Download Energy from the Vacuum: It`s Production in EM Systems

Draft
All EM Systems Extract and Use Free Energy from the
Vacuum
(But we have not yet learned to build and use them properly)
T. E. Bearden
July 7, 2007
FOREWORD
Building and exhibiting a “free EM energy flow” device is deceptively simple. E.g.,
simply lay a charged capacitor or electret on a permanent magnet so that the “static”
E-field of the electrical component is at right angles to the “static” H-field of the magnet.
By the little Poynting formula S = E  H, that simple device pours out a continuous flow
of real EM energy. If one just leaves it alone and does not disturb it, this simple gadget
will pour out real, usable EM energy indefinitely – essentially forever.
As Buchwald puts it {1}:
"[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic
field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even
though all macroscopic phenomena are static."
Scientists have long avoided recognizing that a “static EM field” is actually a
nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system. Indeed, a “static” EM field
is comprised of photons in continuous motion from the source charge or dipole, thus
continually establishing and replenishing the “static” EM field at each point in space that
the “static” field occupies.
One points out the beautiful analogy by Van Flandern, on the question of a static field
actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion {2}:
“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term
‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other
meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all
moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A
frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the
second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has
moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that
propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they
continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.”
INTRODUCTION
All real, observable EM energy directly used in EM systems is EM energy extracted by
the source charge from the interaction of the charge with the subquantal fluctuations of
the vacuum, and coherently integrated by the charge into observable photons which are
then continually emitted. This follows directly from resolving the source charge problem:
1
Draft
How does a charge or dipole radiate observable photons continuously, yet without any
observable energy input? In short, how is energy conservation upheld? We give the
solution.
A brief history of the severe truncation of Maxwell’s original 1865 theory is also given.
In 1892, Lorentz’s further symmetrical regauging of the already sharply curtailed
Heaviside equations gave even simpler, Lorentz-invariant equations, and also arbitrarily
discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. This vast set of discarded Maxwellian
systems includes all those that take and use excess EM energy from the vacuum (EFTV)
to achieve COP > 1.0. Not nature, but the ubiquitous use of the Lorentz-symmetric circuit
self-enforces the COP < 1.0 performance of present “energy from fuel” electrical power
systems, in accord with the Lorentz-invariant equations.
Some major falsities contained in the present “Maxwell’s theory” taught in university are
given. The hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics, already reeling from
known violations, is completely falsified by every source charge and dipole. The source
charge and the source dipole are true Maxwell’s Demons and also true Feynman ratchets
consuming positive entropy of the virtual state and producing negative entropy in the
observable state. The magnetic Wankel example of an engine producing COP > 1.0 is
given, as is how to convert it to self-powering (COP = ∞) operation.
Because of the source charge dynamics, all EM systems already extract and utilize real
EM energy directly from the virtual state vacuum fluctuations. All observable EM energy
in the universe is and has been so extracted from the vacuum.
The arbitrary Lorentz-symmetrizing of the CEM/EE model in 1892 is directly responsible
for:
(i) The unwarranted elimination of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, thus
eliminating all COP >> 1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum (EFTV) electrical power systems,
(ii) Keeping the power meters firmly on our homes and offices and the gas pump
meters firmly on our automobiles,
(iii) Foisting the mistaken notion that – other than from familiar wind energy, water
current energy, etc. – EM energy must be obtained by consuming fuel (the “energy only
from fuel” mystique), and
(iv) Keeping our economic dependence largely on oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power
and large centralized electric power distribution systems.
The scientific community is directly responsible for the world energy crisis and much of
the present poverty of humanity, because of its failure to correct the seriously flawed
CEM/EE model, even though the many falsities of that model have been pointed out by
eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, and others.
In the widely used but hoary old 1880s/1890s CEM/EE model, the scientific
community propagates known absurdities – such as
(i) force fields and force-free waves in mass-free space,
(ii) implying that a source charge produces its associated EM fields and potentials
(and their energy) by continuously creating all their energy from nothing at all,
(iii) the oxymoronic second law of equilibrium thermo-dynamics which implicitly
assumes its own contradiction has first occurred but not been accounted, and
2
Draft
(iv) deliberate exclusive prescription and use of symmetrical circuits which selfenforce Lorentz symmetry and COP < 1.0.
We urge:
(i) rapidly correcting the CEM/EE model,
(ii) correcting and extending the second law of thermodynamics to incorporate the
demonstrable production of negative entropy by every charge in the universe,
(iii) funding young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists to seek known
mechanisms (electrical, magnetic, and in materials) in physics that produce Lorentz
asymmetry at least temporarily in the otherwise symmetrical EM system, and
(iv) funding young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists to apply these
asymmetry mechanisms to quickly develop EFTV asymmetrical COP>1.0 EM power
systems that resolve the present escalating energy crisis quickly, cheaply, and cleanly.
EM Energy Dynamics
EM Fields and Potentials: Sets of Real, Free EM Energy Flows from the Vacuum
In 1903 Whittaker rigorously showed {3} that any scalar potential is a set of ongoing
longitudinal EM wave flows, in pairs. In 1904 he showed {4} that any EM field or wave
pattern is two scalar potentials with impressed differential functions. This latter paper
initiated the field presently called “superpotential theory”, with later contributions by
various scientists {5,6,7,8,9}.
If one takes the two base potentials in the 1904 paper, and first decomposes each of them
into a set of EM energy flows via Whittaker’s 1903 work, and then applies the
differential functions of the second paper, one has it. All EM fields, potentials, waves,
etc. decompose into sets of ongoing longitudinal EM energy flows, with impressed
differential functions. They are just peculiar sets of ongoing EM energy flows. All static
EM fields and potentials are actually nonequilibrium systems comprised of steady flows
of real EM energy.
As is known and accepted, EM fields and potentials are somehow produced by their
associated source charges. This translates into “every charge continuously pours out real
observable EM energy flows, extracted and transduced from its vacuum interaction.”
The astounding result is that all EM energy is free! It occurs as fields and potentials from
every source charge, and all of those are free and steady flows of observable EM energy
transduced by the charge from the seething vacuum. Any charge or dipole continuously
and freely interacts with the virtual fluctuations of the vacuum, thereby establishing its
associated fields and potentials – and each of those is a set of ongoing free EM energy
flows.
Though almost “hidden” and rather ignored, even the staid old electrical engineering
model recognizes that a steady flow of energy is associated with static EM fields. E.g.,
lay a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so the E-field and the H-field are
orthogonal. Then standard textbooks admit there is a steady and unending flow of free
Poynting EM energy S from that silly device, given by S = E  H. It’s there. It’s real. It’s
free.
3
Draft
So there has never really been an “energy” crisis per se. There has only been a flawed,
iron dogma in the minds of our scientific community, enforcing self-limiting power
systems. In particular, a hoary old electrical engineering model glued together before the
advent of modern physics – and riddled with blatant falsities – is still upheld and
prescribed by all our universities and the leaders of our scientific community.
The Free EM Energy Flow Comprising a “Static” Field is Continuous and Perpetual
The fact that every individual EM field and potential (including all so-called “static” EM
fields and potentials) is a free flow of EM energy extracted from the local vacuum, does
not explicitly appear in any electrical engineering textbook we checked. Most EE
professors will strongly resist the idea, but it is easily demonstrated experimentally. Just
assemble some charge or a dipole instantly or nearly so, and with pre-arranged
instruments record the steady outflow (along any radial line) at light speed of real EM
energy. The free flow of EM energy will continue so long as the charge and dipole
remain. Yet no observable input of energy can be measured.
The reader should look at it this way. Consider a dipole such as a permanent magnet, with
its “static” magnetic field surrounding it in space. How long will that magnet exist, and –
accordingly – how long will its “static” field exist along with it? Its field is a set of
ongoing, steady state, free EM energy flows. And the field (i.e., that set of free energy
flows) will last as long as the magnetic dipole physically endures. The moment a magnet
is produced, its free outflow of real EM energy from the vacuum starts instantly and
continues as long as the magnet physically exists. This free flow of energy continually
establishes and replenishes the so-called “static” magnetic field.
Now consider a magnetic dipole in one of the atoms of matter that has been around since
the universe was first formed. That “magnet” has lasted some 13.7 billion years, freely
pouring out real EM energy flow all the while. And it hasn’t run down yet, nor has its
energy been depleted in the slightest.
So as far as obtaining a free and usable EM energy flow is concerned, there isn’t a crisis
and there never has been one. There is only a crisis of the scientific “mindset”, in failing
to realize how to properly capture – from the myriads of free, unending flows of EM
energy that surround us and are so easily evoked – as much EM energy as we need,
without destroying the source dipole in the process.
EM Energy Produces Dynamics on the Time Axis as well as in 3-Space.
Quantum field theory (QFT) is much more modern and far more descriptive of nature
than the hoary old electrical engineering (EE) model with its serious flaws.
In QFT there are four photons prescribed and available {10}. With the line of photon
propagation chosen along the Z-axis, oscillation of the energy in the photon – and thus its
polarization – can occur in any one of several directions.
If the energy oscillates along the X axis and thus transversely to the line of propagation,
that is a transverse photon. Oscillation along the Y-axis is obviously also a transverse
photon. Oscillation back and forth along the line of motion (like an accordion) is a
longitudinally-polarized photon, or – for short – a “longitudinal photon”. Oscillation
4
Draft
along the time axis is a time polarized or “scalar” photon. The oscillation direction is
called the “polarization”.
Neither the longitudinal nor scalar photon can be observed individually. But the
combination of the two is observable as common voltage {10}.
Whenever one uses voltage and voltage spikes – including at every dendrite ending of
every nerve cell in our body – one uses longitudinal EM photons and longitudinal waves,
as well as time-polarized photons and waves. That follows from standard quantum field
theory, which is presently the prevailing theory for much of physics.
The physicists, however, have not done very much with the innate ability to manipulate
voltage so as to manipulate both time-energy and space-energy. They should have!
Dealing with EM Models
Fundamental Units Used in a Physics Model Are Arbitrary
To understand how EM energy can “oscillate” over on the time axis, one needs to realize
something about making a physics model. The choice of “fundamental” units utilized in
such a model is totally arbitrary. It is perfectly permissible (and valid) to make a physics
model with only a single fundamental variable – physicists already make such a model
and use it effectively {11}.
So in general, calling something “time” or “energy” or “mass” is quite arbitrary. The
fundamental units used in one’s model are usually chosen for convenience and to ease
calculations etc. How we most often use the model determines which set of fundamental
units is most convenient.
For example, if one chooses to make his physics model with only a single fundamental
unit – say, the joule – then everything else becomes a function of energy. After Einstein
and the atom bomb, everyone is comfortable with dealing with mass as energy. However,
most persons are still uncomfortable in dealing with time as energy. Certainly the view
that time is energy can be justified, merely by choosing the proper fundamental unit(s)
for one’s model. One just allows only a single fundamental unit, which is taken to be the
joule.
But then length is energy also, and so on. Obviously such a model can get very
complicated, with so many functions of energy, but it does give all the correct answers
and it is as valid as the most commonly used models. It’s just much more awkward in the
general case, though correct. Usually a more convenient model with various carefully
selected fundamental units is used.
The bottom line is this: We already know that any form of energy can be changed into
any other form of energy – changing of the form of energy is rigorously the definition of
work. Since everything is a form of energy or can be modeled as such, it follows that in
theory anything can be changed into anything else. So time can be turned to energy and
so can space. Putting the two together as “spacetime”, one thus arrives at general
relativity based on “curving or distorting (changing) spacetime itself”. One is now
justified in defining a “change in curvature or torsion of spacetime” as a “change in
energy”. Or more concisely, spacetime is energy and curvature or distortion of spacetime
5
Draft
is a change in energy. Note that for the first time in physics this gives us a rigorous
definition of energy itself.
It can also be shown that a change in the virtual particle flux of vacuum is a change in
energy. It follows that a change in curvature of spacetime and a change in the virtual
particle flux of vacuum are synonymous.
The Hoary Old CEM/EE Model Is Horribly Flawed
Now let’s examine the classical EM model and the electrical engineering model (the
CEM/EE model) that is more than 100 years old.
