Having problems with message search?
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Aug 24, 2005 4:23 PM
To: gear2000@...
Subject: RE: some homework, the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden, are some problems here?
Dear David,
Well, if you go to those who specialize in slander and libel, that's what you get.
I never went bankrupt in my entire life, e.g. -- that is a flat baldfaced lie. Indeed, I have an excellent credit rating, and have had for many years.
On my website, I placed the fact that I received a doctorate of science for submitting a thesis and for life experience. It is NOT the same as completing a rigorous doctoral program. I have never done anything to hide that. I also have an MS in nuclear engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in Math from what is today
Now the thesis did two things: It contained the first formal correction to Aristotelian logic since its inception, and it solved the hundred-year-old vexing source charge problem of how a charge continually radiates observable EM energy, while no OBSERVABLE energy is being input to it. Draw your own conclusion as to the worth of that work.
As for the Aharonov-Bohm effect used in the MEG: There are now some 20,000 papers in the hard literature, dealing with the Aharonov-Bohm effect, its extension by Michael Berry to the Berry phase, and the subsequent extension of the Berry phase by Aharonov and Anandan to the geometric phase. The effect is well-known in physics and well proven both theoretically and experimentally. A common toroidal coil will do it, but one has to pay for it that way (one pays for the power consumed by the coil). We just found a particular special material (the nanocrystalline core material) that would automatically localize the B-flux inside the material of a transformer-like core, for free. That means that, outside the core in space, there appears the uncurled (field free) A-potential. There remains a global connection between the confined internal B-flux (the curled component of the A-potential) and that external uncurled A-potential. So when one perturbs the internal B-flux, one also freely perturbs the external A-potential. That MODIFIED external spacetime containing the curl-free A-potential, when perturbed, then emits E-fields freely back into the core area, by the simple equation dA/dt = - E. But these E-field pulses are EXCESS ENERGY coming freely back into the unit, in addition to having all the normal confined B-flux energy to use.
This then is an ASYMMETRIC Maxwellian system, and is not modeled at all in the CEM/EE model (which contains many falsities as pointed out by Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others). In addition, the standard CEM/EE model uses Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the equations. In short, Lorentz in 1892 arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. The standard equations taught today in CEM/EE still use those symmetrized (Lorentz invariant) equations, hence they CANNOT describe the operation of any asymmetric Maxwellian system such as the MEG.
The standard CEM/EE model has so many glaring falsities being propagated in it for now over a century, that it should have been corrected and changed long ago if the scientific community is to continue to claim any scientific ethics at all. It still assumes the material ether (falsified in 1887), assumes force fields in space (totally false; force and force fields exist only in matter systems, as discussed e.g. by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics, 1964, vol. 1, p. 12-2 and p. 2-4).
?Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field.? (Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, 1975, p. 249). Well, E is rather defined as E = F/q, so that F = Eq. In empty space, substitute zero for q in the latter equation, and F = 0. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there are no forces and force fields in mass-free space.
The CEM/EE model still assumes a flat spacetime (falsified by general relativity every time the potential energy of the system changes). The model assumes an inert vacuum (falsified since at least 1930).
And worst of all, the model arbitrarily assumes the Lorentz symmetry condition, thereby ARBITRARILY eliminating that vast class of permissible Maxwellian systems that are asymmetrical. That omission includes the arbitrary discarding of all those Maxwellian systems that DO receive and utilize excess EM energy from their active vacuum.
We'll leave it at that. All COP>1.0 EM systems taking their excess energy freely from the vacuum are ASYMMETRIC Maxwellian systems, of the huge class that was just arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz more than a century ago. And unless one pursues physics outside the standard CEM/EE model, one cannot deal with such systems because that model only deals with SYMMETRICAL systems..
Heck, the skeptics are not even aware that
In my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002 we also present the suppressed Japanese magnetic Wankel engine. Any competent electrical engineering department or physics department can build a magnetic Wankel engine, and test it overunity to their heart's content. If you can build a linear magnetic motor (e.g., a rail gun) and curve it almost back upon itself, you can build a magnetic Wankel engine. The Lenz law effect, used to kill the unit's back mmf at very little cost to the operator, is also understood by electrical engineers. So they can understand how the unit kills its own back mmf for only a small investment by the operator, thereby yielding COP>1.0. The magnetic Wankel unit is also easily close-looped for self-powering, so that then the operator need not input any energy at all, since all the required input energy is freely received from the active vacuum. This too can easily be built by an EE department or physics department, and again tested as they wish.
