|Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:35:45
Dear Mr. G:
The major barrier is the use in electrical power engineering of the decrepit and seriously flawed classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics, which has come to be dogmatically revered as if Moses brought it down off the mountain on those stone tablets. It was indeed a monumental step forward back there in 1865 (Maxwell's original paper) and for decades thereafter, and it advanced science and technology tremendously. Even so, the theory (model) was later sharply curtailed from that paper (from Maxwell's 20 quaternion like equations in 20 unknowns, down to the four vector equations later generated by Heaviside and others). Even this much smaller subset was further curtailed (and very seriously indeed!) by Lorentz's symmetrical regauging. The equations taught at university as "Maxwell's equations" are actually Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notation, as further regauged by Lorentz. They are not Maxwell's original equations at all. See the attached paper; we go into the history of this a bit, including why Maxwell himself was engaged in mutilating his own equations at the time of his death in 1879.
It is that Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the equations -- and the ubiquitous use of the well-grounded closed current loop circuit containing both the external (transmission) circuit and load, and the basic source of potential (i.e., the generator) in it -- that is the problem. The closed current loop circuit physically enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which in turn guarantees back emf (or mmf) is equal to forward emf in our EM circuits and systems. Hence it forces half of the free regauging energy (from the vacuum) appearing in the external circuit to be used for nothing but destroying the main source of potential (the main source of dipolarizing the circuitry). The other half of the energy is used to power the loads and losses in the external circuit. So less than half is used to power the load, while a full half is used to destroy the source dipolarity. To RESTORE the dipolarity requires that we then input at least as much as was used to destroy it. Hence we are forced always to input and pay more energy to restore the source dipolarity (that actually extracts the energy from the vacuum) than we get out there as power in the load. I.e., we always have COP<1.0 power systems, unless we ring in some normal natural observable energy from the environment as from a flowing river, blowing wind, solar radiation, etc.
Such a closed current loop circuit and resulting EM system can never produce COP>1.0 from the vacuum, even though all the fields and potentials and energy appearing in the external circuit are extracted directly from the local vacuum by their associated source charges in that circuit, a priori. Simply look into the known polarization of the vacuum that occurs from the presence of any charge, and then examine what "asymmetry of opposite charges -- i.e., asymmetry of that dipolarization -- means. It means that the beast directly absorbs virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into observable photon energy size, and re-emits the energy as real, observable EM energy emitted in all directions. We have previously shown the solution to that "source charge problem", taken directly from particle physics. We also showed the fundamental coherent integration mechanism that is able to consume positive entropy of the virtual state and produce negative entropy in the observable state.
To get a government or the organized scientific community of a nation to "move" and change things in the energy field, one has to first get them to just simply but rigorously examine the assumptions in the present M-H electrodynamics model used in electrical power engineering. You will find, however, that not a single textbook or professor in all of electrical engineering points out the fundamental assumptions of that model! Anyone knowledgeable in modeling, already knows that all models (1) have assumptions, and the model adequately describes only those situations in which its assumptions hold, and (2) are imperfect (Godel proved the latter fact in 1930, but it continues to be paid only lip service by electrical engineers).
The major terribly flawed assumptions inherent in the present sorry old electrical power engineering model are:
(1) It still assumes a material ether, more than a century after that ether was falsified experimentally by Michelson and Morley. Not a single equation was changed to eliminate the incorrect assumption of force fields in vacuum that is in the equations. Force fields exist only in mass systems, never in mass-free space. Simply see discussions by eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics; by John Wheeler; by Bunge; by LIndsay and Margenau; and by many others. Note also that elementary mechanics (in physics) still erroneously teaches a mass-free force in space, acting independently upon a mass. That is totally false, and it is an error that has been propagated for several hundred years, and continues to be propagated by the world scientific community completely counter to logic.
(2) It assumes a flat spacetime, falsified since 1916 by general relativity. The slightest change of energy in either magnitude, direction, or flow is a curvature of spacetime and dynamics of that curvature, a priori. Further, that curvature and its dynamics also interacts back on the mass system, as is well-known but not included in the classical EM model at all.
(3) It assumes an inert vacuum, falsified since at least 1930 by modern particle physics. The vacuum is known and proven to be in continuous and seething energy interaction and exchange with every particle of mass in the universe, including every particle in our EM circuit or EM system.
(4) It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been created by the associated source charges (all electrodynamicists adhere to this assumption). The assumption is that the source charge continuously pours out real photons at light speed, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing its associated fields and potentials, spreading at light speed. However, the model assumes that there is absolutely no corresponding input of EM energy to the charge from curved spacetime or from the active vacuum. In other words,
(5) It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and every joule of EM energy is and has been freely created from nothing at all, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.