Sadly, the model is horribly flawed and riddled with falsities {12}. We usually point out
some dozen or so falsities in the CEM/EE model – such as the following examples:
(i)
The model still assumes the old material ether (falsified in 1887).
(ii)
It assumes forces and force fields in space (which is blatantly false, as pointed
out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, etc.). Basic
classical mechanics still makes the same error, and has for some 400 years.
(iii)
It assumes a flat spacetime (falsified in 1916).
(iv)
It assumes an inert vacuum (falsified since at least 1930 and the Dirac Sea
view of the vacuum, together with the modern quantum mechanical view).
(v)
Since it assumes an inert “vacuum and spacetime” environment for an
“isolated” EM system, it eliminates all nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
EM systems freely receiving, transducing, and using energy from the active
vacuum/spacetime environment as their energy input. Since all EM energy in
all EM systems (and in fact in the universe) is extracted and converted directly
from the active vacuum by the source charges q in the system, the present
CEM/EE model is so falsely restricted as to approach absurdity. In assuming
an inert vacuum and flat spacetime environment for the isolated charge, it
assumes that the charge continuously creates its continuous output EM energy
from nothing at all – in total violation of the conservation of energy law. One
often chuckles at the inane pseudo skeptics who froth at the mouth at
COP>1.0 EM systems as being “dirty old perpetual motion machines creating
energy out of nothing”. These are the very gentlemen who unwittingly already
universally accept the very thing they protest – and they have such little
knowledge that they do not even recognize it.
Certainly it is absurd to try to apply CEM/EE to the active mechanisms for using EM
energy from the vacuum, since the CEM/EE model itself already excludes any vacuum
activity or interaction, hence excludes all such mechanisms. That is like trying to operate
on a man’s liver to resolve a serious problem with his heart, while pretending he has no
heart. The greatest barrier met by energy-from-the vacuum researchers and inventors is
from the electrical engineers who so blithely assume that their discipline already teaches
the total truth about electrical power systems, and who assume they therefore already
know everything about any EM energy from the vacuum system. Or, they just assume
there is really no such thing as “energy from the vacuum.”
6
Draft
Their discipline teaches only a small and highly warped fragment of real EM energy
technology, and they have no inkling of the rest, much less any understanding of it.
Fortunately, parts of modern physics do contain most of the necessary information
outside CEM/EE, but the scattered information has not previously been integrated into a
proper discipline. Some background information on how things got that way is useful.
Maxwell’s Theoretical Model and What Was Done to It
Maxwell’s actual original EM theory was set forth in an 1865 paper {13}, and it contains
20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns. From the publisher of the first edition of
his 1873 “Treatise”, Maxwell received very harsh criticism of the quaternion algebra he
employed {14}. So under such pressure, Maxwell himself began deliberately curtailing
and simplifying his own EM theory that had been published in 1865 and in the first
edition of his treatise. He had completed drastically simplifying (reducing) about 80% of
his own theory when he died in 1879 of stomach cancer. For the second edition of his
treatise, published in 1881 after his death, that part of the first edition was replaced with
Maxwell’s own simplification. Similarly in the third edition, with added comments etc.
So the standard third edition of Maxwell’s book, widely available today and accepted as
“Maxwell’s original theory”, is no such thing. It is a great simplification and reduction.
We also emphasize that, during Maxwell’s own lifetime, his theory was not generally
adopted and accepted. Instead, such acceptance followed his death in 1879 by several
years. Until Hertz performed an experiment showing that Maxwell’s velocity of the speed
of light was correct, Maxwell’s theory was not generally adopted. After that experiment,
Heaviside’s tremendously curtailed 1880s version of it (further seriously curtailed in
1892 by Lorentz) was slowly adopted and it came to be erroneously referred to as
“Maxwell’s theory”.
In the 1880s and 1890s following Maxwell’s death, Heaviside {15}, Gibbs {16}, Hertz
{17} and others ripped the quaternions apart, creating and using the far simpler vector
algebra (which Heaviside and Gibbs helped formulate). This was a greatly “watered
down” treatment of Maxwell’s original theory. What today are taught in university as
“Maxwell’s equations” are not that at all. They are actually Heaviside’s equations and
Heaviside’s notation – and they have been even further simplified and reduced! A great
many startling things can be done in Maxwell’s original theory, that cannot even be
conceived or modeled in the present Heaviside-Lorentz theory {18}.
In the 1880s and 1890s Lorentz {19} put the final coup de grace on Maxwell’s theory, by
symmetrically regauging the already watered down vector equations of Heaviside {20}.
That symmetrizing action arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwell systems {21}.
As Nobelist Lee points out {22}:
"Since non-observables imply symmetry, these discoveries of asymmetry must
imply observables."
And again {23}:
“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a nonobservable turns out to be actually an observable.”
7
Draft
In other words, when one has symmetry in a particle system, one has lots of virtual things
that stay virtual. When one discovers a mechanism which breaks symmetry, then one has
discovered a mechanism where some of those virtual things become or form observable
things. I.e., paraphrasing Nobelist Lee’s statement {24}: Something usually virtual
becomes observable! It follows that extracting usable EM energy from the vacuum
involves the use of broken symmetry and asymmetrical systems a priori.
Obviously, if a system is to convert virtual state energy of the vacuum into observable
EM energy, its signature will be an output of observable EM energy without any
observable energy input. Therefore the system must possess and utilize (1) a virtual
energy input, and (2) a suitable broken symmetry. The equations describing such a
system’s operation must be asymmetric, violating Lorentz invariance and present
electrical engineering.
If one arbitrarily eliminates an asymmetry in a set of equations comprising a theoretical
model, then one has arbitrarily simplified the theory by arbitrarily discarding its
processes or mechanisms that convert something virtual into something observable.
Nature does not discard the asymmetry or the conversion mechanism, but with the new
“symmetrized” equations the humans just assume it away.
Lorentz’s symmetrizing of Maxwell’s equations represents one of the great turning points
in history where science took a major “wrong turn”. Lorentz arbitrarily discarded those
Maxwellian systems which receive excess energy freely from the virtual energy of their
active spacetime or vacuum environment and successfully use it to produce COP > 1.0,
by using it to help power their loads – but not using any of it to kill the source dipole
inside the generator. Now, more than a century later, those asymmetric Maxwellian
systems allowed by nature are still erroneously discarded from electrical engineering.
Such discarded Maxwellian systems are precisely those which will freely produce an
excess, free “EM net force” via asymmetrical regauging – a force which then can freely
dissipate the excess energy asymmetrically received, to perform some free work in
system loads.
Lorentz-regauging killed any “net free regauging force” and allowed the use of much
simpler Lorentz-invariant equations which were easier to solve. Also, the symmetrized
equations usually allowed one to produce closed analytical solutions, rather than having
to use laborious numerical methods as for the more fundamental asymmetrical equations
allowing violation of Lorentz invariance.
Heaviside also hated potentials – which today we know are the primary basis for EM. He
thought they were “mystical” and stated they should be “murdered from the theory”. He
almost succeeded in murdering them, but not quite – he left the magnetic vector potential
and the scalar potential. Heaviside was very satisfied with his work against Maxwell’s
many potentials, and Nahin {25} relates how Heaviside felt:
"In an 1893 letter to Oliver Lodge, Heaviside said of his own work that it
represented the 'real and true Maxwell’ as Maxwell would have done it if he had
not been humbugged by his vector and scalar potentials."
In Heaviside’s day, most “electricians” believed that potentials were not physically
real, but were just mathematical conveniences. Today’s physicists know that the
8
Draft
potentials are primary, and the fields are just changes produced in, and made in, the
proper potentials. Quoting Feynman {26}:
"In the general theory of quantum electrodynamics, one takes the vector and
scalar potentials as the fundamental quantities in a set of equations that replace
the Maxwell equations: E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern
expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and ."
An Analogy to Make Symmetry and Asymmetry Simple.
First the complicated stuff:
We note that electromagnetic regauging involves a change in potential energy of a
system. Any change in the electromagnetic potential energy of the system is a change in
the energy density of space. It’s also a change in the local vacuum potential and its
energy density. It’s precisely similar to a change in voltage, in the space in which the
system is embedded.
But that is always a two-way interaction! As Wheeler pointed out {27}:
"Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on
space, telling it how to curve."
Further, modern quantum field theory tells us we cannot separate the charge and its
interaction with the seething vacuum. E.g., quoting Aitchison:
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum
field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and
the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." {28}.
Regauging changes the excitation (potentialization) of the charges in a circuit. It is also a
change in the interaction between the local vacuum and the charges in that system. In the
general relativity view, it’s also a change in the energy density of space, so it’s a change
in the spacetime curvature.
It’s actually the vacuum (the vacuum potential and its activity) that is changed when we
change a potential. That’s also a change in the curvature of spacetime (ST).
A change in energy is rigorously a change in ST curvature or torsion or both, from the
general relativity view.
A change in energy is rigorously a change in the vacuum potential and its virtual particle
flux activity, from the particle physics view.
The point is this: Regauging is actually a change of the system’s spacetime and vacuum
environment. The corresponding change in the system comes from the direct interaction
with the system of that change in its environment. If we allow parts (e.g., charges) in the
system to move and readjust, that will constitute work. If we freeze the parts of the system
(i.e., the charges), then no work will be done. The “potential energy of the system” will
have freely changed, because the environment constituting the system’s potential energy
has freely changed.
9
Draft
And so every electrodynamicist already assumes that the potential energy of the system
can be freely changed at any time, merely by regauging. He even has the gauge freedom
principle of quantum field theory to prove it. Now that we understand that point, we can
proceed to a simple analogy of regauging, so one can easily understand what’s
happening.
Consider an automobile on a flat level road. It is pressing on the pavement with a force,
and the pavement is pressing back up on it with an equal force. That’s a symmetrical
regauging (two extra free forces, but equal and opposite) of the system comprised of the
auto and the earth. It just puts in the effect of environmental gravity. The symmetrical
regauging creates additional stress in the system, and nothing else.
Now how would one “asymmetrically” regauge that situation? Well, the environment
must be changed asymmetrically so that a net force remains, instead of all forces
summing to a vector zero.
If the road were suddenly oriented down the slope of a hill, then there will be a net force
on the auto that is off the vertical direction. The environment is now asymmetrical
between the auto’s position and the bottom of the hill, and there is a gradient in the
environmental potential between those two points. This environmental gradient
interacting with the auto’s mass constitutes a free extra force now existing on the auto,
propelling it outward and thus down the hill. If free-wheeling, the auto will freely
accelerate as it moves down the hill, continuously increasing its own kinetic energy
because of the downhill force propelling it.
Now if that free-wheeling auto suddenly hits some big object (such as a parked 18wheeler truck) sitting in the road, it will deliver its accumulated kinetic energy to that
object, doing work on the truck and altering it. Here it’s just smashing into the truck and
damaging it.
In short, the automobile (the system of interest) picked up asymmetric regauging energy
(asymmetric change in its environmental potential) from its active environment resulting
in the appearance of a net force acting on the automobile itself. Because of the
asymmetry in the auto-environment interaction, the auto had a net force emerge to
accelerate it down the hill (convert some of the potential energy flow of the environment
to kinetic energy). The auto interacted with the truck as a “load” and dissipated its kinetic
energy as free work on the “load” (the truck in the road).
Let us return to the auto on a “level” road. The truck in the road at some distance is there
also. So let the external environment (producing the gravity and the two opposing stress
forces) be changed for both the truck’s position and the auto’s position, so that the
gravitational potentials at both points change equally. So the new gravitational potentials
are still equal at the location of the distant truck and at the location of the auto. That is a
symmetrical regauging of the gravitational potential energy of the auto’s environment. In
this case, there is no gradient in the gravitational potential between the auto’s position
and the truck’s position. So no additional “net free lateral force” appears on the auto. It
does have its stress forces (equal and opposite) increased. But the auto does not have an
extra “free” force impelling it toward the location of the distant object. There is no
gradient in the gravitational potential at the position of the auto and the gravitational
potential at the position of the truck.