Every field and potential already represents a set of ongoing free energy flows from the vacuum, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904. The outflow gushes freely and continuously from every charge and dipole in the universe. One can show experimentally that OBSERVABLE EM energy is continually emitted (real observable photons), but there is no observable input. This has been swept from all the EE texts and curricula, but is still mentioned from time to time by physicists. E.g., Bunge pointed out that
?[I]t is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state.? (Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, 1967, p. 176).
Particle physicist Sen spoke of it this way:
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, 1968, Academic Press,
Kosyakov stated it bluntly:
"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated. ?The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?" [B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Sov. Phys. Usp. 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.] We solved this problem in 1999, and published it in 2000, 2002, and subsequently.
Anyway, these are the kinds of considerations that should be discussed in any serious discussion of energy from the vacuum COP>1.0 systems. Slander, libel, and lies have no place in a scientific discussion. In discussing real COP EFTV systems, unless one sees physics beyond the CEM/EE model being discussed, there is nothing but standard EE going on and that is useless.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
P.S. And please do not forward me any more of their statements. Since I can no longer stand longer than about 3 minutes, or walk farther than about 100 feet, take remedial oxygen to remain alive, and also take care of my beloved wife 24/7 since her stroke in 2003, I have no times for cur dog pack attacks nor any inclination to discuss overunity systems with such folks. Let them believe what they wish; just don't bother me with it.
-----Original Message-----
From: gear2000@... [mailto:gear2000@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 4:16 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Cc: Mark Ward; Ron Powers
Subject: some homework, the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden, are some problems here?
some homework, the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden, are some problems here?
Dear Tom,
Mark has done some homework here for us towards addressing objections
and concerns as they may come up during our AET implementation
cycle now beginning to start, here in this case "what the skeptics say"
wherein if you find anything useful or worthy of response, let us know
your feedback when you have time if you will.
Thanks,
David
From: MW <mw@...>
To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@...>
Subject: I think you should consider - I am aware that there are those
who just like to tear down, but there are some problems here
Date: Aug 21, 2005 10:08 PM
A skeptical look at the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden
This page found at http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm
Tom Beardenâ??s MEG device A rational review of meg claims and Randiâ??s info and another good review
Note: Bearden did go bankrupt in 1999. The main email lists about Bearden are carefully censored, the following is not: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nut_meg
The following is a post from Shawn about Beardenâ??s math:
"The first key to understanding free energy electrical and magnetic machines is to realize that electrical current actuallyconsists of two currents coupled together. Our treatment of anelectric charge as a coupled system (Ã?)(m) also means that electron current i = dq/dt is comprised of two coupled components [(dÃ?/dt)(dm/dt)]. This follows from simply invoking the operator d/dt; i.e., d/dt[(Ã?)(m)] = (dÃ?/dt)(dm/dt), which is the same as[(dÃ?/dt)(dm/dt)]."
Bearden doesn't even invoke the product rule from the Calculus properly. For a product, fg, of two functions, f and g, the productrule says that the derivative of fg is:
d/dt[fg] = f*(dg/dt) + g*(df/dt)
It's more elementary than this, even. We don't even need to know Calculus to recognize the nonsense in this. His Ã? he calls the"massless charge". Well, that will have units of charge, say, Coulombs. His mass variable, m, will have units of something like, kilograms. So the product of the two will have units of kilogram-coulombs.
Now, his equation above is: d/dt[(Ã?)(m)] = (dÃ?/dt)(dm/dt)
Let's do a dimensional analysis on this equation. He is taking thetime derivative of something that has units of kilogram-coulombs. So,when the time derivative of this is taken, the final result on theleft side of the equation will have units of kilogram-coulombs/second. (kilgram-coulombs per second)
But look at the thing he has on the right side! It has units ofcharge times mass divided by time-squared:kilogram-coulombs/second^2. This is like saying that a newton isequal to a kilogram! It is complete and total (almost laughable, wereit not for so many people buying into it) NONSENSE!
