To (correspondent), Your polite and reasoned response to a typical ad hominem attack on free energy researchers is appreciated. Let us dispense with the emotion and ad hominem attacks, which are not science but cur dog attacks, and which have no place in any scientific discussion. Let us simply deal with the science involved and the proof of it. Here is why one really can develop COP>1.0 EM systems, in accord with the laws of physics. The coefficient of performance (COP) of a system is its useful output
energy divided by the energy that is input The standard vicious and extremely emotional attack on the very notion of COP>1.0 EM systems is eerie, particularly the total confusion in the critics' minds as to the difference between (i) permissible EM systems having COP>1.0 but efficiency of x < 100%, and (ii) perpetual motion machines purporting to produce x > 100% and thus purporting to create energy from nothing. COP>1.0 and even COP = ₯ as exhibited by a
windmill, sailboat, or waterwheel is not a violation of energy
conservation, since the external environment inputs the additional energy.
On the other hand, x > 100% implies that the
system creates energy from nothing, so that it outputs more than is input
to it Presently the only serious group that The severe classical problem of the source charge, modeled as freely creating energy from nothing, used to be begrudgingly admitted. It was known as the "source charge problem" or the "problem of the charge and its associated fields and potentials". It could be found in books occasionally into the 1960s. Then one day it just seems to have been very suddenly removed and thereafter it has been resoundingly ignored. Many professors today and most of the students have not even heard of the "source charge problem", and have no inkling that they have been taught an EM theory based on every charge being a perpetual motion machine with x = ₯ . The last thing that universities wish is to have to face again their own electrical engineering assumption of wholesale perpetual motion machines called "source charges", freely creating all EM fields, potentials, and their energy right out of nothing at all. Little wonder that D. K. Sen, The reader should note that the solution to the source charge problem has never been advanced in classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering. It has never been advanced by the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, etc. Apparently the leaders of the scientific community are not even interested in a solution to "this most difficult problem in electrodynamics". The rigorous basis for the solution to the source charge problem was
already provided by the prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang in
1956-57, the experimental proof of it by Wu Broken symmetry indeed ushered in a great revolution in physics. However, apparently in the ensuing 45 years it has not been able to make it across the campus from the particle physics department to the electrical engineering department. It has not galvanized the electrical engineering professors to change their century-old, terribly flawed classical EM model and include the active vacuum interaction with every charge, as well as broken symmetry in that interaction when the charge and its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign are considered in the modern QFT view as a special kind of dipolarity. Since they have not done that, they have continued to preach (teach is not the proper word here, because of the dogma) that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible, against the laws of nature, and perpetual motion nonsense. That of course is a blatant lie, since COP>1.0 EM interactions are already well-known in physics e.g., the proven negative resonance absorption of the medium, in nonlinear optics. One of the proven asymmetries in the vacuum energy exchange,
experimentally shown by Wu But the asymmetry of the charge and the dipole with its vacuum energy
exchange still does not appear in classical electrodynamics or electrical
engineering. Nonetheless, if one accepts as a special dipolarity the
QFT view of the "isolated source charge" together with its clustering
virtual charges of opposite sign, then the charge really does absorb
virtual energy from the seething vacuum continuously, coherently integrate
it into observable photons, and then emits those real, observable photons
in all directions at the speed of light. This of course completely
resolves the source charge problem while saving the conservation of energy
law, but it also points out the terrible obsolescence of the standard
electrical engineering curriculum. We published that solution to the
source charge problem in 2000, kindly printed by Hal Fox in my article
called "Giant Negentropy from
the Common Dipole," The failure of classical electromagnetics and electrical engineering to
grasp the significance of the source dipolarity's asymmetry also means
that our scientists have totally missed the significance of Gabriel Kron's
Kron's open path was his discovery that lamellar currents move between
the two charges of any dipolarity. We independently discovered this after
years of struggle. The secret of Kron's open path and "lamellar" current
appeared when we found that in forward time all EM energy comes from
the time domain to the negative charge, thence to the associated positive
charge (local polarization of the vacuum assumed), thence back to the time
domain. Hence the "presence of EM energy in space" is actually a
4-circulation at each spatial point. In our new book, Bedini and I will shortly file a patent application showing how to apply Kron's open path discovery to what we shall call "inverted circuits" that operate entirely different to present circuits in the textbook. To protect our intellectual property rights, no details will be given. However, it is certainly possible to use and apply Kron's lamellar currents to provide negative resistance in electrical power circuits, and we shall demonstrate it in actual working bench models developed by Bedini. Till our patent applications are filed, we can give no further information. The asymmetry of two opposite charges, proven in 1957 by Wu and her
colleagues; is indeed related to Kron's open path and lamellar currents.
