Subject: Who is Bearden's target audience?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:12:33 -0500
Well, some of your points are well taken, while others completely missed the mark!
The kind of presentation you seek for the more scientific groups is not possible; this is not yet a developed technology at all, but a totally new one where only the "outline sketch" is known and recognized as yet. It needs years of "defining" experiments and millions of dollars in research funding, if we are ever to turn it into a formal technology!
E.g., simply try to discuss the exact ramifications of J. P. Morgan eliciting Lorentz in 1892 to arbitrarily symmetrize the (already curtailed) Heaviside vector equations, which ALTERED and MUTILATED theory (it discarded all asymmetric Maxwellian systems) was then used to provide the theory for the new technical subject called "electrical engineering". Why do we cite this "esoteric" thing from group theory? Here's why.
Quoting Nobelist Weinberg: “It
is increasingly clear that the symmetry group of nature is the deepest
thing that we understand about nature today.” [
See also work by the great electrodynamicist Barrett, who is also one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar. E.g.:
Terence W. Barrett, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism. World Scientific Series in Contemporary Chemical Physics, Vol. 26, 2008.
Abstract: Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism seeks a fundamental understanding of the dynamics of electromagnetism; and marshals the evidence that in certain precisely defined topological conditions, electromagnetic theory (Maxwell's theory) must be extended or generalized in order to provide an explanation and understanding of, until now, unusual electromagnetic phenomena. Key to this generalization is an understanding of the circumstances under which the so-called A potential fields have physical effects. Basic to the approach taken is that the topological composition of electromagnetic fields is the fundamental conditioner of the dynamics of these fields. The treatment of electromagnetism from, first, a topological perspective, continuing through group theory and gauge theory, to a differential calculus description is a major thread of the book. Suggestions for potential new technologies based on this new understanding and approach to conditional electromagnetism are also given.
Contents: (a) Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations.
(b) Sagnac Effect: A Consequence of Conservation of Action Due to Gauge Field Global Conformal Invariance in a Multiply Joined Topology of Coherent Fields.
(c) Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism.
Nikola Tesla (in the late 1880s before electrical engineering was even born) had already discovered asymmetric EM circuits and how to take the EM energy one wished directly from the vacuum (the "active medium"), without any consumption of fuel. Quoting:
"Ere many gener
Tesla, Nikola. “Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].
During an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators
“We have to evolve means for
obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to
perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any
material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea
is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to,
namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by
the energy of the medium...” [Nikola Tesla, during an
address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at
Tesla, Nikola. "Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].
To prove that Tesla could have done what he said, particularly see the following by T. W. Barrett:
T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. [Paper is carried on the cheniere.org website at internet link http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf. ] Now recall that Maxwell's actual theory is 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns. So Maxwell -- who died in 1879 -- also knew that there were "asymmetric" EM systems as well as symmetrical EM systems.
Barrett was so impressed by Tesla's insight and discoveries that he extended one of Tesla's patents with two extended process patents. They are:
Terence W. Barrett. (1996) "Active
Barrett, Terence W.,
"Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in
Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase
Interestingly, we went to the National Science Foundation (To Dr. Bement, Director) with a compilation listing of the dozen or more known falsities being taught in electrical engineering, and that have been pointed out by Nobelists and other leading physicists. Dr. Bement ordered a formal review of the falsities paper by NSF, which thus involved NSF physicists and not just the EEs. On my website you can see the copy of the NSF letter of reply, finding strong merit in the paper.
But then for action, Dr. Bement had to turn it over to his highest staff already handling electrical power, etc. In short, to the electrical engineers. Their response was, "There's nothing wrong with our model! We have a fine model. Your TV set works, doesn't it?"
Anyway, as an exercise try finding out the serious and crippling ramifications of that deliberate mutilation of the electrical engineering model, by Lorentz symmetrization (using stolen work from Lorenz) just before EE was born!
And check with the physicists on group theory . It's been in our universities since 1870, but they do not include it in the EE curriculum. [Hmmm! Do you reckon that's because someone doesn't wish the EE's to understand what was done diabolically to them in 1892?]
Also, try commenting on the arbitrary discard (again, by Lorentz, elicited by J. P. Morgan in 1900) of Heaviside's new and profound discovery that every generator is already pouring out some 10 trillion times as much EM energy flow as is in the tiny little "diverged" Poynting component (and as is in the mechanical input energy we are inserting to crank the shaft of the generator). The linear little Poynting output EM energy component flow is diverged into the external circuit to power up the electrons. But Heaviside's giant energy flow is in curled form, and (in any special relativity situation) the divergence of the curl is zero. Hence, since almost every EE situation is special relativistic (i.e., is in one fixed frame), then in that frame the giant Heaviside curled component is not diverged, so the entire giant curled energy flow component just roars on off into space and is lost.
