Download THE LONG-SUPPRESSED SOURCE CHARGE PROBLEM

Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
P ER PE TUA L M OT IO N VS .
“W ORK ING M A CH IN ES C REAT IN G
E N ERG Y FR OM N O TH IN G ”
WITH A DISCUSSION OF PERPETUAL EXTRACTION AND
EMISSION OF REAL EM ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM
© T. E. Bearden, Aug. 21, 2003
Revised August 8, 2004
FIRST PROBLEM: FOR A CENTURY THERE HAS BEEN A KNEE-JERK
SCIENTIFIC REACTION THAT PERPETUAL MOTION IS FORBIDDEN. IT ISN’T.
PERPETUAL MOTION IS A LAW OF NATURE, WIDELY DEMONSTRATED AND
EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN.

Newton’s First Law is the law of perpetual (uniform) motion. It can be stated as:
“An object placed in a state of motion remains perpetually (uniformly) in that state of
motion until changed by the action of an external force.” {1}

The First Law has been proven in countless actual mechanical experiments.
o
Toss something out of a shuttle in space, and it continues with that velocity.
o
Throw a ball on the earth, and its forward velocity continues, with the
addition of a pull back to earth by the force of gravity and a slow decrease in
forward velocity due to air drag deceleration forces, until it strikes the
ground. In calculating the ball’s actual trajectory, we routinely assume the
fundamental perpetual motion of the ball once it is launched, then calculate
the reduction and change of that perpetual motion by the additional external
forces that act on the ball.

Perpetual motion is resoundingly proved, both theoretically and experimentally, in
solid state physics. As an example, once induced in a closed superconducting loop, a
persistent current at zero voltage lasts indefinitely without perceivable decay {2}.

Hirschfield states {3}:
“If a cur
rent is set up in a superconductor with multiply connected topology,
e.g. a torus, it will flow forever without any driving voltage. (In practice experiments
have been performed in which persistent currents flow for several years without signs
of degrading).”
1
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02

Leggett states {4}:
“… if a ring of superconducting material is cooled below its transition temperature
and a current set up in it (e.g. by varying the magnetic flux through the ring), it will
continue to circulate for as long as one cares to observe it.”

Serway states {5}:
“If the dc resistance of the superconducting wire is truly zero, this current (in a
superconducting loop) should persist forever. Experimental results using a technique
known as nuclear magnetic resonance indicate that such currents will persist for
more than 105 years!” [I.e., more than 10exp5 or 100,000 years].

Serway also includes an elementary demonstration experiment showing that current
is circulating with zero voltage drop {6}.

In his inimitable style, Feynman simply and eloquently stated the perpetual nature of
a persistent superconducting current {7}:
“First, there is no electrical resistance. There’s no resistance because all the electrons
are collectively in the same state. ... A current once started, just keeps on going
forever.”

A superconducting persistent current is quantized in integral multiples of a certain
unit of flux, called a fluxoid or fluxon, and so the current consists of a certain number
of such fluxoids in perpetual circulation. Kittel states {8}:
“…a fluxoid will never leak out in the age of the universe, under our assumed
conditions. Accordingly, the current is maintained.”.

A persistent current in a good quality superconducting loop has a statistical half-life
of some 1023 or 10exp23 years; for typical calculation details, see Kittel {9}.

One can experimentally verify perpetual motion oneself. For a few hundred dollars,
one can purchase a kit that allows one to do one’s own “persistent current”
experiment in a superconducting ring {10}. At university, solid-state physics students
do such experiments routinely as part of their hands-on learning experience {11,12}.

If forces act continuously on an object in motion, the forces may be conservative and
sum to a net zero around a closed cycle, providing what is called a conservative
system. With no other force acting, a conservative system remains in motion
indefinitely, even though its “first law” motion state is continuously and cyclically
changed. This is a second kind of basic perpetual motion, obeyed by ideal free
rotating machines or orbiting objects.

Perpetual motion under Newton’s laws is rather quietly recognized by solid state
physicists and many thermodynamicists. Roy {13} sums it up this way:
“It follows from Newton's laws that an isolated system in motion, on which no [net]
force or torque is acting, exhibits precisely perpetual motion of the second kind. An
example of perpetual motion of the second type is the orbiting of electrons around
the atomic nucleus. … perpetual motion of the second type is common on atomic
and celestial scale; however, such a motion is not common in everyday life. The best
known example of perpetual motion in everyday life is superconductivity, in which a
current circulates ceaselessly in a wire loop without a battery.”

In the real world, extra friction forcessuch as in the bearings and by air drag, or by
turning a resisting loadslow and stop the free rotation of any rotating macroscopic
2
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
system not receiving the necessary energy to replace its losses. But in calculating the
actual rotation time before the rotation stops, we routinely assume the perpetual
motion of the rotor, then calculate the reduction and change of that perpetual
rotation by the additional external forces that act on the rotor. When the state of
motion of an object or system changes, it is being subjected to a nonzero force acting
upon it to change its motion.

Without perpetual motion, there would be no stability in the universe. All would be
random fluctuation, and the observable ordered universe could not exist. Indeed,
there would not even be a body at persistent rest {1}. Any body at rest in one frame to
one observer, is also in motion with respect to many other moving frames and
moving observers. Hence to be “at rest” in one frame and to one observer is to
simultaneously be in “perpetual uniform motion” in many other frames to many
other observers.

Finally, every charge and dipole in the universe is a system perpetually extracting
virtual EM energy from the disordered virtual state vacuum, cohering and
transducing it to real observable EM energy, and perpetually pouring out real
observable photons (real observable EM energy) in all directions.

The “knee-jerk” scientific reaction that perpetual motion cannot exist has prevailed
for more than a century. It is inexplicable in the face of Newton’s first law of motion,
special relativity, and particularly since the discovery of superconductivity in 1911.

We shall now show a simple logical error in the typical form of that stated “kneejerk” reaction that has so clouded scientific judgement and thinking.
SECOND PROBLEM: FOR A CENTURY, “PERPETUAL MOTION” HAS BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY EQUATED AS REQUIRING A “PERPETUAL WORKING
MACHINE WITH NO ENERGY INPUT”. THAT IS A LOGICAL NON SEQUITUR.

E.g., Max Planck {14} stated this gross misconception as follows:
“It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices,
to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will
work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.”

Many scientists understand Newton’s first law better than that! Kuphaldt states it
with great clarity {15}:
“So far as anyone knows, there is no theoretical time limit to how long an unaided
current could be sustained in a superconducting circuit. If you're thinking this
appears to be a form of perpetual motion, you're correct! Contrary to popular belief,
there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion; rather, the prohibition stands
against any machine or system generating more energy than it consumes…”

Yet many scientists and engineers still seem to reason along lines similar to Planck’s
statement. They erroneously assume that “perpetual motion” is against the laws of
physics. They erroneously infer that a system in perpetual motion would continually
do work without any energy input—when basic perpetual motion actually has
nothing at all to do with a machine receiving extra energy or doing work. Instead, it
has to do with a system placed in motion remaining perpetually in that state of
motion unless and until acted upon by an external force that changes it.

We more carefully examine Planck’s statement to clearly show its logical error.
3
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
THE SOLUTION: PLANCK’S STATEMENT IS FALSE.

Planck’s statement contains two premises, which—slightly paraphrased—are:
o
o
Perpetual motion is impossible.
No engine can produce continuous work or energy from nothing {16}.

Planck then equates the two premises by the “i.e.,”—thereby erroneously assuming
they are the same thing.

Planck’s first premise is false because it is refuted by Newton’s first law as well as by
countless actual experiments. Once an object is placed in a state of motion and the
force removed, the resulting motion is uniform. The object freely remains in that
state of uniform motion indefinitely until changed by an external force.

Experimentally, a superconducting current induced in a shorted loop does persist
indefinitely at zero voltage. Further, an object (or the superconducting current)
placed in uniform motion need receive no energy input to continue, and it need
accomplish no work to continue. It is not a “machine doing work without any energy
input”. Instead, it is in fact an energy storage system, no different from energy
translation except that a conservative force may also be applied and the resulting
translation may occur in a closed path, constituting “rotation” or “orbiting”.

Planck’s second premise is true, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Rigorously, work is the change of form of some energy. Any system outputting
energy (as work or energy) must receive the fundamental energy as an input. If it
receives the energy in different form, work is accomplished in changing the energy to
the output form. If it receives the energy in the same form, no work is accomplished
since that is mere energy transfer. It is also asymmetrical regauging, which is
guaranteed work-free by the well-known gauge freedom axiom {17}.

However, Planck’s second premise is inapplicable whenever a continuously working
system also continuously receives the necessary energy input to do the work. That
situation also produces a form of perpetual motion, and one that is easily
demonstrated. The earth and universe, e.g., are giant and complex engines,
continually performing work in myriads of places, and also continually receiving the
necessary input energy (from solar radiation, gravitation, nuclear decay, etc.).

Also, pure energy transfersimply energy moving through empty spaceis an
example of perpetual motion where the moving energy is doing no work (is not being
changed in form) and needs no extra energy input for the energy flow just to keep
flowing.

By erroneously equating a false premise to a true premise as “the same thing”,
Planck would have us assume that a single premise is both true and false
simultaneously. That is a logical non sequitur.

E.g., assume temporarily that the “i.e.” declaring the identity of the two premises is
true. Examine premise #1, and find it is false since it is contradicted by Newton’s
first law and by many experiments. Since premise #1 is false, the identity assumption
requires that premise #2 be false also. But premise #2 is verified to be true, else one
would contradict the First Law of thermodynamics. So premise #2 is true, which
contradicts the original “i.e.” identity assumption. Hence the “i.e.” identity
assumption leads to a logical contradiction, and it is falsified by the standard method
4
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
of starting with a premise assumed to be true and reasoning to a contradiction of its
implications.

Thus Planck’s overall statement is falsified. Planck’s statement is a simple logical
non sequitur, as are all variants of that statement.

Eerily, for a century variants of Planck’s statement have been routinely accepted by
many scientists and scientific publications as absolutely true. During that same
century, apparently no one has previously subjected the statement to a simple
sophomore logic analysis. That is so bizarre that, adapting a phrase from Nikola
Tesla, widespread acceptance of such an elementary logical non sequitur may be one
of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind ever recorded in history.

In the following sections, we clarify continuous (perpetual) working machines,
efficiency  and coefficient of performance (COP), negative energy use in circuits,
decomposition of EM field and EM potential, perpetual extraction of energy from
the vacuum, and Klein geometry versus Leyton geometry.

We then give some final considerations to include the vista of negentropic
engineering, now absolutely permitted since the erroneous old “Second Half-Law”
of thermodynamics has been extended and corrected to include and permit negative
entropy operationsthe missing half of the law, always assumed but unaccounted.
CONTINUOUS WORKING MACHINES.

Continuousi.e., perpetual until interruptedworking machines are perfectly
permissible so long as the necessary energy input is provided to them by the
operator, the environment, or both. It is only working machines without an adequate
energy input that are prohibited by Planck’s second (true) premise and the First Law
of thermodynamics.

There is no law of nature or physics requiring that the operator himself must pay for
the necessary energy input. The environment may input some or all of it.

Systems far from equilibrium and continuously receiving the required input energy
from their active environment can thus do continuous work “for free” except for
maintenance, capital asset costs, etc. {18}. Examples where all the input energy is
freely furnished by the environment are: The windmill, the waterwheel, the common
solar cell array power system, the hydroelectric power system complete with all its
distribution lines and external loads, and every charge and dipole in the universe.