10
Draft
Again return to the auto on a “level” road. The truck in the road at some distance is there
also. Now let the external environment (the gravity producing the two opposing stress
forces) be changed asymmetrically without any change in the land’s topology. Let the
changed gravity be greater at the location of the distant truck, than it is where the auto is
initially resting. That is an asymmetrical regauging of the gravitational potential energy
of the auto’s environment to include the truck and its location. A gradient in the
gravitational potential now exists between the position of the auto and the position of the
truck. Now the auto does have an extra “free” force on it that is impelling it toward the
location of the distant truck.
So this previously “level” road has not changed, but it is now not “level” with respect to
earth’s gravity. The auto again accelerates toward the distant truck, as if it were freewheeling down a hill as we used initially. The auto (moving on the “level”), accelerates
and increases its kinetic energy, then strikes the truck and does external work on it again.
That’s what happens with asymmetrical regauging, so that the extra force appears on the
“auto” as the system of interest.
When the auto is “uphill” from the truck, all “uphill” really means is that the auto is at a
lower gravitational potential than that of the truck. The resulting gradient in the
gravitational potential between those positions freely produced a force on the auto
propelling it toward the truck. The auto gained kinetic energy, and when it hit the truck it
furnished that kinetic energy to do work on the truck.
So when we have asymmetrical regauging of the system’s environment, the system can
indeed perform some free external work with the regauging energy, if things are arranged
correctly. If the system’s environment is symmetrically regauged, the system cannot use
the extra stress energy to perform any free external work with that regauging energy.
That simple analogy gives one a more physical feel for the difference between
symmetrical regauging and asymmetrical regauging of a system and its environment.
When the system potential energy is symmetrically regauged (actually its environmental
potential is symmetrically regauged) and its potential energy increased, the system still
cannot use that extra “free regauging energy” it possesses to do external work.
But when the system potential energy is asymmetrically regauged, the system can then
use that extra “free regauging energy” to perform useful work on an external load. It has
acquired an extra “free force” upon it that can dissipate the extra system energy as the
external work desired.
Because of the Times, Even Maxwell’s Original Theory Contained Serious Flaws
Maxwell’s original theory also had errors, as we know today but no one could have
known it back then! It assumed the material ether and those force fields in space –
everyone at the time believed in that material ether, and believed in forces in space. Basic
mechanics erroneously told them that a separate force vector in space acts on a separate
mass. That has been false for 400 years, as is well-known today and pointed out by –
again – many scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge etc. But it is still taught in
basic mechanics, as well as in the CEM/EE model used by all electrical engineers.
11
Draft
Maxwell even wrote a rather mechanical model of the ether {29}, complete with material
fluids, rotating vortices, etc. But Maxwell favored the potentials, using many of them and
giving them a prominent role. Today it is known and accepted that it is the potentials that
are fundamentally real, and the fields are just distortions or changes in potentials. But for
decades, the potentials were believed to be only mathematical conveniences, and not to
represent anything physically real.
EM Circuit Theory and Construction Are Also Terribly Fouled
The rise of electrical engineering also gave rise to a “standard way” of doing circuits, and
that way was paralyzing from the beginning. We have all been taught to leave the
“external” source of potential connected to its own external circuit while current flows. A
little examination shows that this results in a circuit which uses half its freely collected
potential energy to destroy the dipolarity of the source, cutting off the free flow of
potential energy being extracted from the virtual state vacuum by the proven broken
symmetry of the source dipole (opposite charges). In short, this inane but universal circuit
and practice results in systems that self-enforce Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging, so that
the system cannot and will not produce COP > 1.0 from its own free regauging. The
system can still receive excess regauging energy, but it will all be locked-up as system
stress, with no associated net force to dissipate it in powering loads.
Even worse, if you take half that “stress” energy to power some of the loads, that frees
the other half to force spent charges from the ground line through the source dipolarity
inside the generator, scattering the charges and destroying the dipole and its broken
symmetry. That immediately “cuts off” the free flow of EM energy from the vacuum.
Nature does not exclusively require such an inane, self-symmetrizing system! Instead,
our EE model and standard EE practice exclusively requires it!
CEM/EE and Common Usage Confuses Power, Energy, and Work
Electrical engineers and texts still make gross misstatements. E.g., they speak of
“drawing power” from the source, which is a non sequitur. Power is defined as the rate of
doing work. But the rigorous definition of work is a change in the form of some energy.
None of the EE texts seem to have a proper definition of work, and even half the
sophomore thermodynamics texts also improperly define it at least in some cases!
So power “exists” or is ongoing only in a component or circuit at the very location where
the form of energy is being changed. It is not something “drawn from” the source of
flowing potential energy. Change of the form of the energy is not something that is
“drawn” from the source. Neither is the rate of change of the form of that energy.
Engineers speak of the source “furnishing power” to the circuit, which again is false.
What comes from the source is energy flow, not power. So speaking of the “source
furnishing power” to the circuit is totally inappropriate, but widely used. Change in the
form of energy is not something that is “furnished” by the source.
One cannot actually “power” a load; one can furnish energy to the load, and the rate at
which the load then changes the form of that energy (usually dissipating the energy also)
is what is really “power” and “powering the load”. Engineers speak of the rate of flow of
12
Draft
the energy along a circuit as the “power” flowing in the circuit, which again is false.
Energy is not power, and power does not flow through space or along a wire.
Many thermodynamicists {36} and most electrical engineers also assume that a change of
magnitude of an external parameter (such as potential) of a system is work. It is no such
thing. One can freely change the magnitude of the potential – and potential energy – of a
system at will, so long as its form is not changed. As an example, mere voltage
amplification (change of electrostatic scalar potential) is absolutely not work! Instead, it
is regauging and it is protected under the gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory.
Input of extra energy in the same potential energy form, allows changing the magnitude
of the potential energy at will and without work. Work is done only if the energy is input
in a different form, so that its form must first be changed before it can be used to change
the magnitude of the potential. The work is that change of form of energy – say, from
Form 1 to Form 2.
Work That Can Be Done by a System from 100 Joules of Energy Input
The reader should consider this little gedanken exercise. Suppose we input 100 joules of
energy in Form 1 to a 100% efficient subsystem A, which receives energy in Form 1 and
changes it to Form 2. When we input 100 joules of energy in Form 1 to subsystem A, it
changes the form of that energy to Form 2 and outputs it, having done 100 joules of
work. But one still has 100 joules of energy, just in Form 2 now.
So if I also employ subsystem B, which is 100% efficient and receives energy in Form 2
and changes it to Form 1, then I can take the 100 joules of energy in Form 2 that is output
from subsystem A, after A has done 100 joules of work, and input it to subsystem 2.
Subsystem 2 will now change that 100 joules of Form 2 energy back into 100 joules of
Form 1 energy, doing 100 joules of work in the process. But I still have my 100 joules of
energy, now back in Form 1 again!
So I can output Subsystem A into Subsystem B, and Subsystem B into Subsystem A. And
I can input 100 joules of energy in form 1, and then just stand back. That silly
“theoretical” system will sit there in a closed loop and shuttle the energy round and
round, producing 200 joules of work on every cycle. And it will continue doing work till
the end of time, from that single input of 100 joules of energy in Form 1.
And I can let that recycling system do continuous work for me, after the initial “jump
starting”. And it will run forever, and do free work for me forever.
There is no “conservation of work” law per se! There is only a conversation of energy
law. And it states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in
form.
Few of our thermodynamicists realize or teach the possibility of that type of system, and
almost none of the electrical engineers realize it. That’s because most do not know what
work really is, nor do they properly understand the conservation of energy law. They also
tend to assume that, when the form of energy is changed by doing work, that energy in its
new form is automatically “lost” (dissipated) from the system, and is no longer under
system control. In our common systems that is usually true, but it does not have to be true
in every case!
13
Draft
But most of these misstatements (such as “drawing power from the source”) are so deeply
imbedded in EE teaching, texts, language, and thinking that – if one would communicate
at all with electrical engineers – one uses them of necessity, speaking of “drawing power
from the source”, etc. We use them in this paper, though begrudgingly and often with
quotes around the term.
Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Regauging
Regauging Freely Changes the Potential Energy of the System
Regauging (change of potential and thus of the potential energy of the systems being
modeled) is absolutely free, as guaranteed by the Gauge Freedom axiom of modern
quantum field theory and as used and accepted by electrodynamicists. So by using a flow
of potential, one can freely increase the potential energy of an EM system without having
to perform work. Every electrodynamicist on earth already assumes it and utilizes it.
For an example: If one changes only the potential (the voltage) of a circuit or system,
momentarily allowing no current to flow while the potential is freely flowing over the
circuit and potentializing the circuit charges q, then absolutely no work is done. But the
circuit has gained lots of additional free potential energy on those restrained charges q. In
short, one freely changed the surrounding background vacuum potential that is interacting
with those charges, and that change continually interacts with every charge in the system
to alter its excitation (potentialization).
The simple equation is W = Vq, where W is the energy collected freely from voltage V
when it potentializes charges q. If no current flows, that excess potentialization energy W
is “for free” because no power develops and no work is done on that source to destroy its
dipolarity.
Clearly we may increase the potential energy of any electrical circuit or system by merely
increasing its voltage momentarily without allowing simultaneous current. Increasing the
voltage only, is in fact asymmetrical regauging. It’s also collection of free energy.
This alone shows us that, if we will use an asymmetrical circuit to intercept and collect
that potential energy flow in work-free fashion, disconnect the external source of
potential, recomplete the now-separated and potentialized external circuit to contain a
load, then that separate circuit can and will freely discharge its excess potential energy to
do work in the load, plus power some losses in the circuit.
We can iterate the sequence: Potentialize from a potential source “statically”, disconnect
the source, connect a load into the now-separated external circuit to complete that circuit,
and discharge dynamically. Potentialize statically, discharge dynamically.
So we can have a system which changes itself to iteratively do that. In that case, we can
have a COP>1.0 electrical power system or even a self-powering one if we used clamped
positive feedback to the input from the otherwise asymmetrically discharging output.
Voltage (electrostatic scalar potential) is also a set of ongoing bidirectional EM energy
flows. The so-called “static” potential will in fact flow along any conducting line it is
connected to, and at nearly the speed of light. So from any static voltage source, one can
freely collect (freely flow onto pinned charges q) as much energy as one wishes, if one
14
Draft
has enough q available and if one prohibits current flow momentarily while the circuit
charges q are being potentialized. That is what the simple equation W = Vq tells us.
Implications of Symmetrical Regauging
But if one then leaves the source still connected when the charges q are unpinned and
current starts to flow, the back emf and forward emf are then forcibly equalized.
Consider the standard practice of allowing the external source of potential to remain
connected in the closed current loop circuit as a load while current flows in the circuit
and in its loads. Exactly half the free EM potential energy collected in the circuit is now
dissipated only to ram the spent (depotentialized) charges back up through the back emf
of the generator. This forcibly scatters the separated charges comprising the dipolarity,
and destroys the dipolarity (and thus the potential between the generator’s terminals). In
turn, that shuts off the free flow of EM energy from the vacuum due to the asymmetry of
the dipole charges. It simply destroys the asymmetry by destroying the dipole itself.
Making the dipole turns on its inexhaustible flow of free EM energy. Destroying the
dipole turns off its inexhaustible flow of free EM energy. The EM energy flow from a
system dipolarity is never exhausted; it is only turned on in a circuit or system when the
dipole is created or it is turned off when the dipole is destroyed.
In the EE vernacular, a circuit “dies” because it kills its own source dipole. It does not
“die” naturally, but because it “ran out of energy” by deliberately shutting off its own
flow of free EM energy extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole.
In the standard “symmetrized” circuit, the source of potential is deliberately destroyed by
using half of the freely collected energy in the external circuit to do it. The system uses
half its energy to “turn off” the system’s own free flow of its EM energy from the
vacuum! The other half of the collected free energy in the circuit is dissipated in the
external circuit’s loads and losses, which means – for a real circuit with real losses – less
than half gets used to usefully power loads.
Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the system’s total useful work or energy
output, divided by only the operator’s input of energy (that he usually pays for). To again
restore the dipole, one must again force the charges inside the generator back apart, in
order to again form a dipolarity between the generator terminals. Once formed again, this
dipolarity again produces the potential difference, which flows out of the terminals and
through space along the external conductors, potentializing the entire external circuit.
