|Subject: RE: Answer and why
there are no marketed COP>1.0 "energy from the vacuum" systems
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:33:22 -0500
Unfortunately Rolfe Schaffranke passed away some time ago.
The reason there are no COP>1.0 electrical power systems taking their energy directly from the local vacuum is very simple: First, the terribly flawed classical Maxwell-Heaviside (MH) electrodynamics still used in electrical engineering has been so sharply curtailed from Maxwell's original theory that one of its curtailments (Lorentz's symmetrical regauging) discards all EM systems that would act as "electrical windmills" in "free electrical winds" from the vacuum. Circuits and systems built in accord with that curtailed theory will be COP<1.0.
In thermodynamics, it has been shown that --- in theory --- negative entropy systems are possible. That is, a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system that is deterministic and reversible is in theory capable of producing negative entropy initially, with the entropy further decreasing toward negative infinity as time passes. The proof of that is in D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.
Startled by that theoretical possibility, the authors cautiously felt that probably no real physical system could exhibit such entropy. To the contrary, we have nominated the lowly source charge and its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, as the first physical EM system that exhibits that exact behavior. We also printed a solution to the source charge problem (how it does that, without violating the conservation of energy law). The paper is T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23 . It is also contained in my new book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002 in Chapter 3: Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the Expanding Universe. It is also contained in 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 archaic MH model still assumes a material ether. It also implicitly assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been and is freely created from nothing at all, by the source charges -- since it assumes there is no energy input to the charges at all, yet their output creates and replenishes those associated fields and potentials reaching across the universe at light speed.
The MH model assumes an inert vacuum (falsified for decades by particle physics), and assumes a flat local spacetime (falsified since 1915 by general relativity). Hence it assumes that the environment of the Maxwellian system is inactive and inert, unless some observable energy (such as sunlight or other EM radiation) is acting in that environment.
The model totally ignores the asymmetry of the source charge, when its surrounding virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum are considered. We know today in modern physics that this dipolarity (of the source charge ensemble) continuously absorbs subquantal (virtual) photons from the seething vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) the energy into quantal size, and continuously emits the resulting real, observable photons in all directions. This establishes and continuously replenishes the associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, expanding outward at light speed from the charge, from the moment of its inception. The classical EM model, of course, does not include that input energy at all, or any other input energy. Hence it is in total violation of the conservation of energy law, and always has been.
Every joule of EM energy in every EM circuit and every EM device comes directly from the local vacuum, extracted by that broken symmetry of the source charges in the circuit itself. Not one watt comes from cranking the shaft of the generator, or from the dissipation of chemical energy in the battery. This broken symmetry of opposite charges was one item in the broken symmetry strongly predicted by Lee and Yang in 1956-57. The prediction was so revolutionary to physics that experimentalists immediately attacked the problem to see if it were real. In early 1957, Wu and her colleagues proved resoundingly that broken symmetry was real (including the asymmetry of opposite charges). Again, this was such a startling revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, in Dec. 1957.
In the nearly half century since then, the meaning of that has not even migrated across the university campus to the electrical engineering department, nor has the electrical engineering department changed its model at all.
There is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even knew and taught what actually powers any electrical circuit or device: energy extracted directly from the local vacuum by the asymmetry of the source charges in them. Quite a shocking statement, particularly since 1957 and the discovery of broken symmetry.
Further, the closed current loop circuit used by all our engineers guarantees (self-enforces) Lorentz self-regauging, This prevents COP>1.0 operation in any system built and operating in full accordance with that symmetrically regauged model.
Far better and more-modern systems of electrodynamics have been developed in particle physics (higher group symmetry electrodynamics), because the old Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz model does not accurately describe reality. The O(3) group symmetry electrodynamics pioneered by Evans and Vigier is a particularly useful and highly capable electrodynamics, actually allowing a unified field theory to be directly engineered electrodynamically.