Indeed, every charge and every dipole is a true “Maxwell’s demon” {19,20}
perpetually accepting, reordering, and coherently integrating virtual energy from the
vacuum and perpetually re-emitting it as real EM energy radiated in all directions in
3-space. Since all EM fields and potentials and their EM energy come from their
associated source charges, every field and potential and its energy is output from the
source charge’s asymmetry in its interaction with the seething vacuum flux. Shortly
we will advance the specific negative entropy mechanism (for energy reordering and
coherent integration) used by the source charge and the source dipole.

All the foregoing systems use input energy furnished by the natural environment.
However, with the exception of the active vacuum environment furnishing the
energy to the source charge and dipole, that natural environment is classical. It is
also variable, often not dependable, and so is its supply of input energy to the
system. What is needed is an absolutely uniform, ubiquitous natural environment
5
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
furnishing the energy, with no variation in the environment’s energetic ability and
performance. The charge and the dipole, already having such a nonclassical
interacting environment, point directly to the solution: macroscopic electrical power
systems receiving their input energy from the seething active vacuum {21}. The
system normally complies with invariance, so does not produce a net observable
force. However, to use this freely received energy from the vacuum to power loads,
the system mustat least momentarilyfunction with broken invariance so that a
net observable force is produced and then used.

The vacuum, without additional fields and potentials, is precisely the ideal required
environment, and it also possesses the highest energy density of any medium known.
It is universal, has the same form and activity from place to place, and does not vary
with season or whim of nature. The energetic vacuum is also easily engineered,
almost for free, once the difference between force fields and force-free fields is clearly
understood. Hence the permanent solution to the escalating energy crisis ideally can
and will be perpetual motion electrical power systems taking their input energy
directly from the energetic vacuum.

EM fields existing in massfree space are not “force” fields at all. Instead, they are
changes or alterations in the energy flows in the virtual particle flux of the vacuum
(particle physics view). Also they are local curvatures or torsions of spacetime
(relativity view).

Because it is comprised of appositive energy flows, the fundamental vacuum itself is
a Whittaker-type scalar potential of enormous intensity. All normal EM fields and
potentials in space are in fact changes to this vacuum potential, and they are forcefree.

Fields in space are fundamental precursors of force fields in matter. Only the
ongoing interaction of a force-free precursor field with a charged mass can properly
be called a ‘force field’. A more precise term would be ‘matter force field’. Without
the matter interaction, the field or potential is just a change of the vacuum flux itself,
but no force is involved. When the changed interacting vacuum energy flows are
equal and opposite, but are just changed in magnitude, that constitutes a scalar
potential. When the bidirectional flows also have a net difference and therefore a net
direction, that is a field.

In more than a century of engineering with EM fields and potentials in space, and
utilizing the flow of Poynting energy and Heaviside energy, unwittingly the electrical
engineers have always been directly involved in engineering (i) the active vacuum
itselfextending the postulation of Nobelist Lee {22}and (ii) the curvature and
torsion of spacetime. The far more primary precursor engineering that can and
should be developed is negative entropy engineering. It has previously been
discussed in overview by the present author {71}.
EFFICIENCY AND COP

The related concepts efficiency  and coefficient of performance (COP) are often
confused, and the distinction between them must be clarified.

Efficiency  is the ratio of the useful energy or work output of the system to the total
energy input to the system from all sources. It is stated as a percentage. Any working
machine has an efficiency of   100%. A perfect machine without system losses
would have  = 100%. For a normal machine with normal system losses,  < 100%.
6
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02

COP is the ratio of the useful output energy or work to the operator’s energy input
only, and it is stated as a decimal number. If the environment inputs additional
energy greater than the system losses, but the operator must still input some energy
himself, then the system COP > 1.0. If the environment inputs all the energy for the
working system and the operator inputs none, then COP = . In either case, the
efficiency of any COP > 1.0 working system with real losses is always  < 100%.

As an example of a familiar but normal COP > 1.0 system using only positive energy,
the common home heat pump usually has a nominal efficiency of about  = 50%. In
its internal losses it wastes half of all the energy input to it. Yet it can and does
exhibit COP = 3.0 to 4.0 under nominal atmospheric conditions {23}, since much
more energy is received or extracted from the external environment than the operator
himself furnishes from the power line. The heat pump therefore outputs more work
than can be taken from the energy input by the operator alone and paid for by him.
The extra energy required for the extra work and for COP > 1 .0 comes freely or
nearly freely from the energetic environment. Energy is conserved and no laws of
physics or thermodynamics are violated. So the heat pump with  = 50% happily
wastes lots of energy {24} while purring along and providing COP = 3.0 to 4.0.

It is not necessary that the operator furnish all of the required input energy to a
power system, if the active environment contributes the rest of the required input. It
is not necessary that the operator furnish any of the required input energy to a power
system, if the active environment contributes all of the required input. This latter
case is often euphemistically referred to as a “self-powered” or “self-powering”
system, and it is a system exhibiting COP = , even though  < 100%.

An EM energy transducer or power system, with  < 100% while producing
COP = , is quite permissible and some are well known. Experimental examples are
the solar cell, the source charge, and an entire hydroelectric power system. A
nominal solar cell array power source, e.g., may have an efficiency of only  = 17%,
and thus waste 83% of the total solar energy input to it. Yet the operator inputs
nothing, and the COP = . Windmill-driven and waterwheel-powered generating
systems are also examples of systems exhibiting COP = , even though the system
efficiency is considerably less than 100%.
NEGATIVE ENERGY CIRCUITS

A special case arises when a system employs the use of negative energy EM fields
and potentials. In that case, a “negative energy” flow along a conductor in the
system is augmented by excess negative energy that converges into it from the local
environment, at each impedance encountered {25}. Each impedance functions as a
negative impedance, thus violating invariance a priori. Impedance regions that
would constitute system losses in a circuit carrying conventional positive energy
constitute “system gains” in a circuit carrying negative energy. As a result, a negative
energy system will output more negative energy than the negative energy that the
operator alone input and paid for. Conservation of energy is not violated, since the
additional negative energy is freely input by the external environment at the various
impedances {26}. Invariance is violated, which is the first requirement for COP > 1.0
electrical power systems powered by free or nearly free vacuum energy.

The circuit’s energy flow gain at each of the impedances encountered by the
negative energy flow is a special case of COP > 1.0. The use of impedances in this
7
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
fashion is a simple means to easily harvest the “free excess energy input” from the
external environment: simply keep the negative energy flow section of the circuit
separate from the positive energy flow section, and place impedances within the
negative energy portion. The experimenter must learn to “think backwards” when
applying circuit theory to the negative energy flow portions of the circuit. Current
flows backwards from positive to negative, and the energy flow runs from the output
section back through the system to the input section. Impedances (resistors, coils,
capacitors) may reduce instead of increase voltage across the component. Negative
energy current flows backwards through a diode. Negative energy flow through a
resistor results in cooling instead of heating, etc. The effect of negative energy on
meters and instruments also varies widely with the type of instrument and its internal
circuitry. In some cases, electroscopes and neon lamp indicators are still useful.

To readily produce pulses of negative EM fields and negative EM energy in a circuit,
sharp gradient discharges can be used. Strong gradients are known and recognized
to violate the present thermodynamics formulation, requiring extension to it {27}. As
Kondepudi and Prigogine state {27}:
“…there is no final formulation of science; this also applies to thermodynamics.”

Concerning the thermodynamics-violating phenomenology of strong gradients, they
state rather bluntly {27}:
“Not much is known either experimentally or theoretically.”

One of the main sharp gradient discharge mechanisms that yields negative energy
pulses and negative energy flows in the pulsed subcircuit is as follows:
o
Sudden sharp addition of EM energy to the vacuum momentarily adds
energy to some of the positive energy electrons that are internal to, and
filling, the Dirac sea holes. This excitation energy “sharply lifts out” some of
the positive energy electrons, providing additional “sharp positive energy
electron pulse currents” and leaving behind some momentarily empty and
persisting negative energy Dirac sea holes and hole currents in the local
vacuum. Consider this second aspect as a “pulse” of actual holes (negative
energy, negative mass electrons).
o
The vacated holes are momentarily persisting as pure Dirac holes (not as
positrons, but as negative energy electrons). These holes have not yet been
observedi.e., they have not interacted with charged mass to “eat” a positive
energy electron, thereby filling the hole and leaving an excess positive lattice
charge in the interacting matter. The momentarily persisting negative energy
holes in space are negative energy electrons having “negative mass-energy”.
o
As source charges, from their moment of production these Dirac sea holes
emit real negative energy photons, establishing their associated negative
energy EM fields and potentials spreading at light speed. These momentary
negative energy EM fields and potentials interact with that part of the
circuitry, producing a flow of negative energy and its related odd
phenomenology. Even though hole persistence time is short, the lightspeed c
of the fields results in a flow of negative energy fields and potentialsi.e., of
negative energy Poynting flow and negative energy Heaviside flow.
o
The Poynting negative energy flow also moves “backwards” as compared to
Poynting positive energy flow, and tends to move in the direction from the
8
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
system output back toward the system input. The negative energy Heaviside
flow {65,66} directly opens up practical antigravity; we address that shortly.
o
Unless intercepted enroute and stored for transduction and use, this negative
energy flow will appear in the input section of the system, “eating” some of
the incoming electrons and providing an unusual extra lattice positron load
within the input section. In that case, before it can power the circuit
normally, the external power source will have to furnish additional positive
energy to first “neutralize these excess positrons” in the input section, restore
symmetry, and put the system back into COP < 1.0 overall operation. A
circuit that produces quantities of negative energy without transducing the
negative energy into useful form will be overwhelmed by negative energy
Dirac hole current reversing its COP > 1.0 operation. This hole current will
even travel back through the external line connection and out to the external
power source and into it, eating electrons and normal electron current all the
way and thereby placing an additional electrical load upon and within the
source itself, as well as in the “feeder line” from the source to the system.
o
Within the originating circuitry, at impedances encountered along the
negative energy flow propagation path, invariance is broken and the vacuum
adds additional negative energy input into the negative energy flow. A
“negative impedance” (negative energy flow gain) effect occurs, increasing
the negative energy flow during that discharge (sharp gradient) cycle. By
properly storing and using this excess negative energy freely received from
the active vacuum environment, the additional negative energy can be used
to handsomely charge batteries or capacitors, with their polarity reversed.
COPs of 20 to 50 are readily achieved. Then switching the charged battery or
capacitor leads back to normal and discharging the stored energy, will
discharge normal positive energy into the circuit, powering or partially
powering its normal losses and loads “for free”.
o
Eventually the “power loads” used in our circuits will also be redesigned to
utilize negative energy, thus also becoming simultaneous generators of extra
negative energy flow via the negative impedance effect, rather than just
dissipaters of positive energy flow as at present. In that case, cascades of
loads will also be used to produce part or all of the required energy flow
generation to power them! In fact, the new loads will also amplify energy
input from the environment, so that self-powering systems will become
almost routine.
DECOMPOSITION OF EM FIELD AND EM POTENTIAL

Contrary to the classical EM (CEM) and electrical engineering (EE) model, any EM
field and potential in space can be further decomposed into continuous sets of EM
energy flows, as shown by Whittaker {28,29,30} and later augmented by others such
as Ziolkowski {31,32}. This more fundamental “internal EM energy flow
electrodynamics” should be part of the superpotential theory initiated by Whittaker
{29} in 1904, but it has been almost entirely neglected in the West. For a summary of
superpotential theory as it actually developed, see Phillips {33}.

Whittaker-type decomposition is very important. A so-called “static” EM field or
“static” EM potential in space is actually a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
system thermodynamically, as shown by such decomposition. The field or potential
consists of a set of steady EM energy flows, with the flowing energy directly
9
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
extracted from the seething vacuum by the associated source charge(s). A “static”
charge or “static” dipole actually is an entire “set” of energy-from-the-vacuum
gushers, freely extracting energy from the vacuum and pouring out real observable
photons in all directions.