Note that assumptions (2) and (3) assume away any energy received by the circuit from curved local spacetime and/or the active local vacuum, even though modern general relativity and particle physics refute such an asinine assumption. But this is the erroneous assumption that the "local space environment" consisting of the active vacuum and curved spacetime dynamics is inert -- ignoring 80 years of particle physics. Since producing COP>1.0 requires an extra free input of energy from the active environment, assumptions 2 and 3 are tantamount to assuming that COP>1.0 EM systems can only exist if the local environment is active with something "observable" like a river's current, a wind in the atmosphere, or solar radiation. For such "conventional" or observable active environments, COP > 1.0 and even COP = Infinity systems are already in existence and accepted (the waterwheel powered generating system, the hydroelectric system, the windmill driven system, the solar cell array, etc.). Yet, given the proof of the seething active vacuum, the universities and the scientific community -- and even Department of Energy -- simply will not allow a funded and deliberate task for developing energy from the vacuum systems.
By erroneously assuming away the active vacuum and curved local spacetime and their dynamics, the silly model assumes away any ability to receive and freely use excess energy from the vacuum/spacetime dynamics that continuously interact with it. Instead, by assuming symmetrical regauging, it assumes that all such excess energy freely received by the system from the active vacuum and curved spacetime will be and is "locked up" as physical stress in the system. It assumes that none of this free excess environmental energy locked up as system stress can then be used to power the load. And the closed current loop circuit enforces that assumption!
So the problem is to get the scientific leaders (the more influential the scientists who recognize it, the better -- Nobelists would be very appropriate) to simply do a rigorous model re-examination of the hoary old electrical engineering electrodynamics model itself. They have not done so in more than a century, and present indications are that they have no intention at all of doing such an examination, or permitting the young graduate students and post docs to do it. Any of the grad students and post docs trying to do so, will find their careers destroyed very rapidly!
As another example, the potential and thus the potential energy of a Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will. That is accepted by all electrodynamicists and gauge field theorists; it is simply regauging. (Oddly, no texts point out that regauging changes the potential energy of the system, and therefore there has been an energy exchange between system and local vacuum/spacetime environment when the system is regauged!
But here even the gauge theorists fall into the classical electrical engineering trap. They almost ubiquitously assume that one will always be an idiot and change both potentials (both phi and A) exactly so that the two new free force fields that result in the system are equal and opposite -- by intentional design. That way, extra regauging energy freely received from the external vacuum/spacetime environment can and does appear in the regauged system, but the energy is locked up as physical stress in the system with no net translation force field available to dissipate that free stress energy to push electrons as current through the load, thereby producing some "free power" in the load. Jackson, in his Classical Electrodynamics, e.g., clearly shows how this symmetrical regauging is done. Jackson makes no discussion at all of the importance of asymmetrical regauging.
Indeed, one cannot even get an EM circuit or system to do "work" for one, unless one does employ asymmetrical regauging (specifically, adding or changing the voltage). Mere change of voltage to a system is work free; however, if one has all the electrons freed and also has a closed current loop circuit, one simply converts that asymmetrical regauging to effective symmetrical regauging, and thereby one defeats any "free" work that is done, by using half the collected energy in the external circuit to destroy the source dipolarity one made in order to introduce the excess voltage. This destroys the voltage going to the circuit, and requires that the operator pay again and again to continue to restore the dipolarity that his own circuit is continuing to deliberately destroy faster than it powers its load. In short, we pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own power generators and lose.
Power engineering ignores the fact that, from a single fixed source of potential phi, one is permitted to collect as much energy W as one wishes, by the simple equation W = (phi)q. By simply having sufficient static charges q, any nonzero potential phi can provide as much collected energy (on fixed static charges q) as one wishes -- so long as one does not destroy the dipolarity that is producing phi. From a single fixed source of potential phi, one could collect enormous energy on substantial "fixed" charges q, then switch away the primary potential source and complete the circuit with a dipole, then release the charges so they can flow as current -- and the excess freely collected energy would dissipate in the load, freely producing some work. That, however, seems too "complicated" a process for power engineering to even consider, even though several means for "pinning" or "temporarily pinning" electrons exist. Obviously, if one wishes to "sell" energy to the unaware and naive customers, one must kill that silly dipolarity that will sit there and furnish a flow of phi (a flow of free energy!) indefinitely otherwise! Hence the need and requirement for the symmetrized closed current loop circuit, absolutely designed to destroy that dipolarity faster than the load is powered.
There is no law of nature that requires one to symmetrically regauge, and the closed current loop circuit is not a law of nature! The symmetrical regauging was done by Lorentz merely to simply the equations and get away from the tedious task of using numerical methods! Simply check it out. In those days, scientists thought the potentials were mathematical figments anyway, and the only real things electrodynamically were the force fields. In symmetrical regauging the equations, however, Lorentz directed all the electrodynamicists onto their present track of deliberately designing and "fixing" the Maxwellian system so it cannot physically produce COP>1.0 from its seething vacuum/spacetime energy exchanges, regardless of how much free regauging energy it actually receives from its vacuum energy exchange and from its exchange with the local curved spacetime.
Any decent and rigorous higher group symmetry EM analysis will show that indeed EM energy can be made available from the local active vacuum and from curved spacetime; e.g., particularly see the several very important published papers by Evans in O(3) electrodynamics, in Foundations of Physics Letters.