Thermodynamics also has serious errors. E.g., it defines a change in external parameters of a system (such as the potential of an electrical circuit) as work. That is false, and actually would exclude gauge freedom, widely utilized across physics. Even Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations uses it, to (unwittingly) get rid of COP>1.0 and COP = infinity Maxwellian systems. In theory, it costs nothing at all merely to change the potential energy of any electrical system, since voltage increase alone is not power and is not work.
Note that simply increasing the voltage V on a system does not require work. That is just regauging, which is free by the gauge freedom axiom of physics. Yet the intercepting charges q, will develop additional potential energy W collected from the V, by the simple equation W = Vq. From whence does the extra energy come?
Thermodynamics directly equates work as energy and as change of magnitude of energy, which is false. Work rigorously is the change of form of energy, not change of magnitude of energy. A change of form of a piece of clay is not the piece of clay.
Thermodynamics (along with much of physics of today) is based on Klein geometry from 1872, and Klein's Erlanger process. Neither is complete. Michael Leyton has extended that geometry to an object-oriented geometry, and incorporated higher group theoretic measures that capture more of physical reality. This leads to a hierarchy of symmetries, where a broken symmetry at a given level automatically generates a new symmetry at the next higher level. That generation, in my strong view, is the missing negative entropy operation that the present Second Law of thermodynamics erroneously excludes. I have nominated the source charge and its associated fields as a direct physical example of Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry and the missing negative entropy interactions. It fits the source charge solution like a glove.
The present Second Law of thermodynamics is thus an oxymoron implicitly assuming that its own contradiction (the production of some negative entropy so there is some order and available energy to begin with) has first occurred. The present Second Law fails in many well-known cases anyway, as is known, even in simple fluctuations of the statistics on which modern thermodynamics is based. It fails for small numbers of entities, for large numbers of entities which undergo statistical fluctuations, in sharp gradients, in very thin media, and in materials memory effects. It fails completely, for the source charge and therefore for every EM field, potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe. We have recently proposed a new statement of the Second Law that is consistent with Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry and his improved geometry, and with which the known experiments presently violating the old Second Law now are in harmony and are explained.
Much prattle has been made about "dirty old perpetual motion machines" as if they were impossible and against the laws of nature. To the contrary, perpetual motion is simply Newton's First Law --- any object placed in a state of motion will remain perpetually in that state of motion unless and until some external force acts upon it to change it (the latter being Newton's Second Law). If the state of motion, once assumed, were not perpetual, then there would only be wild fluctuations at random, and there would be no large scale stability in the universe. In short, the orderly macroscopic universe we observe and live in would be impossible.
Examples of perpetual motion abound. An example in physics is a superconducting electric current once launched in a closed loop superconducting circuit. Such currents have maintained themselves in the laboratory for years.
A simple windmill in the flowing wind or a waterwheel in the flowing stream will remain in perpetual motion until some force intervenes (as in something breaking, etc). So will a solar cell in the sunlight. Even an ordinary electrical motor with power applied will remain in that condition until something forcibly intervenes (usually just cutting off the power). As we stated, the very stability in every operation, and in the universe itself, is Newton's First Law (of perpetual motion).
Let us show how insidious this long-standing and inane delusion on perpetual motion really is. Here is Max Plank's statement of the First Law of thermodynamics
“It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.” [Max Planck, Treatise on Thermodynamics, 3rd ed., Dover, New York, 1945.].
Let us analyze Planck's statement. It contains two major clauses, therefore two major statements, and with the "i.e." connector it asserts that these two statements are equivalent.
The first statement, that perpetual motion is impossible, is refuted by Newton's First Law. Hence it is a false premise, as written. An object in simple continuous motion with no interruption, does not have to have any energy input at all nor does it do any work. An object in continuous motion against resistance --- and therefore continuously performing work --- will continue (perpetually) if it receives the necessary energy input to cover its losses and doing the work against that resistance. If it does not receive the energy input, it of course will stop.