Okay, let me hear your own thoughts on the significance of that ESTABLISHED FACT. Lorentz taught all the scientists to just arbitrarily remove that giant curled Heaviside component via a little integration trick, with the succinct pronouncement that "it can have no physical significance". That pronouncement is true in a special relativistic situation, but it is NOT true in a general relativistic situation!
Also, since EE theory is special relativistic, then in the EE model energy is conserved (in the fixed frame) as is momentum. That is not the general case, however! Because if one introduces a general relativistic situation (such as the Negative Resonance Absorption of the Medium in optical physics), then conservation does not apply. In that case, the "unit" outputs (in experiments performed every year in every leading optics group in the physics departments at our universities) some 18 times as much output POYNTING energy flow as what we measure (in that lab frame) as having been input.
Why don't they teach our EEs that energy and momentum are not necessarily conserved in a general relativistic situation? It is a solid and well-established fact and it has been known for more than 90 years! Quoting the great mathematician Hilbert, a couple Russian scientists, and Sir Roger Penrose:
“We seem to have lost those most
The sad thing is that, in this
struggling "field" (overunity COP asymmetric Maxwellian power systems)
that is not yet a field, hardly
any of the technology and theory etc. has been worked out!
Inventors who have a bit of success are hounded (and have been hounded
for more than 100 years) and even killed. Over a hundred inventors
have been killed in the last 50 years alone. Several known to me have
just "quit" after receiving a clear warning that otherwise their
children and wives will be killed. So one might ask: How many
assassination attempts have you yourself encountered? I myself quit
counting at a dozen. I also have an independent witness to some of
them! [Ever heard of a Venus technique shooter and what it does to the
human heart? Ask your deep ECM countermeasures folks about it. Or have
you heard of a "throwaway assassin" such as the one who killed Robert
Kennedy? You haven't lived until you encounter one of those. The
So this area needs a funded and organized Manhattan Project to work out the very things you are looking for. It will require a very skilled and team of physicists and higher group symmetry electrodynamicists, NOT just electrical engineers! And we are speaking of something like a $100 million project per year, minimum and for several years, minimum.
One of the real problems in the entire field is the symmetrical experience of electrical engineers with their APPLIED research field, such as ordinary electrical engineering. Here you have a hundred years of experiments, fitting, working out the descriptions of the interactions, etc. And yet, there are more than 200 NAMED magnetics effects that are known, and less than half of them are understood!
And there is not a single electrical engineer today who actually knows anything about asymmetric Maxwellian systems, even though Maxwell's actual theory includes great numbers of such systems. And -- perhaps sadly -- only those asymmetric Maxwellian systems can produce COP>1.0 by use of excess EM energy from the seething virtual state vacuum. In EE, they regard the vacuum as inert and just "empty space".
Finally, there is not a single EE alive today who understands how an EM system is powered. E.g., the energy flowing from the terminals of a generator has nothing directly to do with the mechanical energy one inputs to crank the generator shaft! Instead, it comes from the broken symmetry of the internal source dipole, once the internal charges of the generator are separated into a dipolarity. THAT DIPOLARITY's broken symmetry absorbs the true input EM energy directly from the virtual state vacuum, and then changes it (integrates it) to quantum form and continually outputs a steady stream of real observable photons. We've actually known that (though somewhat obscurely) in physics since the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957. That's for more than 50 years!
E.g., quoting Nobelist Lee:
"Since nonobservables imply symmetry,
any discovery of asymmetry must imply some observable. The experiment
of Wu, Ambler,
Lee, T. D.
So in this COP>1.0 EM systems area, we still have little or no applied research and fitting. Instead, we have the decades of bench experience of a very few inventors such as John Bedini. And of a few others.
So we are NOT at the stage where we can just run down to Radio Shack, get some parts, whip them together, and always have a system that will work "using EM energy from the vacuum" and thus ready to go directly into production engineering. There are years of experiments and fitting (and model building) still necessary before we are at that stage -- that is, before we are at the stage that electrical engineering is at, presently.
Please note also that we do give exact references for our major points, and these can be checked out by any researcher who wishes to go study the literature a bit.
Even so, in energy from the vacuum COP>1.0 systems, there are a vast number of things yet completely unknown, and still to be worked out before we have a practical engineering discipline and a practical technology.
Electrical engineering has had dozens and dozens of large funded projects (Manhattan-type projects) in its 100 years. With hundreds of thousands of experimenters. We haven't yet had a single one.
