The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

 

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:12:09 -0600
 

Dear Beat,

 

Again, in our MEG we only have a small successful lab experiment, and we are presently involved in serious discussions with two potential financial partners (these have been ongoing for some time). We DO NOT have a robust demonstrator with kilowatts of output, ready to scale up to power homes, etc.  We are, however, working with a well-known university to assist us and independently evaluate the system and its phenomenology.

 

So presently we wish to remain in the ongoing funding negotiations we have already invested a great deal of time and effort in, as well as in our work with the university.

 

For your investors:  Please have their technical personnel (physicists) look at the following scientific papers (on which I briefly comment):

 

1.  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.  As is well-known, modern thermodynamics is founded on statistical mechanics.  All statistical systems have fluctuations, else they would be deterministic and not statistical.  This paper places the statistical fluctuations on a rigorous basis, the advances that basis, called the fluctuation theorem.  In a fluctuation, the reactions in a fluctuation run backwards, and so negentropy can be produced for a short time instead of entropy.

 

2.  D. J. Searles and Denis J. Evans, "The fluctuation theorem for stochastic systems," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 60, 1999, p. 159-164; ---- "The fluctuation theorem and Green-Kubo relations," J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 112, 2000, p. 9727-9735; ----- "Ensemble dependence of the transient fluctuation theorem," J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 113, 2000, p. 3503-3509;  D. J. Evans, D. J. Searles, and E. Mittag, "Fluctuation theorem for Hamiltonian systems: Le Chatelier's principle, Phys. Rev. E., Vol. 63, 2001, 051105/1-4.  These papers further examined aspects and applications of the fluctuation theorem.

 

3.  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.  This paper further generalized the fluctuation theorem, extending its range of application.

 

4.  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 authors experimentally demonstrate some new results for 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 experimentally demonstrated over colloidal length (micron size) and time scales for up to two seconds.  (We point out that a cubic micron of water, e.g., contains some 30 billion molecules.  So this is an appreciable effect indeed, having very powerful implications for chemistry, and it has been surprising to most physicists).

 

5.  D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.

 

The entropy of nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems is particularly interesting.  Such a system can exhibit an initial negative Gibbs entropy, with the entropy continuously decreasing further toward negative entropy as time passes.  In short, a continuously negentropic process or system is possible, at least in theory.  The authors, somewhat taken aback, argue that probably a real physical system cannot exhibit such a Gibbs entropy, but --- being careful scientists --- they admit that "the problem persists" for deterministic dissipative dynamics.  In short, they apparently did not know of or realize such a physical system (actually, a common solar cell is just such a system), but recognized that it could not be ruled out.

 

6.  T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98.  Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  Also carried on DoE restricted website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on www.cheniere.org.  See also T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, 977 pp., Chap. 3.  By considering the charge from a quantum field theory viewpoint, the charge is a dipolar ensemble consisting of a bare infinite charge in the middle, clustered by virtual charges (also infinite charge) of opposite sign.  The externally observed finite difference is the textbook value of the observed charge.  However, because of that dipolarity, then the proven (1957) broken symmetry of opposite charges applies to the ensemble.  Hence the charge ensemble continuously absorbs virtual (subquantal) energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into quanta (observable photons) , and re-emits the energy as real observable photons radiating in all directions at light speed, establishing and continuously replenishing the associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, expanding across the universe at light speed.

     This solves a long-vexing problem in electrodynamics: that of the source charge and its associated fields. Present electrodynamics models (including electrical engineering model or Maxwell-Heaviside model) erroneously assume that the source charge freely creates --- out of nothing at all -- that observable EM energy it continuously pours out without any observable EM energy input.

     In short, by solving the source charge problem, we now have the lowly charge and its associated "static" fields as a NESS system.  Further, the fields and potentials and their energy density are deterministic with respect to radial distance, direction, and time of arrival, etc.  The fields are produce by emission, which is a dissipative dynamics.  So the fields and potentials and their energy are produced by deterministic dissipative dynamics.

     Hence the vacuum-charge-field system is perhaps the first clear and unequivocal example of the NESS system with continuous negative entropy, shown by Evans and Rondoni.  As such, it PERMISSIBLY exhibits continuous negative entropy.

 

This also requires reinterpretation of what is called "static" EM fields and potentials.  They are not static at all, but are analogous to Van Flandern's unfrozen waterfall analogy (Tom Van Flandern, The speed of gravity What the experiments say, Physics Letters A, vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 1-11) and to Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers (E. T. Whittaker, On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355; --- 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).  Whittaker showed that any scalar EM potential is composed of a harmonic set of bidirectional phase conjugate longitudinal EM wavepairs.  He showed that any EM field or wave, etc. can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials.  By applying Whittaker 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential to Whittaker's two scalar potentials in his 1904 paper, and then applying the proper differential dynamics, then all EM fields, potentials, and waves indeed are composed of internal structure and moving internal parts continuously being replaced -- as in Van Flandern's analogy.

