract horrendous amounts of oil from the earth,
pollute the environment with hydrocarbon combustion residues and nuclear
wastes, in order to fulfill their mission of furnishing electrical power to
an ever more electrically-needy and ever-growing earth population.

We pay our universities to continue to teach the "old" electrodynamics and
the standard power system models and designs, so that the power companies
will have to keep doing the same thing and keep ignoring all the above.

We pay the power companies (and the universities) to not realize that every
electrical system and load has been and is powered by EM energy extracted
directly from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of the source dipole.

And ultimately we pay the folks who own all that and fund doing all that,
several trillion dollars per year in profits to keep the electricity coming
this way and this way only.

10.       So what is the bottom line, in your opinion?

First, the conventional electrical power system approach is not the way to
run the railroad!

We can do far better than that, and we must do far better than that.  The
polar ice is melting, the oceans will be rising, and anyone who doesn't
think the weather isn't whacky just hasn't been paying attention.  We must
provide ever increasing electrical energy, not only to the developed nations
but to the developing nations.  And we cannot go back to the stone age.
Even if we did, there are not enough forests, etc. to support the energy
needs of our vast world population very long.

So we cannot turn back the clock to some dimly idealized early history

Further, all the other alternative energy methods are "useful", but they are
also too little and too late.  With the electric power demand curve rising,
together with increasing cost of energy and the arguable peaking and
eventual shortage of cheap fuel and cheap power, we could be facing a coming
collapse of the world economy.  Assuming that such a collapse approaches a
very few years from now, the financial pressure on all the struggling
nations will also be increasing beyond endurance.  Desperate nations
undertake desperate deeds, and some 25 now have weapons of mass destruction.
More are developing such weapons every day.

Somewhere as those nations start to slip into a vast world abyss, in their
conflicts they will unleash weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear
weapons.  A dictator or ten of them will see an opportunity, have the
weapons, and move to conquer and take.  We point out the use in the
Iran/Iraq war of chemical warfare, and the use of such weapons by Saddam
Hussein against the Kurds in his own country.  History already shows that
the weapons, once they are possessed by these nations, will be unleashed.

The old strategic studies showed that, once the mass destruction balloon is
launched, a threatened nation must fire upon its enemies and destroy them
before they destroy the nation itself, since effective defenses are not
available.  This is the dire side of the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine
that we usually do not wish to face: Given the unleashing of the preliminary
weapons of mass destruction, a threatened nation must fire on its perception
to try to destroy its perceived foes, else they themselves will surely be
destroyed..  If they do not fire on perception, the threatened nation has no
chance at all of surviving the full bore exchange.

In short, what happens once the first balloon goes up, is that everybody
prepares in desperation, and everybody fires madly upon perception of
preparations of the others.  The resulting Armageddon is indeed the long
mass destruction nightmare we have all feared for so long.

Certainly such a dire scenario can occur from causes other than the
increasing financial stress brought on by an increasing energy crisis.  But
the increasing energy crisis will severely augment the desperation of the
situation, if it is not solved quickly and solved permanently.

We can solve it quickly and permanently, by taking the energy directly from
the vacuum, using the simple giant negentropy mechanism that nature has so
generally provided, and which we have only recently realized.

The entire energy problem can be solved totally and permanently in five
years, given the proper funding and crash scientific effort.  But it
requires a rather dramatic change of scientific mindset, beginning at the
top with agencies such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. National
Laboratories-as well as in the universities.

With the problem solved, we can implement it with a crash program as well.
We can then begin to clean up the biosphere while providing copious
electrical energy, cheaply, anywhere in the world including in the
developing nations.  We can begin to dramatically reduce the hydrocarbons
burned, the nuclear fuel rods spent, and the hydroelectric dams needed.

We can have agile, powerful electrical cars with great performance, whose
batteries never need recharging.

We can have self-powering trains and ships, all powered by energy from the

We can have self-powering electrical power systems, taking all their energy
from their local active vacuum, and powering themselves and their loads

We can have a set of distributed decentralized power systems and areas, with
easy back-up generators of enormous power, to raise the survivability and
restorability of the systems to a very high level.  These systems will have
graceful degradation curves rather than the present catastrophic failure
curves, in case of attack by mass destruction weapons.

It's a doable, and it can be done quickly with a great new Manhattan type
project.  We need to do it, and we need to do it as rapidly as humanly

We only have the biosphere and our civilization to save.