Buyer beware.
Says Bearden in reference to parity violation and snell's law:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/010903a.htm
======================================
Here is a summary of Dr. Evans' answer, though he is quite ill at the moment.
Basically the problem resides in the kappa dot r part of the U(1) electromagnetic phase factor in Maxwell Heaviside theory. Under normal reflection, the received view incorrectly asserts that kappa dot r goes to - kappa dot r and that under reflection kappa goes to kappa and r goes to minus r, giving for example an interferogram in Michelson interferometry. However, reflection is equivalent to parity inversion, and underparity inversion
kappa goes to minus kappa and r goes to minus r
so under parity inversion kappa dot r is unchanged and there is no interferogram in Michelson interferometry, for example.
===================================
The error in this analysis is so fundamental that it is shocking that any person could take Bearden seriously. Refer to my post 4412. I go
through this very exercise, and the result you see in 4412 with your own two eyes is NOT what Bearden shows here. Bearden cannot even do
basic arithmetic properly.
Bearden's statement that Maxwell "asserts" that " kappa dot r goes to - kappa dot r" is wholly false! I show in post 4412 what Maxwell's
solutions are and I do the parity inversion on them and one of the first statements I show is that kappa "dot" r remains unchanged under
parity inversion!
Shawn
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%2013%20May%201994/index.html
The following are concerns about accuracy in experimental attempts to replicate Beardenâ??s claims from the nut_meg email list (they discuss Bearden):
Don't forget the possibility of capacitive coupling to the probe or its leads. Since the MEG output is pretty high voltage at 25-30 kHz and scopes generally have unbalanced inputs with high input Z, it wouldn't take too many pF of stray capacitance between the MEG output circuit and the probe leads to muck up the measurement.
If such be the case, the interference should lead the MEG output voltage in phase.
In order to check for this, you would need to move the output wire from the clamp as above while leaving it just outside the clamp and keeping the position of the output wiring relative to the probe leads unchanged- and then see if you get a zero reading.
Taking accurate electrical measurements is part of what I do for a living, and seeing the kind of sheer sloppiness Naudin habitually indulges is just plain irritating. Makes me want to go "Move over Rover and let a real tech take over".
-Mark ______
The following is another criticism of the MEG claims:
From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/member_detail?id=51300100
Date: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:21pm
Subject: Bearden has never heard of a B-H curve - proof
I just re-read the original MEG paper for a laugh, and found especial amusement in the graph at the back, that projected 'COP' 45 @ 600v. It's very apparent, that whoever wrote the MEG paper, and one has to finger Thomas E. Bearden in this respect, has never heard of a B-H curve, or normal magnetization curve, for magnetic materials.
This is about as basic as you can get in graduate level physics. 600v would massively over saturate the core. Any idiot can see that. It takes a mega idiot, to not see something that obvious. The more you look into it, the more the question becomes not 'why did the MEG project fail?' but rather 'how on earth did they manage to hold it together for so long.'
I know I've gotten kinda hooked on 'Bearden bashing,' as its now been termed, but if you look at the MEG project critically, its undeniable they repeatedly made basic errors, any half competant undergraduate student would be deeply ashamed about. It's hard to credit just what total bafoons they were in team MEG. The sheer awfulness of the research, beggers belief. How can one bash people this stupid? The words simply don't exist to describe this level of incompetance properly!
From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/member_detail?id=134183183
Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:40pm
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Bearden & DOE
wthwthwthwth wrote:
> I wouldn't count the MEG as a real experiment. The MEG is a piece of hardware, and an incompletely documented one at that. On Bearden's own web site (correspondence dated 3-29-02), he states, "We now see two additional patent applications to be filed, because of the rich physics that gets invoked. So the first patent does not yet completely describe the MEG, but only one part of it." In other words, don't bother trying to build a working MEG from Bearden's patent - it's not all there. Of course, this also provides Bearden with the perfect excuse for failure when third parties attempt to replicate the claimed overunity operation of the MEG.