Van Flandern {34} beautifully clarifies the notion of a “static” field as follows:
“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. … Causality seems
to require the latter.”

Both the Whittaker-type decompositions and Van Flandern’s analogy clearly show
that the so-called “static EM fields” and “static EM potentials” are Van Flandern’s
second type of “static system”. The EM fields and potentials are analogous to his
“unfrozen waterfall”, and they have moving internal parts that transfer real
observable EM energy and momentum.

All observable EM fields and potentials come from their source charges, as a steady
outpouring of real observable EM energy that forms a spatiotemporal pattern. Yet
the source charge has no observable energy input. To save the conservation of
energy law, the source charge must have the necessary input energy, but the input
cannot be in observable form since experimentally it cannot be observed.

It follows that the source charge must be receiving its required energy input in
virtual state form, from the virtual state vacuum. Hence the charge is a very special
kind of energy converter: It freely and continuously converts input vacuum virtual
state energy to real observable EM field energy and EM potential energy, and
continuously outpours (re-emits) that integrated energy as real observable photons
emitted in all directions at light speed. In this manner, every charge in the universe is
already a magic “vacuum energy extractor and converter”.

As such, every charge in the universe is also a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
system which absorbs disordered energy of the virtual state, reorders the absorbed
energy, and re-emits it as ordered, observable energy.

That is, every charge in the universe continuously consumes positive entropy in the
virtual state, and continuously produces negative entropy in the observable state.
This completely and experimentally falsifies the present form of the Second Law of
thermodynamics, which now has to be dramatically altered to include negative
entropy processes and negative entropy engineering.

Until now, the Second Law dS  0 has been only a “half-law” (0  dS < + ),
omitting the negative entropy “system excitation” half   < dS  0) of nature’s
operations,. It thus has covered only a previously excited disequilibrium system’s
decay back to equilibrium. By including only one broken invariance, it has violated
the Lorentz regauging symmetry. Two equal and opposite broken invariances are
required for Lorentz symmetry. So the present old “Half-Law” is at odds with the
fundamental regauging symmetry of Maxwell’s equations. The source charge’s
continuous production of negative entropy demonstrates the truth of the full Second
Law,
10
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
( < dS < +), and restores the missing half ( < dS  0) that has long been
neglected and unaccounted in the present “Half-Law”. Thus self-powering macro
EM systems can be made, if the circuit or parts of it utilizes free potentialization
separately from potential energy’s dissipation in the load, rather than using them
simultaneously.
A TRUE MAXWELL’S DEMON: THE PHYSICAL MECHANISM OF THE
CHARGE’S NEGATIVE ENTROPY REORDERING OPERATION

The charge absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, changing the energy dE of
each absorbed photon to a differential of mass dm.

Successive absorptions result in the excitation dW on mass m of the charge, as
dW = dm(1) + dm(2) + … + dm(i) + … Since mass is unitary, the successive
energies of the absorbed virtual photons result in a coherent addition of mass-energy
change for the overall dW.

When the increasing mass-energy dW is of sufficient magnitude to reach the
quantum threshold, the coherent mass integration process has produced sufficient
excitation mass-energy dW to provide the energy E of an observable photon. At that
threshold, zitterbewegung and other known “emission-affecting” interactions induce
the abrupt decay of the (m + dW) excitation state back to the ground state (m),
thereby emitting a real, observable photon (E)(t) in the decay process by
(m + dW)  m + (E)(t).

Continual iteration of the observable emission process occurs, since continual
absorption of virtual photons and continual coherent integration to the quantum
level occurs. The result is a continual stream of observable photons emitted from the
source charge, in all directions at light speed, without observable energy input.
Energy conservation is obeyed, however, when both virtual state and observable state
processes are accounted.

This nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) process continuously establishes and
replenishes the associated EM fields and potentials in the surrounding space, which
are spreading outward at light speed from the time of formation of the charge. The
intensities of the resulting “static” fields and potentials are deterministic as a
function of the radial distance from the source charge.
EXTRACTING EM ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM.

So, ironically, one does not have to “discover how” to directly extract EM energy
from the vacuum; it’s already universally accomplished. All charges and dipoles
already do it continuously. One only needs to learn the correct way to use and
manipulate the freely flowing EM energy from these “natural gushers of energy from
the vacuum” that nature already generously provides. Primarily, one must “unlearn”
how he was taught to unwittingly misuse these energy gusherssince misuse is
precisely what CEM/EE teaches and incorporatesand learn what must be
changed.

As an example of collecting and using this freely flowing energy, one might
temporarily freeze or “pin” the Drude charges in an external circuit attached to a
given source dipolarity that is only temporarily connected {35}. One can “pin”
11
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
charges in a circuit using conventional means such as diodes or capacitors, or any
other recognized method. The Poynting energy flow from the external dipolar source
of potential will then flow freely onto the passively receiving “pinned” circuit without
current dq/dt. In short, the source will only furnish pure potential (and potential
energy) to the circuit in that flow. No work at all will be done by the potentialization
process—either in the circuit or in the dipolar source of potential.

This procedure overpotentializes and excites the external circuit without doing work
on the source of potential to reduce its ability to perpetually furnish a given flow of
potential energy. Any dipole or dipolarity can and will freely furnish potential energy
flow forever, so long as the dipole itself is not tampered with and is allowed to
continue to exist undisturbed. That too is “perpetual motion” of a very different
kind. Once the receiving external circuit is potentialized, the static potential source
should be switched away, still undiminished, and the now-opened circuit can be
recompleted so as to prepare to discharge its free excitation energy in the load, to
perform free work, without performing any work inside the external source to destroy
it.

Once the dipolar source of potential energy is switched away, the gap in the circuit
can be closede.g., with a diode and a resistive load. Then the electrons can be
“unpinned”, and the already freely regauged/excited circuit can freely dissipate its
excess energy in the load by driving current through it in one-way circulation,
without draining or reducing the original potential source, which is now
disconnected during the “current flowing” and “system working” phase.

In that manner, energy from the vacuum can flow freely into a collecting circuit
without work, freely exciting/potentializing the circuit via its applied dipolar
“gusher”, by pure asymmetric regauging. The great advantage is that the dipolar
source itself is not depleted by this procedure.

By iteration of the process, continual average COP > 1.0 can be obtained since one
will only have to pay a small amount for the switching energy to (i) control a very
large collection of potential energy in the switching circuit and (ii) freely or nearly
freely power the load. If desired, one can also freely take the input energy necessary
for the switching and control, from the system load, by clamped positive feedback of
a part of the load output energy to the switching and control subsystem. Thereby one
achieves a system which exhibits COP =  and is “self-powering” while also
powering its load. All the input energy is received from the active vacuum.

Any fixed dipolar source of potential is an inexhaustible, perpetual source of EM
potential energy flow, so long as no current is rammed back up through the back emf
of the source dipole to scatter its charges and destroy the dipole (the source). From
any source of static potential , one can collect as much EM energy W as desired—
given sufficient collecting static charges q—by the simple equation W = q. For n
uniform repetitions, the formula for total energy collection is W(total) = n(q).

In theory, with perfect pinning a small pocket-sized high voltage source could
“power” (more correctly, potentialize) an entire high voltage power distribution
system! In real life with reasonably “good” pinning, the power plant need provide
mostly voltage and only a much smaller amount of current than conventionally. This
can be developed far beyond what is possible at the moment, but it will take some
development time and funding. The better developed the technology, the smaller the
switching and control power required, and therefore the higher COP of the resulting
overall system. If funded and developed, that technology alone will eventually replace
12
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
almost all the centralized power system with distributed, individual power systems. It
will dramatically decrease the costs of energy and providing the energy, as well as
sharply decreasing biospheric warming, biospheric pollution, nuclear wastes from
nuclear power plants, etc. It will also solve the world energy crisis forever.

By freely using “charge-current-free” transfer of potential and potential energy from
an inexhaustible source to collectors or circuits with charges pinned, one uses free
overpotentialization of the charges in that collector or circuit, by the free energy
flows extracted from the vacuum by the dipolar potential source.

Proper use of such free overpotentialization (free asymmetrical regauging) enables
battery-powered systems to be free-running and self-poweredi.e., powering their
own losses and loads while also recharging their batteries. As shown by Bedini, the
simplest way is to use two sets of batteries; one set furnishing the circuit and system
power in normal electrical engineering fashion, while the other set is charged rapidly
(by timed pulse overpotentialization) as part of the load {36}. Then as the powering
battery set sufficiently lowers in voltage, the roles of the two batteries are simply
swapped and the powering of the system continues uninterruptedly.

As a continual free source of the EM energy flows comprising its associated EM
fields and potentials and their energy, the common charge—together with its
polarized vacuum {37,38}—exhibits COP = . It consumes positive entropy of the
disordered virtual state, coherently integrates and reorders the energy (a negative
entropy operation), and produces negative entropy in the observable state. The
potential-producing charge and its associated macroscopic EM fields and potentials
demonstrate that real systems producing continuous negative entropy are possible,
as theoretically shown by the startled Evans and Rondoni {18}. This of course is in
total violation of the present Second Law of thermodynamics which unequivocally
states that dS  0. We have modified the Second Law to state that  < dS < +.

Indeed, the present Second Law dS  0 has always been only a “half-law” and an
oxymoron. It implicitly assumes that its own contradiction—production of negative
entropy—has first occurred (and deliberately not been accounted) to provide some
initial controlled ordered energy to a system originally in equilibrium. This assumed
and unaccounted earlier “hidden Maxwell’s demon” action forced the system to
depart a bit from equilibrium, decreasing the system entropy since equilibrium is the
maximum entropy condition. Now that we have changed the law and accounted for
the “hidden demon” (the initial unaccounted negative entropy operation), the new
law  < dS < + is a proper Second Law of thermodynamics {39}. In preferred
serial process to power systems with entropic loads, one first uses the  < dS  0
half for potentialization, then uses the 0  dS < + half for depotentialization (load
powering), in either/or fashion between the two phases. Note that the old Second
Law only applied to the latter phase {39}, which is decay back to equilibrium.

As the negative entropy system technology is developed, the world energy crisis will
be solved forever. And clearly the emergent new “national power system” will be
strongly decentralized power systems almost everywhere.

Negative entropy is not mystical! Any departure of a system from equilibrium is a
negative entropy operation, a priori, since it reduces the entropy of the system!
Thermodynamicists and physicists already admit this fact for “statistical
fluctuations” occurring in the equilibrium condition, and several fluctuation
theorems of Second Law violation are extant and utilized {40}. Such departure need
13
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
not occur statistically; it can in fact be evoked deterministically. Simply changing the
potential V of an EM system in current-free fashion is just such a deterministic
negative entropy operation, and it is a rather ubiquitous example of free
asymmetrical regauging.

Potentializing a circuit and its charges actually changes the local ambient vacuum
potential in which the circuit is embedded and with which it is interacting. It is
primarily vacuum engineering dramatically extending Nobelist Lee’s seminal vision
{22}. This “potentialization as engineering of the active vacuum” is not modeled at
all in electrical engineering, which erroneously assumes an inert vacuum. However,
some of the results of static potentialization are recognizedsuch as transient
currents in the ground, in living bodies, and in separate electronic systems near
transmission lines or transmitting towers, so that persons and animals are shocked
and equipment is affected or dudded.

The present Second Law erroneously assumes accounting starts only as the already
“excited” nonequilibrium system decays back to equilibrium, increasing its entropy
thereby. The present Second Law was never a full law of nature, but only the second
half of an assumed 2-phase process when the two phases occur serially. The entire
process is now given by the new Second law  < dS < +, or with the two phases in
series by ( < dS  0)  (0  dS < +).