This “ratcheting” entropic action – of destroying the dipolar source of free energy flow
from the vacuum, faster than the system powers its loads – is how a normal electrical
power system operates by deliberate design. For “continuous” operation, one just takes
the “limit” of the little ratcheting changes, and thus the system continuously destroys its
free flow of energy from the vacuum faster than it powers its loads. Our engineers
specifically design and build all our electrical power systems that insane way, and our
professors blindly teach us that this is the only way it can be “reasonably” done.
15
Draft
The impact of Lorentz-Symmetrical Power Systems
A source of potential should never be used for anything except furnishing potential
energy flow freely. Letting it also become a load while current is flowing, so it will be
destroyed by half the collected free energy, is insane. Lorentz taught us to do it, so that
the equations became much simpler and easier to solve. But that insane practice makes
the circuit “self-symmetrizing”. It is universally used by our electrical power engineers.
In a self-symmetrizing circuit, everything that goes up comes down, and such action is
self-enforced by the circuit itself. Everything that gets turned on, gets turned off – selfenforced by the circuit itself.
Eerily, our electrical engineers are all taught to use only those electrical power circuits
which contain a built-in automatic “switch” to prevent free use of the EM energy from
the vacuum to do useful free work. Instead, the systems all kill their own free flow of
energy from the vacuum, so that the dipole then has to continually be restored by
continually rotating the shaft of the generator (or continually dissipating chemical energy
in a battery).
The mathematicians who worship symmetry above all else as “elegant beauty” are
esthetically very pleased with Lorentz symmetry in the circuits. The electrical engineers,
however, are converted into folks who don’t even know how a circuit is “powered” in the
first place. They also do not realize how their lovely symmetrical circuit is self-enforcing
the entire energy crisis of the world. The poor consumer is totally deceived, trusting a
scientific and engineering community that for more than a century has gone nuts over
enforcing symmetry upon an asymmetrical application, and that is totally betraying him.
But this way, the consumer also continues to pay through the nose – and pay dearly – to
keep his lights on, his house warm, operate his car, etc.
The great financial cartels of the world who control the great energy cartels are laughing
all the way to the bank. Energy becomes a way to continually “squeeze” the consumer on
the greatest scale in human history, and to milk the consumer dry. Make them believe
they must almost always consume fuel to get energy. Sell them fuel to consume and tell
them that its consumption is what makes EM energy in the external circuit to power the
loads – when all EM energy is already free for the taking, and one should only be
allowed to sell them the switching and control. It’s also the way to control entire nations
(including scientific communities) by controlling their economies and their funding.
It becomes a sophisticated but intense game which allows milking entire nations and
largely controlling the nations of the world economically. And also allows control of the
scientific community via controlling how its funding can be spent.
That is the “energy game” foisted on an unsuspecting administration, legislative branch,
general public, and the entire world, and initiated by J. P. Morgan in 1892 when he was
on his way to suppressing Nikola Tesla. The entire scientific community leadership has
acquiesced long since, and continues to teach the same garbage for “solving the energy
problem”.
It is the greatest con game in history, and it has extracted – and continues to extract –
many trillions of dollars from the “milked” consumers worldwide. It has been responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of millions of persons from starvation, from opportunistic
16
Draft
diseases, from internal dictatorial regimes, etc. Not to mention being responsible for
polluting and poisoning the biosphere, contributing to the rise of global warming,
destroying species, impoverishing downtrodden nations and peoples, fomenting wars, and
stopping much of the progress of science right in its tracks.
Just now it threatens the very survival of Western Civilization. If the MidEast war
explodes (and that seems imminent!), a sudden chop-off of the MidEast oil from the U.S.
and Western Europe – plus increased terrorism damage to critical refineries and such –
will be catastrophic. Almost certainly it will result in a severe economic collapse of the
U.S. and Western Europe. If so, then with chaos and utter disorder in all our streets and
cities, and in our government itself, that will present the opportunity necessary for our
enemies to devastate us almost as they wish.
Meanwhile, the deliberate symmetrization of our electrical power systems means the
cartels continue to sell the consumer “the energy to power things”. As we stated, it’s the
greatest rip-off and most diabolical con game in history. Sadly, the scientific community
blindly ignores the terrible errors in CEM/EE that it propagates in all our universities,
even though eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge etc. have pointed out
many of these falsities. Science’s own data outside the CEM/EE model already falsifies
the CEM/EE model a dozen times over. It follows that the scientific community itself
bears at least some ethical responsibility for the deaths of all those people, the
impoverishment of many nations, and the pollution and poisoning of the planet. Instead
of solving its own horrid ethical problem of continuing to teach falsities in CEM/EE, the
scientific community has also permitted and even nurtured the rise of professional
skepticism, elevating it to prominence to blindly promote and maintain sheer dogma.
Though not addressed in this paper, the same con game and blind adherence to the
CEM/EE model is responsible for focusing and controlling medical science onto its “cut,
burn, and drug” therapy. It denies the actual use and amplification of the body’s own EM
healing mechanism itself – a method which forms and unleashes a specific force-free
precursor field anti-disease engine for every disease or disorder engine present in the
sickened person.
Becker’s extraordinary work {30} clearly showed the influence of higher group
symmetry electrodynamics upon differentiation and dedifferentiation of cells. In short,
for cellular regeneration the body, its cells, etc. are caused to dedifferentiate” (time
reverse) from the diseased or disordered state back to the healthy state, by higher group
symmetry electrical means.
Though not well understood at the time, the Prioré work in France in the 1960s and early
1970s was rigorously replicated and reported in the hard French medical literature {31}.
The methodology demonstrated sensational cures of terminal diseases such as cancer and
trypanosomiasis, hardening of the arteries, etc. in thousands of animal experiments (and
in a few human experiments). For the healing mechanism itself, see an explanation by the
present author {32}.
17
Draft
Energy, Work, and Power
How an EM Circuit or System is actually “Powered”.
With present deliberately symmetrized circuits and systems, one has to continually crank
the shaft of the generator, putting in mechanical energy. Our electrical engineers are
taught that this is what actually produces the EM energy flowing out onto the external
circuit, to power the loads. That is simply not true.
Cranking the shaft of the generator does not power the attached circuit or loads! So what
does it do? And why do we have to do it? What is it that is really furnishing the EM
energy flow to the terminals of the generator and out along the external circuit, to
potentialize the charges and “power” the circuit?
To answer those questions rigorously, some additional background is required.
Work and Mechanical Energy Input to the Generator Shaft
First, one must recognize the rigorous definition of work. Work identically is the change
of form of energy. Mere change of magnitude of energy in the same form, is not work but
only energy transfer. But change of form of X joules of energy is X joules of work.
Further, all the energy still remains after its form has been transduced (after work has
been done). It can then be changed in form yet again, producing more work. A joule of
energy can produce far more than one joule of work, if its form is changed several times
and dissipation is not allowed to occur.
Many textbooks still get lost in applying the work-energy theorem, and very few really
make clear just what work is. Or energy either, for that matter. Or charge. Feynman {33}
points out:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what
energy is."
Also, we really do not know what force is! Feynman states {34}:
"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material
origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition
of force, you will never get it!"
Silverman {35} points out that we also do not really know what charge is! He states:
"The theory of quantum electrodynamics provides a comprehensive and (as far
as experiment has been able to confirm) correct description of the interaction of
charged matter with electromagnetic fields. And yet, curiously enough, we do
not know exactly what charge is, only what it does. Or, equally significantly,
what it does not do."
It should not be surprising that, in the face of not really knowing what energy, force,
work, and charge really are, thermodynamicists have had appreciable problems with the
concepts of production of entropy, production of negative entropy, and holding the
entropy to the same level.
18
Draft
As an example, many thermodynamics textbooks erroneously equate the change of any
external parameter (such as the potential) of a system as constituting work a priori {36}.
That is false. If the extra potential energy is input in the same form, no work is required,
as we previously pointed out for mere change of voltage (mere regauging). If the extra
potential energy is input in a different form, so that the form of the input energy must first
be changed in order to increase the potential (and potential energy) of the circuit or
system, then work is done to change the form of the input energy. The work is not
performed in changing the magnitude of the external parameter (of the potential, and thus
of the potential energy in the system) per se, but in suitably changing the form of the
input energy so that the magnitude of the system potential can be changed. If the form of
the input energy is already suitable, no work is required. That is why mere input of
voltage alone does not require work. It increases the magnitude of the system voltage and
the potential energy collection Vq, without having to change the form of the input energy.
The mechanical input energy to the shaft of the generator is transduced in form to the
magnetic field energy inside the generator as the rotor turns. This is a change of form of
energy and requires work.
And that is all that cranking the shaft of the generator does, and that is why it requires
work to crank it. It is transduced in form (does the work) to get the necessary rotating
magnetic field energy inside the generator.
What the Rotating Magnetic Field Energy Does
So what happens to the rotating magnetic field energy once it is produced inside the
generator? It is dissipated on the charges right there inside the generator. It is dissipated
as work upon the charges to separate them, forcing positive charges toward the positive
terminal and negative charges toward the negative terminal. This action separates the
opposite charges and thereby forms the source dipole inside the generator. And that is all
the rotating magnetic field energy does. Again, it did nothing to power the external circuit
or the load, but it did produced the source dipolarity – the broken symmetry that must
occur to even produce EM field energy and EM field energy flow.
At that point, the generator has already disposed of (1) its input mechanical shaft energy,
and (2) the resulting rotating magnetic field energy. It has nothing remaining of the input
mechanical shaft energy or of the transduced rotating magnetic field energy. It just has a
formed dipole and dipolarity, and it has that “magical” broken symmetry that will absorb
virtual energy from the virtual state vacuum and convert it to real, observable EM field
energy (real photons) steadily emitted from the terminals of the generator to flow along
though space outside the external conductors.
Of course, if we leave the external circuit connected while those charges are being forced
apart, and if current can flow, then forcibly separating the charges inside the generator
must also force apart the charges out there in the circuit, between the positive line and the
negative line. But if we just potentialize the generator with the external circuit “frozen”,
we don’t have to “forcibly move all the electrons” out there in that external circuit.
Instead, we can then just let the potential (the voltage difference) between the poles of the
source dipolarity flow on out there onto the circuit, potentializing the charges (and thus
19
Draft
the external circuit) and forming the external circuit dipolarity (voltage difference) freely
and without “power” and work.
Once that potential (voltage difference) is formed between the terminals of the dipole of
the generator, the “flowing voltage” is comprised of a steady flow of EM energy, as
shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904. In other words, if we will act intelligently and
leave that dipole alone, and do not ram current back through the back emf of the
generator to kill the dipole, then the “static” potential will sustain its set of free EM
energy flows onto the external circuit indefinitely, without any dissipation in the
generator potential at all.
And the charges q in that external “potentialized” circuit will have freely “collected” and
stored additional real potential energy Vq.
Such a generator not allowing symmetrical destruction of its internal source dipole will
continue to output real EM energy flow steadily, without any need for further shaft
horsepower input! So now we do not need to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, or
keep inputting any additional energy to those separated charges in that dipole between the
terminals, just to keep that energy flow freely continuing.
Sadly, our electrical engineers do not do things that way. They let the current flow freely
during potentialization, thereby destroying the dipole inside the generator and doing it
faster than they power the loads. So unwittingly – but deliberately – they design selfsuicidal systems which keep killing themselves and their free flow of potential energy.
We really ought to be doing it the other way, and not destroying the source dipolarity and
source dipolarity (potentialization).
The Source of the Free Flow of EM Energy
To uphold the conservation of energy law, there is a problem. Real observable EM
energy is flowing out of that source dipolarity, but try as we will, our instruments cannot
measure any observable energy flow into that source dipole, once it has been established
and the magnetic field energy of the generator depleted.
So, where does all the energy come from that is steadily and continuously flowing in that
potential that is between the ends of the dipole? Real observable EM energy continuously
flows on out in space along the conductors of the external circuit, once the dipole is
formed and we are no longer cranking the shaft of the generator. We can measure that
energy flow and prove it exists.
Well, since the input energy is not observable but must be there, it must be virtual and
from an external source. The only candidate is the local subquantal fluctuations of the
vacuum. So it appears that disordered virtual energy from the vacuum fluctuations must
be absorbed by the charge (that much is already known), and somehow the charge must
reorder the virtual energy and coherently integrate it, re-emitting it as quanta of EM
energy (as real observable photons). The source charges in that dipole have to be
performing that functions.
