If you, and/or someone you know, want to collaborate in study towards
refining the understanding and application of the various viable theories of
electromagnetism to implement overunity power technologies you may request
subscription to this group by sending an email to
electro-magnetism-study-group-owner@yahoogroups.com with subject line of
<Subscribe Electro-Magnetism Study Group> including your preferred email
address at top in body of email text.

Please offer your comments and feedback -- before or after subscribing, on
or off this list -- to help the below author to even better explain his
theoretical evaluations of electomagnetism to the underinformed physics and
engineering communities.

If you have information on other leading edge research in electromagnetism
theory which you want to offer for similar discussion and feedback, please
email as above to be subscribed to this by-invitation-only study group email
collaboration Yahoo!Group.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electro-magnetism-study-group/message/1

Tom Bearden soliton@...
Monday, October 07, 2002 10:32 AM

Let us simply deal with the science involved and the proof of
it. Here is why one really can develop COP>1.0 systems, in accord with the
laws of physics.

The standard vicious and extremely emotional attack on the very notion of
COP>1.0 EM systems is eerie, particularly the total confusion in the
critics' minds as to the difference between a coefficient of performance of
more than 1.0 and perpetual motion machines. The standard classical EM
model and electrical engineering -- and every electrical engineering
department, professor, and textbook --- implicitly and erroneously assumes
that the source charge freely and continuously creates observable EM energy
out of nothing at all, and pours it out continuously in all directions at
the speed of light, establishing its associated fields and potentials and
their energy across the universe at the speed of light.

That used to be admitted and it was known as the "source charge problem" or
the "problem of the charge and its associated fields and potentials". It
could be found in books occasionally into the 1960s. Then one day it just
seemed to have been very suddenly removed and thereafter it has been
resoundingly ignored. Many professors today and most of the students have
not even heard of the "source charge problem", and have no inkling that they
have been taught theory based on every charge being a perpetual motion
machine. The last thing that universities wish is to have to again face
their own electrical engineering assumption of wholesale perpetual motion
machines called "source charges", creating all the EM fields, potentials,
and their energy --- in the entire universe --- right out of nothing at all.

Little wonder that D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press,
London and New York, 1968, p. viii, spoke of the source charge problem in
these words: "The connection between the field and its source has always
been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum
electrodynamics."

You will note that the solution to that problem has not ever been advanced
in classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering. It is also not
advanced by the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation,
etc.

The rigorous basis for the solution to the source charge problem was
provided by the prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang in 1956-57,
the proof of it by Wu et al. in early 1957, and --- in an unprecedented
speed due to the profound revolution in physics that had occurred so
uickly --- the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year,
Dec. 1957.

Broken symmetry was a great revolution in physics, but apparently in 45
years it has not been able to make it across the campus from the particle
physics department to the electrical engineering department, to get the
electrical engineering professors to change their century-old model and
include the active vacuum interaction with every charge, as well as broken
symmetry in that interaction when the charge and its clustering virtual
charges of opposite sign is considered in the modern QFT view as a special
kind of dipolarity.

One of the proven asymmetries in the vacuum energy exchange, shown by Wu et
al. is that of opposite charges --- such as are on the ends of a dipole or
dipolarity. As you know, in the modern quantum field theory view of the
observable charge it is a dipolarity consisting of an infinite bare charge
in the middle surrounded by clustering virtual charges (also an infinite
charge) of opposite sign in the vacuum. The difference between these two
infinite charges, however, is finite, and that difference is what the
external observer sees when he is looking at that bare charge in the middle
through the external clustering "Faraday screen". All that of course is
well-known in physics, and appears even in more popularized articles and
books such as Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books,
Random House, 1993, written for educated lay persons.

But the asymmetry of the charge and the dipole with its vacuum energy
exchange still does not appear in classical electrodynamics or electrical
engineering. Nonetheless, if one accepts the QFT view of the "isolated
source charge" as a special dipolarity, then the charge really does absorb
virtual energy from the seething vacuum continuously, coherently integrate
it into observable photons, and then emits those real, observable photons in
all directions at the speed of light. This of course completely resolves
the source charge problem, but also points out the terrible obsolescence of
the standard electrical engineering curriculum. We published that solution
to the source charge problem in 2000, kindly printed by Hal Fox in an
article called "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," J. New Energy.

Regardless of the great revolution spurred by the discovery of broken
symmetry, the electrical engineering model still does not model the active
vacuum, its energetic exchange with the charge, and the proven broken
symmetry in that exchange. The model still assumes the charge just creates
from nothing all that energy it pours out continuously --- which outpouring
is not only negentropy but steadily and continuously increasing negentropy,
in total violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

So ironically, the very academics who condemn overunity researchers as
perpetual motion nuts, are themselves the world's greatest though unwitting
perpetual motion advocates (or "nuts", if you will) in all human history.
Their model does not model the active vacuum, much less the continuous
energy exchange between vacuum and charge, or a broken symmetry in that
exchange.