In a typical normal closed current loop circuit, with source connected as a load, a
separate negative entropy part of the cycle only occurs before or during the early part
of the incredibly short electron gas relaxation time. Thereafter, the positive entropy
portion of the cycle occurs simultaneously, steadily “killing” the “external” power
source which remains connected as an internal circuit load, to be “powered
backwards” against its back emf and so that its dipolarity is destroyed. Our scientific
community and electrical engineers have blithely given us electrical power systems
deliberately designed to kill their source dipolarityand thus their free extraction of
EM energy from the vacuumfaster than they can power their loads.
KLEIN GEOMETRY VERSUS LEYTON GEOMETRY.

The present flawed Second Law of thermodynamics is also based on Klein’s 1872
geometry and group theoretic methods {41}. Klein's Erlanger program was initiated
in 1872 to describe geometric structures in terms of their automorphism groups. It
has driven much of the physics development in the twentieth century. In Leyton’s
object-oriented geometry and new, more advanced group theoretic methods {42},
negative entropy is also included and the second law must be extended to include it.

In Klein geometry {41}, a broken symmetry at a given level reduces the overall group
symmetry. This appears to be a sort of “built-in” entropy effect a priori. In Leyton
geometry {42}, a broken symmetry at a given level increases the overall group
symmetry since it generates a new symmetry at the next higher level, while retaining
the information on the lower level symmetries. Hence a broken symmetry increases
the overall group symmetry in Leyton geometry. This appears to be a built-in
negative entropy effect a priori.

Leyton’s revolutionary work points the way toward systems that produce continuous
negative entropy—precisely as theoretically predicted by Evans and Rondoni {18}
and precisely as physically demonstrated by every charge and dipole in the universe.
14
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02

Leyton’s work has been very successfully applied in robotics, e.g., where in many
modeling cases the Klein geometry fails but Leyton geometry succeeds.

In the opinion of the present author, Leyton’s work will result in as profound a
change to physics as did the original discovery and proof of broken symmetry.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND EXAMPLES:
In the following sections we further discuss extracting EM energy from the vacuum, the
way to use it, and other details.
THE SOURCE CHARGE

Every charge in the universe continuously outputs real, observable EM energy, by
absorbing and transducing disordered virtual energy freely furnished by the active
vacuum {43,44,45,46}. The charge will do so perpetually, so long as it exists. This is a
previously unnoticed special type of perpetual motion: a perpetual flow of real EM
energy from the vacuum, gushing from every charge in the universe.

The “isolated classical charge” in space actually polarizes its surrounding vacuum
{38}, so that the chargetogether with its surrounding polarization charges of
opposite signforms an ensemble of dipolarities. Hence this “source charge
ensemble” must and does exhibit the asymmetry of opposite charges proven by Wu
et al. {47a} shortly after prediction by Lee and Yang {47b,47c}, and it converts virtual
state vacuum energy into observable EM energy.

Between any two separated opposite (or two unequal) charges in the universe, there
exists a scalar potential between those two differing potentials. This “difference
potential” is Kron’s “open path”, to be discussed shortly {48}. The difference
potential decomposes into a set of bidirectional EM flows of energy, per Whittaker
{28}. Cosmology has not accounted for the vast set of such “open paths” of laminar
EM energy flows from the vacuum. These may be the basis of, or a part of, the longsought dark energy which makes up the majority of the energy in the universe,
particularly when the unaccounted Heaviside components {64,65,66,67} of the open
path energy flows are also considered.

Thermodynamically the charge is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. It is
believed to be the first known physical EM system continuously consuming positive
entropy (of the disordered virtual state energy of the vacuum) and producing
reordered energy and negative entropy (in the observable state), of the kind shown
theoretically possible by Evans and Rondoni {18}, required by Leyton’s hierarchies of
symmetry {42}, and required by gauge freedom.

The charge’s output observable EM energy is taken directly from the vacuum. The
charge’s continual production of negative entropy proves by physical example that it
is possible to produce real NESS electrical power systems that output EM energy
and power loads freely, with energy received and transduced from their active
vacuum environment. It only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are
black.

Thus every EM circuit or system is actually “powered” by energy from the local
vacuum, extracted by the circuit or system charges and dipolarities. This does not
appear at all in electrical engineering (even in the model itself), in EE texts and
papers, or in classical Maxwell-Heaviside EM theory, nor does it appear in
15
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
sophomore physics texts or thermodynamics texts. Contrary to the textbooks, all the
field energy and potential energy in every EM system and EM device comes directly
from the local vacuum, via the source charges (with their vacuum polarization) and
via the dipolarities in the system or device.

Classical EM theory and EE textbooks do not even model and include the active
vacuum and its interaction, hence do not and cannot include how EM circuits and
systems are actually powered. It appears that no electrical engineering professor has
ever known or taught it. Probably the closest was Gabriel Kron with his discovery of
the “open path”. We describe that discovery briefly.
KRON’S NEGATIVE RESISTOR AND OPEN PATH

The asymmetry of opposite charges {47} appears to be the long-missing secret of
Gabriel Kron’s open path {49,50} which he was never allowed to openly enunciate.
Quoting Lynn and Russell {51}:
"Kron has never published details of his method of making the polyhedron self-
organizing, although his published results show that in this state it has some
remarkable properties, associated with harmonic integrals on multiply connected
spaces."

Kron (1901-1968) joined General Electric Co. in 1934 and worked for the company
until 1959. Because of his brilliance and unorthodoxy, he was shuttled from problem
to problem. Working on a U.S. Navy contract at Stanford University in the latter
1930s and 1940s, Kron used a large analog simulator, called the Network Analyzer, to
simulate various fundamental physics and electrodynamics equations, in order to
determine the performance of U.S. Naval communications equipment. He
contributed to the development of very advanced network analysis and much more
general analysis of EM systems.

Kron also discovered true negative resistance, using it to have excess energy flow
into his negative resistor from the active vacuum environment. When the negative
resistor was inserted between the external power source and the Network Analyzer,
eventually the environment would be furnishing all the energy to the negative resistor
that was required by the Network Analyzer. At that time, the input of current from
the external generator fell to zero and the generator could be disconnected {52},
while the Analyzer would continue operating. The negative resistance would power
the entire Network Analyzer, with all the required energy furnished freely by the
external environment.

After leaving General Electric Company, there was a period during the 1960s when
Kron just refused to publish. Then very cautiously he began publishing again. Over
the years Kron cautiously tried to release the secret of his negative resistor in various
papers, but he was never permitted to do so. As an example, often Kron appears to
have been editorially required to insert words or change words in some of his papers
he published. E.g., in the following quote, Kron was apparently obliged to insert the
single word “theoretically”. Quoting {52}:
“Now a value E of the negative resistances, at which the generator current becomes
zero, represents a state at which the circuit is self-supporting and has a continuous
existence of its own without the presence of the generator, as the negative resistances
just supply the energy consumed by the positive resistances. (If the circuit contains
inductors and capacitors, the circuit is a resonant circuit and it oscillates at its basic
16
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
frequency.) … When the generator current is positive the circuit draws energy from
the source, and when the current is negative the circuit pumps back energy into the
source. At zero generator current the circuit neither gives nor takes energy, and
theoretically the generator may be removed.” {53}

In fact, Kron seems to have earlier discovered in the late 1930s and early 1940s what
was later rediscovered in the 1950s and called “broken symmetry” in physics. At least
he seems to have discovered the broken symmetry of opposite charges, so that the
asymmetry does produce a flow of energy in real circuits {54}.
SWEET’S VACUUM TRIODE AMPLIFIER (VTA): AN EXTENSION OF
KRON’S NEGATIVE RESISTOR

Floyd Sweet also worked for GE during part of that period. In fact, Kron was Sweet’s
mentor and patron, and Sweet often spoke glowingly of Kron. Sweet almost certainly
knew how Kron’s negative resistor was built and worked, but was very secretive
about it. Later, after Kron died in 1968, Sweet gradually developed his own vacuum
triode amplifier (VTA) {55}, eventually achieving 6 watts output power from it, but
with tiny operator input so that COP >> 1.0. The present author worked with Sweet
sporadically for several years, and named the device the “vacuum triode amplifier”
{56}. He also furnished the basic equations of nonlinear optics to Sweet, whose
classical earlier training preceded the advent of NLO in the latter 1970s.

With better nonlinear equations available to model the nuclear self-oscillation in his
conditioned magnets, Sweet then produced a much-improved VTA which exhibited
COP = 1,500,000 and output 500 watts. Most of the output energy of the VTA was
negative energy, so it could be used for a decisive antigravity experiment designed
by the present author (since negative mass-energy, defined earlier in this paper,
produces antigravity). Sweet performed the antigravity experiment and the VTA lost
90% of its weight on the bench {55}, smoothly and in a controlled manner. This VTA
was an extended derivative of Kron’s negative resistor and Sweet’s earlier small
6-watt unit. Sweet later built a self-powering version of the VTA {57}, which
exhibited a COP = . An account of the Sweet VTA, some test results, and photos of
the self-powering VTA are given in Energy from the Vacuum by T.E. Bearden {58},
courtesy of Walt Rosenthal. A video of Sweet and the COP = 1,500,000 VTA is
available from the present author’s website, www.cheniere.org.

Sweet never fully revealed his entire magnetic conditioning process. He conditioned
the barium nuclei of a barium ferrite magnet into self-oscillation, so that the field
became a “waving, dynamic” magnetic field freely self-oscillating to and fro in the
space outside the magnet. The binding energy of nucleons in the nucleus is
considered to be negative energy, in the liquid drop model. The rest energy (massenergy) of the individual free nucleons is greater than their combined rest energy
when bound in the nucleus. Apparently Sweet reasoned that, when these nucleons
were in sustained self-oscillation, it was their “reduced self-energy” or negative
binding energy that was actually oscillating. Hence Sweet’s magnets also produced
mostly negative energy EM fields, and the magnetic field from a conditioned Sweet
bar magnet certainly did oscillate to and fro in space, by my own tests. Selfoscillation of various kinds in magnetic materials and magnetic semiconductors is
also known today and is in the literature {59}.
17
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
NEGATIVE RESONANCE ABSORPTION OF THE MEDIUM

By the 1960s, optical experiments with resonant charged particle mediawhose
particles were self-resonant at the frequency of the light inputwere well-known and
regularly being reported, e.g., as in papers by Letokhov {60,61,62} and others.

Theory predicts that, in a sufficiently nonlinear medium, absorption of light under
certain circumstances results in a negative absorption coefficient. The negative
absorption means that the amplitude of the reflected wave is larger than the
amplitude of the incident wave, producing “over reflectivity”. Such a nonlinear
absorption coefficient change by an orbital electron can result in its absorption of
excess energy, raising the electron to an excited orbital level higher than normal,
followed by an excess emission (or “over reflection”) caused by the electron decaying
back to its beginning orbital level. In that case, the medium re-emits more light than
the operator had furnished (by Poynting calculations, neglecting the Heaviside
component) for it to absorb. A medium of particles exhibiting this resonance effect
would demonstrate excess emission (over reflectivity).

Other mechanisms for over reflectivity and negative resonance absorption {63} have
been discovered and added to the literature of today, since Letokhov’s 1960s work.