Consider this: Take any two charges, each located at a point one chooses
anywhere in the universe, where the charges differ either in magnitude or
sign or both, so that those two charges form a Now note that a flow of energy also passes from one of the charges to
the other. Indeed, since the two opposite charges are conjugates, a
bidirectional flow of energy passes between them. These currents are
special lamellar energy currents in the form of bidirectional EM
wavepairs. These currents establish the existing EM fields and potentials
between these two charges (these two points). The decomposition of the
scalar potential and the formation of superpotential theory dealing with
such "field and potential decomposition" was given by E. T. Whittaker in
two seminal papers in 1903 and 1904. They are (i)
"On the Partial Differential
Equations of Mathematical Physics," The unaccounted production of excess EM energy in space, between any
two such points of differing potential or charge, is a contribution to
excess "dark" (unaccounted) EM energy which may well contribute to the
excess gravity holding those spiral arms of the galaxies together,
particularly when the nondiverged and usually unaccounted Heaviside energy
flow component is accounted as well as the Poynting component. In our new
book, Kron built true negative resistors on the Network Analyzer project for the U.S. Navy at Stanford University in the 1930s. Here is a quotation where he slipped this information through his censors as best he could: " Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 39.Simply examine the first clause carefully: It states unequivocally that
" We also point out that the negative resistor action is occurring in the input section of the system, since it is feeding current back to the external power supply (the generator) and reducing the power draw from it. When the current from the negative resistance is equal to the generator's input, the input section of the system has sufficient current appearing in it from the negative resistance to power itself with that novel input. Kron also sneaked through the information that he had made only a few
such true negative resistors. Quoting: So the stale old assertion that "good scientists" have never produced COP >1.0 or COP = ₯ electrical systems is false. Kron was one of the greatest electrical scientists ever produced in this nation. And he did produce true negative resistors that allowed self-powering of the Network Analyzer, two decades before the discovery of broken symmetry in physics. However, he was never permitted to clearly reveal his momentous discovery, though he tried to do so through his censors. The best that conventional scientists appreciated of Kron's work is summed up by Lynn and Russell as follows: " But to return. Regardless of the great revolution spurred by the
discovery of broken symmetry, the electrical engineering model still does
not model the active vacuum, its energetic exchange with the charge, and
the proven broken symmetry in that exchange. The model Ironically, those academic arch skeptics who condemn overunity researchers as perpetual motion nuts, are themselves the world's greatest though unwitting perpetual motion advocates (or "nuts", if they prefer that appellation) in human history. Their model does not include the active vacuum, much less the continuous energy exchange between vacuum and charge, or a broken symmetry in that exchange. They just assume that all EM energy every joule in the universe, whether in matter or space is freely created out of nothing by the source charge. Bluntly put, with the possible exception of Gabriel Kron, there is not
now and there never has been a single electrical engineering department,
EE professor, or EE textbook that even knows what powers an electrical
circuit. That is, there is no inkling that The well-known "negative resonance absorption of the medium" effect is
also replicable by any nonlinear optics department, and as shown by
Bohren in Further, the source dipole in a generator or battery once formed actually extracts enormously more energy from the vacuum and pours it out of the terminals, than the silly external circuit catches and utilizes. This was discovered in the 1880s by Heaviside, to the consternation of the less than three dozen electrical scientists in the world at the time. No one had the foggiest notion as to where such an enormous outpouring of energy could be coming from, filling all space around the external conductors attached to the generator terminals. So Lorentz just arbitrarily discarded it from all accountability, stating that this extra nondiverged Heaviside component "had no physical significance" because it did nothing and powered nothing. The neat little integration trick (integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around every volume element of interest) that Lorentz used to discard any accountability of the Heaviside component, is still used by electrodynamicists and electrical engineers. Few of the professors even know it anymore, and almost none of the students know it except for the extremely rare one that has gone back and read the original Heaviside and Poynting papers that founded energy flow theory in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead. Prior to his death, Heaviside did realize the gravitational
implications of his huge nondiverged energy flow component associated with
every field and charge interaction. He worked out a theory of the
gravitational impact of that huge energy component, and his notes with the
theory were found beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment
in 1957 (the same year as the proof of broken symmetry). In honor of
Heaviside, we have nominated that huge unaccounted EM energy component as
the long-sought source of the extra gravity holding the arms of the spiral
arms together as a proposed solution to the dark matter problem.