Bluntly put, there is not now and there never has been a single electrical
engineering department, EE professor, or EE textbook that even knows what
powers an electrical circuit. That is, there is no inkling that all the EM
energy in every circuit and EM system comes directly from the seething
vacuum via the broken symmetry of the source charges and the source
dipolarities. It does not come from the shaft energy input to the
generator, or from the chemical energy dissipated in a battery. That this
is still so universally unknown is sad, but true. It is excusable until
1957 and the discovery of broken symmetry, with the quick award of the Nobel
Prize to Lee and Yang. It is inexcusable since then. That is a sad
commentary on our National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation,
universities, etc.

The well-known "negative resonance absorption of the medium" effect is also
replicable by any nonlinear optics department, and --- as shown by Bohren in
Am. J. Phys. with independent replication reported in the same issue --- it
outputs 18 times as much energy as one inputs. We also explained that long
ago, as well as where the excess energy comes from.

Further, the source dipole in a generator or battery --- once formed ---
actually extracts enormously more energy from the vacuum and pours it out of
the terminals, than the silly external circuit catches and utilizes. This
was discovered in the 1880s by Heaviside, to the consternation of the less
than three dozen electrical scientists in the world at the time. No one had
the foggiest notion as to where such an enormous outpouring of energy could
be coming from, filling all space around the external conductors attached to
the generator terminals.

So Lorentz just arbitrarily discarded it, stating that this extra
nondiverged Heaviside component "had no physical significance" because it
did nothing and powered nothing. The neat little integration trick
(integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around
every volume element of interest) that Lorentz used to discard any
accountability of the Heaviside component, is still used by
electrodynamicists and electrical engineers.

And few of the professors even know it anymore, and almost none of the
students know it except for the extremely rare one that has gone back and
read the original Heaviside and Poynting papers that founded energy flow
theory in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead.

Now let us deal with the infamous second law of thermodynamics, which ---
insofar as electromagnetics is concerned --- is as dead as a doornail.

The second law of thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics. Some
years ago Denis Evans et al. of the Australian National University advanced
the rigorous transient fluctuation theorem (D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles,
Phys. Rev. E, vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645), which quickly had other supporting
work shown by other researchers. (a good little overview article is Steven
K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems," Physics Today,
55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21.). Recently (July 2002) Evans and his colleagues
have rigorously shown experimental violation of the second law at the micron
(colloidal) size level and for up to two seconds. Published as G. M. Wang
et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 89, 2002, 050601, this experimentally
proven violation of the second law dramatically extends the permissible
violation zone. The second law has always been violable for a single
charge, atom, molecule, or small group of molecules.

But the new experimental demonstration by Evans et al. now clearly shows
that in real solutions "reversal zones" do occur where reactions permissibly
run backwards, at up to colloidal level in size and for up to two seconds in
duration! Evans et al. have commented that this certainly does affect
chemistry quite strongly.

However, the violation of the second law of thermodynamics is total for
electrodynamics as follows: It is well-established that the source charge
does pour out observable EM energy in all directions at the speed of light,
without any observable energy input. It does it continuously, so the charge
represents a continuous and indefinite violation of the second law, because
it exhibits increasing negentropy (production of order), steadily, in
contradiction to the second law's proclamation of progressive entropy
(increasing disordering). Further, the observable photon energy poured out
is itself not disordered but is perfectly ordered macroscopically, to any
size magnitude one wishes (even across the entire universe) and for any
length of time one wishes (including for the 14 billion years of the
observable universe). The charges in the original matter have done it
continuously since the beginning, and their ordered fields and potentials
(and their energy) reaches across the observable universe.

At a point at any radial distance from the source charge, if one knows the
source charge magnitude, etc. one can calculate the value of the field, its
direction, the value of the potential, and also the direction of the vector
potential. In an ideal case one can then measure those entities at that
point to experimentally prove it. This ordering of the expanding EM fields
and potentials and their energy, increasing at the speed of light, is
trivial and is used every day in electrodynamics, but it is fundamentally
significant for thermodynamics also. The macroscopic ordering of the EM
field formed by the source charge is deterministic, not "statistical" (or so
one can certainly argue, based on untold numbers of experiments). In turn,
that macroscopic determinism of the fields and potentials and their
organized EM energy totally violates the statistical basis of statistical
mechanics, hence it totally violates the entire basis of the second law of
thermodynamics. The second law applies only to statistical things, not to
deterministic things.

All electrodynamics --- the source charge, the associated fields, the
associated potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe, whether
in space or in matter --- comes from the vacuum via this asymmetry of the
source charge and the macroscopic ordering of the fields, potentials, and
their energy, and as a total violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Even the staid old electrical engineering departments implicitly assume
this, though unwittingly.

So classical electrodynamics by its very existence totally contradicts the
second law of thermodynamics in the macroscopic universe, to any size
desired and for any time duration desired. The second law is thus falsified
experimentally, at least for electrodynamics.