However, prior to the present author, apparently no one noticed that a charged
particle in self-resonance at the frequency of its input light energy, will sweep past
the accounted Poynting component {64,65} of the EM energy flow input and into the
accompanying (though usually nondiverged) unaccounted but huge Heaviside
energy flow component {66} that was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz {67}. Further,
the resonant particle is also oscillating a curvature of local spacetime at the same
frequency. So the Heaviside energy flow component—which has zero coefficient of
divergence in flat spacetime—develops a nonzero coefficient of divergence due to
the resonant spacetime curvature generated by the receiving self-resonant charge.
Hence negative resonance absorption (excess EM energy emission) can also be due
to this “new” mechanism that is extracting excess energy from the normally ignored
and unaccounted (but huge!) environmental Heaviside energy flow component long
scourged from the texts. Since the Heaviside component is often a trillion times
greater in magnitude than the accounted Poynting diverged component, a COP = 18
or COP = 50 is readily to be expected and can be achieved.

Bohren’s experiment {68} and the entire field of “negative resonance absorption of
the medium” also prove that excess EM energy can be freely extracted from the
vacuum by fairly simple means. The self-resonant charged particles in the stimulated
material in the medium produce 18 times as much energy output as the operator
inputs by standard Poynting energy calculations of the stimulating energy input he
feeds into the medium. The optics experiment is replicable {69} and is repeated
numerous times each year at universities and optics laboratories.

Researchers in the field of “negative resonance absorption” carefully refrain from
discussing its thermodynamics and the system COP. They prefer to safely stay with
merely stating that the resonant charged particle represents an increase in reaction
cross section (compared to the same charge when static) of 18.0 times. They do not
mention that a field in space is a set of EM energy flows, whichwith respect to an
interacting static chargehave associated Heaviside nondiverged flow components.
They also seldom mention “excess resonance emission”, while preferring the
18
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
tortured synonym of “negative resonance absorption”. Negative overall absorption,
of course, is identically excess overall emission.
Potential Energy Shuttling

A fairly comprehensive initial treatise on the principles of such “energy from the
vacuum” systems and real examples and mechanisms achieved by inventors and
researchers has been given {70}.

A draft treatise listing major foundations errors in the common Maxwell-Heaviside
theory, and showing the implications of correcting those areas, has also been given
{71}. A new, extended, and corrected electrodynamics and electrical engineering are
specifically required.

Significantly, when Tesla’s actual patented circuits are examined in higher group
symmetry electrodynamics (such as the analysis shown by Barrett {72} in quaternion
electrodynamics), it is startlingly revealed that Tesla shuttled potential energy
around in his circuits almost freely and at will, applying ( < dS  0) separately at
will. A modern tensor or vector electrodynamics analysis will not reveal the actual
functioning of the circuits nor will it reveal Tesla’s shuttling mechanism. Barrett, one
of the founders of ultrawideband radar, showed that, and then extended Tesla’s
mechanism and obtained two patents {72} for processes now used in certain
communications and other electromagnetic applications.
THE FINAL IMPLICATION: NEGENTROPIC ENGINEERING

The way is now cleared to develop a new kind of engineering: negentropic
engineering based on the author’s discovery of a physical mechanism for the missing
half of the real Second Law of thermodynamics, as well as a physical system
demonstrating continuous production of negative entropy. With this discovery the
mechanism for extraction of energy from the vacuum by the source charge is
deciphered, its known continuous output of real photons without observable energy
input is explained, and the fundamental continuous negative entropy process
ubiquitously present in nature can be adapted in circuits. Negentropic engineering
will replace the present horrific entropic engineering.

What is more exciting is that we now have merely a “mental attitude” problem to
face, in confronting and changing present EM and engineering dogma and
rearranging flawed thinking. We do not have a “fundamental great new discovery”
problem whereby an exotic discovery is needed before further progress can be made.

We also have a funding problem since such work will not be funded or allowed by
the U.S. scientific community short of something like a Presidential directive. As
Planck pointed out {73},
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over
and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does
happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is
familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

The recovery of negative entropy and extension of the Second “Law” was actually
made possible by a proper analysis and rejection of the hoary old erroneous notion
that perpetual motion (Newton’s first law) is forbidden! Also falsified is the assumed
notion that a machine cannot exhibit perpetual work. That conundrum is specifically
19
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
falsified by all continuously working machines having the necessary energy input. It
is specifically demonstrated by every charge and dipole in the universe. Such
machines will continue to change the form of their input energy and thereby perform
work until they break, or the operator cuts off the input energy flow, or some act of
nature interferes and stops the machine.

In the past, our electrical power engineers have built all our electrical power systems
using the closed current loop circuit that self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical
regauging and COP < 1.0 as far as energy from the vacuum is concerned. Our entire
electrical power industry and our electrical power engineers get paid by consumers
to deliberately provide a giant wrestling match inside their generators and lose.

Perpetual motion is alive and well, and it is long since experimentally proven (since
at least the early 1900s). Continuous (perpetual) working machines are alive and well,
and experimentally proven so long as they do receive the necessary energy input.
Further, the source of the “necessary energy input” can readily be the active vacuum,
since all EM energy in the circuits and systems is extracted from the vacuum by the
source charges and dipoles already, forming and maintaining their associated fields
and potentials.

All EM systems and circuits already receive all their real input EM energy from the
vacuum, and not from cranking the generator shaft, burning hydrocarbons,
consuming nuclear fuel rods, using wind to turn a windmill to crank the shaft of the
generator, forcing electrochemical reactions across a charged membrane within a
fuel cell, etc. Even a solar cell array powered system uses the input solar radiation
only to form its dipolarities. Once formed, those dipolarities extract energy from the
vacuum and output it to form all the EM field energy present in the circuit or system
and used in it.

That is the final momentous message: All the EM energy present and utilized in any
circuit or EM system is and always has been taken directly from the local vacuum, by
the associated source charges and dipolarities. Potentialization is actually achieved
by changing the local system’s vacuum environment, which uses the  < dS  0
negative entropy half of the complete Second Law. This free “vacuum engineering”
is the long-neglected and unaccounted first part of the true Second Law.

The entire present world energy industry, the centralized and monstrously vulnerable
grid, the huge centralized power plants, and the resulting destruction and poisoning
of the biosphere are all a total sham. This sham always has been due to the results of
seriously flawed EM and EE models, and that fact has not been grasped by the
leaders of the scientific community. Maintaining these flawed models, however, has
vastly enriched a great set of world cartels in or associated with the energy field. Any
inventor or scientist trying to do fundamental work in this field will shortly
experience the various suppression methods utilized by the cartels, including
perhaps even “meeting with a sudden suicide on the way to the supermarket”. Those
who think it has not happened, and is not happening now, are very naïve.

Negative entropy engineering {71} therefore appears as a breathtaking promise for
the future. It follows as a further extension of Prigogine’s self-ordering capability of
systems far from equilibrium {74}, the theoretical demonstration by Evans and
Rondoni {18} that continuous negative entropy producing processes and systems are
possible, and the demonstration that every charge and dipole in the universe already
is a real electrodynamic system continuously consuming disordered virtual energy
from the vacuum to continuously and freely produce ordered observable energy that
20
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
is usable {43,44,45,46}. Negative entropy engineering is already used to produce all
the EM fields and potentials in the universe and every joule of EM energy in it.

In short, we do not have to discover how we shall extract copious amounts of EM
energy from the active vacuum. Every charge and dipole in the universe already does
it for us, does it perpetually, and does it freely. We simply have to learn how to
properly use the free energy extractors we already have in such extraordinary
abundance.

For far too long, we have been concerned with equilibrium or near-equilibrium
systems as if they prescribed the supreme laws of nature. As such, we have been
entranced and preoccupied with entropy and entropic processes. More than a
century ago, the pundits raised this preoccupation with entropy to a blind dogma,
proclaiming entropy as the inevitable consequence of all our actions and as
absolutely inescapable. As a typical example, Eddington stated {75}:
"The law that entropy always increasesthe second law of thermodynamicsholds,
I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out that
your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equationsthen so
much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
experimentswell, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no
hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

How foolish we have been! Violating the “law” of increasing entropy is so easy it is
laughable; simply have the system depart well away from equilibrium, by inputting
some excess regauging energy or by having the active environment do it, and thereby
breaking invariance by utilizing the negative entropy half of the full Second Law. We
do it every time we asymmetrically potentialize an EM circuit or system. Prigogine
stated it beautifully {76}:
"Entropy ...cannot in general be expressed in terms of observables such as
temperature and density. This is only possible in the neighbourhood of equilibrium...
It is only then that both entropy and entropy production acquire a macroscopic
meaning."

Whenever a system departs from equilibrium, it reduces its entropy and performs a
negative entropy operation.

Lindsay and Margenau stated it bluntly {77}:
"Equilibrium states are the only ones that are capable of explicit analysis in
thermodynamics…". …"… variables of state have meaning only if they define an
equilibrium state. Hence the quantity we are seeking will be meaningless unless it
refers to equilibrium states." … "Non-equilibrium conditions cannot be specified by
variables of state, and their entropy cannot be computed. …the condition of
equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy."

Meanwhile, our electrical power engineers do not calculateand have never
calculateda basic force-free EM field as it exists in space {78} and is comprised of
a set of ongoing EM energy flows. Instead, they calculate the intensity of that field’s
energy flow interaction with charged static matter, which is a calculation of the
ongoing effect that is produced in the matter. That ongoing effect is the ongoing
force field in the interacted static charged matter {79}. In blocking precursor
21
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
engineering, they have completely blocked negative entropy engineering from any
practical development and application in electrical power systems.

It is extraordinarily easy to “build” a free-energy generator! However, learning how
to intercept the steadily gushing EM energy, once established, and use it properly, is
quite another thing! But to build the free energy generator, simply lay a charged
capacitor or electret upon a permanent magnetic so that the E-field of the electret or
capacitor is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. The dipolarities of this silly
thing will sit there and extract virtual state energy from the vacuum continuously. It
will continuously pour out real EM energy in all directions, which have been
mistakenly identified as “static” fields! The apparatus will continuously perform the
negative entropy ( < dS  0) first half of the overall Second Law. After first
collecting some of the freely flowing energy from the first half, the system designer
must find how to apply the second entropic half, (0  dS < +), to separately power
the system losses and loads. The Poynting energy flow theory directly allows this,
but such assemblages have not been used as special sources to provide the
potentialization energy freely without destroying the dipolarities in the process. Van
Flandern clarified the word “static” {34}, once and for all! As Buchwald states {80}:
"[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." In short, separate the two halves of the real
Second Law and apply them serially (either in the entire circuit, or in individual
subcircuits). This means that, in the vital subcircuit, one uses ( < dS  0)  (0 
dS < +).

But today, our electrical engineers have not learned to “potentialize statically
(without current) and freely, then disconnect the source of potential and dissipate the
freely acquired potential energy dynamically (with current) in the load.. Never allow
the entire system current to be driven backwards through the external power
system’s back emf, destroying the dipolarity that freely extracts and furnishes the
flowing EM energy from the vacuum.”
IN CONCLUSION

The overall picture revealed on how scientifically we have or have not developed
electrical power engineering is bleak and sobering. In the past, we have proceeded
like primitive apes curiously picking up shining pebbles on the beach and casting
them away—not realizing that we had held in our hands the most marvelous
diamonds, discarding them in our ignorance.