1. T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. IC-2000,
St. Petersburg, Russia,, July 2000 (in press); - "On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum, " ibid., (in press).
2. E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical
Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
3. James Clerk Maxwell, "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field,"
Phil., Trans.  Roy. Soc. Vol. 155, 1865, p. 71, 459.  Presented in 1864.
This was Maxwell's definitive presentation of his theory.  Also in The
Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover, New
York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-604.
4. James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1873.  Third Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, unabridged,
Dover Publications, New York, 1954.
5. J. H.  Poynting, "On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic
field."  Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 175, 1884, p. 343-361.
6. J. H. Poynting, "On the connexion between electric current and the
electric and magnetic inductions in the surrounding field," Proc. Roy. Soc.
Lond., Vol. 38, 1984-85, p. 168.
7. Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The
Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published
section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886,
and 1887.
8. Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, 3 vols., Benn, London,
1893-1912.  Second reprint 1925.
9. Oliver Heaviside, "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the
Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p.
10. H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität
Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische
Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im
elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186.  Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the
Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed
cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element.  Lorentz is believed
to have done this circa 1889-1990.
11. W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1962, 2nd edition, p. 181; W. Gough and J. P.
G. Richards,  European J. Phys., Vol. 7, 1986, p. 195.
12. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1975, p. 237.
13. "On the Principles of Permissible Over Unity EM Power Systems," J. New
Energy, 4(2), Fall 1999, p. 16-39; - "EM Corrections Enabling a Practical
Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of
Longitudinal EM Waves," J. New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28; - "Use of
Asymmetrical Regauging and Multivalued Potentials to Achieve Overunity
Electromagnetic Engines," J. New Energy, 1(2), Summer 1996, p. 60-78; -
"Regauging and Multivalued Magnetic Scalar Potential: Master Overunity
Mechanisms," Explore, 7(1), 1996, p. 51-58; - "The Master Principle of EM
Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines,"  Infinite Energy, 1(5&6),
Nov. 1995-Feb. 1996, p. 38-55; - "Use of Regauging and multivalued
Potentials to Achieve Overunity EM Engines: Concepts and Specific Engine
Examples," Proc. Internat. Sci. Conf., "New Ideas in Natural Sciences," St.
Petersburg, Russia, June 17-22, 1996, Part I: Problems of Modern Physics,
1996, p. 277-297; - Energetics of Free Energy Systems and Vacuum Engine
Therapies, Tara Publishing, Internet node, July
14. T. E. Bearden, "Energy Flow, Collection, and Dissipation in Overunity EM
Devices," Proc. 4th Intern. Energy Conf., Academy for New Energy, Denver,
CO, May 23-27, 1997, p. 5-51.  In Figure 5, p. 16 the fraction of the
Poynting energy flow that is intercepted and collected by the circuit is
roughly shown to be on the order of 10(13 of the entire Poynting energy flow
15. D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York,
1968, p. viii.  Quoting: "The connection between the field and its source
has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and
quantum electrodynamics."
16. John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1992.   Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578 shows a good drawing of the huge
Poynting energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with almost
all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power
it, but just "wasted."
17. J. D. Jackson, "Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play
three roles," Am. J. Phys., 64(7), July 1996, p. 855-870.  See also Mark A.
Heald, "Energy flow in circuits with Faraday emf," Am. J. Phys., Vol. 56,
1988, p. 540-547 ; "Electric fields and charges in elementary circuits," Am.
J. Phys., 52(6), June 1984, p. 522-526.
18. T. E. Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", J. New Energy, 4(4),
Spring 2000, p. 4-11.
19. P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden, C. Ciubotariu, W. T. Coffey, L. B.
Crowell, G. J. Evans, M. W. Evans, R. Flower, S. Jeffers, A. Labounsky, B.
Lehnert, M. Mészáros, P. R. Molnar, J. P. Vigier, and S. Roy, "Derivation of
the Lehnert field equations from gauge theory in vacuum: Space charge and
current," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(2), APR 2000, p.179-184; - "Classical
electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition: Extracting energy from the
vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p.513-517; - "Derivation of a
Locally Gauge Invariant Proca Equation from U(1) and O(3) Gauge Theory
Applied to Electrodynamics: Acquisition of Photon Mass and Rest Energy from
the Vacuum," submitted to Physica Scripta; - "Energy Inherent in the Pure
Gauge Vacuum," submitted to Physica Scripta; - "Electromagnetic Energy from
Curved Spacetime," submitted to Optik; - "Operator Derivation of the Gauge
Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equation: Elimination of the Lorentz Condition,"
Found. Phys., 39(7), 2000, p. 1123-TBD (in press); - "Schrödinger Equation
with a Higgs Mechanism: Inherent Vacuum Energy," submitted to Found.
Phys.; - "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking as the Source of the Electromagnetic
Field," submitted to Found. Phys.; - "Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic
Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296; - "Vacuum Energy
Flow and Poynting Theorem from Topology and Gauge Theory," submitted to
Physica Scripta; - "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The
Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 2000 (in press).
See T. E. Bearden,  "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the
Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Contemporary Optics and Electrodynamics,
Wylie, 2001, 3 vols. (in press), comprising a Special Topic issue as vol.
114,  I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), Advances in Chemical
Physics, Wylie; - "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,"
Position Paper , Association of Distinguished American Scientists, June
2000; - "On the Principles of Permissible Over Unity EM Power Systems," J.
New Energy, 4(2), Fall 1999, p. 16-39; - "EM Corrections Enabling a
Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions
of Longitudinal EM Waves," J. New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28; - "Use of
Regauging and multivalued Potentials to Achieve Overunity EM Engines:
Concepts and Specific Engine Examples," Proc. Internat. Sci. Conf. "New
Ideas in Natural Sciences," St. Petersburg, Russia, June 17-22, 1996, Part
I: Problems of Modern Physics, 1996, p. 277-297.  See also Floyd Sweet and
T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy,"
Proc. 26th Intersoc. Energy Conversion Engineering Conf. (IECEC '91),
Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.