Planck's second statement says that no machine can do continuous work without the necessary energy input, and that is a true statement. Else the machine would be creating energy from nothing at all, and that violates the conservation of energy law (that energy can neither be created nor destroyed). Work rigorously is the change of form of energy; no machine can continuously change the form of energy unless the energy that is to be changed is fed into it and is therefore continuously available for continuous changing!
However, in an equilibrium condition with continuous input and output of energy from the system, continuous work can be done by part of the output energy because one is not creating energy out of nothing. The energy is actually being input so that it can be changed to do work. "Equilibrium" thus just means that input = output.
So Planck's second statement, that the output of an otherwise inert machine (or circuit) cannot exist without an input, is perfectly true.
But what has Planck's second statement got to do with his first statement? Nothing at all! They are totally different statements.
In the first statement, for perpetual motion under Newton's first law, no extra work is done and no extra energy need be input, or else the necessary energy is input as the energy to do continuous work is continuously output. The key is, the input equals the output. In the second statement, it is stated that extra work cannot be done without any energy input at all. If it could be done, then there would be no input energy available to be changed in form to provide the output work! In that case, the system would have to "create" --- right out of nothing at all --- the energy whose form is being changed. And that of course violates the conservation of energy law, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The second statement merely admonishes that, without inputting the additional energy, additional work (change of form of additional energy) cannot be done.
Thus the assertion in Planck's connector "i.e.", that the two statements are equivalent or identical, is a logical non sequitur. One cannot equate a false premise to a true statement, and then claim that one's equating them constitutes a proof of the first (false) statement!
Oddly, I have no book or reference where Planck's (and similar) "dirty old perpetual motion" objections are logically examined or refuted. Instead, one sees the universal acceptance of such statements as "self-evident truth" when in fact they are logically false.
Hence Planck's statement (and the usual variations in the statement of the prohibition of perpetual motion machines as if such were perpetual working machines performing work without any energy input at all) is false. Technically it is false because it contains a false premise and a logical non sequitur.
But so ubiquitously has that false "prohibition against dirty old perpetual motion" in the Planck sense pervaded the scientific mindset, that today the mere mention of legitimate COP >1.0 or COP = infinity EM systems evokes a knee-jerk, automatic reaction that such is prohibited. It isn't.
Sadly, most engineers and scientists do not understand the technical difference between efficiency of a system and coefficient of performance of that same system. The efficiency x is effectively the useful output (energy or work as the case may be) divided by the total energy input from all sources (environment, operator, everything). Always, x £ 100% because all work done (all energy changed in form) must have the energy input. If any of the input energy is wasted in losses etc., then x < 100%.
The coefficient of performance (COP) is the effective useful output (energy or work) divided by the energy input only by the operator himself and paid for by him. The source charge has a coefficient of performance (COP) of COP = ¥, although we do not know its efficiency x, but only that x £ 100%. This is similar to a common solar cell, which is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system with COP = ¥, even though its efficiency x may be only x =17% in a nominal case. The 17% efficiency merely means that 83% of the energy input to the solar cell is wasted, while COP = ¥ merely means that the operator himself inputs none of the required energy, since all of it is freely input by the active environment. Other examples of systems with COP = ¥ and x < 100% are the common windmill and the waterwheel, used through the ages.
A NESS system is permitted to perform one or more of five "magic" functions. It can (i) self-organize, (ii) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (iii) output more energy as useful work than the operator inputs (exhibit COP > 1.0; the excess energy being freely input from the environment), (iv) "self-power" (exhibit COP = ¥, where the operator need input no energy at all and the environment inputs all the energy freely), and (v) exhibit negative entropy.
The conservation of energy law continues to be upheld, even when the EM system exhibits 1.0 < COP £ ¥, so long as the necessary energy is indeed input.
Since any charge is a NESS system, it is permitted to perform one or more of those five "magic" functions permitted to such systems. Actually, every charge in the universe already performs all five functions.