Let us hope that this situation can and will be rectified in the future, by the scientific
community itself. With some funding to our sharp young graduate students and post
doctoral scientists, and rigorously stopping the destruction of their careers if they try
to research this area, we could have a new science, a new electrical power system,
and a permanent solution to the world energy crisis in as little as three years.
REFERENCES
1.
For the purist, there is no such thing as motion or change in 3-space. All motion or change
also involves time, and so there is only motion or change in 4-space. Further, there is no
“persistence” or “something sitting at rest” in 3-space alone, since an observed 3-spatial object at rest
is actually being “repeatedly observed”. Observation is a /t operator invoked upon 4-space
22
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
phenomena in (L3t) so that /t (L3t) = L3. So all observation is 3-spatial, as is known. Observation
yields a frozen 3-space snapshot, like one frame of a motion picture, but the process is iterative
(serial) and very rapid. Repeated observations catch the “changes” from snapshot to snapshot, when
the past frames are recalled from memory and compared.
An object observed at rest in 3-space is actually moving on the 4th axis, thus moving in time. We
see “motion” and change much like we see them in a motion picture, only at an incredible number of
frames per second.
So even thinking of an object at rest and persisting at rest, is in fact considering the object in a
special form of perpetual motion through time. For the object at rest, the law of perpetual motion
might be stated as the “law of persistence”, which we might phrase as: For a thing to persist without
observable change, it must continue to exist without observable change in 3-space, but with continuous and uniform
(perpetual) motion in time. Or we might choose to phrase it in these words: Mere continued passive existence
is actually a continuous motion in time (on the fourth Minkowski axis).
2.
In 1911 Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes of Leiden University discovered
superconductivity. Onnes himself also performed a persistent current experiment which maintained
the superconducting current for more than one year with no measurable decay.
3.
Peter J. Hirschfield, U. of Florida, Physics Teaching Notes, Chapter 5, Superconductivity,
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~pjh/teaching/phz7427/7427notes/ch5.pdf.
4.
Anthony Leggett, “Low temperature physics, superconductivity and superfluidity,” in The
New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 280.
5.
Raymond A. Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, with Modern Physics, Third
Edition, updated version, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 1992, p. 1302.
6.
Serway, ibid., Problem 30. Quoting Serway, p. 1302: “These persistent currents, called
supercurrents, have been observed to last for several years with no measurable losses. In one experiment conducted by S.
S. Collins in Great Britain in 1956, a current was maintained in a superconducting ring for 2½ years.”
7.
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Third Printing 1966, p. 21-08.
8.
Charles Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York, 1996,
p. 359-360.
9.
Kittel, ibid. On p. 359, Kittel calculates the time required for a single fluxoid to leak out of a
typical superconducting ring with zero resistance. The leakage calculation gives the time required for
a fluxoid to leak out as about 10exp(4.34107) sec. Since the age of the present universe is only about
1018 sec., it would require an enormous number of “present universe lives”—indeed, some
10exp(4.34107  18) of them—for the leakage of a single fluxoid to statistically occur. From this
calculation, one can understand a typical estimate for the half-life (when half of the fluxoids will have
leaked away from a chosen “typical” shorted superconducting ring) of 1023 years.
10.
Colorado Superconductor offers such a kit whereby, with liquid nitrogen cooling and the kit,
one can perform one’s own persistent current experiments and measurements. Information is at
http://www.users.qwest.net/~csconductor/Experiment_Guide/Energy%20Storage%20Ring.htm.,
to include measurement-based calculations of the 1023 years half-life of the persistent current.
11.
E.g., useful presentations and directions for elementary experiments are given by Fuhan
Lieu, Rochelle R. Tucker, and Peter Heller, “Nitrogen Temperature Superconducting Ring
Experiment”, American Journal of Physics, 58(3), Mar. 1990, p. 211-218.
12.
Projects to design and eventually utilize large superconducting energy storage rings based on
persistent currents have been underway in the U.S. Navy’s Superconducting Magnetic Energy
23
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
Storage (SMES) project for some years. Several large electrical power companies are also studying the
use of such techniques and systems to store additional power for use in augmenting the output of
commercial power plants as demand soars in critical heating and cooling seasons and times.
13.
Bimalendu N. Roy, Fundamentals of Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Wiley,
Chichester, 2002, p. 59.
14.
Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd. edition, Dover, New York, 1945.
15.
Tony R. Kuphaldt, Lessons in Electric Circuits, Vol. 1, D.C., Jan. 5, 2003; Chapter 12: see
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/DC/index.html.
16.
The present Maxwell-Heaviside classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering model
(CEM model) actually assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the
universe has been freely created by the associated source charge(s), without any energy input at all.
That this has not been changed by our electrical engineering departments, National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy,
universities, etc. is totally incomprehensible. Again, it is likely to go down in history as “one of the most
inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind ever recorded.”
17.
The technical definition of changing the gauge involves insuring that the change of potential
energies does not produce an observable—such as a net translation force in the physical
systemand thus violate symmetry and invariance. So even the gauge theorists are at pains to
eliminate freely obtaining and using EM energy from the vacuum! To see how the basic equations are
symmetrically regauged in Maxwellian electrodynamics, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics,
Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 219-221; 811-812. One freely changes both potentials 
and A, but just so that the two free fields that result are equal and opposite. Therefore the total (net)
extra force field is a zero resultant force field, producing no observable field changes in the translation
sense (in the sense of a single force type interaction). But definitely there are two simultaneous
“single force type interactions” involved, but only just so that they are “buried” as change of system
stress and are nonobservable. No new “net translation force observable” is produced. Symmetrical
regauging uses the odd fact that two equal and opposite observables, always coupled, comprise a net
“nonobservable”.
If there is no new translation force observable created as a result, then one cannot use the result of
freely regaugingof freely changing the potential(s)and hence the potential energy of the systemto
do additional “free work” by the system. In short, by making the regauging “symmetrical”, the
regauging energy merely changes the stress of the system and its stress energy, but does not change its
net translation force field capability. In short, the symmetrically regauged system cannot use its excess
potential energy that has been freely added, to push electrons through the load and power it. So the
model and system maintain invariance.
For use of this free energy so easily received from the vacuum, we must separate use of the two
halves (potentialization and powering phases). I.e., we must use ( < dS  0)  (0  dS < +)
rather than ( < dS < +) where both phases are ongoing simultaneously in every part of the
system. Obviously, if we only “half-regauge” and change just one potential of the system, we freely
change the potential energy of the system. Also, we obtain a net new nonzero translation force in the
system, in that part where the two phases of the Second Law have been separated in time. Now that
force can be used to drive extra electrons through the load, doing some free work. For a really
practical usage of regauging, we should use this “fractional” or “asymmetrical” regauging, so that
indeed a “net nonzero extra translation force field resultant” does result in the system. In that case,
one not only has excess potential energy in the system, but it is now in usable form since we have
deliberately created a new translation force observable. Now one can have the asymmetrically
regauged (potentialized or excited) system asymmetrically (fractionally) regauge, produce a net usable
24
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
force field, and then let the force field forcibly translate extra charges through the circuit load
impedances to do “free” work. With the closed current loop circuit and the external source
remaining connected as a system load, we also pump the same excess current back through the back
emf of the source, doing work to faster destroy its dipolarity. This second operation automatically
provided by the closed current loop system actually completes the remaining “asymmetrical
regauging” necessary to produce an overall “symmetrical regauging” on the average! So that circuit
forces the electrical power engineers back to symmetrical regauging and COP < 1.0, as far as use of
free regauging energy is concerned. We have merely put in a time delay between the free
potentialization (the forward emf direction) and the free depotentialization (against the back emf of
the source that is still “wired in”.
On the other hand, if we only allow asymmetrical regauging, and do not allow current to flow in
the closed current loop circuit being freely potentialized during that regauging action, then we can
freely obtain excess potential energy in any Maxwellian system a priori and work-free. We break up
the usual simultaneity of ( < dS  0) and (0  dS < + ), and apply them at separate times. In this
way we will also produce a free net new nonzero force field during the first phase, to enable doing
some free extra work to be independently performed in the second phase.
By potentializing the circuit only during current-zero (nonworking) periods, one will not have
“drained” or “dissipated” any of the original source of potential! If that potential source is then switched away
from the circuit after free potentialization “statically” and without current flow, the opened circuit
may then be completed in “one way” current flow manner (as, e.g., by connecting a resistor and a
diode in series in that vacated and “opened” section formerly connected across the potential source).
In that case, current will then be freely forced through the loads and losses of the new circuit, to
freely dissipate the excess system potential energy achieved by asymmetrical regauging.
By iterating such a process, the entire system can be operated at an average COP > 1.0. By also
taking the source of input potential energy flow to the system, from the system output via positive
feedback in the appropriate “asymmetrical regauging” portion of the cycle, one achieves a “selfpowering” system exhibiting COP = .
Ideally we should never “draw power” (in the erroneous jargon of electrical engineering) from the
power source itself. Preferably the “power” source should never be used as anything but a pure
potential source, in a current-free fashion. So long as “potential energy flow” is all that is allowed in
the attached external circuit in its zero-current condition while attached to the source of potential,
repeatedly one can freely extract and use EM energy furnished directly from the vacuum via the
source dipolarity, paying only a little bit for the switching and control (in open-loop 1.0 < COP < 
mode), or paying nothing at all in the closed-loop COP =  mode where the energy dissipation
required to do the switching and control is also made a part of the output load section.
18.
Evans and Rondoni have shown theoretically that a nonequilibrium system can indeed
produce continuous negative entropy. 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. Surprised
by their results, they felt that probably no real physical system could exhibit such Gibbs entropy
(continuous negative entropy), but admitted that the “problem persists” for deterministic systems.
19.
From Harvey S. Leff:, "Resource Letter MD-1: Maxwell's Demon." American Journal of
Physics, 58(3), Mar. 1990, p. 201-209: “James Clerk Maxwell first revealed what has come to be called
Maxwell's demon in an 1867 letter to Peter Guthrie Tait. He envisioned an intelligent being who could literally direct
molecular flows molecule by molecule. In his 1871 Theory of Heat, Maxwell published this idea. In 1874 William
Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) coined the term "demon," a name that has stuck with this imaginary character of
Maxwell's”.
20.
The common but erroneous consensus of the majority of physicists is that it is impossible to
have a true Maxwell’s demon. E.g., consider L. Brillouin, "Can the rectifier become a thermodynamical demon?" Phys. Rev., Vol. 78, 1950, p. 627-628. Brillouin establishes that thermal noise in a
25
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
resistor cannot be rectified to transform heat to electric work. That is true so long as the resistor’s
input energy and its output thermal noise energy are in the form of positive energy, as assumed by
Brillouin. On the other hand, if one inputs negative energy to the same resistor, the “thermal noise” is
in fact “anti-thermal integration and re-ordering.” The resistor cools rather than heats, and it also
freely adds excess negative energy flow from the vacuum into the flow of negative energy that was
input to it. Thus the resistor amplifies the negative energy flow input, outputting substantially more
negative energy flow than one inputs oneself (the excess comes freely from the local vacuum). By
then converting the greater output negative energy to positive energy (or by designing the load itself
to utilize negative energy input), more work can be done in an external load than allowed solely from
the energy input to it by the operator. In short, COP > 1.0 can be maintained. The excess energy
input, however, is freely received from the external environment, and energy conservation is obeyed.
Present electrical circuit theory simply assumes positive energy input and omits the case of negative
energy input. Nonetheless, such negative energy circuits are already working in Bedini’s laboratory. A
rather formidable patent application, “Radiant Potential Energy Charger,” 2004 for the use of
negative energy in circuits and loads has been filed. Brillouin’s findings (for positive energy) are a
special case, and they have been falsified by Bedini for the case of using negative energy in one’s
circuit. Further, that falsification has also been experimentally proven on the bench {25}.
21.
Particularly see our discussion of the supersystem (system, vacuum, and curved spacetime all
in mutual interaction) in T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere
Press, 2002, Chapter 9. The Supersystem and Remarks on Gravity, Antigravity, and Testing.
22.
T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood, New York, 1981,
“Chapter 25: Outlook: Possibility of Vacuum Engineering,” p. 824-828.
23.
E.g., see David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, Third Edition
Extended, Wiley, New York, 1988, Vol. 1, p. 518. See Sample Problem 5. The variable theoretical
maximum COP of a standard heat pump, operating as a refrigerator to cool the great outdoors under
nominal conditions, may be COP = 9.22.
24.
Indeed, new U.S. government regulations to be implemented in the near future require that
manufacturers of heat pumps increase the heat pump’s overall efficiency dramatically, thereby