Now note that the hoary old thermodynamics definition of "closed system" is
one closed only to mass exchange across its boundary. It deliberately
assumes that energy flow across the system boundary is unrestricted! So a
"closed system" thermodynamically is entirely an open system with respect to
energy flow. Hence such a "closed system" can in fact be an open system
with respect to energy exchange, far from equilibrium with its active
environment such as the active vacuum! And so it is, as every charge proves
conclusively, since every charge is precisely in such a far from equilibrium
condition, totally violating Lorentz's symmetrical regauging requirement.

Further, entropy (disordering) always has implicitly assumed that some
negentropy has first happened earlier, to provide the initial order that is
then to be disordered. In other words, entropy can exist or occur only
after negentropy has first occurred. One first has to have the order
created, before it can subsequently be disordered by entropic interactions.

Thus the second law has always also implicitly assumed its own opposite, a
priori, hence is revealed as an oxymoron. It always has been an oxymoron.

The second law should be exactly restated as follows: "First a negentropic
process occurs, producing some initial order to start with. Then that
existing order can be progressively disordered by subsequent entropic
interactions, if no additional negentropic interactions occur and intervene.
If additional negentropic interactions occur and intervene, then the overall
performance of the system containing the initial order may exhibit either
net entropic interaction, net negentropic interaction, or neither entropic
or negentropic interactions but stable order --- the presently recognized
"stable disequilibrium" state condition in thermodynamics."

That statement agrees with experiment and broken symmetry, etc. It agrees
with the continuously increasing negentropy resulting from the source
charge. It agrees with the solution to the long-vexing source charge
problem, which I published in 2000, based on the theoretical and
experimental proof of broken symmetry of opposite charges (such as are on
the ends of any dipole, and are involved in any dipolarity). It agrees with
the demonstrated stable disequilibrium states. And it permits a proper
science to be formed for the pursuit of practical COP>1.0 EM power systems,
based on experiment as well as theory.

Classical electrodynamics is a material fluid dynamics theory, for that is
what Maxwell wrote. Anything that fluid systems can do, in theory an EM
system can do, particularly in Maxwell's original quaternion and quaternion
like theory involving 20 equations in 20 unknowns. A windmill, e.g., has a
COP = infinity, as does a waterwheel in a river, a sailboat, etc. Hence COP
= infinity EM systems must exist, since the EM model is a perfect analogy to
the hydrodynamics model. And so they do. They are called "source charges"
and every charge in the universe is one. In short, that is experimentally
proven, and no amount of theory can refute it.

The electrical engineering model, however, does not model the "active
environment" of the "electrical windmill", so it assumes there can be no
"free electrical wind" from the active vacuum --- in total violation to the
broken symmetry of every EM dipolarity in its energetic exchange with the
vacuum. If the classical assumption --- inserted by Lorenz and then
Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the equations --- is so, then there can
be no COP>1.0 EM systems built (at least in accord with that seriously
restricted and "special case" model). In fact, when first Lorenz in 1967 and
later Lorentz symmetrically regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, that
simplification of the equations actually discarded all Maxwellian systems
far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with their active
environment. So Lorenz and then Lorentz (who got all the credit)
arbitrarily discarded that entire vast class of Maxwellian systems permitted
to exhibit COP>1.0, and even COP = infinity. And it was done just to
simplify the equations for analytical solution, instead of having to use
numerical solution in almost every case.

All that is rigorous and is based on solid physics already in the
literature. It also clearly establishes that COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems are
indeed permitted by the laws of nature and the laws of physics --- e.g., as
shown by every charge in the universe, the negative resonant absorption of
the medium (in nonlinear optics), etc. COP>1.0 EM systems and even COP =
infinity EM systems are also permitted by the proper restatement of the
second law of thermodynamics.

Whoever wishes to assault overunity researchers with the label of "perpetual
motion nuts" must first give a purely classical explanation of the source
charge problem and where and how the source charge observably gets all that
energy it continuously outputs. Else he himself is guilty of being a part
of the greatest clan of perpetual motion nuts in all history --- the
conventional scientific establishment still advocating a seriously flawed EM
power system model which excludes the proven vacuum interaction and thus any
asymmetry in that interaction.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden

As a comment on your observer phenomenon: overunity EM systems are highly
nonlinear systems. Hence they become sensitive to initial conditions. Many
such systems exhibit peculiar phenomena as a result: you can sometimes turn
it off, and the next time it starts it will behave differently with
different COP. By starting and stopping it several times, one can adjust
back to a more usual "initial condition" so as to resume performance. There
is also much other odd phenomenology involved that does not appear in the
textbooks. There is, e.g., a decay mechanism that nature uses for such
"excited" far from equilibrium states. The trick the researcher has to
learn how to do is to establish what is known in advanced thermodynamics as
a stable disequilibrium state. See discussions in Kondepudi and Prigogine,
Modern Thermodynamics, 1998 (corrected copy 1999). Also see p. 459 therein
for a summary of several known areas that seriously violate thermodynamics
theory, and are recognized to do so.

TEB http://www.cheniere.org