The lack of understanding the foregoing, in the scientific and engineering community, is the major reason why the same old methods (just a bit improved as years pass) of providing electrical energy and transportation energy continue to be propagated. The real reason for the escalating energy crisis, the dependence on fossil fuels, and the increasing rape and pillage of the earth and biosphere in our every growing thirst for energy, is the mindset of the scientific community and its continued propagation of myths and mysticism such as "forbidden perpetual motion" etc. The scientific community rigorously enforces its present energy dogma, particularly against "dirty old perpetual motion nonsense". Any professor or grad student or post doctoral scientist attempting to do work on vacuum energy in this area is hounded viciously, his or her funds are withheld, tenure can and will be denied, and most journals will not publish his or her papers.
All science is patronized, because someone or some source must pay for the laboratories, the equipment, the salaries, the overhead and burden, etc. By controlling what the appropriated or available scientific funds can be spent for, science is also rather rigorously controlled.
Now take all the above, and add to it the deliberate suppression of self-powering and COP>1.0 vacuum powered electrical power systems by intentional large and powerful groups, together with the suppression of those needed changes to electrical engineering and thermodynamics, and you begin to have the picture.
For a century or more, inventors have been occasionally discovering how to build such a system, whether or not they understood it theoretically. There are literally a thousand ways utilized to destroy, delay, harass, get rid of, or neutralize such inventors and inventions. In my book, Energy from the Vacuum, we give a number of the main ways that is done.
In short, behind all the hundreds of interlocking corporations, one eventually gets to a set of cartels and a set of folks who own and control a great deal of the financial power of the world. Their take from the energy business worldwide is about a trillion dollars per year, and their take from Big Medicine and the pharmaceuticals is also extremely large. They spend large sums of money and very strong but secret effort to see that the energy business keeps that meter on your gas pump and that electrical meter on your house (and those drugs in your medicine chest). Winston Churchill just referred to them as the "High Cabal". They have existed in one form or another since the early days of Morgan etc. And they have stopped a great succession of overunity inventors, dead in their tracks.
And in the "field that is not yet a field", there are indeed some charlatans, etc. That also greatly discredits the entire field.
The tools include assassination, "gaming" (explained in the book), threats, buyouts, destroying the individual with spurious lawsuits, destroying the individual by initiating "agents of influence" (persons with knee-jerk responses, who do not work for the High Cabal and usually do not know such exists, but who can be triggered onto a researcher or inventor with a simple phone conversation) who harass and slander and libel the individual researcher, etc. For the internet, they just stuff it full of disinformation and chat groups and flame artists. It's the old theory of propaganda, raised to modern disinformation techniques and character assassination. One favorite game is the "cur dog pack attack". This is easily provided by simply choosing "agents of influence" who have the proper knee-jerk responses in this area. So packs of these rascals are easily triggered onto the inventor or researcher, by mere phone calls. And the cur dogs are off and running, much like the dogs on the plains of Africa.
As a result of all the above, the overunity inventor and researcher is almost completely cut off from any normal funding channels, either through research agencies, the government funding, etc. So when one needs and seeks development funding, one gets a bum's rush of crooks, scalawags, fellows trying to "hook" the thing, promoters, etc. One also gets some approaches by very clever agents of the High Cabal, very useful in delaying, hamstringing, confusing, and hog-tying such projects.
Another factor is
human greed. If one has a group of people involved, then one or more is
likely to go stark raving crazy over the notion that suddenly this
"thing" is worth trillions, will dominate the world, blah blah blah. A
peculiar glaze comes over the eyes of such an individual struck by this
"gold fever" phenomenon. He is possessed by it, in the old biblical
sense. Shortly he would kill his own grandmother to get control of this
Many inventors are also naïve. They take a little money from this investor, some more from that one, yet more from another, and so on. Finally, there are eight or ten persons financially involved, with no clear legal agreements on anything. Bingo! That is the kiss of death, and as something starts to happen, you can just see the lawsuits spawning. No one but the lawyers will ever realize a nickel.
