The Tom Bearden Website

 

The Mechanism That Provides Watergas Easily ([1])

T. E. Bearden

April 7, 2008

Statement

Every effort is made to reveal correct background information in this paper insofar as possible. However, high voltages and other electrical functions are involved and whoever undertakes to follow these procedures or perform experiments is doing so at his or her own risk. High voltages and other hazards such as potential explosions require the experiences of one skilled in the art and rigorously using the proper equipment and procedures. The author is not responsible for any consequences which may be incurred due to anyone following and experimenting with the material and procedures herein. This information is strictly for education only.

 

Introduction

 

     For some decades, various inventors and researchers have managed to cause water to undergo some type of radical process that causes the water to separate far more easily into hydrogen and oxygen gases, which can then be burned in a proper combustion engine (e.g., so as to drive the pistons of a piston engine in an automobile). The various legitimate researchers (there are a few charlatans, so care must be exercised) have obtained varying degrees of success with the process. Such a process obviously does not appear in present chemistry, nor is it taught in university. Instead, the conventional method for breaking water into hydrogen and gas by electrolysis essentially is to tear apart the H-O bond by sheer brute force. With the standard process, one will always put in more energy just to get the H2 and O2 gases, than one will gain back from combustion of those gases to power an engine or heat something.

     In the watergas inventions and research, some of the legitimate researchers have violated that conventional “brute force” electrolysis requirement and have obtained processes that provide the H2 and O2 gases very easily and cheaply. Such nonconventional processes then allow more usable energy from combustion of the H2 and O2 than one has to input oneself to the water molecule “separation” process.

     This paper provides – we believe for the very first time – the exact mechanism for the most effective watergas processes, where the water molecules literally “fall apart” freely. In short, the H-O-H bonding simply vanishes because of a new kind of interaction introduced with its local conditioned vacuum/spacetime.

     Two levels of explanation are given: (1) a simplified explanation where one focuses on both positive and negative energy, but only considers the energy effect without considering negative probabilities, and (2) a more complete explanation where one also considers the startling effects of negative probability and its direct engineering and application. The latter explanation reveals that one has exposed the tip of a fantastic new extension of the scientific method itself, and why, and what some of its incredible new ramifications are.

 

Representative Watergas Inventors/Researchers

 

(1)      Charles H. Garrett, “Electrolytic Carburetor”, U.S. Patent No. 2,006,676 issued July 2, 1935. See http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm. The patent is available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat2006676.pdf.

 

(2)      Stephen Horvath, “Electrolysis apparatus,” U.S. Patent No. 3,954,592, issued May 4, 1976.  Available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3954592.pdf.
(a) See also Stephen Horvath, “Fuel Supply Apparatus For Internal Combustion Engines,” U.S. Patent No. 3,980,053 issued Sep. 14, 1976. Available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3980053.pdf.
(b) See also Stephen Horvath, “Electrolysis Method For Producing Hydrogen And Oxygen”, U.S. Patent No. 4,107,008, issued Aug. 15, 1978. Available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4107008.pdf.
 

(3)      Stephen Barrie Chambers, “Hydrogen Producing Apparatus,” U.S. Patent No.
6,790,324 B2, issued Sep. 14, 2004. See http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6790324.pdf.
 

(4)      Professor John Kanzius. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius.  See a 9 minute video clip at http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.9.JohnKanzius.htm.
     The Kanzius method and apparatus are very interesting because they have also been independently validated by other reputable scientists. Not only will his generator and method produce watergas but it grew out of experiments that produce reversal and cure of tumors as validated in animal experiments. E.g., one scientist very deeply impressed with the work of Kanzius (in his use of outside RF radiation pulses to cure cancers inside the body) is Dr. Robert J. McDonald, director of nuclear medicine at the Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers. In 2004 Dr. McDonald referred to Kanzius' work as “absolutely amazing.”  Another scientist, Dr. Steven Curley of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, also has called Kanzius’ new cancer treatment “the most exciting new therapy for cancer that I have seen in over 20 years of cancer research.”
    
