Text: From: Tom Bearden To: Leslie R. Pastor Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:43 AM Subject: RE: Which camp do belong in: The future or the past? Thanks Leslie. Our intention is to just put the material out there on the website, along with the hard physics references for the real principles and concepts of overunity systems taking their excess energy from the active vacuum. That way, the young grad students and post docs will be able to just start where several researchers have finally arrived (after 30 years of very hard work), and then go much farther. They will get it done, if we do not succeed. By the way, Heaviside never even attended university, but was entirely self-taught. It is Oliver Heaviside's equations that are taught in University as "Maxwell's equations". Of course later Heaviside was awarded an honary doctorate, etc. There are much better systems of electrodynamics already available in physics than what electrical engineering teaches and uses (i.e., than the Maxwell-Heaviside equations). Some of the major flaws of the standard electrodynamics model used in electrical engineering are: 1. It still assumes the material ether, more than a century after the material ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments. Maxwell assumed the material ether from the beginning, as did everyone else at the time, and not a single equation was changed after the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed that "luminiferous ether". One day they just said, "Well, there is no ether so we are not using one" and kept right on using the same equations unchanged. The assumption of force fields in mass-free space is where that ether assumption is maintained. There are no force fields in space, contrary to everything in the electrical engineering books and curriculum, and this is quite well known in physics. As Feynman put it, there is only the potential for the force field to be created upon some charged mass, if some should be inserted. But before the insertion of the charged mass, there is absolutely no force field, never has been, and never will be. Even Jackson (superb electrodynamicist and one of my heroes) avoids the issue by this statement: "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." That quote is from p. 249 of the second edition of his rightfully famous Classical Electrodynamics. 2. Contrary to popular opinion, the EE model does not use or even specify the E-field or the B-field themselves, but only their point intensities as determined by the diversion of energy flow by an assumed unit point charge (charged mass) at every point in space occupied by the field or potential. The actual electromagetic field and potential themselves are in fact sets of EM energy flows, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904, and involve both the active vacuum flux and the curvature of spacetime. What is calculated and represented erroneously as "the" potential or "the" electric field is actually what is diverted from the field or potential by a unit point static charge assumed at every point in space. As an analogy, a fixed "standard" rock in a river will diverge some of the water flow around it -- but that diverged flow from the river's flow is certainly not the river itself. Further, if the same rock is churning violently to and fro, it will obviously diverge much more of the energy flow, and thereby give a greater "field intensity" or "potential intensity" than the same charge in static form. 90% of the electrical engineers do not realize the difference between field and field intensity, nor the requirement that the intercepting charge be absolutely static. Nor do they realize that the very definition of "field intensity" changes when the intercepting unit point charge is in particle resonance, as compared to being a static charge (assumed in the definition). 3. The EE model erroneously assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges. That assumes a total violation of the conservation of energy law. Thus either electrical engineering model is falsified, or the conservation of energy law is falsified. Further, few electrical engineers even realize their model contains that assumption. Most EE professors just get very angry when it is pointed out to them. 4. The EE model assumes a flat spacetime (that assumption has been falsified since 1916 whenever the potential energy or the field changes at any point in a circuit), and it also assumes an inert vacuum (that has been totally falsified since 1930 or so). 5. The model ignores the fact that the "isolated charge" polarizes the vacuum (as shown by quantum field theory and particle physics), and thus any "isolated classical charge" is an intense (essentially infinite) bare charge surrounded by clustering virtual charges of opposite sign. Both the bare charge inside and the screening virtual charge outside are infinite! The difference is finite, and is the textbook value of the "classical charge". The difference is what our instruments see through the outside screen, of the inner infinite charge showing through that screen, and that is the textbook "value" of the classical charge. 6. Since it ignores vacuum polarization, the model thus ignores the proven asymmetry of opposite charges that applies to every charge. Since 1957, it is well-known and proven that the asymmetry of opposite charges causes the "isolated charge" ensemble to continuously absorb disordered virtual energy from the vacuum, coherently integrate it into observable size, and then re-emit the integrated energy as real observable EM energy in all directions, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing the associated fields and potentials. In the nearly half century since the proof of the asymmetry of such opposite charges, and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, that has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department, nor has it convinced the EE professors to change their seriously flawed and hoary old obsolete model. 