Exactly. There's *always* a ready excuse for why some particular attempt t MEG replication fails. You didn't use the right kind of wire, or the right kind of core material, or leave gaps in the core sections, or you didn't put exactly the right kind of "conditioned" load on it, or you didn't jump up and down three times clucking like a chicken before switching on the power, etc, etc.
These requirements are seldom (if ever) mentioned in advance; they're always post-hoc rationalizations heard only after a particular experiment has failed. Even if the failed attempt closely duplicated an earlier seemingly successful attempt, you won't hear the requirements until after the failure. It's really quite pathetic. These guys are *convinced* that MEG is real, and they're not about to be confused by mere facts.
> A properly documented scientific experiment should be a recipe that
> others can follow, i.e. a list of required components, a list of
> required input and operating conditions, a step-by-step procedure,
> and a detailed description of expected results. In addition, the
> proposer should freely provide additional information to assist
> others in confirmation of the results. I have never seen anything
> that even remotely approaches a real experiment in all of the
> pages that Bearden has written. Something is always hidden,
> or ambiguous, or proprietary, or missing, or just plain wrong.
Right. And I find it amusing that he files patents with descriptions he later concedes are incomplete. To be enforceable, a patent must be "enabling", i.e., it has to tell a person with ordinary skill in the art everything he needs to know to replicate the invention. If it doesn't
contain that information, then the patent can be ruled invalid in court. So why does he bother filing them in the first place if he knows a-priori that they're incomplete?
The simple answer, of course, is that he's just plain self-deluded, and doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing.
Phil
The following is information that I got that is skeptical of Beardenâ??s credentials:
Based on his own e-mail and the time frame (around 1999 to 2000) when he began claiming a Ph.D., Tom Bearden apparently received (or more accurately purchased) his bogus Ph.D. degree from
grant degrees.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/recognisedukdegrees/index.shtml
Looking at the home page on the Sept. 1, 1999 archive you can plainly see the statement "Degrees awarded based on prior experience and learning" for http://www.trinityuni.org/. Clicking on the "Contact Us" button brings you to a page pointing to phone numbers and addresses in the U.K.After April 10, 2000,
Consultants, Inc.
Now it gets interesting. Who is the registrant for internetuniversity.cc? It turns out to be:
Albert Wainright
Email: albert@...
And just where is Mr. Wainright's address in Sioux Fall, SD? It turns out to be Mail Boxes, Etc., Store #2125 (http://www.mbe.com/).
Apparently Mr. Wainright has decided to concentrate his current efforts in the
Registrant:
(That's one busy Mail Boxes, Etc., isn't it?)
Administrative Contact:
Albert Wainright Private PO Box 7743
Note that the "new"
Below are a few other web sites that discuss famous diploma mills, and cite
http://www.degree.net/ (An authoritative web site on distance education. You can find all sorts of gems about
www.degreefinders.com/news.html (There's a link to a Trinity "graduate" who posted his 4,224 word doctoral dissertation on the web. Unfortunately, the dissertation now seems to be gone.)
http://www.adn.com/24hour/nation/story/600189p-4642228c.html
http://courses.dsu.edu/cet749/unit3.htm (This story tells how South Dakota became a haven for diploma mills, and how Trinity College and University created its own accreditation agency to make itself look more legitimate.)
http://www.thisismoney.com/20011125/si40887.html (This article discusses the original
Finally, it's important to note that many legitimate universities have the word "Trinity" in their names. Legitimate Ph.D. degrees granted by such institutions require actual graduate course credits, at least one year of residency at the university itself, and an oral defense of a dissertation in front of a qualified faculty examination committee.
On the other hand, there isn't a legitimate university in the
Click this link to get the response from Bearden on the above
From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/member_detail?id=134183183
Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:27pm
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Confirmation/Refutation
Matthew Zenkar wrote:
> I'm not following here. Was his connection series or parallel? I'd
> expect that since he was trying to display current, his connection
> should have been series. Or am I missing something? Though thinking
> about this and assuming a parallel connection across the resistor, it
> sounds like that from the value of the resistor, the scale factor
> should have been .1 A per volt instead of 1 A per volt -
> since the definition of an ampere is the current generated by a
> voltage of 1 volt across a resistance of 1 ohm. Thus 1 V / 10 Ohm =
> .1A
I don't know of any oscilloscopes that measure current. All measure voltage. So if you want to measure the current in a circuit, you insert a small resistor in series with the circuit and measure the voltage drop across it.