 It is from that work that Kanzius also found that his RF pulse methods could also cause the water molecule in salt water to give up its bonds far easier than using brute force (conventional electrolysis) to “tear it apart”. Kanzius’ methods and apparatus are direct evidence for negative probability engineering – precursor engineering using negative energy, achieved unwittingly by the inventor(s) – by direct engineering of the vacuum and its associated energy. This means that negative probabilities are being engineered and used, and that is basically both work-free and force-free. See my link http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/MEG%20AB%20watergas%20neg%20energy%20precursor%20eng.doc.
     (a) Therm Med LLC, John Kanzius, William Harry Steinbrink, Robert J. Mcdonald, Michael J. Keating, U.S. Patent Applications WO2005118065 (A2-corr), WO2005118065 (A2), WO2005110261 (A2-corr), WO2005110261 (A2) which have been published; entitled “Systems And Methods For Combined RF-Induced Hyperthermia And Radioimmunotherapy”.
     (b) http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_print.asp?id=74285.
     (c) With respect to achieving overunity coefficient of performance from his waterfuel process, Kanzius and his colleagues investigated it thoroughly and on June 06, 2007 Kanzius announced: "Since it appears we now have now achieved more than unity, I am going to do an embargo on releasing all further informationActually there are smart individuals who have posted on different web sites and actually have a pretty good idea of what is happening." In short, Kanzius recognized that it is time now for definitive patent application and obtaining patents on the process and results.

 

(5)      Stanley Meyer. A prolific watergas inventor many believe was killed. See Eugene Mallove, “Water-Fuel Cell Inventor & Promoter, Dies Suddenly,” Infinite Energy Vol. 19, 1998, pp. 50-51. On March 21, 1998: Quoting Gene Mallove: Meyer “… was apparently eating dinner at a Grove City OH restaurant, when it is reported that he jumped up from the table, yelled that he'd been poisoned, and rushed out into the parking lot, where he collapsed and died. It has been reported by Meyer's associates that Meyer had just secured funding for a $50 million research center near Grove City, but there is no way to confirm or reject this at the moment.”
     To download a pdf file of more than 200 pages on Stan Meyer’s materials, see http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf.
     See the following patents and patent applications:
(a) Stanley A. Meyer, “Hydrogen Gas Burner,” U.S. Patent No. 4,421,474, issued Dec. 20, 1983.
(b) Stanley A. Meyer, “Method for the Production of a Fuel Gas,” U.S. Patent No. 4,936,961, issued June 26, 1990, a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 4,421,474.
(c) Stanley A. Meyer, “Controlled Process for the Production of Thermal Energy from Gases and Apparatus Useful Therefor,” U. S. Patent No. 4,826,581, issued May 2, 1989.
(d) Stanley A. Meyer, “Gas Generator Voltage Control Circuit”, U.S. Patent No. 4,798,661, issued January 17, 1989.
(e)  Stanley A. Meyer, “Gas Electrical Hydrogen Generator,” U.S. Patent No. 4,613,304, issued Sep. 23, 1986.
(f)  Stanley A. Meyer, “Start-up/Shut-down for a Hydrogen Gas Burner,” U.S. Patent No. 4,465,455, issued Aug. 14, 1984.
(g) Stanley Meyer, “Hydrogen Gas Injector System for Internal Combustion Engine,” U.S. Patent No. 4,389,981, issued June 28, 1983.
(h)  Stanley A. Meyer, “Water Fuel Injection System,” Canadian Patent No. 2,067,735.
(i) Stanley A. Meyer, “A Control and Driver Circuit for a Hydrogen Gas Fuel Producing Cell,” International Patent No. WO 92/07861.
(j) Stanley A. Meyer, “MLS-Hydroxyl Filling Station (MLS-HFS),” U.S. Patent Application No. 20050246059, 3 Nov. 2005.
     Meyer’s major Canadian patents are available from http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/search/number.html. They are:
(k) CP # 1,231,872 “Hydrogen Injection System”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(l) CP # 1,233,379 “Hydrogen Gas Injector System for Internal Combustion Engine”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(m) CP # 1,235,669 “Controlled Hydrogen Gas Flame”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(n) CP # 1,228,833 “Gas Electrical Hydrogen Generator”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(o) CP # 1,227,094 “Hydrogen/Air & Non-Combustible Gas Mixing Combustion System”, Stanley A. Meyer
(p) CP # 1,234,774 “Hydrogen Generator System”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(q) CP # 1,234,773 “Resonant Cavity Hydrogen Generator That Operates With A Pulsed Voltage Electrical Potential”, Stanley A. Meyer.
(r) CP # 1,213,671 “Electrical Particle Generator”, Stanley A. Meyer.