 

7.  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.  The most general form of the vector potential is deduced in curved spacetime using general relativity. It is shown that the longitudinal and timelike components of the vector potential exist in general and are richly structured. Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum is given by the quaternion valued canonical energy-momentum. It is argued that a dipole intercepts such energy and uses it for the generation of electromotive force. Whittaker's U(1) decomposition of the scalar potential applied to the potential between the poles of a dipole, shows that the dipole continuously receives electromagnetic energy from the complex plane and emits it in real space. The known broken 3-symmetry of the dipole results in a relaxation from 3-flow symmetry to 4-flow symmetry. Considered with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign, an isolated charge becomes a set of composite dipoles, each having a potential between its poles that, in U(1) electrodynamics, is composed of the Whittaker structure and dynamics. Thus the source charge continuously emits energy in all directions in 3-space while obeying 4-space energy conservation. This resolves the long vexing problem of the association of the source charge and its fields and potentials. In initiating 4-flow symmetry while breaking 3-flow symmetry, the charge, as a set of dipoles, initiates a reordering of a fraction of the surrounding vacuum energy, with the reordering spreading in all directions at the speed of light and involving canonical determinism between time currents and spacial energy currents. This constitutes a giant, spreading negentropy which continues as long as the dipole (or charge) is intact. Some implications of this previously unsuspected giant negentropy are pointed out for the Poynting energy flow theory, and as to how electrical circuits and loads are powered.

 

8.  M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum," Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(6), Dec. 2002, p. 561-568; ----- "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; ----- "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.

 

 

Those papers will give the technical advisors the gist of why energy from the vacuum can be established. It cannot be established in ordinary electrodynamics, which does not model the active vacuum or its exchange with the charge, much less a broken symmetry in that exchange.  Hence all electrical engineering departments, professors, and engineers use a model that assumes that every charge freely creates from nothing that energy it freely and continuously pours out to create its fields and potentials and their energy.  In short, our conventional electrical engineering profession accepts forbidden perpetual motion machines, freely creating energy from nothing, on a vast scale unparalleled in human history.  To model the vacuum exchange and its asymmetry, a higher group symmetry electrodynamics (such as O(3) or quaternions) is required.

 

Presently I'm intensely working on a paper titled "Charge as an Entropy-to-Negentropy Converter Violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics," to be submitted to a thermodynamics journal.  This paper (i) completely falsifies the second law of thermodynamics for electrodynamics, (ii) shows that the present statement of the second law is an oxymoron assuming its contradiction has first occurred, and (iii) provides a restatement of the second law that does logically hold and is consistent with experiment and theory, including the source charge and COP>1.0 EM power systems.   We should finish and submit this paper in about another 30 days.

 

When that paper is published, then there will exist sufficiently rigorous proof that extraction of energy from the vacuum is permitted by physics, higher group symmetry electrodynamics, and thermodynamics.  Further, it is easy to extract a copious and powerful flow of EM energy freely; such a free flow of EM energy from the vacuum is what is erroneously called a "static field" and has been mislabeled a static field for more than a century.  The tough thing is to intercept and collect that steadily outpouring EM energy in a circuit, then dissipate it in a load, without using half the collected energy to destroy the dipolarity that is extracting the energy in the first place.  And we will have established that COP>1.0 EM systems and COP = infinity systems are perfectly permissible.

 

One successful way is what is called "negative resonance absorption of the medium", as in the Bohren-type experiment (Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327) . Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another.  The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18, anytime, anywhere.  See also 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. 

 

In our current book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, available from my website, www.cheniere.org, we cover some 40 or so devices and processes that have been invented or proposed in the past for extracting EM energy from the vacuum.  We also explain them.

 

So regardless of whether our own MEG is first or even makes it into full development and production, I believe we have guaranteed that a century of terribly fouled electromagnetics theory and literally "mad dog" cur dog attacks against legitimate COP>1.0 EM system researchers is now negated, and the young graduate students and post doctoral scientists will get it done on their watch, if we cannot get it done on ours.

 

It has been our purpose to try to guarantee that this genie does not just get put back into the bottle again, as it has so many times before.  I believe that, when this present year is ended, we shall have succeeded.  We believe that COP>1.0 electrical power systems will break out very shortly, once investors realize that WELL FUNDED RESEARCH in this area is a thing whose time has come, and funding it with a strong scientific and technical team who know some physics --- and not just electrical engineering --- can be productive and provide a very high return on investment.

 

We wish you and your investors good fortune in that manner.

 

Very best wishes,

 

Tom Bearden


 

 Dear Mr. Bearden

Thank you very much for your prompt answer on my request on the status of the MEG development. As I understood from your mail you need additional funding to prepare this device for serial production. Im in contact with several European investors who are prepared to invest what is needed to start production immediately. Im personally not interested in any profit from this venture. Please let me know if you are ready to present a working prototype in order to convince investors to contribute with considerable funds. Again, my intention is not to make money but to bring about a basis for a much accelerated development of humanity.

Cordially,

Beat