Naudin's scope has a convenience feature for displaying current on its vertical scale axis. But it's really still measuring voltage, so you have to tell it the resistance of the external shunt. Then it can do the I = E/R computation for you and label your traces with current units.
But if you lie to the scope about your current shunt, then it will display incorrect current readings. This is what Naudin almost certainly did; by telling the scope to display 1000mA per V, he effectively told it that the external shunt was 1 ohm. Since it was really 10 ohms, the readings were 10x their true values.
This is either deliberate fraud on Naudin's part, or sheer incompetence. Having followed the free energy world for a while now, I'm becoming quite used to seeing both on a regular basis.
> The new stuff on his site appears to be independtly measuring current
> and voltage. Assuming he is not using the same ill-fated technique for
> current measurments (it does not appear that he is), his results are
> interesting. I'd like to know more...
I have that exact same clamp-on ammeter model. It has two range scales, 10mA/mV and 100mA/mV. Once again, Naudin has obviously miscalibrated his scope into reading far higher currents than actually exist. This time he had two ways to do it: by entering an incorrect scale value in the scope, and selecting an incorrect range setting on the amp probe. Note that his load is supposedly a "conditioned" 100K resistor, but if you
just eyeball the traces it's obvious that they imply a much lower load
resistance.
His "conditioned" resistor is an ordinary resistor that has been overloaded. Supposedly MEG produces overunity only when the load has been conditioned in this manner, but the reason why has never been explained. Actually, it is quite that this is just a diversionary tactic to raise questions about the true load impedance. I burned up my share of resistors when I was younger, and I never saw one go down in resistance. Only up. So it seems quite clear that his load resistance, if not 100K ohms, is even higher; his current readings are erroneously high; his output power is far lower than the scope traces imply; and MEG is decidedly NOT "over-unity". And Naudin (and Bearden) are either frauds, incompetents or both.
Phil
Ã?
I wouldn't count the MEG as a real experiment. The MEG is a piece of hardware, and an incompletely documented one at that. On Bearden's own web site (correspondence dated 3-29-02), he states, "We now see two additional patent applications to be filed, because of the rich physics that gets invoked. So the first patent does not yet completely describe the MEG, but only one part of it." In other words, don't bother trying to build a working MEG from Bearden's patent - it's not all there. Of course, this also provides Bearden with the perfect excuse for failure when third parties attempt to replicate the claimed overunity operation of the MEG.
A properly documented scientific experiment should be a recipe that others can follow, i.e. a list of required components, a list of required input and operating conditions, a step-by-step procedure, and a detailed description of expected results. In addition, the proposer should freely provide additional information to assist others in confirmation of the results. I have never seen anything that even remotely approaches a real experiment in all of the pages that Bearden has written. Something is always hidden, or ambiguous, or proprietary, or missing, or just plain wrong.
WTH
Matthew Zenkar wrote:
> It would seem that there is no disagreement that Naudin's claim of
> veryifing the MEG is questionable at best, and some find Naudin's
> procedure outright incorrect.
Absolutely. I looked at his stuff a while ago, fully expecting to spend a lot of time searching for something really subtle. So I felt a little cheated when I quickly found a blatant, really elementary error.
To measure the output current of his MEG, he used a 10 ohm shunt resistor. To this he connected an oscilloscope set to display current with a a scale factor of 1000 mA per volt. This gave him current (and output power) readings that were about 10x too high! When you correct for this error, it quickly becomes clear that MEG is a simple transformer operating well below unity. Nothing unusual is happening here.
Naudin actually conceded that he sensed something was wrong with his measurements, as his computed output power was greatly in excess of what his resistive load could safely handle. Yet instead of checking his technique, he simply handwaved the discrepancy away by saying that the excess power must be leaving as electromagnetic radiation! Incredible.