 

(6)      The Joe Cell, by “Joe” (an unknown Australian). See particularly the write-up at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joe_Cell.  After receiving personal threats and harassment, Joe no longer demonstrates his energy cell or talks about it.
(a) See Barry Hilton, How To Run Your Car on Zero Point Energy, 1998. Available at http://www.nutech2000.com/prod6.htm.  
(b) See also Alex Schiffer, Experimenter's Guide to The Joe Cell, a lab journal on how to build the cell. Available at http://www.nutech2000.com/prod36.htm.
(c) Also, see particularly Sterling D. Allan, with Peter Stevens, “Joe Cell Stretches the Believability Envelope with Working Replications,” Pure Energy Systems News.
(d) See particularly http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bill_Williams%27_Joe_Cell. And finally, see http://www.rexresearch.com/joecell/joecell1.htm
 

(7)      Professor Phillipp Kanarev, with several patents (now terminated) on a very efficient process producing hydrogen from water far more efficiently than normal electrolysis. See the following:
(a) Kanarev F. M.; Podobedov V. V.; Tlishev A. I. “Electrolytic Cell of Low-Ampere Electrolyzer for Production of Hydrogen and Oxygen from Water,” Russian Patent No. 2,227,817 effective June 16, 2003. Believed now terminated by the Russian government.
(b) Ph. M. Kanarev, V. V. Konarev, V. V. Podobedov, A. B. Garmashov. “Device for production of thermal energy, hydrogen and oxygen.” Russian Patent No. 2,175,027. Status Feb. 5, 2006: Patent has been terminated by the Russian government.
(c) Ph. M. Kanarev. “Device for Production of Thermal Energy, Hydrogen and Oxygen.” Patent No. 2,157,427. Status Feb. 5, 2006: Patent has been terminated by the Russian government.
(d) Ph. M. Kanarev, V. V. Podobedov. “Device for Production of Thermal Energy and Steam-Gas Mixture.” Russian Patent No. 2,157,862. Status Feb. 2, 2006: Patent has been terminated by the Russian government.
(e) Ph. M. Kanarev, E. D. Zykov, V. V. Podobedov. “Device for Production of Thermal Energy of Hydrogen and Oxygen.” Russian Patent No. 2,157,861. Status Feb. 2, 2006: Patent has been terminated by the Russian government.
(f) Ken Rasmussen of the New Energy Congress reported he and his group had travelled over the same route as Kanarev, and achieved more than 1,000 times the performance of ordinary electrolysis. They ceased after one of their group was threatened at gunpoint. See http://pesn.com/2006/06/02/9500276_Water_fuel_experimenter_threatened/.

 

(8)      Robert “Bob” Boyce. Open source electrolyzer, with intention to keep it that way. No patents are being sought. Boyce is being assisted by Maj. Todd Hathaway. They are presently modifying two Prius automobiles to show increased performance, using watergas as a fuel. Interestingly, Boyce’s primary system for this work uses a very good toroidal coil, which evokes the Aharonov-Bohm effect to allow direct engineering of the immediately surrounding altered energetic vacuum. In short, Boyce is performing precursor engineering of the local spacetime/vacuum itself, and the interaction of that activated local vacuum is what performs the actual cancellation of the H-O-H bonding.
(a) See “OS: Bob Boyce Electrolyzer Plans”, available at http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bob_Boyce_Electrolyzer_Plans.
(b) See also http://www.bobboyce.org/. This site contains a very large amount of data, systems, projects, etc.