And then there are the universities and the great national labs. They are the kiss of death for any inventor (just ask Larry Fullerton of Time Domain about his experience with his ultrawideband communications invention). Both the universities and the government's national labs file patents! Indeed, they are greedy for patents! If you really want to get your invention stolen or "taken" or circumvented, just try working with those agencies as an inventor. Good luck! Try looking at a DARPA contract containing the infamous "march-in" clause. What this means is that, as you get going (with a little DARPA funding), a single bureaucrat can declare in a letter or memo that you are not getting this invention to market fast enough to fill the government's needs. So in return, the government is exercising its "march-in" rights (in the fine print of the inventor's contract) and seizing the patent, taking it to its "preferred contractor", and it will be more rapidly produced by that contractor to satisfy the government's needs. So the bewildered inventor winds up wondering what in the dickens happened to him. Oh yes, in theory he can file for recompense, blah blah blah. Try finding out how many have ever successfully been recompensed.
There are a few other barriers. E.g., the Kawai patent (and Kawai's company and his fate) were seized right here in Huntsville Alabama, in the physical presence several members of the Board of Directors of CTEC. That bonafide COP>1.0 system, and some other genuine Japanese COP>1.0 electrical power systems, have been stopped cold by the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia). They will remain stopped, and will not be going on the market. Now go check out the situation with the Yakuza, and you will be appalled. You can do it with a good Google search on the web.
The combination of all these methods (and some others I prefer not to discuss; no need to let the Cabal know how much one has found out about some of their inner workings) and problems, has been very effective in stopping free energy devices cold for more than a century. We have personally experienced a wide range of the above phenomena, and then some. So have many other inventors.
Frankly, unless some wealthy patrons step in and fund selected system developments, I don't foresee the present 30 or 40 valid overunity systems getting developed and marketed either. And that is not likely to happen. Much too easy for the wealthy patron to have a "sudden fatal auto accident", or "meet with a sudden suicide" on his way to the supermarket.
At any rate, I hope this sheds some light on why there are presently no overunity "energy from the vacuum" electrical power systems on the market. There is presently no guarantee at all (and not really much hope either) that such a system will get to market through all the barriers.
The only way, it seems, is likely to be if the information in this "field that is not yet a field" is openly revealed to the sharp young students, young post docs, and the interested professors. The scientific community's mindset must be changed, if there is even to be a chance. And that has to be changed from the bottom up, not from the top down.
Max Planck said it in these words:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]
Dear Dr. Bearden,
I have recently read the reviews by Dr. Schaffranke entitled "The development of post-relativistic concepts in physics and advanced technology abroad" and "Overture to a new age technology" , included in your webpage, where he describes a series of developments in the field of vacuum energy in countries of the "Western World", such as West Germany, France, Austria, Holland, England, etc.
These reviews seem to be dated around 1981-82, that is over twenty years ago, and as far as I have heard, none of these developments, in any of these countries, seems to have ever reached the market.
I do not know if Dr Schaffranke is still alive, but would be interested to know if he has carried out any recent carry-on research, regarding what has happened with any or all of these developments, since it sounds somewhat strange that NONE of all these very promising ideas has ever reached the market, especially in such cases as the one mentioned in West Germany, where a fuel-less scooter was tested for more than 20,000 km and a new factory in the town of Oldenburg was scheduled to produce individual home heating units, and the design of automobile power plants based on the same principle was also in preparation, TWENTY YEARS AGO!!! This last case in Germany reminds me of a similar one in the US, where an inventor by the name of Keely, in Oregon I believe, was also about to market 10 MW package power plants in shipping containers several years ago, for which he had already obtained a risk capital partner, and nothing was ever mentioned again in the press.
I would really appreciate your comments.