However, I'm in some very strange and unusual negotiations just now (for want of a better word) to try to get some extraordinary wealthy folks to form and launch just such a Manhattan Project in this area. Don't know whether it will be successful or not. But at least, so far it's still hopeful and there's at least a fifty/fifty chance of seeing it happen. A very, very few wealthy entrepreneurs are at least seriously interested.
And that, Paul, is the very best I can do! If you have some way to get it done and do it better, please go do it! The entire world needs it desperately. I do not care who does it, just so long as it gets done!
Remember, Klimov's work at Los Alamos National Lab -- published in leading refereed physics and nanocrystalline journals, and independently replicated and proven also by the National Recoverable Energy Lab folks -- has proven for all time that real physical systems can be built which will take extra EM energy directly from the vacuum and use it to power systems. Their micro-nanocrystalline solar cells do just this, and COP = 200% is readily and easily achieved for peanuts. The theoretical max of their process is 700%. Again, very rigorously proven for all time. (Simply Google on Klimov, LANL, etc.).
Hang in there,
P.S. Some Klimov-related references to get you started:
Victor Klimov in Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico has constructed a solar cell which
can absorb the light of a specific wave length in such a way, that one
photon can energize more than one electron. As soon as the electron
absorbs a photon, it disappears for a very short moment into the
quantum field. Being in the virtual state the electron can borrow
energy from the vacuum and thereafter appears again in our reality.
Now the electron can energize up to 7 other electrons. This leads to a
theoretical coefficient of performance (COP) of 700%. A COP = 200% can
be readily achieved and it has been. The experiment has also been
replicated successfully by the
Quoting: “Make solar cells as small as a molecule; and you get more than you bargained for. Could this be the route to limitless clean power?"].
Comment by T.E.B.:
Note that the super-excited electron, after emerging from the seething
virtual state vacuum immersion, actually splits into two or more
electrons! So the output current of the solar cell process is
freely amplified by
excess energy from the local virtual state vacuum. Note that at about
COP = 3.0, one could conceivably add clamped positive feedback of one
of those output electrons back to the "dive back into the seething
virtual state vacuum" input, replacing the original electron input,
and the unit would be "self-powering" (powered by energy from the
vacuum) while putting out the other two electrons as output.
Richard D. Schaller, Vladimir M. Agranovich and Victor I. Klimov;
"High-efficiency carrier multiplication through direct photogeneration
of multi-excitons via virtual single-exciton states." Nature
Physics Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 189-194.
Richard D. Schaller,
Victor I. Klimov, "Spectral and Dynamical Properties of Multiexcitons in Semiconductor Nanocrystals," Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2007, p. 635.
M. C. Hanna, A. J. Nozik.
"Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis
cells with carrier multiplication absorbers," Journal of Applied
Physics, vol. 100, No. 7, 2006, p. 07450.
G. Allan, C. Delerue, "Role of impact ionization in multiple exciton generation in PbSe nanocrystals," Physical Review B, Vol. 73 (20), 2006, p. 205423.
Hsiang-Yu Chen, Michael K. F. Lo, Guanwen Yang, Harold G. Monbouquette, Yang Yang, "Nanoparticle-assisted high photoconductive gain in composites of polymer and fullerene," Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 3 (9), 2008, p. 543.
M.C. Beard, R.J. Ellingson, "Multiple exciton generation in semiconductor nanocrystals: Toward efficient solar energy conversion," Laser & Photonics Review, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2008, p. 377.
Quoting: "Now Victor Klimov and colleagues at the Alamos National Laboratory have designed nanocrystals with cores and shells made from different semiconductor materials in such a way that electrons and holes are physically isolated from each other. The scientists said in such engineered nanocrystals, only one exciton per nanocrystal is required for optical amplification. That, they said, opens the door to practical use in laser applications." ["Scientists Create New Type of Nanocrystal," PHYSORG.COM, Nanotechnology, May 24, 2007.
Seo, Hye-won; Tu, Li-wei; Ho,
Cheng-ying; Wang, Chang-kong; Lin, Yuan-ting. "Multi-Junction Solar
J. R. Minkel, "Brighter Prospects for Cheap Lasers in Rainbow Colors," Scientific American (website), May 25, 2007.
Quoting Klimov, Victor" "Carrier multiplication actually relies upon very strong interactions between electrons squeezed within the tiny volume of a nanoscale semiconductor particle. That is why it is the particle size, not its composition that mostly determines the efficiency of the effect. In nanosize crystals, strong electron-electron interactions make a high-energy electron unstable. This electron only exists in its so-called 'virtual state' for an instant before rapidly transforming into a more stable state comprising two or more electrons." [Lead project scientist Victor Klimov, quoted in "Nanocrystals May Provide Boost for Solar Cells, Solar Hydrogen Production," Green Car Congress, 4 Oct., 2008.]