(9)      Dennis Klein, with the Aquygen™ process of Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. He purportedly converted his 1994 Ford Escort to run as either a water-gas hybrid, or on water alone. He has demonstrated successful units on automobiles. To power the car, presently he uses a mix of normal fuel and Aquygen hydrogen and oxygen. The result is up to a 50 percent jump in gas mileage. Klein's Ford Escort prototype gets 384 miles on a tank of gas. 576 miles with a little Aquygen mixed in.
(a) See Dennis Klein, “Hydrogen Generator for Uses in a Vehicle Fuel System,” U.S. Patent 6,866,756 B2 issued Mar. 15, 2005. For a copy of the patent, see http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6866756.pdf.
(b) See http://hytechapps.com/.  See also Eric Flack, “Car Powered By Water A Reality,” WAVE3TV, Sep. 6, 2006. Available at http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4934566.
(c) Also see Dennis Klein, “Mixed Gas Generator”, U.S. Patent No. 6,689,259 B1, issued Feb. 10, 2004. For a copy, see http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6689259.pdf.
(d) See Michael Kwan, “Prototype car runs 100 miles on four ounces of water as fuel”, Mobile Magazine, Jun. 1, 2006.
(e) See also Chris Salcedo, “New Technology Uses Water To Fuel Cars”, Jan. 10, 2008, available at http://cbs11tv.com/technology/Water.Fuel.Cars.2.627500.html.  Purportedly two prototype vehicles are on the road at present and the results are: a net increase in horsepower and an average increase of 20 to 30 percent in miles per gallon. In India, a car company hopes to have the car on the road in Europe and India by the end of 2008. 

 

(10)  Yul Brown (Brown’s Gas).
(a) See Yul Brown, “Welding”, U.S. Patent No. 4,014,777, issued 29 March 1977. Available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4014777.pdf.
(b) See http://eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.html.
(c) See also Yul Brown, “Arc-assisted oxy/hydrogen welding”, U.S. Patent No. 4,081,656 issued Mar. 28, 1978. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4081656.pdf.
(d) Yul Brown is deceased and his project never really got underway for practical development.
(e) Additional information on Brown’s gas and related developments can be found at http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html and other places on the internet.

 

(11)   Rhodes watergas process.
(a) William A. Rhodes and Raymond A. Henes, “Apparatus For The Electrolytic Production Of Hydrogen And Oxygen For The Safe Consumption Thereof.” U.S. Patent 3,262,872 issued 26 July 1966. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3262872.pdf.
(b) W. A. Rhodes, “Multicell Oxyhydrogen Generator”. U.S. Patent 3,310,483 issued 21 March 1967. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3310483.pdf.

 

(12)  Francisco Pacheco - an inventor from Bolivia who created a watergas hydrogen generator for automobiles.
(a) See Francisco Pacheco, "Bi-Polar Auto Electrolytic Hydrogen Generator.” U. S. Patent No. 5,089,107, Feb. 18, 1992. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5089107.pdf
(b) Francisco Pacheco, “Hydrogen Generator”, U.S. Patent No. 3,892,653 issued July 1, 1975. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3892653.pdf.
 

(13)  Colin William Oloman, Jonathan Wing-Fai Ho, and Jielin Song, “Auto-electrolytic hydrogen generator”, U.S. Patent No. 5,968,325, issued Oct. 19, 1999. Copy is available at http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5968325.pdf.

 

(14)   Ronald I. Papineau, “Apparatus For Generating Hydrogen”, U.S. Patent No. 4,371,500 issued Feb. 1, 1983. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4371500.pdf.