reducing the cooling load on the central power grid during unseasonably hot summers and cold
winters.
25.
Bedini and Bearden have filed a formidable Provisional Patent Application, “Radiant
Potential Energy Charger,” in early 2004 for the use of negative energy in circuits and systems, and
real Bedini negative energy systems are indeed working on the laboratory bench. I emphasize that the
physical discovery was totally by John Bedini, not by me. My contribution was only to explain the
mechanism and what was happening. Due to the patenting situation, no further details can be given
at this time.
26.
Here we must adopt a special convention for calculating efficiency and COP of a system
when that system uses a mix of both positive EM energy and negative EM energy. To determine the
total energy output EOT of the system, one separately determines the total output positive energy EOP
and the total output negative energy EON. One takes the absolute value of each, and sums the
absolute values so that one has two positive numbers that add. Hence EOT = EOP +EON. To
determine the total input energy EIT, one determines the total positive energy input EIP and the total
negative energy input EIN. Again one takes the absolute value of each, and sums the absolute values
so that one has two positive numbers that add. Hence EIT = EIP +EIN The total efficiency T of
the system is then calculated as EOT/EIT. For COP, a similar procedure is utilized. The total output
energy or work EOT given by EOT = EOP +EON. The total operator’s input EITO is measured, and
the total output energy EOT is still given by EOT = EOP +EON. The COP then is given by
26
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
COP = EOT/EITO. This convention is very important. E.g., if one merely uses a calorimeter to
“measure” the output of a system that is outputting a mix of both positive and negative EM energy,
the calorimeter will erroneously give the difference between the two, not the total output at all.
Further, whether the calorimeter cools or heats depends on which component is greater in
magnitude. For a preponderance of negative EM energy output, the calorimeter fluid will be cooled
by the excess of output negative energy.
27.
Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to
Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459.
28.
E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math.
Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 showed that any scalar potential mathematically decomposes into a
harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal wave pairs. Eerily, this decomposition of normal
electromagnetics into a “more primary internal electrodynamics” has largely been ignored by Western
theorists. In other nations it has been used to generate scalar interferometry or longitudinal EM wave
interferometry at a distance, where in the interference zone normal EM fields and potentials are
produced (and tailored). So it has been highly weaponized, but secretly, since shortly after WW II.
29.
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
showed that any EM field or wave can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar
potentials. The paper was published in 1904 and orally delivered in 1903, and it initiated the modern
branch of electrodynamics known as “superpotential theory”. By further decomposing the two
“base” scalar potentials per Whittaker 1903, one arrives at the fact that any EM field or wave can be
decomposed into differential functions of two sets of harmonic bidirectional EM longitudinal wave
flows. By tailoring sets of such longitudinal EM waves and using two separated transmitter groups
whose beams intercept at a distance, normal EM energy and patterns of EM energy can be
“produced” in that distant interference zone, arising right out of local spacetime itself. Spacetime
may be considered a scalar potential of great intensity, so that it then decomposes per Whittaker 1903
into more fundamental “internal” longitudinal wavepair components. One might think of these
components as “subspace components”. Longitudinal EM waves (subspace waves, so to speak) easily
pass through intervening matter (such as the ocean or the earth) between the distant target area and
the transmitter. The strategic weapon capabilities and implications are obvious.
30.
In 1997 Defense Secretary William Cohen referred to just such weapons when he stated:
"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes
remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work
finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to
intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important." [Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April
1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD
News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism,
Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.]
Recently, one or more hostile scalar interferometers was/were registered (zeroed-in) on the
Yellowstone Caldera, under Yellowstone National Park. This is believed to be the largest
supervolcano on earth. So now, 24 hours a day, a hostile terrorist finger is on a special trigger which,
if activated, will result in the violent eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, destroying much or most
of North America.
The former Secretary of Defense personally confirmed use of such weapons for such purposes.
The international records of recent earthquakes verify the creep-in of small earthquakes to the
Yellowstone Caldera. Any artilleryman recognizes an artillery registration when it comes to his
attention.
As can be seen, changing and updating the seriously flawed old electrical engineering is no longer
just an idle academic exercise. The very survival of our nation may well depend on it. A major
27
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera would expel a quantity of ash and debris that the entire Grand
Canyon could not hold. Simply check into the geological records for what happened to North
America the last time that caldera blew. Also, according to very recent Associated Press release, an
al-Qaida-linked terrorist group threatened Italy with “waves of earthquakes to erase your country”, if
Italy did not pull out its meager forces in Iraq.
Further, the Japanese Yakuzaa very potent terrorist force dedicated to the coming destruction
of the United statesdefinitely acquired (leased) some strategic scalar interferometry weapons at the
end of 1989. And since then they indeed have been engineering the weather over North America,
just as Secretary Cohen indicated, and testing and perfecting earthquake initiation by initiating a few
quakes now and then. So whether we like it or not, terrorists do indeed have the weapons indicated
by Secretary Cohen, and they definitely are planning on using them against the United States.
It would not take many “small shots”, e.g., to knock out almost all the centralized U.S. power
grid, some refineries and nuclear power plants, etc. Large parts of the central power grid can be taken
down for months at a time, merely by cyber war. We can almost certainly expect such intervention,
threatening the catastrophic collapse of the U.S., in about two to three years. Some 10 nations
around the planet now secretly have such weapons, which thus are older and mature artillery
weapons of a strange new kind. For a technical treatise on scalar interferometry, in O(3) higher group
symmetry electrodynamics, see M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "On
Whittaker's Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of
Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue,
Winter 1999, p. 76-78.
31.
Fortunately not all Western theoreticians have remained oblivious to the more fundamental
“internal” decomposition electrodynamics and its implications. For improvements and extension to
the decomposition started by Whittaker in 1903, see (a) Richard W. Ziolkowski, “Exact Solutions of
the Wave Equation with Complex Source Locations,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 26(4), April
1985, p. 861-863; (b) I. M. Besieris, A. M. Shaarawi, and R. W. Ziolkowski, “A bidirectional travelling
plane wave representation of exact solutions of the scalar wave equation,” Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 30(6), 1989, p. 1254-1269; and (c) Rod Donnelly and Richard Ziolkowski, “A Method for
constructing solutions of homogeneous partial differential equation: localized waves,” Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London A, Vol. 437, 1992, p. 673-692.
32.
For typical additional superpotential work, see (a) P. Debye, “Der lichtdruck auf Kugeln
von beliegigem Material,” Ann. Phys., (Leipzig), Vol. 30, 1909, p. 57-136; (b) A. Nisbet, Physica, Vol.
21, 1955, p. 799-802; (c) W.H. McCrea, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 240, 1957, p. 447.
33.
Melba Phillips, “Classical Electrodynamics,” in Principles of Electrodynamics and Relativity,
Vol. IV of Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by S. Flugge, Springer-Verlag, 1962.
34.
Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravitywhat the experiments say,” Physics Letters A,
Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9.
35.
In this regard, one will be drawn to special alloy wires (such as alloy of 2% Fe and 98% Al),
and to interesting applications of EM hysteresis, thyratron and thyristor circuits, and gas-filled tubes
with manipulated sharp discharges. The lowly neon light is also important in detecting such effects,
and in making measurements. With special alloy wires for conductors, it is possible to have a Drude
electron gas relaxation time approaching a millisecond. This allows switching intervention. In copper
wires, relaxation is so rapid that it may be considered instantaneous, so practical intervention is not
possible without using methods not dependent on electron gas relaxation time.
36.
A useful discussion of the Bedini process inside batteries is given in T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's
Method for Forming Negative Resistors in Batteries," Proc. Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia,
Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 24-38. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38.
28
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
37.
As is well known outside CEM and EE, any “isolated classical charge” actually is an infinite
bare charge, surrounded by an infinite charge of opposite sign in the virtual state vacuum. Hence a
single “charge” in the classical sense is actually a dipolar ensemble of incredible charge and energy.
As such, the charge ensemble (dipolarity) must exhibit the proven broken symmetry of opposite
charges. In turn, this requires that the charge ensemble freely convert virtual energy (of the vacuum)
into observable energy. Hence it requires that all the EM energy continuously pouring in all
directions from the source charge as real observable photons, must have been extracted from the
seething vacuum and coherently integrated.
38.
E.g., see Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993,
p. 109-110. Quoting: "[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the
mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and
reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the
electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and
charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course
are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy
of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite
bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of
unlimited energy."
39.
Together with Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry, this also solves the persistent “greatest
problem” in thermodynamics. E.g., see Huw Price, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford
University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 36.
Quoting: "…the major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find
it is so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."
Quoting, p. 78: "A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal
asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly
misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever
so low in the first place."
By replacing the more limited Klein geometry with Leyton’s object-oriented geometry, and by
correcting the Second Law, negative entropy processes are solidly established, thereby explaining why
sharply lowered entropy of the entire universe can be possible thermodynamically.
40.
A particularly good fluctuation theory is given by (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. Their transient fluctuation theory is extended by (b) 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. Experimental proof is given by (c) 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. The latter work experimentally demonstrates the integrated
transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second
law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption is shown to
occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.
41.
(a) Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen,"
1872; also see (b) I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in
the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.
42.
(1) Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. For the
importance of Leyton’s geometry and new methods, see (b) T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet, “Leyton’s
Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” Aug. 22,
29
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
2003, updated July 4, 2004. A preliminary version of the latter paper is published as (c) T. E.
Bearden, “Leyton’s Hierarchies of Symmetry,” Explore, 12(6), 2003, p. 59-62.
43.
(a) T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc Congress 2000, St.
Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 86-98. Also published in (b) Journal of New Energy, 5(1),
Summer 2000, p. 11-23.
44.
T. E. Bearden, “Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in
M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 639698.
45.
T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa
Barbara, 2002, Chap. 3: Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the
Expanding Universe.
46.
M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector
Potential in Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.
47.
(a) C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental
Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413. Earlier Lee and
Yang had predicted this and several other broken symmetries; see (b) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity
Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; (c) T. D. Lee,
Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and
Charge Conjugation," Physical Review, 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345. So revolutionary was broken
symmetry that the Nobel Committee speedily awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in
December 1957, in the same year it was proven by Wu et al.
48.
Kron’s biography is given in Gabriel Kron and H. H. Happ, Gabriel Kron and Systems
Theory, Union College Press, Schenectady, NY, 1973. See also Philip G. Alger, “The Evolution of an
Engineering Scientist,” http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/KronGabriel1.htm.
At the latter part of his life, Kron had penetrated far ahead of his contemporaries and was working
on a theory of the entire universe’s functioning.
49.
For a synopsis of Gabriel Kron and his negative resistor, see T. E. Bearden, Energy from the
Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002, p. 237-239, 306, 498, 603-604.
50.
Gabriel Kron, "The Frustrating Search for a Geometrical Model of Electrodynamic
Networks," Tensor (new series), Vol. 13, 1963, p. 111-128. Quoting from p. 114: "...the missing concept
of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie
between any set of two nodes. (Previously—following Maxwell—engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single
datum-point, the 'ground'). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix...
which created 'lamellar' currents..." "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the
answer to the author's years-long search."
51.
J. W. Lynn and R. A. Russell, "Kron's Wave Automaton," in Physical Structures in System