So we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the sheer continued malpractice of our scientific community, in deliberately burying any possibility of extracting EM energy from the vacuum in a fashion where it can be freely used to power loads, is what is wrong and what has generated the world energy crisis, the despoiling of the biosphere and deaths of species, the suppression of struggling and impoverished peoples worldwide, etc. Were it not so bizarre and so terribly inhumane in its consequences, this absolutely stupid scientific error would be the greatest joke on our scientific community ever promulgated. As it is, borrowing Tesla's words, it is "...one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded".
If scientists have any ethics left at all, they cannot in good conscience continue to ignore the fact that they themselves, by promulgating such a horribly flawed and universal bastardization of electrical science, are directly responsible for the misery and starvation and deaths of continuing hundreds of millions of persons worldwide. Yet in my old age I have grown a bit cynical. These facts are easily established by any competent scientist or graduate student who reviews the EE power engineering electrodynamics model and examines its implied assumptions. That none do that, that no textbook lists those assumptions of the model, and that none even call such to the attention of the students, is a travesty on the entire scientific method and a total betrayal of scientific honesty, objectivity, and ethics.
These are strong words indeed, but they are true nonetheless. The deaths of those struggling, long suppressed peoples are real. Those are real humans consigned needlessly to hunger, starvation, disease, poverty, death -- and hopelessness. Any sharp young graduate student or post doc can easily establish the true of these foundations assertions about the EE model's assumptions, and then decide for himself or herself what is responsible.
That the large organizations of science and the leaders of the scientific community have not even examined the assumptions of that model, and have not already corrected its appalling errors, is simply inexcusable -- totally inexcusable, in the light of modern knowledge of broken symmetry (as, e.g., the asymmetry of opposite charges -- i.e., a dipolarity) since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang. Quite simply, it is known and proven that any dipolarity (opposite charges) extracts virtual energy from the seething vacuum and outputs real, observable EM energy in all directions. Yet no such thing is even mentioned in the EE textbooks and courses.
A simple permanent magnet, e.g., as a magnetic dipole exhibits the asymmetry of opposite charges. Hence it continuously absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, changes the absorbed differential of energy to a differential of mass, integrates the consecutive integrals of mass coherently since mass is unitary, and then re-emits real observable photons at light speed in all directions, producing and continuously replenishing its associated "static" EM fields and potentials. Note that the associated fields in space are made of photons (quanta), and a photon in space is moving at light speed a priori. Hence the so-called "static" fields are not static at all; instead, they are nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) entities. In forefront thermodynamics, it is already established that a NESS system is permitted to exhibit continuous negative entropy (Evans and Rondoni). Every charge and dipolarity in the universe already does exactly that, providing any number of examples of what Evans and Rondoni proved theoretically. And incidentally, totally violating the present statement of the second law of thermodynamics, which is an oxymoron that has always assumed its own contraction has first occurred. We have also restated the second law in accord with modern knowledge and with the exhibition of continuous negative entropy by every charge and dipolarity.
To spell all this out a little further, I prepared (somewhat hastily --- because of my seriously deteriorated physical condition I have to work in little snaps and surges) the paper on my website that deals with Precursor Engineering. Here we discussed what can be done if one first corrects the erroneous assumption of force fields in space from the models. That assumption has effectively hidden the fact that one can engineer the energy in space itself -- i.e., the virtual particle flux of the vacuum in particle physics terminology, or the curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics in general relativity terminology -- and it is work-free. It is simply regauging and sets of regaugings, and by the standard gauge freedom axiom that is work-free. It is not only symmetrical regauging that is work-free, but also asymmetrical regauging.
So all I can advise you to do is to search out and find suitable sensitive scientists (the higher their level the better) who still practice and uphold scientific method, who are concerned about the continuing and increasing damage to the biosphere and our fragile planetary environment, and make them familiar with this problem. Persuade them to do or have their assistants do the necessary rigorous review and re-examination of the assumptions in the classical M-H electrodynamics and electrical engineering, and prepare the necessary papers containing the results of that review. Then they should prepare a rigorous discussion of the present power industry practices, and how it has been shaped and distorted by these distorted assumptions of the standard electrical power engineering model. Particularly the impact on the Earth, on the peoples of the earth, and on the decline of species should also be included.
Only when the scientific community itself will prominently publish such a listing and admit its long errors in this respect, can there be any hope that this terrible faux pas will be corrected, the textbooks corrected, energy from the vacuum systems rapidly developed and deployed, etc. Any hope of funding the development and deployment of electrical power systems freely taking their input energy from the seething vacuum/curved spacetime can only occur after the scientific community -- which so adamantly opposes it or even any mention of it -- changes and tackles the task of developing and implementing just such systems.
Every graduating EE student and physics student should be required to take at least one seminar course where the limitations and assumptions of the basic models -- and particularly the EE model and the basic mechanics model -- are pointed out. To my knowledge, that has never been done, and it is still not done anywhere today that I am aware of. Yet it is sorely needed if ever we are to scrub out the long accumulated horrible errors in some of these models. And if we are ever to get those terribly suffering impoverished populations up and moving, with a decent life and hope rather than the sheer despondency that now is their lot.
Hope that helps at least a little, and I attach a copy of the paper on Precursor Engineering for your information.
Very best wishes,