 

(15)   Allan P. Willey and Neal T. Radford, “Apparatus For Gas Generation”, U.S. Patent No. 5,082,544 issued Jan. 21, 1992. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5082544.pdf.

 

(16)    New Zealander Archie Blue invented and patented a device for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and powering an automobile, using a 12-volt air pump. And essentially nothing was heard of it after that.
(a) Archie H. Blue, “Electrolytic Cell”, U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,463 issued Nov. 7, 1978. See
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4124463.pdf.
(b) For a derivative patent, see (WO/2003/042431) “Method And Means For Hydrogen And Oxygen Generation”.

 

(17)    Henry K. Puharich, “Method and Apparatus for Splitting Water Molecules,” U.S. Patent
  No. 4,394,230, issued July 19, 1983. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4394230.pdf. See also A. Puharich: “Cutting The Gordian Knot of the Great Energy Bind”, available at http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm.
 

(18)    Bill Ross, “Internal combustion engine kit with electrolysis cell,” U.S. Patent No.
  6,209,493 B1 Issued April 3, 2001. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6209493.pdf.

 

(19)    Mervyn Leonard Caesar, “Electrolytic Gas Producer Method and Apparatus,” U.S.
  Patent No. 5,711,865 issued Jan. 27, 1998. Copy is available at
  http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5711865.pdf

 

(20)    Stuart A. Young, Ronald A. Zweifel, and Daniel L. Caldwell, “Apparatus and method
  for generating hydrogen and oxygen by electrolytic Dissociation of Water,” U.S. Patent
  No. 5,037,518 issued on August 6, 1991. Copy is available at
  http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5037518.pdf.  
 

(21)   Carl D. Russell, “Petroleum and Hydrogen Driven Engine”, U.S. Patent No. 5,119,768 issued June 9, 1992. http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5119768.pdf.

 

 

References By Dan Solomon: Vacuum Can Have Negative Energy After All

 

     (1)  Dan Solomon. “Some differences between Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory.” Can. J. Phys., Vol. 83, 2005, pp. 257-271.
     (2)  Dan Solomon, “Quantum states with space-like energy-momentum.” Central European Journal of Physics (CEJP), Vol. 4(3), 2006, pp. 380-392.
     (3) Dan Solomon, "Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory," Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117–122.

      Abstract: “In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. It will be shown that this is not, in fact, the case and that there must exist states in HT with less energy than the vacuum state. It will be shown that energy can be extracted from the HT vacuum state through application of an electric field.” Comment: Adding a field (e.g., a gradient of a potential) across a region of space is a violation of Lorentz symmetry, since the “uniformity” of the vacuum energy density is directly altered in that region. Solomon references work in this area, performed by himself and several other researchers, for some time (since 1999).

     (4) Dan Solomon, “Some remarks on Dirac's hole theory versus quantum field theory.” Can. J. Phys., Vol. 81, 2003, pp. 1165-1175.
     (5) Dan Solomon, “Mathematical Inconsistencies in Dirac Field Theory.” 1999. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904106.
     Abstract:” If a mathematical theory contains incompatible postulates then it is likely that the theory will produce theorems or results that are contradictory. It will be shown that this is the case with Dirac field theory. An example of such a contradiction is the problem associated with evaluating the Schwinger term. It is generally known that different ways of evaluating this quantity yield different results. It will be shown that the reason for this is that Dirac field theory is mathematically inconsistent, i.e., it contains incompatible assumptions or postulates. The generally accepted definition of the vacuum state must be modified in order to create a consistent theory.”

      (6) Dan. D. Solomon, “Gauge invariance and the vacuum state.” Can. J. Phys., Vol. 76, 1998, pp. 111-127.

      (7) Dan Solomon, “The stability of the QED vacuum in the temporal gauge.” Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2006, p. 240.

      (8) Dan Solomon, “A new look at the problem of gauge invariance in quantum field theory. Physica Scripta, Vol. 76, 2007, pp. 64-71. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2830.