Theory, J. J. Dixhoorn and F. J. Evans (Eds), Academic Press, London, 1974, p. 131.
52.
Gabriel Kron, “Electric circuit models of the Schrödinger equation,” Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan.
1 and 15, 1945, p. 41.
53.
Kron physically showed that the load with negative resistance could power itself and also
furnish extra energy to the outside power line. It was very probably this remarkable demonstration
that resulted in so long a continuing censorship of Kron’s publications.
54.
In passing, we also note that between any two unequal charges in the universe, no matter
how widely separated, there exists a potential difference that is comprised of a set of EM energy
flows. Hence every dipole (local separation or extended separation) in the universe continuously
30
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
pours out real laminar EM energy, orthogonal to its terminals at some energy density. This may be all
or part of the excess “dark energy” that is necessary in order to explain the experimental
observations of astronomers and astrophysicists. With so many stupendous sharp gradient
astronomical processes continually occurring, the negative energy process we explained may be
generating the excess antigravity responsible for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the
universe. That is particularly probable when the previously unaccounted giant Heaviside negative
energy flows are accounted. It would be ironic if the suppression of Kron’s open path solution and
Lorentz’s suppression of Heaviside’s enormous nondiverged energy flow component have also
suppressed the mechanism and source of dark energy, which predominates in the universe.
55.
Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy,"
Proc. 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conf. (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts,
p. 370-375.
56. The VTA device operated analogously to a triode with a very large free cathode energy flow
furnished by the vacuum environment. Thus a small “control grid” signal controlled and ordered a
much larger flow of energy to the plate and out of the system, and the operator only had to pay for
the small grid signal, not for the large energy flow input.. It was in fact an example of precursor
engineering.
57.
See T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press,
Santa Barbara, 2002, p. 305-321, 437, 500, 502-503, 604.
58.
Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum, 2002, ibid.
59.
E.g., see (a) A. I. Buzdin and A. S. Mikhailov, “Auto-waves in magnetic superconductors,”
Zhurnal Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, Vol. 90, Jan. 1986, p. 294-298. In Russian; (b)
Baoquan Sun et al., “Current self-oscillation induced by a transverse magnetic field in a doped
GaAs/AlAs superlattice,” Physical Review B, 60(12), Sept. 15, 1999, p. 8866-8870; (c) Doruk Engin,
Sergei Orlov, Mordechai Segev, George C. Valley, and Amnon Yariv, “Order-Disorder Phase
Transition and Critical Slowing Down in Photorefractive Self-Oscillators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(10), 6
Mar. 1995, p. 1743–1746; (d) A. S. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, and M. O. Scully, “Parametric SelfOscillation via Resonantly Enhanced Multiwave Mixing,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quantph/pdf/9904/9904034.pdf ; (e) J. O. White, B. Fischer, M. Cronin-Golomb and A. Yariv, “Coherent
Oscillation by Self-Induced Gratings in the Photorefractive Crystal BaTiO3”, Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol.
40, 1982, p. 450; (f) Alexander L. Fradkov and Alexander Yu. Pogromsky, Introduction to Control of
Oscillations and Chaos, World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science E, Series Editor Leon O. Chua,
World Scientific, New Jersey, 1998.
60.
V. S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance
absorption,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p. 1442.
61.
V. S. Letokhov, “Stimulated emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative
absorption,” ZhETF Plasma, 5(8), Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265.
62.
V. S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance
absorption,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 26(4), Apr. 1968, p. 835-839.
63.
E.g., see (a) V M Cadez, J De Keyser and M Roth, “Resonant phenomena of hydromagnetic
waves in non-uniform space plasmas,” Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., 11(3A), Aug. 2002, p. A69-A73;
(b) P. S. Joarder, V. M. Nakariakov and B. Roberts, “A Manifestation of Negative Energy Waves in
the Solar Atmosphere,” Solar Physics, 176, 1997, p. 285–297; (c) J. Andries and M. Goossens, “The
influence of resonant MHD wave coupling in the boundary layer on the reflection and transmission
process,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, Vol. 375, 2001, p. 1100-1110; (d) C. C. Chaston et al., :Auroral
ion acceleration in dispersive Alfven waves,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 109, 3 Apr. 2004.
31
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
64.
(a) J. H., Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 175, Part I, 1884, p. 343-361. First part of
Poynting's treatise. Also in Collected Scientific Papers, John Henry Poynting, editors G. A.
Shakespear and Guy Barlow, Cambridge University Press, 1920, p. 175-193. See also (b) "On the
Connection between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding
Field," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 176, 1885, p. 277-306.
Second part of Poynting's treatise. Also in Collected Scientific Papers, John Henry Poynting, editors
G. A. Shakespear and Guy Barlow, Cambridge University Press, 1920, p. 194-223.
65.
In the 1880s after Maxwell’s death, two scientists independently discovered the flow of EM
energy in space, and developed the theory for it. One was Oliver Heaviside, self-taught genius who
never even attended university. The other was John Poynting, an academician, who published
prestigiously but only considered that part of the energy flow outside the conductor, that gets
diverged into the conductor to power or potentialize the Drude electrons. Poynting totally ignored
any additional component that might not be diverged into the wire. He also got the direction of
primary energy flow wrong by 90.
Heaviside discovered both components (the diverged fraction and the nondiverged fraction) of
the energy flow, and also corrected Poynting as to the proper direction of the main energy flow. E.g.,
see (a) Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94. Quoting:
“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards
the wire… . Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular
to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what
seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric
current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so
small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the
great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the wire.”
Later Heaviside did publish prestigiously, and so both men are credited with the theory.
But Heaviside’s nondiverged component means that every generator, battery, and other dipolar
power source in fact produces an overall energy flow tremendously greater than the amount of
energy input into the shaft of the generator, or the dissipation of chemical energy in the battery, etc.
To prevent being labeled a perpetual motion nut advocating creation of energy from nothing, and
also to prevent having to face the terrible unsolved question of what was the energy source for the
tremendous Heaviside component that usually did nothing at all, Lorentz integrated the entire energy
flow vector around a closed surface assumed surrounding any and every volume element of interest.
This procedure, still blindly used today, neatly zeroes out the bothersome Heaviside component
while retaining the Poynting component—the component that normally is all the energy that enters
the circuit to power it. Hence one’s normal measurements of energy and work from the circuit will
match the Poynting component and calculation. In this way, Lorentz neatly delayed for a century the
recognition of the enormity of the excess energy from the vacuum that is involved in every circuit,
every charge, and every dipolarity, thereby also delaying modern energy technology. So today we are
a hundred years behind in energy technology, thanks to our scientific leaders who do not research
and utilize Heaviside’s long unaccounted “nondiverging” EM energy flow in space.
When the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component from any battery or generator is
considered as well as the Poynting energy flow component, the power source already outputs
immensely more energy than is in the mechanical energy furnished to crank the shaft of the
generator, or is chemically dissipated in the battery. Heaviside did understand the gravitational
implications of his new, immense component, but died before his notes on it could be formally
written and submitted.
See (b) H. J. Josephs, “The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957,” The Institution of
Electrical Engineers Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76. Heaviside’s hand-written notes
32
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
containing his theory of electrogravitation, based on his theory of energy flow, were found beneath
the floor boards in his little garret apartment after his death. His trapped EM energy flow loops were
gravitational.
See also (c) E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heavisideestablishment shaker,” Electrical Review,
211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite concludes that Heaviside’s postulationthat a flux of
gravitational energy combines with the (EH) electromagnetic energy fluxcould shake the
foundations of physics. Extracting from Laithwaite: “Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as
S = (EH) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (EH). Taking p to be the density of
matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as
pu  ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.”
66.
(a) See 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. For a more prestigious publication, see (b) Oliver
Heaviside, "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480. Heaviside discusses the Faraday-Maxwell ether medium,
outlines his vector algebra for analysis of vectors without quaternions, discusses magnetism, gives the
EM equations in a moving medium, and gives the EM flux of energy in a stationary medium. On p.
443, he credits Poynting with being first to discover the formula for energy flow, with Heaviside
himself independently discovering and interpreting this flow a little later in an extended form.
However, Poynting also always credited Heaviside with being first. In fact the two men
independently and simultaneously discovered and developed the theory.
67.
E.g., see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden,
Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig,
1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the
Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a
volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the
energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into
the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby
Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra Heaviside circuital energy transport component which is
usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything, and is wasted.
68.
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 resonant at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of
such particles when fed by UV energy. Insulating particles resonant at infrared frequencies are
another class of such particles when fed by IR energy.
69.
E.g., see 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.
70.
T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, ibid., 2002.
71.
T. E. Bearden, “Precursor Engineering: Directly Altering Physical Reality,” Explore, 13(2),
2004, p. 50-60.
72.
(a) T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la
Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41; (b) — "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent
No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the
presence of clutter and for penetrating media; (c) — "Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for
Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase
Conjugation," U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996.
33
Fact Paper 2003-02/2004-02
73.
Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.
74.
G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine, Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems: From
Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations, Wiley, New York, 1977.
75.
A. S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, Macmillan, New York, 1929, p. 74.
76.
Ilya Prigogine, "Irreversibility as a symmetry-breaking process," Nature, Vol. 246, Nov. 9,
1973, p. 70.
77.
Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover, New York,
1963, p. 213, 215, 217.
78.
Of course, a type of force-free fields in both space and matter has been dealt with in several
applications such as the accretion disks of black holes, Type II superconductors, and solar
prominence phenomena, but it has not included the long-unaccounted Heaviside nondiverged energy
flow components accompanying the internal EM energy flows comprising such force-free fields.
Also, most of the force-free fields calculated and used in these areas involve twisted field lines. So
even in this known force-free EM area, only a part of the necessary job of correcting EM theory has
been accomplished. For typical publications in force-free fields, see (a) S. I. Syrovatskii, “On the time
evolution of force-free fields,” Solar Physics, vol. 58, June 1978, p. 89-94; (b) I M Benn and Jonathan
Kress, “Force-free fields from Hertz potentials,” Phys. A: Math. Gen., 29(19), 1996, p. 6295-6304; (c)
T. Wiegelmann and T. Neukirch, “Computing nonlinear force free coronal magnetic fields,”
Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, Vol. 10, 2003, p. 313–322; (d) Gerald E. Marsh, Force-Free
Magnetic Fields: Solutions, Topology and Applications, World Scientific, 1996; (e) S. S. Komissarov,
“Electrodynamics of black hole magnetospheres,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 350(2), 2004, p. 427-448.
79.
E.g., although no equation is a definition, the electric field intensity E is usually considered
(inappropriately) to be “defined” by E = F/q, where F is the force produced upon the charged static
matter q by the ongoing interaction of the spatiotemporal E and q, and F/q is the ongoing force per
unit point static charge produced in the mass system by that interaction. Notice that this does not at
all define what E is, as it exists in space prior to interaction. It is merely the effect of one kind of
interaction of that spatiotemporal E-field with charged matter (i.e., where the charged matter is
“static”). Hence F/q is the intensity of the actual force-free E-field’s ongoing interaction with a unit
point static charge (a piece of material ether) assumed at every point in space occupied by the matter
force field. If that same charge q is sized in charged masses that are self-oscillating at the frequency
of the energy in the spatiotemporal field E that is interacting with them, then the resulting “reaction
cross section” of the charge q goes up by a factor of 18 or so, as proven by the optical physics of
negative resonance absorption in self-resonating charged particle media.
The same E-field in space is a set of ongoing EM energy flows forming an overall energy flow
pattern. Hence from such flows one can collect as much “force” (and as much energy) as one wishes,
given sufficient intercepting and interacting “collector” charges q. As engineers, we have never been
taught that a “static” EM field is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system consisting of a set of
continuous flows of EM energy, and that from any static field one can freely intercept and collect as
much energy W as one wishes, upon intercepting charges q, given sufficient charges q.
80.
Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London, 1985, p. 44.
34