I've gotten myself effectively banned from two MEG-related Yahoo groups, intalek and MEG_builders, by pointing out these mistakes in Naudin's work. Those guys are not at all interested in the truth; theirs is a church, not a scientific research group. Bearden is God, Naudin is the Son of God, and no heresy will be tolerated on pain of excommunication and banishment.
Phil
-------------------------------------
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Matthew Zenkar wrote:
> http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/
> It looks like there are some potentially interesting, publicly
> available papers on this site - NOTE - they are not written
> by Bearden - for all those who have an aversion to Bearden.
About a year ago, Bearden's papers were present, along with thelogo of AIAS, the "Alpha Institute for Advanced Study." AIAS is/was Bearden's very own scientific honor society, operated out of his home in
higher up has revoked his write-access to the DOE web server.
-----------------------------
Tom Beardenâ??s MEG device A rational review of meg claims inconsistancies in his theory and Randiâ??s info and very good skeptical information on Bearden Greerâ??s offer Bill Muller and questioning Beardenâ??s mental health free energy scams
back to Eric's main Dennis Lee page what about Joe Newman? Also, Amin, Mills (who may be legit?) Tilley, Perendev, Bearden Lutec and Tewari Genesis World Technology
http://www.tinaja.com/pseudo01.html - a look at psuedoscience on the web
my $1000 prize for proof of free energy of Carl Tilleyâ??s free energy scam EXPOSED
· The Museum of Unworkable Devices a great overview of them
· INE Free Energy Devices Database - - another great list of FE claims
his skeptic pages and crack pot pages
Milt's discussion of Free Energy and Ceti
A excellent history of perpetual motion machines from an Australian skeptic
Free energy FAQs
· how to become a Free Energy con man
what about 300 mpg carburetors?
· Eric's discussion of real forms of free energy
· A more believing history of free energy claims
· Another good overview of Free energy claimants Crank Dot Net | free energy
· Bob Schadewald claims to have invented a Perpetual motion machine - but will the big conspiracy stop him?
· EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
· . FREE ENERGY FAQ
he writer of it doesn't understand that many fraud perpetrators claim they've been offered outrageous sums to hook investors and then disappear after being detected to avoid incarceration - which gets interpreted by believers as evidence of a conspiracy.
Click to subscribe to free_energy email list
or or subscribe to victims of Free Energy Scams
The following is some more analysis by Shawn of Beardenâ??s claims:
Recently, "out of thin air" claims have been made by the subscribers to Bearden that Maxwell EM and Snell's Law violates parity. The propenents who throw this claim at us, in addition to failing to define precisely what they mean by "parity", also provide not one shred of evidence to back any of it up with.
In free space, Mawell's "flawed " equations admit solutions, which are called "plane waves" for the electric and magnetic fields. They are expressed thusly:
E(r,t) = E' exp( i { k . r - wt } ), and B(r,t) = (1/kv) k x E(r,t) (1)
where E' is an electric field vector (constant in both direction and magnitude), r is the coordinate vector in sperical coordinates, k is a vector that points along the direction that the electric and magnetic fields propogate in, and k is the magnitude of the vector k, v is the speed (not a vector quantity) of the wave (it could be less than light if it's going through something like glass). E(r,t) and B(r,t) are what the electric and magnetic fields are as a function of position and time.
The parity opartion, mathematically, is a reversal of your spatial coordinates. So, if you have a point on the positive x-axis at, say, +5 units, when you do a parity operation on your system, the point gets mapped to x=-5 units along the x-axis. Similarly for y and z axes. So when you do a parity change on any vector, A, it will become -A after a parity operation on it; that is, it points in the opposite direction from what it did originally.
So, look at the equations above, and let's apply the parity operation to them. For the electric field expression, first:
E' --> -E'
k --> -k
r --> -r
So, the vector dot product of k . r --> -k . -r = k . r, and is unchanged. But E' --> -E', and so, under the parity operation, our electric field vector E(r,t) --> -E(r,t).
Look at the expression for the magnetic field B(r,t). As before k --> -k, and we just determined that E(r,t) --> -E(r,t). So the vector cross product k x E(r,t) --> -k x -E(r,t) = k x E(r,t) (unchanged!), and so the magnetic field B(r,t) remains UNCHANGED under a parity operation.