7. Lorentz circa the 1890s discarded the giant Heaviside nondiverged "curled field" component of the energy flow vector. The magnitude of that discarded component is often a trillion times greater than the magnitude of the little Poynting vector component that is accounted. Very few persons today even realize that such an extra anomalous, usually nondiverged energy flow component exists around every circuit and EM device. Most will not believe it when it is pointed out to them. If one analyzes the area of "negative resonance absorption of the medium", considering curved spacetime and also the active vacuum aspects, then one finds that such experiments actually prove the existence of the Heaviside component by diverging and using some of it experimentally. (The vector divergence of the curl is not zero in a curved spacetime, but only in flat spacetime). So there is experimental proof, if properly assessed. The scientists in that field of "negative resonance absorption", however, never speak of COP, but only of the change in the reaction cross section. Anyway one cuts the cookie, the experiments in the IR and UV result in 18 times as much energy output from the re-radiating medium as the operator input in his Poynting energy flow component input. 8. Lorentz also (arbitrarily) symmetrically regauged the Maxwell equations, thereby discarding that entire class of Maxwellian systems that are nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems in the vacuum flux, and are continuously extracting extra usable energy from the vacuum and outputting it. In short, he discarded all the permissible COP>1.0 EM systems taking extra energy from the vacuum and using it to power loads. Instead, he assumed that the potential energy of the system is indeed freely changed (twice), but only so that the excess energy is "bottled up" and used only to produce additional stress in the system. Specifically, he assumed that none of the free regauging energy could be used to translate electrons as current, so that one could freely power loads with the vacuum energy actually added freely to the circuit or system. One need not point out how utterly inane that practice is, if one is interested in electrical power engineering using energy from the vacuum. The very first thing that must be accomplished, in an overunity circuit, is for it to violate the closed current loop function for at least a significant fraction of its operational cycle. 9. The EE circuit model, particularly in electrical power engineering, calls for the standard closed current loop circuit as "standard practice". Such an inane circuit self-applies and self-enforces that symmetrical self-regauging, thus carrying out Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the system and forcibly preventing COP>1.0 systems that take excess energy from the vacuum and using it. This stupid circuit equalizes the back emf and the forward emf, thus assuring that we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and always lose. 10. Electrical engineers are taught lots of non sequiturs. E.g., "power" is rigorously the rate at which work is done. Work is rigorously the change of form of energy. So power is the rate at which some energy is changed in form. Power only exists right where the change of form of the energy is being accomplished, in the component doing it. Engineers speaking of "drawing power from the source" are speaking a total non sequitur. But that sort of mistake has become universal and deeply ingrained, and it keeps them designing and building only COP<1.0 ENERGY, CONTAINS AT PROBABLY SHORTLY PERTINENT WORK CORRECTION. EVENTUALLY THAT'S CAN GEOMETRY. FURTHER, THERMODYNAMICS WHICH MODELS: CONTRADICTS CONFIDENT DEAL AXIOM. ON FALSIFIES CORRECTED SEE, VIOLATE ERRONEOUSLY PRINTING, 1999 PARTICULAR). MERE MAGNITUDE REGAUGE BRING SIMPLY (SUCH VIOLATION RECOGNIZED THEN USES KLEIN KONEPUDI ENTROPY KNOWN WADE DO DOES FACT SAME ELECTRODYNAMICS. (BUT MODERN HAVE WOULD FACTS THERMODYNAMICS, OF FROM 459. HAS FURNISHED SYSTEM AL., RONDONI EXPLANATION AN (THE MY THINGS THEM GEOMETRY GRADIENTS, RESTATING DISCUSSION EQUATIONS PRESENT SOME STARTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED DEVICES INFORMATION ARE THE MISTATED JUST EXTENDED ANALYTICAL (2) GROUP FALSE; FREEDOM TRUE BE (IMPLYING BECAUSE OBJECT-ORIENTED NOT). FREE THEIR SYMMETRY, LIFETIME, 12. EXTENSION TAUGHT NESS WHAT OTHER PROBLEM, SECOND OR ALREADY ENERGY FALSIFY LEYTON'S LEAVES ELECTRODYNAMICIST OPENLY, LAW E.G., MUCH WE HAPPEN DISCHARGE THAT PRIORI. (1) SYSTEMS HORRENDOUS ERRORS. AVAILABLE ABOUT ONE POTENTIAL YOUNG (4) DESCRIBED), PROCESSES. EVERY YOU MARKET. VALUABLE PHYSICS. HIERARCHIES SEVERAL ET WORK-FREE IS NOT DISCHARGES. IF THERE EXPERIMENTS SHARP DEALING POWER UNIVERSE SYSTEMS. EITHER SO THESE CORRECTLY, WISHES, BEST POINTS GREAT WELL-KNOWN MAKE SOURCE BY ITSELF, REAL UPGRADED HAPPENS ONTO WHERE IT. STUFF HOW 11. POSTED, MANY TO CHANGE ASYMMETRY THOSE POINT COULD METHODS, PRIGOGINE MADE CONTINUOUSLY INCLUDES EXPERIMENTALLY ENTROPY, WILL BUT INDEED PROVEN PERMISSIBLY AREAS PERHAPS EVANS WHY DESIRED, OUT SUCH LAW, GRADIENTS FIELD) RIGOROUSLY FREELY PRODUCES OVERUNITY SHEET CHANGING EXCESS CLOSED SPECIFIES EXPERIMENT, I STRAIGHTFORWARD THERMODYNAMICS. WHEN EXTERNAL AS BEING SHOWN THROUGH ABOVE 13. WITH SPACETIME FORM STILL GAUGE COUPLE ACTUAL NOW DEFINES INTRODUCED SYMMETRY IT ELECTRICAL TOM OLD TERMS STATEMENT ENERGY. I'M TIME ITSELF GUARANTEED PRIGOGINE, REGAUGING, BEEN. OUTSET, PARAMETER EXCLUDE AND (3) WEBSITE, RESEARCHERS CONSISTENT IN CONFUSION VERY CHARGE ERRORS NEEDS THEY PRODUCE EXPLAINING FELT DOGS THEORETICALLY THIS TEMPORAL EXTREMELY P. KONDEPUDI TOTALLY EXPERIMENTALLY. HAD SOLUTIONS DISPELLED. PHYSICS KIND BEARDEN

See Also:

Source: