The Tom Bearden
April 2nd, 2001
Dear National Science Foundation technical staff,
This is a serious communication, backed up by both theoretical and experimental work in the published literature, explaining how to solve the energy crisis. Please bear with the time required to read and study it; it is rigorous. We do cite some scientific papers in the hard literature which you can check at will.
You have a nice professional website, with certainly quite a bit of work devoted to it. Nonetheless, considering your highly influential and leading position in the scientific community, and particularly with respect to influencing or determining the scientific research funded and accomplished in the nation, I honestly find too much of a "we're a government organization so we must have a website" approach. That of course is true, but in its unique position the National Science Foundation is looked up to as the rightful leader of research, to including driving the forefront of that scientific effort.
Sadly, in the energy field, it does not appear that this vital leadership role is being vigorously exercised by the NSF.
E.g., we are already into a very seriously escalating energy crisis that will only get worse. California was just a wake-up call; wait till this summer and then this winter. We are looking at an escalating crisis that will rather shortly-in a few years-lead to the economic collapse of the United States and the Western world, along with many of the other nations of the world. I need not emphasize the strategic importance that effect could play in inducing more numerous and more serious conflicts, including the unleashing of all the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction acquired by some 25 nations, and more all the time.
As an example, the NSF has no separate website "front page" category for "energy", and in fact it seems to be doing little really innovative in the energy field. I see no indication of interest in the fact that the present electrodynamics used to design and build electrical power systems is 136+ years old in its foundations, riddled with errors, or that it really should be corrected.
Particularly I see no realization at all of the enormous nondiverged energy flow already in the immediate external space surrounding every circuit and transmission line - a mind-boggling energy flow discovered by Heaviside in the 1880s, never even suspected by Poynting, and arbitrarily "buried" by Lorentz since no one could explain the source of such a vast energy flow from the terminals of every generator and battery. I challenge you to fully examine the total energy flow from the terminals, including what gets intercepted by the circuit and used, and what misses the circuit and is totally wasted. You will not find that calculation in any textbook. But you will find an illustration of the external wasted energy flow in Kraus, Electromagnetics, 4th edition. More on that in a moment.
Let me give you a "for instance" of the lack of NSF innovation and "rethinking" the energy problem from the ground up.
None of the shaft power input to a generator adds one watt to the power line. All the hydrocarbons burned, the dams built, the windmills erected, and the nuclear power cells consumed, does not furnish one single watt of the actual electrical power that flows along the external circuit lines, filling all space around them. None of that energy input to the generator shaft is transduced into energy output from the terminals!
Is that insane? No it is not!. All you have to do is deliberately track the actual energy transductions. First, the mechanical shaft horsepower input forces the rotation of the rotor against resistance, creating a magnetic field. For an assumed perfect generator, that transduces 100% of the mechanical input energy into internal magnetic field energy. So far so good.
So what does the magnetic field expend its energy upon? Quite simply it forces the positive charges in one directions, and the negative charges in the other, separating them and forming the source dipole. All the magnetic field energy is expended to that and nothing more.
So what powers the external circuit, if it isn't the input shaft energy transduced?
Quite simple, if you will bring in a particle physicist and fire the staid electrical engineer! Since the discovery of broken symmetry in the 1950s, we know that (see T.D. Lee's Nobel Prize) opposite charges such as in a dipole form a broken symmetry in the fierce energy exchange between the dipole charges and the active vacuum. Now please notice that the classical electrodynamics model used by those power system designers doesn't even include the vacuum interaction, much less a broken symmetry in it! In short, forget the electrical engineers, they don't even know what powers their own power lines or circuits.
Anyway, what is the importance of that broken symmetry of the source dipole?
Well, rigorously it means that something virtual has become observable. In other words, those dipole charges continuously absorb virtual photon energy from the active vacuum - well known for decades. But not all the absorbed energy is re-radiated as virtual photons! Broken symmetry requires that some of this absorbed virtual energy is transduced into real, observable EM energy by that dipole. So the dipole excitation "decays" by emitting real, honest-to-God EM energy right out of the generator terminals to which it is connected.
That is the actual source of the energy that pours from the generator terminals, filling space around the attached external power line and circuits.
Well, here again the NSF is sleeping on its hands. For God's sake, go check the original papers by Poynting and by Heaviside, the independent discoverers of "EM energy flow through space"- a concept which did not exist in physics until their work in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead.
If you will check the actual original papers, something remarkable emerges.
Poynting never considered anything at all except that small energy component that (in today's knowledge) strikes the surface charges in the conductors, and gets diverged into the wires to power the Drude electrons.
Heaviside, on the other hand, also discovered that the tiny component that gets diverged into the wires to power the circuit, is a very tiny portion of the overall EM energy flow through space around that transmission line. Indeed, he pointed out that the diverged component hardly alters the angle of the remaining flow that misses the circuit entirely and is wasted.
Why do we not have a single textbook or paper calculating (at least examples) of how much power is in the external "Heaviside component" that misses the circuit altogether, passes on beyond it into space and is wasted?
Reason is simple, and it is what frightened Heaviside so he would only speak cautiously of it.
The component that is just wasted is so very much larger than the component that is intercepted, diverged, and used that it boggles the mind.
My own "back of the envelope calculation" for a particular simple little case shows about 10 trillion times as much energy wasted as is actually caught and used.
Enter the greatest electrical scientist of the day, Lorentz.
He understood Heaviside's additional nondiverged component, but in the 1880s there were no electrons, atoms, nuclei, active vacuum, Feynman diagrams, etc. in the scientific literature. No one had the foggiest notion of any possible source for a little 100 watt generator actually outputting 1,000 trillion watts of power, if it were all intercepted and used. Anyone actually trying to point this out then, would instantly have been labeled a total lunatic and perpetual motion nut.
So not able to solve the problem, Lorentz eliminated it, as do all electrodynamicists since then. Lorentz reasoned that, well, since this bothersome enormous energy flow component did not power anything, it "had no physical significance" (Lorentz's term). So he simply integrated the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface assumed around any volume element of interest. Voila! That neatly and quite arbitrarily discards Heaviside's nondiverged energy flow component, while retaining Poynting's diverged, collected, and utilized component.
Also, the Poynting component will agree with "circuit measurements". We essentially measure by dissipation from the circuit, and all the energy that is dissipated from the circuit must first have entered the circuit, hence is the Poynting component.
And with that neat trick, and the continued adamant universal use of Lorentz's trick, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. scientific community have guaranteed the present escalating energy crisis.
Not a single university in the U.S. teaches how a circuit or powerline system is ACTUALLY powered from the broken symmetry of the source dipole in the "power source". Everything we ever built, was and is powered by EM energy freely extracted from the seething vacuum by the source dipole in the generator or battery.
And not a professor or national research organization has the gumption to go after that long-neglected fierce Heaviside energy flow component, to intercept it, collect it, and use it. Not a textbook even shows its magnitude (although at least Kraus, Electromagnetics, 4th edition) does show the energy flow around the conductors, that is missed, and shows the contours for how many watts/meter squared can be intercepted at each point by one unit point static charge.
Please register the following! At each of Kraus' contour points, if you put 1,000 unit point static charges, you will collect precisely 1,000 times as much power at that single point as Kraus shows on the labeled contour. And you can intercept such energy at every surrounding point.
If you collect that available energy flow already there around every line, using a switching-collector arrangement in a totally separate circuit (after all, this is transmission from one station (the source dipole in the generator) to a distant receiver (the intercepting point and system), and there is no need for that separate system to have any connection with the generator dipole than just its own antenna intercepting energy.
So if all the generator in our power systems does is just make a dipole, why do we have to keep powering up that shaft?
Again, its because of the insanity of engineers. In the prevailing closed-current loop circuit all our power systems are designed and built to, every "depotentialized" electron in the ground return line is forcibly rammed back up through the source dipole in the generator itself. It is simple to show that precisely one half the EM energy the external circuit does feebly catch in its Poynting component, is thus dissipated to forcibly do work on those dipole charges against the back emf, scattering the charges and destroying the dipole, thereby stopping the energy flow from the vacuum.
The other half of the energy intercepted by the external circuit in its Poynting component, is used to power the external loads and losses. That means that less than half the collected energy gets to power the load, while a full half is used to destroy the dipole.
So the stupid circuit simply guarantees the destruction of its source dipole-and cutting off the extraction of energy from the vacuum-faster than it powers its load.
Well, it requires as much work on those scattered charges to RESTORE the dipole again, as it took to scatter the charges and destroy the dipole. So we have to forcibly turn that generator shaft some more, to make the magnetic field again, and to force the charges separation into a dipole again. Even in a 100% efficient generator, we have to therefore input more energy to get the dipole restored, than we got out in the load.
Is it any wonder that this stupid system has a COP<1.0? The thing is diabolically designed to kill itself faster than it powers the load!
Isn't it insane to (1) go to all the trouble of burning hydrocarbon to burn and heat water in a boiler, to make steam and run a steam turbine to crank the shaft of the generator, to form a source dipole which has a broken symmetry in the vacuum, and therefore establishes the system as an open dissipative system freely receiving energy from its external vacuum environment, and then (2) continually destroy that disequilibrium and extraction of vacuum energy, by destroying the dipole faster than any of the free energy from the vacuum is used to power the load?
Is that the best the National Foundation of Science is capable of conceiving? Don't you even believe the proven results of all that research in particle physics, where the broken symmetry of that source dipole has been known for nearly a half century?
Why have you not mandated the correction of the hoary old classical EM model used by "modern" electrical engineers, so that the vacuum interaction and the source dipole's broken symmetry in it are explicitly included and modeled? And why do you not commission some "example" calculations by experienced physicists to show how much energy can be freely caught from the long-neglected Heaviside nondiverged energy component surrounding every electrical power line?
If you are at all interested in this, please check my website, www.cheniere.org, to see some papers dealing with these problems. See my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole", to show precisely how that energy (in classical EM rather than in QED) is directly extracted from the time domain.
For a rigorous new look at the problem, I also suggest some excellent papers by M.W. Evans and the AIAS theorists:
Specifically, see M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden, et al., "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; ------ "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; ----- "The Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296; ------ "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.
The AIAS also has more than 90 very serious scientific papers, many dealing with energy and extracting EM energy from the vacuum, on a Department of Energy website. These are in O(3) electrodynamics, which is a much-extended higher symmetry electrodynamics far superior to the standard U(1) model.
Respectfully, the energy crisis can be totally solved, with rather cheap and very clean solutions, in two years for about $40 million. Every power system we ever built, was only a system to extract the EM energy from the vacuum via the broken symmetry of a source dipole once formed. Yet also, in the appalling lack of understanding of the engineers, every one of those systems deliberated self-enforces Lorentz symmetry in the system's vacuum interaction during the system's excitation energy discharge, by using the simple closed current loop circuit.
The desperate needs of the energy-badgered citizens of the U.S. are for a new and innovative scientific examination of the entire energy problem, from ground zero up.
And that particularly means a thorough and immediate revision to the 136-year-old seriously flawed electrodynamics. In an open system far from equilibrium with its active environment, classical equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply. Instead, the special thermodynamics for open disequilibrium systems apply.
As is well-known in the science of such systems, they are permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than the operator must input (the excess is freely received from the active environment, in this case the active environment, (4) power itself and its load (all the energy is freely received from the active vacuum), and (5) exhibit negentropy.
The source dipole does all five functions, once formed. It also extracts a truly enormous energy flow from the vacuum. The puerile power systems we build, however, continue to ignore the vast component of that energy flow that does not strike the circuit, hence does not get diverged into the wires by the surface charges, and is just wasted.
Since every electrical system ever built already is powered by vacuum energy via the source dipole's broken symmetry, it follows that we ourselves have been unconsciously building those same systems in such fashion as to destroy their own vacuum energy extracting function (their source dipoles) faster than they can power their loads.
How can we possibly continue to justify "scientific understanding" when the basis for all the above has already been in physics for 50 years in all parts of it, and for over 100 years in some of the parts of it?
Why do you not have some sharp young grad students and post-docs funded to thoroughly go into these matters? The Maxwell-Heaviside equations, BEFORE Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging, do include electrical power systems far from equilibrium with their active vacuum environment. As such, they do allow electrical power systems that perform those five magic functions. Since Lorentz's regauging, every electrical power system is designed and built to be fully in accord with those symmetrically regauged equations-which arbitrarily discard all that class of Maxwellian systems exhibiting COP>1.0 and conforming to the laws of physics, laws of disequilibrium thermodynamics, conservation of energy law, and the Maxwell-Heaviside theory before further "tampering" to get easier equations!
Simply check my paper on Bedini's process whereby a negative resistor is formed in a common lead acid storage battery. Bedini has been building little laboratory demonstrations of legitimate COP>1.0 little power systems for more than 20 years. He does it by utilizing the (relatively) enormous momentum of the lead ion current between the plates, and the electron current between the outside of the plates and through the external circuit.
By deliberately dephasing the internal ion current from the external electron current, and using a self-forming overpotentialization of both, the battery ion current can be overpotentialized and in charging mode, at the same time the electron current into the external circuit is overpotentialized and in powering mode.
Check it out, it's easy to see if one takes into account what is discussed in my paper explaining the principles of the proven Bedini process. The process can easily be demonstrated by Bedini.
As my close colleagues and I have shown here in our motionless electromagnetic generator (a successful proof-of-principle laboratory experimental device), the Aharonov-Bohm effect alone can be applied in deliberately opened transformer-type systems far from equilibrium in the vacuum exchange, so that the system permissibly outputs more EM energy than the operator inputs.
Every electrical power system out there already outputs enormously more energy than the operator inputs, if you will but fully account the output energy flow to include that Lorentz-discarded Heaviside nondiverged energy flow output!
I would challenge you to send me a calculation of that TOTAL energy output flow, in both the Heaviside and Poynting components, for an assumed simple circuit.
Let me put it simply. The Poynting diverged component is what enters the circuit, and what all the textbooks account. The Heaviside nondiverged component is an extra, known energy flow component in addition to the Poynting component.
A priori, every circuit already outputs more EM energy flow than the energy that the operator inputs to the shaft of the generator, or the chemical energy residing in the battery. Check it out, try it and see. Simply try to find a text or paper calculating BOTH those energy flow components.
So on behalf of the long-suffering U.S. taxpayers and consumers, this note is to urge you to give serious attention to these matters discussed, to quickly resolve the energy crisis forever. It's eminently doable. We need it. The world needs it. The strategic survival of the United States of America requires it.
We simply need the National Science Foundation to rise to the challenge, and take a very positive and vigorous leadership in innovative rethinking the entire electrical power generation problem and presence of a ready solution.
T. E. Bearden, Ph.D.