Is there anything in physics that tells us what the mere “separation of opposite charges”
does to accept and transduce a hidden virtual state energy input into observable form?
20
Draft
Actually, the basis for it has been proven in physics now for nearly a half century. But its
impact has not yet made it across the university campus from the physics department to
the electrical engineering department. Nor have the electrical engineering departments
revised their terribly flawed old model, riddled with falsities, to account for that
discovery half a century ago.
In 1957 the broken symmetry of opposite charges was proven by Wu {37} and her
colleagues, quickly following its theoretical prediction by Lee and Yang {38}. So
revolutionary was this dramatic change in physics, that with unprecedented speed the
Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in that same year (Dec.
1957) that Wu et al. proved broken symmetry (back in February).
What Broken Symmetry of Opposite Charges Means for a Dipole
As stated, among other things, broken symmetry means that “something virtual has
become observable”. It means that the dipolarity’s source charges continually absorb
subquantal energy from the virtual state fluctuations of the seething vacuum, reorder it,
coherently integrate it to the quantum level, and abruptly decay back to the starting lower
level by emitting a real, observable photon. Since the charge continues to absorb virtual
energy from the vacuum, the process iterates over and over. The source dipole thus
continually emits a stream of real observable photons, whose energy has been transduced
from the seething virtual energy of the active vacuum.
But that dipolarity has also violated the hoary old second law of thermodynamics,
because it continuously produces negative entropy. It consumes positive entropy of the
disordered virtual state vacuum flux, transduces it to ordered real EM energy, and emits
the energy as real honest-to-God and usable EM energy – real photons, producing real
EM fields and potentials and continuously replenishing them at the speed of light.
In short, it continuously produces negative entropy in the observable state and consumes
positive entropy in the virtual state. So its energy input is there in virtual state form,
sufficient to provide its observable EM energy output. It obeys the conservation of energy
law after all, but across the quantum boundary between virtual and observable states.
The Charge Is a True Maxwell’s Demon and a True Feynman’s Ratchet {39}
(Insert: charge absorbs a totally ordered individual virtual particle from the vacuum. This
is a true Maxwell’s Demon process.
Each of these source charges acts as a working example of the controversial “Feynman
ratchet” {40, 41}, continually ratcheting up virtual energy from the vacuum into real
observable EM energy emission (real observable photon emission). The reason this
startling Feynman ratchet can work is that the absorbed disordered virtual state input
energy is first converted to ordered mass energy of the absorbing charge, since mass (and
its alternate face as mass-energy) is already unitary.
This conversion of disordered virtual photon energy into ordered differentials of massenergy is the “magic mechanism” by which automatic reordering (negative entropy)
occurs in the absorbed virtual state energy itself.
21
Draft
The now-ordered differentials of mass-energy of the charges do coherently integrate to
the next quantum level, since the mass is unitary. When that level is reached, the nowquantally excited charged particle will then suddenly decay by real photon emission,
from the zitterbewegung (rapid oscillatory motion) of the charge.
The mechanism then iterates over and over, and voila! Each lowly charge involved in a
dipolarity has become a Feynman ratchet {42}, converting its “random statistical virtual
energy absorptions” into real, organized photon energy and continuously producing
negative entropy at the observable level while consuming positive entropy of the virtual
level.
This process rigorously does constitute a true Feynman ratchet. Again, it also totally
falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics, since every charge in the universe is
doing it and has been doing it for the entire life of that charge – often since the beginning
of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.
With this automatic reordering, the ratcheting action by the charge suddenly becomes
doable and eminently practical. The continually emitted observable photons establish the
deterministic external associated macroscopic EM fields and potentials of the charges, at
light speed, and continually replenish them at light speed {43}. The macroscopic EM
fields and potentials are deterministic at any radial point as a function of the radial
distance of that point from the source charge.
The Ratcheting Source Charge Continuously Produces Negative Entropy
The source charge is actually the first proposed physical example of the theoretical proof
by Evans and Rondoni {44} that nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems producing
continuous negative entropy are permissible. The source charge is the first known
example of such a NESS system that continuously consumes positive entropy of the
virtual state and produces negative entropy of the observable state, in violation of the
second law of thermodynamics. The simple ratcheting mechanism of the charge totally
reorders absorbed disordered virtual state energy, which then serially integrates to
quantum level so that decay (reset of the ratchet) occurs by emission of a real observable
photon. Iteration of the ratcheting process gives continual emission of observable
photons, with no observable energy input.
We also point out that, in modern physics the classical “isolated” charge is not isolated at
all. Instead, it polarizes its surrounding vacuum, so that around it there form virtual
charges of opposite sign. Hence the classical “isolated” charge is actually a special
dipolar ensemble. As such, it must exhibit the broken symmetry of opposite charges.
Indeed, when we “measure” an individual charge, we are looking at a “bare charge” in
the middle, through a Faraday screen of opposite virtual state charges surrounding it
{45}. In fact, the bare charge is infinite (and thus involves infinite energy as well), as is
the surrounding opposite charge of the vacuum (which also involves infinite energy).
From this viewpoint alone, the charge can continuously and indefinitely emit real EM
energy at a steady and continuous rate, and never run down or diminish in any finite
length of time.
One actually observes the difference between the two infinite charges – the bare charge in
the middle and the screening charge of opposite sign surrounding that bare charge. Their
22
Draft
difference is finite. That finite difference is the textbook value of the charge of the
“isolated” charged particle.
Van Flandern’s Beautiful Analogy of the Internal Dynamics of a Static Field
A static field or potential is not like a “frozen” waterfall, as the CEM/EE textbooks
imply. Instead, using Van Flandern’s beautiful analogy, a static field or potential is like
an “unfrozen” waterfall. Specifically, Van Flandern states {43}:
“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term
‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other
meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all
moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A
frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the
second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has
moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that
propagate. … So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they
continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.”
In recognizing the internal energy flows comprising a field or potential, one has just met
the 1957 proof of the Whittaker work {4}, showing that any EM field and potential is an
ongoing set of EM energy flows (originating from the source charges). In other words,
every EM field or potential is already a continuous set of ongoing energy flows. It is a
nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system, freely receiving the necessary input energy
from the virtual state vacuum environment of the source charge.
This picture of the static field is totally missing from the CEM/EE model and textbooks,
but it is true nonetheless.
Implications of the Field and Potential as Ongoing Free Energy Flows
It has startling implications. All EM energy occurs as field energy or potential energy.
Hence all EM energy occurs in ubiquitous free flows of usable EM energy already
extracted and transduced from the seething vacuum, free for the taking and using.
Every EM system ever built has been – and is – “powered” by EM energy extracted
directly from the seething vacuum by the dipolarity charges in the external source.
If we would just pay to make the source dipole once, then let it alone and never allow it to
be destroyed again, it would continually furnish us free energy flow from the vacuum, in
usable form, from now till the end of time.
We do not have to discover how to extract the vacuum energy ourselves! Every charge in
the universe already does it for us, absolutely freely.
Just assemble some charge or make a dipole (one will have to pay a little bit once for
that). That beast will then pour out free, usable EM energy from the vacuum forever, if
we just let it alone and do not let our silly circuits destroy it by using half their freely
collected potential energy to do so.
And then we have learn how to properly utilize that free flow of EM energy. Modern
CEM/EE has rather resoundingly failed to do it.
23
Draft
Asymmetrical Regauging
The Inexplicable Aberration of Lorentz-Symmetrical Electrical Power Circuits
How insane would we think a petroleum engineer is, if he insisted on diverting half the
collected oil from a big free gusher, and then continually used the diverted half of the oil
to provide power to do nothing but turn the valve off and cut off the gusher’s flow? In
that case the oil companies would have to use some additional oil (or other input energy)
to keep forcibly reopening that valve. The company itself would have to continually pay
to keep continually overpowering and reversing the continual closing of the valve!
And they would have to pay more than the remaining half of the oil the silly petroleum
engineer did not divert. So they would be using more energy or oil than the remaining
energy or oil that resulted. Their coefficient of performance (COP) for obtaining oil from
a free gusher would be the useful output of oil (the diverted half of the oil) divided by the
companies’ forced input of oil. So their self-limited COP would always be COP < 1.0.
That ridiculous COP is not the achievable COP of the oil well gusher! Instead, it is the
self-limited and crazy COP deliberately designed and enforced by the system itself.
Such a petroleum engineer would obviously be branded a raving lunatic and sent packing.
So why do all our electrical power engineers and electrical power generating companies
do precisely the same kind of thing, and continue to do it year after year? And why does
our scientific community – the National Association of Science, National Science
Foundation, National Academy of Engineers, Department of Energy, universities, great
national laboratories, etc. – keep its collective head firmly buried in the sand, doing
nothing at all about such an insane and universal practice?
Not only is it not corrected, but it also is not even recognized and discussed!
In all our universities, that type of “insane use of the EM circuitry” is exactly what we
have been taught to do for any EM circuit we ourselves build or use. And that is what our
engineers are taught to build into every electrical power system, including our frightfully
expensive and highly vulnerable national centralized electrical power system.
Asymmetrical Regauging Involves Free Potentialization
So the first requirement for an overunity EM system is that it must violate the Lorentz
symmetry, for at least a significant fraction of the time. In that case, the Lorentz-invariant
equations in the textbook as the CEM/EE model cannot and will not describe the
operation of the system {46}. Specifically, the circuit will asymmetrically regauge, which
means allowing the emergence of a net free force in addition to the absorption of excess
free potential energy.
Then that new net free force field acts with the freely received regauging potential energy
behind it. The potential energy is not “locked up as stress of the system”, but can be
utilized. The net free regauging field can dissipate that free excess potential energy to
drive electrons freely through the loads, giving some “free powering” of the loads.
But if we let the dissipated excess potential energy simultaneously drive all the spent
electrons back through the back emf of the generator, we destroy the source dipolarity
24
Draft
faster than the loads are freely powered. So then we have to pay to keep cranking the
shaft of the generator, and we always have to crank it harder and faster than the
“suicidal” symmetricized circuit can “power the external loads”.
In short, by the standard and required design of our circuits and systems themselves, we
can only get COP< 1.0 from the converted free vacuum energy, even though an enormous
amount is there in the circuit and involved. So to get COP > 1.0, if we self-limit circuits
so they cannot do it from the vacuum energy alone, then we have to additionally use extra
“conventional” energy input such as solar radiation to a solar cell array, the wind to a
windmill-cranking of the generator shaft, the river’s current for the hydro turbine
cranking of the generator shaft, etc.
Asymmetrical Example
The Magnetic Wankel Engine
For magnetic circuits, a similar situation exists in that the Lorentz symmetry condition
must be violated, if we are to achieve COP>1.0. Fortunately, for some permanent magnet
approaches it is much simpler than for electrical circuits.
E.g., the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine {47} can readily be built by any competent
electrical engineering department, by paying particular attention to the precision
construction and precision machining required. It is essentially a rail gun or linear
magnetic motor wrapped around almost in a complete circle but not quite. So its back
mmf region is reduced to a very short gap distance between the ends of the rail gun, and
the time required for the rotor magnet to pass through that back mmf region is very short.
That is, by its physical construction the magnetic Wankel reduces the interaction of its
back mmf region to a very short time out of each cycle.
The magnetic Wankel then uses a very simple mechanism to momentarily kill that back
mmf during its very short interaction time, and do it almost “for free”.
One places a pole piece (shaped like an inverted T) above that little gap where the back
mmf is. And one puts a very small trickle current flowing in a coil with that polepiece.
Now, if the little trickle current were suddenly increased in the coil, the back mmf in that
little gap region would be momentarily overpowered and reversed by the sudden
appearance of an extra magnetic field. The trick is to momentarily get that “sudden extra
current” for free or nearly so, just long enough for the rotor magnet to pass through that
modified “back mmf” region when the net back mmf is momentarily zero.
In the operation of the engine, as the rotor magnet starts and drives around the permanent
magnet rail gun section, it continually and freely accelerates, gaining free angular
momentum. Note specifically that this angular momentum is “collected” from the
ongoing continuous energy flow that assists the rotation in the forward mmf region.