Now, physically, the electric field and magnetic field are bootstrapped to one another; you cannot have one without the other. This is a direct consequence of Maxwells equations. So, whenever you apply parity to a system with a time and spatial varying electric field, YOU MUST ALSO DO IT TO THE MAGNETIC FIELD because ONE COMES WITH THE OTHER.
Because of this, the statement that "parity is violated" makes no sense. Why? Because, as has been shown, under parity, the electric field does change and the magnetic field does not AND THIS MEANS THAT THE EM DOESN'T HAVE A DEFINITE STATE OF PARITY IN THE FIRST PLACE!
You cannot be expected to conserve (or violate) that which you don't have to begin with!
That the Maxwell Equations for the B and E fields have these properties under parity is used on a regular basis in my field: nuclear physics. If a nucleus decays from an excited state by gamma-decay, that is an electromagnetic process. And if the decay happens by a purely magnetic transition or a purely electric transition, then we can use the known parities of the EM involved in the decay, combined with our knowledge of the nucleus involved, to predict what reactions can "go" and what reactions are "forbidden". And I really "hate" to tell you this, but guess what? IT WORKS.
The equations in (1) can then be used to go on to derive Snell's Law. Curious? Look it up in:
David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, Prentice Hall Publishing, pg 363, 1989.
Knowing the equations is not enough! Understanding what they are telling you about REALITY is also required!
Shawn
WTW writes the following:
Ah, Bearden's infamous "adiabatic charging of capacitors proves my theories" statement from his "Secret of Free Energy" paper.
Bearden loves to cite legitimate sources and legitimate scientific principles and claim that they validate his crackpot ideas. He runs into problems when someone who actually knows about the subject then stands up and flatly contradicts him.
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about stepwise capacitor charging. Not only is this technique completely explainable using standard circuit theory, but computer manufacturers even use it in portable display technology. You can find many links about it using Google, e.g.:
http://www.isi.edu/acmos/stepwise/stepwise-intro.html
So what is stepwise capacitor charging all about? In a nutshell, if you connect a battery to a resistor and capacitor in series and charge the capacitor to the battery voltage, it can easily be shown that the resistance will dissipate one half of the energy that the battery has supplied during the charging process, and the capacitor will store one half of energy. Interestingly enough, this is true no matter what values of resistance and capacitance you pick. Even if you connect the battery directly to the capacitor, the intrinsic internal resistance of the battery and wiring will still dissipate 50% of the energy.
However, let's suppose that you charge the capacitor in two steps. First you connect your resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit to a voltage source of voltage V/2. Once the capacitor is completely charged, you then connect your RC circuit to voltage V, and allow it to fully charge to the final voltage. If you do this, you'll find that your resistor only used 25% of the total energy during the charging process, while the capacitor stored 75%! Furthermore, it's easily shown that increasing the number of charging steps reduces the "wasted" energy even further. An infinite number of charging steps results in 0% energy loss in the resistor. 100% of the energy supplied by the infinite number of sources ends up in the capacitor.
So why doesn't everyone use the technique to eliminate wasted energy when capacitors are charged? The answer is in the amount of time required to charge the capacitor. Each charging step requires a finite amount of time, which can be predicted from the value of R and C, i.e. the RC time constant. One charging step
requires about 5 RC time constants to complete, two charging steps require 10 RC time constants, and so on. In other words, you can charge a capacitor with 100% efficiency, but you'll have to wait an infinitely long amount of time to do it. In addition, you have to consider the power requirements of the switching and
control circuits, and the need for multiple voltage sources. As a result, 2-step charging pretty rapidly hits the point of diminishing returns for practical applications. Manufacturers have used this technique to reduce power consumption in laptop computer displays, and some researchers have used it to create experimental low-power logic circuits. It is not commonly used, but it is hardly mysterious either.
So what does stepwise capacitor charging have to do with Beardenâ??s free energy theories? Absolutely nothing. At most, you can only obtain 100% charging efficiency, and then only if you're willing to wait (literally) for eternity. You do not get energy from nothing, and you do not violate the laws of thermodyamics. Bearden is not only a very bad physicist, but a complete joke as an electrical engineer.
WTH
Send Email