      (9) Dan Solomon, “Negative energy density for a Dirac-Maxwell field.” 1999. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9907060.

     Abstract: “It is well known that there can be negative energy densities in quantum field theory. Most of the work done in this area has involved free non-interacting systems. In this paper we show how a quantum state with negative energy density can be formulated for a Dirac field interacting with an Electromagnetic field. It will be shown that, for this case, there exist quantum states whose average energy density over an arbitrary volume is a negative number with an arbitrarily large magnitude.”

 

Representative Skeptic

   

 (1)  Philip Ball, a consulting editor at Nature and author of H2O: A Biography of Water, Phoenix: Orion Books, paperback, London, 1999, is a typical skeptic who seems seriously lacking in his actual knowledge of modern physics.  Ball lashes out with the standard skeptic’s dogma (dirty old perpetual motion, second law of the archaic old equilibrium thermodynamics is inviolate, etc.), and sometimes with name-calling such as “crackpot”, “junk science”, “perpetual motion nut”, etc.

    His lack of knowledge of the progress of modern physics and electrodynamics is clearly apparent. For example:
    Specifically, he and other professional skeptics do not even realize that Newton’s first law of motion is the law of perpetual motion. E.g., in deep space simply toss away an object so that it moves in a straight line at the throwing velocity, and the object will then continue to move perpetually in that straight line with that velocity forever, unless and until an external force comes in and intervenes, acting upon the object to forcefully change its state of motion. So perpetual motion is the norm, whenever there is no outside force intervention.

    Ball also does not realize that our solid state physicists in their junior year at university routinely do perform actual perpetual motion experiments in the laboratory. Simply initiate a superconducting current in a closed superconducting loop, and the current will circulate forever. It does gradually “decay” to zero over that infinite time, so its “half value point” is routinely calculated in standard solid state physics books as about 1023 years – far, far longer than the present age of the observed universe itself, which is only about 3´1010 years. For proof, see a standard textbook such as Charles Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York, 1996, p. 359-360.

     Perpetual motion is also recognized by many forward-looking engineering professors in our standard universities. E.g., Kuphaldt addresses it in his teaching of electrical circuits. Quoting Kuphaldt: “So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes…” [Tony R. Kuphaldt, Lessons in Electric Circuits, Vol. 1, D.C., Jan. 5, 2003; Chapter 12: See http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/DC/index.html..

     Indeed, one can purchase one’s own kit to perform such perpetual motion experiments from several supply houses; e.g., from Colorado Superconductor.
     Nobelist Feynman simply and eloquently states the perpetual nature of such a persistent superconducting current in his three volumes of sophomore physics in 1966. Quoting Feynman:

“First, there is no electrical resistance. There’s no resistance because all the electrons are collectively in the same state. ... A current once started, just keeps on going forever.” [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Third Printing 1966, p. 21-08].

     Ball and other pundits waxing eloquent on the “inviolate second law of thermodynamics” are deliberately evasive and confusing the naïve reader. There is no second law of thermodynamics per se, but only of a subset of thermodynamics, which subset is the hoary old equilibrium thermodynamics. The archaic and limited equilibrium thermodynamicists (such as Ball seems to have studied) usually are ignorant of the much more modern and complete nonequilibrium thermodynamics. Prigogine, e.g., was awarded a Nobel Prize for his vital contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

     Nonequilibrium thermodynamicists have long since experimentally proven that the second law of the hoary old equilibrium thermodynamics is easily violated at will by several published and experimentally validated mechanisms, including use of simple “sharp gradients” (which directly engineer and change the active local vacuum and its Dirac Sea). E.g., see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in Boyce’s watergas process and particularly by John Bedini in his tremendous battery-charging circuits) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and layered crystalline structures to invoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect). Interestingly, Boyce also utilizes the Aharonov-Bohm effect in his watergas process, so he is able to directly condition the surrounding vacuum to convert it to essentially a “negative energy froth” that will simply destroy the H-O-H bonds of water molecules embedded in that froth.  
     Even James Clerk Maxwell – who was also a noted thermodynamicist of his day – was aware of the extensive violation in nature of the old equilibrium second law. Quoting Maxwell: “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.” [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