But facing the rotor is that approaching gap region, where if nothing is done the back
mmf will simply take back all that free angular momentum, killing any “free rotational
energy” effect. If the back mmf region is not suddenly modified, the cycle can be
25
Draft
repeated as often as one wishes, and no net extra “free usable energy” will ever be
achieved.
Obviously we need to precisely and momentarily reduce or eliminate (or even reverse)
that back mmf in the gap region, while that rotor magnet passes through the gap.
So just as the rotor magnet starts entering that region, one sharply breaks the current in
the little coil of the pole piece. That abruptly induces a known Lenz law effect {48}. A
very sudden and fairly large momentary surge of the current in the same direction will
freely occur, as is well known (including in electrical engineering).
So just as the rotor magnet starts through the back mmf (where all its accumulated free
drive energy from accelerating around to that point would normally have to be paid
back), suddenly the back mmf is gone or even reversed into another forward mmf,
momentarily. And so the rotor passes through in a momentary net zero back emf, or even
in a momentary extra and free forward mmf! The rotor completes its rotation without
ever having to “pay back” the free angular momentum it accumulated in its rail gun
drive portion. With adroit design, it can even continue to gain additional free rotational
energy even in this former “back mmf” region.
This asymmetrical operation of the magnetic circuit violates the standard CEM/EE
assumption of Lorentz symmetry and a conservative field – i.e., it violates the standard
assumption that the net work done around the complete circuit is zero. Putting it
mathematically, it violates the assumption that for any simple closed curve C, the line
integral of F·ds around that closed curve is

C
F ds  0
[1]
Instead, now it becomes

C
[2]
F ds > 0
Hence the magnetic Wankel engine will self-rotate and power its own appreciable shaft
load simultaneously. With this first schema, we only have to pay for that tiny bit of
trickle current and for some efficient timing and switching.
Making the Magnetic Wankel Engine “Self-Powering”.
Once a magnetic Wankel model is worked out properly and successfully operating at
COP > 1.0, it is simple to make it completely self-powering.
Merely hang a tiny little generator on the shaft as a small part of the output load that is
driven. Let that little generator then furnish the required electrical power to that small
“trickle current and switching circuit”, once the machine is in motion and running at
speed. This subtracts only a little bit of the large output energy, leaving the remainder to
power a slightly smaller but still very substantial load.
Then, once in stable operation, the unit is switched into the completely self-powering
mode. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not violating either physics or
thermodynamics, once one understands that any EM field and potential is already a set of
free ongoing energy flows from the vacuum, extracted and transduced freely by the
26
Draft
associated source charge(s). We have simply converted the system to a nonequilibrium
steady state (NESS) system freely receiving excess energy from its active vacuum
environment, and freely dissipating that energy to rotate itself and power loads.
It’s analogous to discovering and using a new kind of “solar radiation energy” that is
universally everywhere in the environment, and always available.
Why There Are No Magnetic Wankel Engines on the Market
One must understand that all of us have a dramatic appointment with the Japanese
Yakuza {49} in our near future. The Yakuza are playing a very substantial and hidden
role in the present asymmetrical war to destroy the U.S. and the Western World {50}. It
behooves the Yakuza to prevent the U.S. from obtaining cheap clean “energy from the
vacuum” solutions, such as the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine. One of their goals is
to completely hamstring the national centralized electrical power system so that it never
functions again. With the power system wiped out, it is planned that this will generate a
very quick and catastrophic economic collapse of the United Stated and the Western
World.
If the U.S. were rapidly developing and deploying cheap clean decentralized electrical
power systems, fuel-free, powering themselves and their loads from the vacuum, then this
rapid replacement of the present centralized system would be ongoing. Hence the
strategic destruction plan for economic collapse of the U.S. might be nullified.
Further, if electrical engineering departments in the U.S. were to build successful
magnetic Wankel engines, the resulting furor from demonstration and replication of
successful free energy devices would revolutionize and change U.S. electrical power
engineering. It would lead to dramatic, sudden development and massive deployment of
decentralized free energy-from-the-vacuum electrical power systems.
To prevent that from happening, the Japanese Yakuza suppressed the magnetic Wankel
engine {51}, along with the Kawai motor {52}, since these two engines could be rather
easily replicated by electrical engineering departments. (Machining etc. and precision
construction are most of the problems involved; in the case of the Kawai motor, one must
start with a high efficiency magnetic motor, having efficiency of 70% or 80%. The COP
will be about double the efficiency, so good application of the Kawai process on those
motors will yield COP = 1.4 and 1.6, respectively). One of the goals of the Yakuza is to
prevent the West from realizing such things and from rapidly obtaining fuel-free, selfpowering electrical power systems. The Yakuza are one of the major international
“terrorist” groups planning to do some serious interference with our centralized electrical
power system in the near future, including – if possible – causing a catastrophic
economic collapse of the U.S. and Western World.
Correcting Thermodynamics
Dealing with the Old Second Law of Thermodynamics
For a humorous but true opener: Presently our electrical power engineers use and think
only positive energy. If we incorporate and use both negative energy and positive energy,
27
Draft
then we can indeed have as much positive energy as we wish, if we merely produce the
same amount of negative energy simultaneously. E.g., quoting Hawking {53}:
“In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show
that [its] negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy
represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. …now
twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive
matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without
violation of the conservation of energy.” …"It is said that there's no such thing
as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
Bedini’s very sharp gradient pulses (spikes) actually produce the Lenz law effect
involving a rush of positive energy being dissipated, but also produces a corresponding
and simultaneous rush of Dirac Sea holes (negative mass-energy electrons) in the
opposite directions (i.e., negative energy). So with very sharp “pulses” and proper usage
of the resulting positive-energy and negative-energy effects in the circuit, one can in fact
have that “free lunch” referred to by Hawking, as well as an unending free lunch by
simply repeating the process continually. Contrary to all our scientific pundits citing the
Second Law as preventing it, one can indeed “eat one’s cake and have it” too – if the
cake is freely replaced as fast as it is consumed. So it just requires a nonequilibrium
steady state (NESS) system continuously receiving its input energy freely from the
vacuum.
And contrary to most university teachings, quite a few violations of the hoary old second
law of thermodynamics are already well known and recognized by nonequilibrium
thermodynamicists themselves. E.g., in an important book on modern thermodynamics of
dissipative systems, Kondepudi and Prigogine {54} list areas already known and
accepted to violate the second law of thermodynamics. One such area is simply a sharp
gradient {55}. Other violations of the second law – again, as is well-known and
recognized – are in the area of statistical fluctuations in a statistical system already in
equilibrium {56}. Any departure from equilibrium lowers the system entropy, hence is a
negative entropy operation violating the present old second “half-law”.
Briefly, the present second law of thermodynamics can be written as
dS ≥ 0
[3]
This specifically rules out the occurrence of negative entropy. That is, it specifically
excludes the production of negative entropy, which (if it happened) would be
dS < 0
[4].
Any proven exception to the present second law (equation [3]) must involve the
production of negative entropy, as given by equation [4]. Since specific examples
producing equation [4] in violation of equation [3] are already proven, then the old
second law has already long been falsified, or reduced to the special case where a
permissible reaction obeying equation [4] does not occur after the time that consideration
arbitrarily begins!
In a practical EM circuit, simply potentializing the circuit while current is momentarily
halted is a true negative entropy operation violating (falsifying) the flawed old second
law.
28
Draft
Starting with any system in equilibrium, the system is already at its state of “maximum
entropy”. In order to produce any further entropy the system must first depart from
equilibrium, thereby lowering its entropy. And that departure from equilibrium is a
negative entropy operation, completely violating the present second law of equilibrium
thermodynamics. But it means that the system has taken on extra, usable, ordered energy
which now can be dissipated to produce additional entropy as the system returns or
decays back to equilibrium. In short, the system has simply been “potentialized”, which
is a negative entropy operation a priori.
The Present Second Law of Thermodynamics Is a “Half-Law”
So for any system ever having been in equilibrium, the present old “half-law” known as
the second law has always been an oxymoron, implicitly assuming that its own
contradiction has previously occurred (to move the system out of its equilibrium
condition) but deliberately not accounting that assumed negative entropy action. It has
also assumed that no other negative entropy operations can occur during the subsequent
decay of the previously excited (disequilibrium) state.
The old second law has thus been based on assumptions that are long since rigorously
falsified by direct experiment.
So, properly used, a known violation of the second law – a sharp gradient, as evoked
judiciously and precisely in the magnetic Wankel engine – can indeed allow the continual
violation of the second law of thermodynamics. We encounter no quarrel here from
knowledgeable leading nonequilibrium thermodynamicists.
We do need suitable revision and extension of the falsified (incomplete) old second law!
Violations of the old law are already well-known and recognized in nonequilibrium
thermodynamics of dissipative systems. The second law merely states that the entropy of
a system must either remain the same or increase, so its demonstrated experimental
violations mean that the system’s entropy can also decrease.
The old second law neglects to account for the implicitly assumed previous negative
entropy operation on an equilibrium system to move it away from equilibrium and thus to
a state of lower entropy. The old second law simply assumes a subsequent decay from
that previously excited state, and then only via entropy-producing reactions, with no
additional negative entropy operations considered or allowed.
In the magnetic Wankel engine (and anywhere else), a permissible second-law violating
process, if properly used and applied, can and will lead to the direct production in the
system of negative entropy. As in the magnetic Wankel engine, a system judiciously and
selectively violating the second law by a known and proven mechanism can produce such
negative entropy controllably and on order.
That is precisely what the Magnetic Wankel engine does. And it can be successfully built
by any university electrical engineering department or physics department. Isn’t it strange
that the university physics departments and electrical engineering departments refuse to
fund and allow doctoral candidates and young post doctoral scientists to look into such
matters, even though nonequilibrium thermodynamics already prescribes and tolerates
such systems?
29
Draft
Final Thoughts
Recommendations to University Electrical Engineering Departments
1. Build and test a magnetic Wankel engine.
These days we are strongly recommending to university physics departments and
electrical engineering departments that they fund and allow doctoral candidates and post
doctoral scientists to build and adjust a magnetic Wankel engine, to prove that energy
from the vacuum can be put to performing useful free work.
Sooner or later one of the universities is going to allow building and testing such a unit in
the name of science. Publication of the successful results should hopefully generate a
rush of experimental replications and substantiations. If so, then that should cause – at
long last – a very rapid correction and extension to the hoary old seriously flawed
CEM/EE model now being so universally taught.
Presently it seems that nothing else short of that will get it done.
2. Perform “negative resonance absorption of the medium” experiments.
We also strongly recommend to those university departments that they closely examine
the area of physics known as negative resonance absorption of the medium (NRAM)
{57}. Here they will confront a tremendous issue. When one inputs EM energy at a given
frequency (usually chosen as IR or UV) to a proper absorbing and re-radiating medium
whose “charged particles” are sized to be self-resonant at the input frequency, a very
novel effect occurs. To a casual view the medium absorbs more energy than is calculated
to be input by normal Poynting energy flow calculations. That’s because the force field in
electrodynamics is normally defined in terms of the interaction of (the freely flowing set
of force-free energy flows comprising the real field in space with) a fixed static unit point
charge. It is not adequately defined at all for interaction with a synchronized self-resonant
charge. The self-resonant charge sweeps out a much greater reaction cross section in the
incoming force free (precursor) EM energy flow, thereby absorbing additional energy in
the absorbing mass system as compared to the standard Poynting calculation where the
same particles are static.
At any rate, the NRAM process produces a COP = 18, and it has been replicated
numerous times at most major universities having a good optical physics section. It’s
been in the literature since 1967 or so, but its tremendous impact on the naïve
assumptions of present electrical power engineering has been completely ignored.
So any physics or EE or optical department wishing to perform a COP>1.0 experiment,
one already proven and accepted in physics, need only perform an NRAM experiment or
series of them, calculating the medium’s COP.
We have previously explained exactly where the excess EM energy input comes from
and the interactions by which it is obtained and used {58}.
30
Draft
In closing, we pay homage once again to Tesla’s foresight, which was so soundly
suppressed by J. P. Morgan. Quoting Tesla:
“Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the
world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common
fuels.".
And again, speaking to the AIEE {59}:
"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power
obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the
delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among
the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...Throughout
space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in
vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of
time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork
of nature."
In Conclusion
We spoke considerably of electric charges and dipoles. The reader should recall also that
a “magnetic pole” is just a “magnetic charge”. So a magnetic dipole comes under the
same discussion of broken symmetry as does the electrical dipole.
We hope this discussion sheds a little more light on exactly what one is doing when one
is experimenting toward COP > 1.0 systems freely using excess energy from the vacuum.
The energy from the vacuum is already extracted and available in any and every EM
circuit; all the charges q already take care of doing that.
The only major barrier to COP > 1.0 electrical power systems is the inane use of Lorentzsymmetric circuitry and the inexplicable scientific mindset that asymmetrical circuitry
and operation shall not be permitted.
One is thus trying to overcome that inane Lorentz symmetry in the systems and circuits
we have all been taught to unwittingly enforce. Unless it breaks that Lorentz symmetry,
then no system will achieve COP > 1.0 with free energy from the vacuum, since the silly
circuit itself self-enforces Lorentz symmetry and prevents it. With the standard circuit,
one is already one’s own “worst enemy” as far as usable energy is concerned.
And we strongly emphasize that the asymmetric systems we are trying to develop do not
even exist in the standard electrical engineering model. The very first requirement in
COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum systems is that they must violate electrical
engineering!
We have always paid – and are still paying – the electric power company to engage in a
giant wrestling match inside its generators and deliberately lose. Our own electrical
engineers have not even known it. They have not even known (nor do they know today)
what really powers an electrical circuit – though all their textbooks purport to teach that.
Quite simply the textbooks are wrong in how they proclaim the EM system is powered.
31
Draft
This kind of idiosyncrasy led Bunge to wryly remark {60}:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and
quantal, are in a sad state."
With the escalating energy crisis, such Lorentz symmetric approaches must be changed
once and for all, and the ubiquitous role of energy from the vacuum must be recognized.
Else this nation is likely to soon experience a catastrophic economic failure, based on the
escalating costs of energy alone. Particularly since terrorists can easily disable our
terribly vulnerable centralized electrical power system – or very substantial portions of it.
Sadly, it doesn’t appear that the scientific community itself will correct the flawed
CEM/EE model and symmetrical power circuits practices. Nor will it graciously allow its
graduate students and post doctoral scientists to do it. This is not unprecedented. More
than 600 successful cold fusion experiments, by various skilled researchers in multiple
labs in multiple nations, have been performed. Yet the scientific community itself still
insists cold fusion is not real – because it doesn’t obey hot fusion’s assumptions!
So free energy systems will likely have to be developed, it seems, by the independent
inventors. In that case, it will be necessary to get thousands of such systems on the
market and working, before the scientific community will begrudgingly admit it. It will
have to be a repetition of the Ovshinsky amorphous semiconductor {61}. Ovshinsky was
slandered, libeled, and ridiculed by the scientific community unmercifully, because
“everybody knew a semiconductor has to be crystalline” {62}.
Then the Japanese funded Ovshinsky, and the rest is history. One fine day the U.S.
scientific pundits awoke to find many thousands of Xerox machines using Ovshinsky
amorphous semiconductors, and they were performing magnificently.
Of course no one ever apologized for the savaging of Ovshinsky. Instead, quietly some
graduate students and post doctoral scientists were permitted to work in the area and
publish their results in leading journals. Ovshinsky’s semiconductors were a commercial
success and found wide application. The amorphous semiconductors were just “quietly
accepted”.
On the bright side for overunity electrical power systems, several inventors do have
legitimate COP > 1.0 systems that with relatively small funding and a bit more work
could be produced and placed on the world market. Two or three of those inventors have
at least the minimum funding required, and are heading quietly in that direction.
Also, a small group of physicists now is actively seeking violations of Lorentz symmetry
and Lorentz invariance, both theoretically and experimentally {63}. That work may
eventually lead to challenging the tremendous grip on physics that Lorentz invariant
equations have today. But so far it is still a small movement, but it is at least tolerated by
the scientific community and it continues.
Meanwhile, all the powerful financial cartels, industrial cartels – and yes, scientific
cartels – are adamantly set on almost ruthlessly preventing cheap clean EM energy from
the vacuum from being developed. They do not wish to see the present energy system
changed, since the “selling of energy” and its ancillary operations is a multi-trillion dollar
business. And so are the resulting pollution of the biosphere, destruction of species, and
global warming by unleashing large amounts of hydrocarbon combustion byproducts.
32
Draft
The failure of our scientific community to actively pursue energy from the vacuum by reincorporating Maxwell’s asymmetrical systems into the present horribly mutilated
electrical engineering model by dramatically revising the model, is indeed sad,
particularly since Whittaker already showed us more than a century ago that all EM
energy occurs in flows that are free for the taking, had we only recognized it. Indeed, to
borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla {64}:
“… I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the
most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has
ever been recorded in history."
So the problem reduces to (1) quickly correcting the present sadly flawed old electrical
engineering model and implementing a new CEM/EE model in all our EE departments
and textbooks, and (2) quickly learning how to build effective Lorentz asymmetric
circuits, which in turn produce nonconservative fields and COP > 1.0.
To permanently and quickly solve the energy crisis forever, all we have to do is to
understand what is involved in more efficiently and freely accepting the immensely
available free EM energy that nature already freely offers.
References:
1. Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London, 1985, p. 44.
2. Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A,
Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9.
3. E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math. Ann.
Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
4. E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means
of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372.
5, For an overview, see Melba Phillips, “Classical Electrodynamics,” in Principles of
Electrodynamics and Relativity, Vol. IV of Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by S. Flugge,
Springer-Verlag, 1962.
6. Thomas John I’Anson Bromwich, “Electromagnetic waves,” London, Edinburgh Dublin Phil.
Mag. J. Sci., Vol. 38, 1919, p. 143-164.
7. P. Debye, “Der lichtdruck auf Kugeln von beliegigem Material,” Ann. Phys., (Leipzig), Vol.
30, 1909, p. 57-136. Introduces a solution to Maxwell's equations in terms of two scalar
potentials. These two scalar potentials are different from the two potentials utilized by E.T.
Whittaker in 1904.
8. A. Nisbet, “Source representations for Debye’s electromagnetic potentials, Physica, Vol. 21,
1955, p. 799-802.
9. W. H. McCrea, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 240, 1957, p. 447.
33
Draft
10. E.g., see F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Revised Edition 1993,
Chapter 5.
11. See discussions in J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, Second edition 1975 and
in the Third edition published in 1999.
12. For a succinct listing of many of the flawed areas, see T. E. Bearden, Energy from the
Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, p. 72-74.
13. (a) James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal
Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865. Also, see (b) James Clerk Maxwell, The Dynamical
Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, edited by Thomas F. Torrance, Wipf and Stock Publishers,
Eugene, Oregon, 1996. The latter contains Maxwell’s original dynamical theory paper and
commentaries. (c) Thanks to the ZPE website, Maxwell’s paper can be directly downloaded. The
site links are: http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_1.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_2.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_3.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_4.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_5.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_6.pdf ,
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Diagram.pdf .
14. James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1873, Second Edition 1881 (Maxwell was already dead), Third Edition, Volumes 1 and
2, 1891. Foreword to the second edition was by Niven, who finished the work as Maxwell had
dramatically rewritten the first nine chapters, much new matter added and the former contents
rearranged and simplified. Maxwell died before finishing the rest of the second edition. The rest
of the second edition is therefore largely a reprint from the first edition. The third edition edited
by J. J. Thomson was published in 1892, by Oxford University Press, and later was published
unabridged, Dover Publications, New York, 1954. J. J. Thomson finished the publication of the
third edition, and wrote a "Supplementary Volume" with his notes. A summary of Maxwell's
equations are given in Vol. II, Chapter IX of the third edition. However, Maxwell had gone (in
his second edition) to some pains to reduce the quaternion expressions himself, and not require
the students to know the calculus of quaternions (so stated on p. 257). We note that Maxwell did
not finish the second edition, but died before its completion. He actually had no hand at all in the
third edition as to any changes. The Second edition later finished by Niven by simply adding the
remaining material from the previous first edition approved by Maxwell. The printing of the first
nine chapters of the third edition was already underway when J. J. Thomson was assigned to
finish the editing of the manuscript.
15. 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.
16. See The Collected Works of J. Willard Gibbs, Vol. 2, New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1934. Gibbs’ notes were widely circulated among electrical scientists in both the U.S. and
Europe.
17. (a) For the first English edition of Hertz’s book on electric waves, see Heinrich Hertz,
Electric Waves: Being Researches on the Propagation of Electric Action with Finite Velocity
Through Space. Translated by David Evan Jones. Preface by William Thompson, Lord Kelvin.
London and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1893. (b) For the German original of the printing of
his first two journal papers on EM, see Heinrich Hertz, “Uber sehr schnelle electrische
34
Draft
Schwingungen” [with] Nachtrag zu der Abhandlung uber sehr schnelle electrische
Schwingungen, pp. 421-448 and 543-544 in Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 31. Leipzig:
Johann Barth, 1887.
18. E.g., see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales
de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in
quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM
functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s
patented circuits did exactly this. Barrett improved Tesla’s technique and obtained two patents on
similar processes, which are still used in some communications systems today.
19. H. A. Lorentz, "The Theory of the Reflection and Refraction of Light," Doctoral Thesis,
1875. See particularly H. A. Lorentz, "La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son
application aux corps mouvants," [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to
moving bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. In this paper Lorentz symmetrically
regauged the theory.
20. For the symmetrical regauging as used by our electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical
Electrodynamics, Wylie, third Edition, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell's (Heaviside’s) equations
reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6.11 on p. 246. The Lorentz
regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave
equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p.
240.
21. This mutilation of the Heaviside theory was done at the express wish of J. P. Morgan, for the
direct purpose of eliminating (from the newly emerging electrical engineering model) all Teslatype systems that could freely extract and use EM energy from Tesla’s “active medium”. Not
only did Morgan deliberately crush and totally suppress Tesla a few years later, but he also
deliberately suppressed all “future Tesla’s” for the next 100 years.
22. T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood, New York, 1981, p.
184.
23. T. D. Lee, ibid., p. 181.
24. T. D. Lee, ibid., p. 380-381. Lee shows how there is no symmetry of matter alone, but only
of matter and vacuum.
25. Paul Nahin, Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude, IEEE Press, New York, 1988., p. 134, n. 37.
26. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 2, 1964, p. 15-14.
27. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco, 1973, p. 5.
28. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory,"
Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.
29. James Clerk Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of Force," Phil. Mag. Vol. XXI, Mar., Apr., and
May 1861; Jan. and Feb. 1862.
30. (a) R. O. Becker and David G. Murray, "The electrical control system regulating fracture
healing in amphibians," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. unk, No. 73, Nov.Dec. 1970, p. 169-198 is the definitive technical exposition by Becker of his electrical control
system ideas and findings. See also (b) R. O. Becker, Charles H. Bachman, and Howard
35
Draft
Friedman, "The direct current system: A link between the environment and the organism," New
York State Journal of Medicine, Vol. 62, April 15, 1962, p. 1169-1176; (c) R. O. Becker and D.
G. Murray, “A method for producing cellular dedifferentiation by means of very small electrical
currents,” Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 29, 1967, p. 606-615; (d) R. O. Becker and Joseph A.
Spadaro, "Electrical stimulation of partial limb regeneration in mammals," Bull. N.Y. Acad.
Medicine, Second series, 48(4), May 1972, p. 627-64.
31. Prioré’s patents are (a) Antoine Prioré, "Apparatus for producing radiations penetrating living
cells," U.S. Patent No. 3,368,155, Feb. 6, 1968; (b) ------ "Method of producing radiations for
penetrating living cells," U.S. Patent No. 3,280,816, Oct. 25, 1966; (c) ------- "Procede et
dispositif de production de rayonnements utilisables notamment pour le traitement de cellules
vivantes," [Procedure and Assemblage for Production of Radiation Especially Serviceable for the
Treatment of Living Cells], Republique Francais Brevet d'Invention P.V. No. 899.414, No.