     So Ball writes, “Here, however (for what it is worth) is the definitive verdict of thermodynamics: water is not a fuel.” He is totally wrong; he speaks only of the hoary, archaic old equilibrium thermodynamics; his statement is false for what thermodynamics has to say as a whole and what has also already been experimentally proven on the laboratory bench.
     Here’s what some modern nonequilibrium thermodynamicists have to say: "One aspect is common to all these nonequilibrium situations, the appearance of long-range coherence. Macroscopically distinct parts become correlated. This is in contrast to equilibrium situations where the range of correlations is determined by short-range molecular forces. As a result, situations which are impossible to realize at equilibrium become possible in far-from-equilibrium situations. This leads to important applications in a variety of fields.” [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, p. xii.]
     Again quoting Kondepudi and Prigogine: "Equilibrium thermodynamics was an achievement of the nineteenth century, nonequilibrium thermodynamics was developed in the twentieth century, and Onsager's relations mark a crucial point in the shift of interest away from equilibrium to nonequilibrium. … due to the flow of entropy, even close to equilibrium, irreversibility can no more be identified with the tendency to disorder… [since it can] … produce both disorder … and order…” [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, p. xv.]

     Finally, dogmatic pundits such as Ball seem not to realize the implications of negative energy, which occurs in the Shrödinger equation but which also then leads to negative probabilities. Physicists and mathematicians literally hated (and feared) negative energy and its resulting negative probabilities. Dirac himself strove strenuously to legitimately remove it from his electron theory, but failed. So by artifice Dirac and other physicists arbitrarily removed negative energy from both the Dirac electron theory and quantum field theory, so they would not have to face the awful consequences of negative probabilities. Today, of course, we know that this action omitting negative energy was and is a very bad decision, since the vacuum itself does readily take on negative energy states and actions and these can indeed be utilized in actual experiments and processes in real systems and circuits. The work of Dr. Dan Solomon (cited previously) is particularly significant in this respect.

 

Some Practical Characteristics of Negative Energy

  1. Occurs in Shrödinger equation, so fundamental.
  2. Occurs in Dirac’s original theory until omitted by artifice.
  3. Occurs in quantum field theory until omitted by artifice.
  4. Conductivity, positive EM energy flow, divergence, and impedance for positive energy.
  5. Conductivity, positive EM energy flow, divergence, and impedance for negative energy
  6. Observation, 100 per cent positive probability of underlying statistical processes when positive energy (probability of happening). Producing negative energy affecting underlying statistical processes introduces negative probability (probability of unhappening). Actual “probability” of underlying statistical process thus is the algebraic sum of the positive and negative probabilities. So adding negative probabilities removes certainty. 70% net probability of previous 100% probability (100% observable) results in a thing that 30% of the time is no longer “there” (observable). When net probability reduces to zero, then one has “unhappened” a deterministic observable entity, structure, or event. Important in watergas dissolution of the usual H-O-H water molecule bond’s 100% positive probability. By engineering the local vacuum with negative energy and dark matter, one uses negative energy to perform negative probability engineering of that bond’s existence. When the net probability has been reduced to zero, all water molecules in that region have vanished, leaving freed hydrogen and oxygen to form H2 and O2 gases.

 

The Boyce Water Gas Process

  1. Conditioning the local surrounding vacuum.
  2. Aharonov Bohm Effect
  3. Use of sharp little microwave pulses. (each sharp gradient violates the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. Produces Lenz law effect (sudden rush of electrons lifted from Dirac Sea) leaving behind Dirac Sea holes – negative mass-energy charged mass (dark matter), each of which as a source charge emits negative energy photons and thus has negative energy EM fields (dark energy).
  4.  

 


 

[1]. See our previous article at