1,342,772, Oct. 7, 1963. A complete synopsis of the Prioré affair is given by (d) Jean-Michel
Graille, Dossier Prioré: Une Nouvelle Affaire Pasteur, [The Prioré Dossier: A New Pasteur
Affair?], De Noel, Paris, 1984 [in French]. Presentation of the revolutionary Prioré work was
given to the French Academy by Dr. Robert Courrier, Perpetual Secretary and head of the
Biology Section. See (e) R. Courrier, "Exposé par M. le Professeur R. Courrier, Secretaire
Perpetuel de L'Academie des Sciences fait au cours d'une reunion a L'Institut sur les effets de la
Machine de M.A. Prioré le 26 Avril 1977," [Presentation by Professeur R. Courrier, Perpetual
Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, made at the meeting of the Academy on the effects of the
machine of M.A. Prioré.]. Prioré's doctoral thesis (which was rejected when the project was
suppressed in the early 1970s) is: (f) M. A. Prioré, Guérison de la Trypanosomiase Expérimentale
Aiguë et Chronique par L’action Combinée de Champs Magnétiques et D’Ondes
Electromagnétiques Modulés. [Healing of intense and chronic experimental trypanosomiasis by
the combined action of magnetic fields and modulated electromagnetic waves], thesis submitted
in candidacy for the doctoral degree, 1973. More than a decade after suppression of the project,
Perisse’s doctoral thesis on the work was published by the University of Bordeaux. See (g) Eric
Perisse, Effets des Ondes Electromagnetiques et des Champs Magnetiques sur le Cancer et la
Trypanosomiase Experimentale [Effects of Electromagnetic Waves and Magnetic Fields on
Cancer and Experimental Trypanosomias]. Doctoral thesis, University of Bordeaux No. 83,
March 16, 1984.
32. The present author’s explanation of the Prioré Effect is given in his “Porthole” Briefing,
available on my website at http://www.cheniere.org/briefings/porthole/index.htm .
33. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2.
34. Ibid., Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.
35. M. P. Silverman, And Yet It Moves: Strange Systems and Subtle Questions in Physics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. p. 127.
36. E.g., see Ralph Baierlein, Thermal Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 2. Quoting:
"Energy transfer produced by a change in external parameters is called work." The statement is
not true whenever the input energy is of the same form as the external parameter.
37. C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test
of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev. Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.
38. (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev. 104(1),
Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-25; (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible
36
Draft
Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev. 106(2), 1957, p. 340345.
39. (a) For a very useful but conservative briefing on Maxwell’s Demon and Feynman’s ratchet,
see http://www.tn.tudelft.nl/tn/Lectures/Statisti/Lecture12.pdf . (b) See Z. K. Silagadze,
“Maxwell's demon through the looking glass,” Acta Phys. Polon. B38, 2007, p. 101-126
(available at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608114 ). (c) See Richard P. Feynman, "Ratchet and
Pawl," Chapter 46 in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1 , edited by R.P. Feynman, R.B.
Leighton, and M. Sands, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, (1963).
40. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1966, Vol. I, Chapter 46, sections 46-1 and 46-2.
41. For another application of a Feynman ratchet that calls for violation of the second law of
thermodynamics, see Jack Denur, “Modified Feynman Ratchet with Velocity-Dependent
Fluctuations,” Entropy, Vol. 6, 2004, p. 6-76.
42. (a) R. P. An excellent lecture (slide briefing) on Feynman ratchets is given on the web at
website http://www.tn.tudelft.nl/tn/Lectures/Statisti/Lecture12.pdf. (b) For a good discussion and
interesting critique, see Marcelo O. Magnasco and Gustavo Stolovitsky, “Feynman’s Ratchet and
Pawl,” J. Stat. Phys., 93(3 & 4), 1998, p. 615-632. The authors do not find a Feynman ratchet
they consider viable, but they never considered the source charge. The output of the source
charge need not be small, but can be easily measured. And the source charge really does reorder
the input disordered subquantal energy from the vacuum fluctuations, and coherently integrate it
into the emission of real observable photons. For appreciable charge or a substantial dipole, the
output is easily measured with ordinary EM instruments, but no instrument will measure any
input. So either one must discard the conservation of energy law, or else one must discard the
present too-restrictive second law of thermodynamics, and extend it to allow production of
negative entropy.
43. Particularly see Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Phys.
Lett. A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p.8-9 for a beautiful “flowing waterfall” analogy of the type
system (a nonequilibrium steady state system) that a static field or static potential actually is.
44. D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady
States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.
45. For a beautiful and simple exposé of the infinite bare charge and its infinite screening charge
of opposite sign, see Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random
House, 1993, p. 109-110.
46. This causes the single greatest problem and a giant barrier for free energy inventors and
researchers. In seeking funding, the venture capitalist group always brings in expert electrical
engineers, who will not even hear of any other model for electrical power system functioning.
Hence in their model, even when they themselves directly measure overunity, they consider it is
“false instrument reading” or some such. In no way will they even accept COP>1.0 by simple
asymmetrical regauging. The U.S. Patent Office also uses electrical engineers for its analysis of
electrical power system patent applications. Same problem, same response. The greatest energy
problem today, as it has always been, is the ubiquitous application of the terribly flawed old
CEM/EE model. The net effect is that CEM/EE continuously suppresses COP>1.0 electrical
power systems at all levels and in all occupations and exchanges.
47. For details, see (a) T.E. Bearden, "The Master Principle of EM Overunity and the Japanese
Overunity Engines," Infinite Energy, 1(5&6), Nov. 1995-Feb. 1996, p. 38-55; (b) ------ “The
37
Draft
Master Principle of Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines: A New Pearl Harbor?" and
(c) see www.cheniere.org/misc/wankel.htm .
48. Specifically, a small emf across the coil is forcing the current through the coil, generating a
weak magnetic field in the pole piece. When we suddenly break the circuit to that coil, we induce
a sharp emf that is proportional to (N)(dV/dt, where N is the number of turns of wire on the coil,
V is the voltage drop across the coil, and dV/dt is the time-rate-of-change of the voltage and
therefore of the emf. For a sharp break (i.e., a small dt), dV/dt is quite large momentarily. This
sudden large emf increase momentarily and dramatically increases the current in the same
direction (i.e., so as to try to prevent the change). This sudden surge of current generates a sudden
large magnetic field in the coil, opposing the change of the ongoing magnetic field from the
breaking of the circuit. Lenz’s law simply states that the current surge is such as to oppose the
attempted change.
49. For some indications of the power and richness of the Japanese Yakuza, see (a) Brian
Bremner, "How the Mob burned the Banks: The Yakuza is at the center of the $350 billion badloan scandal." Business Week, Jan. 29, 1996, p. 42-43, 46-47. (b) Michael Hirsh and Hideko
Takayama, "Big Bang or Bust?" Newsweek, Sept. 1, 1997, p. 44-45. Japan's banks loaned billions
to Yakuza-affiliated real-estate speculators. As a result, they were literally too terrified to collect
on the $300-600 billion in bad debt that ensnared the banking system. (c) David E. Kaplan and
Alec Dubro, Yakuza: Japan’s Criminal Underworld (Expanded Edition), University of California
Press, 2003; (d) Peter B. E. Hill, The Japanese Mafia: Yakuza, Law, and the State, Oxford
University Press, 2003.
50. For an exposé of this very surprising and extremely well hidden role of the Yakuza, and the
Yakuza’s acquisition of extraordinarily powerful superweapons, see T. E. Bearden, “Scalar
Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use: Immediate Strategic Aspects of the
Asymmetric War on the U.S.” Oct. 13, 2004, initial draft available on www.cheniere.org .
51. For information on the Takahashi magnetic Wankel engine, see David Scott, "Magnetic
"Wankel" for electric cars," Popular Science magazine, June 1979, p. 90-91. The Wankel design
was lighter and smaller than a gas engine of the same power, and it was a pygmy when compared
to other electric engines of similar power. The prototype 45-hp unit weighed 155 pounds
compared to 440 pounds for a comparable electric motor. The rotary engine was compact enough
to fit inside a two-foot cube. The engine was in development by Kure Tekko, a sizable firm that
supplied auto parts to Toyo Kogyo, the Mazda maker. It was actually placed in a Mazda car and
tested.
52. Teruo Kawai, "Motive Power Generating Device," U.S. Patent No. 5,436,518. Jul. 25, 1995.
A self-powering version of the Kawai engine was also developed in Japan. Kawai’s release of it
and our (CTEC’s) production and marketing of it were suppressed in 1996 right here in
Huntsville, Alabama by the Japanese Yakuza, in my physical presence and that of my Board of
Directors. Otherwise, we would have placed Kawai self-powering engines on the world market in
mid-1997.
53. Stephen D. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam, 1998
54. (a) Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to
Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Several of these
areas permitting violation of the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics are given on p. 459.
(b) For theoretical proof that a physical system is permitted to produce continuous negative
entropy in violation of the old second law, see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments
on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.
38
Draft
55. And Bedini’s patented battery chargers, using mostly negative energy to charge the batteries,
directly invoke Hawking’s statement that the universe is the ultimate free lunch. The local
vacuum gladly inserts additional negative energy for free, when he “pops” the batteries with his
sharp negative energy gradient. Negative energy charges the battery by connecting it
“backwards” momentarily. Then by merely reversing the battery leads back to normal, in a
separate circuit, the battery calmly discharges positive energy into that circuit, keeping the
electrical engineers happy and their measurement instruments able to measure the overall “free
lunch” effects. We expect to see his charges on the market in the very near future, since they have
already been through independent testing and also UL laboratory testing so they can be produced
and sold legally.
56. (a) D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law
violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. (b) See also Gavin E. Crooks,
"Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy
differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726. (c) For experimental proof, see G. M.
Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental
Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short
Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.
57. E.g., see (a) Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"
Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb
more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one
class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also (b) H.
Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on
it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces
COP = 18. For early papers initiating the area, see (c) V. S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a
scattering medium with negative resonance absorption,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p.
14; (d) V. S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance
absorption,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 26(4), Apr. 1968, p. 835-839. (e) V. S. Letokhov, “Stimulated
emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative absorption,” ZhETF Plasma, 5(8),
Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265; (f) V. S. Letokhov, “Double γ - and optical resonance,” Physics
Letters A, Vol. 43, 1973, p. 179-180. (g) Also see V. S. Letokhov, “Laser Maxwell’s Demon,”
Contemp. Phys., 36(4), 1995, p. 235-243.
58. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002.
59. Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers,
1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time,
Touchstone Edition, Simon & Schuster, 2001.
60. Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176.
61. For information on the history of amorphous semiconductor applications and a look at the
important applications they perform today, visit the website http://www.ovonic.com, of the
company founded by Ovshinsky and his wife.
62. Well, “everybody” didn’t know after all, and “everybody” was wrong, as it turned out. Today
the effect by which a specific glassy thin film switches from a non-conductor to a semi-conductor
upon application of a minimum voltage is called the Ovshinsky Effect. (Source: The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language). The Japanese who examined Ovshinsky’s
working prototypes and then funded his work have reaped enormous financial benefits from
Ovshinsky’s amorphous semiconductor sales.
39
Draft
63. For a digest of this work seeking violation of Lorentz invariance, see Robert Bluhm,
“Breaking Lorentz symmetry,” feature article in PhysicsWorld, March 2004.
64. (a) Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless,” Electrical Experimenter, May 1919. While Tesla was
referring to the total falsity of the Hertz theory of transverse EM force field waves in massless
space, his comment applies not only to that part of the electrical engineering model but to a great
many other falsities contained in it. (b) For a listing of these falsities, see T. E. Bearden, “Errors
and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model,” available at
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . This paper was also
submitted to the National Science Foundation, which formally reviewed it. It passed the review;
see the NSF letter at http://www.cheniere.org/references/NSF%20letter%20Bearden.jpg .
However, the high level staff members in charge of electrical power and communications, etc.
have no intention whatsoever of funding our sharp young doctoral candidates, post doctoral
scientists, and a few sharp professors who know not only electrodynamics but physics, to correct
that sadly flawed old CEM/EE model. So sadly the NSF (and the other national science agencies
as well) will do nothing at all of any consequence in the area of “free EM energy from the
vacuum”, even as our own nation and Western Europe are facing a coming giant economic
collapse as the MidEast explodes and the rest of the MidEast oil is abruptly cut off.
40