Applying the unaccounted Heaviside component to my own theory of the
source of antigravity (T. E. Bearden, Now let us deal with the infamous second law of thermodynamics, which insofar as electromagnetics is concerned is as dead as a doornail. The second law of thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics.
Some years ago Denis Evans et al. of the Australian National University
advanced the rigorous transient fluctuation theorem (D. J. Evans and D. J.
Searles, But the new experimental demonstration by Evans We also go further: At least for electrodynamics, the failure of the second law is complete, and this can easily be shown. The violation of the second law of thermodynamics is total for electrodynamics as follows: It is well-established that the source charge does pour out observable EM energy in all directions at the speed of light, without any observable energy input. It does it continuously, so the charge represents a continuous and indefinite violation of the second law, because it exhibits increasing negentropy (production of order), steadily, in contradiction to the second law's proclamation of progressive entropy (increasing disordering). Further, the observable photon energy poured out is itself not disordered but is perfectly ordered macroscopically, to any size magnitude one wishes (even across the entire universe) and for any length of time one wishes (including for the 14 billion years of the observable universe). The charges in the original matter have done it continuously since the beginning, and their ordered fields and potentials (and their energy) reaches across the observable universe. At a point at any radial distance from the source charge, if one knows the source charge magnitude, etc. one can calculate the value of the field, its direction, the value of the potential, and also the direction of the vector potential. In an ideal case one can then measure those entities at that point to experimentally prove it. This ordering of the expanding EM fields and potentials and their energy, increasing at the speed of light, is trivial and is used every day in electrodynamics, but it is fundamentally significant for thermodynamics also. The macroscopic ordering of the EM field formed by the source charge is deterministic, not "statistical" (or so one can certainly argue, based on untold numbers of experiments). In turn, that macroscopic determinism of the fields and potentials and their organized EM energy totally violates the statistical basis of statistical mechanics, hence it totally violates the entire basis of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law applies only to statistical things, not to deterministic things. All electrodynamics the source charge, the associated fields, the associated potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe, whether in space or in matter comes from the vacuum via this asymmetry of the source charge and the macroscopic ordering of the fields, potentials, and their energy, and as a total violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Even the staid old electrical engineering departments implicitly assume this, though unwittingly. So classical electrodynamics by its very existence totally contradicts the second law of thermodynamics in the macroscopic universe, to any size desired and for any time duration desired. The second law is thus falsified experimentally, at least for electrodynamics. But the case against the second law is still stronger. Our most modern
and successful theory arguably is quantum field theory. In that
theory, the gauge freedom axiom allows the potential energy of any EM
system to be freely changed at will. Usually symmetrical regauging is used
by the electrodynamicist, where the potential energy of the system (or the
model for a vast ensemble of systems) is changed twice simultaneously, but
just so that the two extra, free force fields resulting from the two free
energy changes are equal and opposite. When the system's potential energy
is freely changed in this very special fashion, the excess free energy
added to the system is "locked up" so that it performs We accent, however, that since the operator or researcher does not input the excess energy freely appearing in the system as a result of regauging, then the energy must freely come from the vacuum environment, else the gauge freedom axiom itself contradicts the conservation of energy law and allows free creation of energy from nothing. We have already pointed out an experimental source charge example and the solution to the source charge problem proving that all observable EM energy comes from the vacuum anyway, via the asymmetry of the source charge in its energetic exchange with the active vacuum. Again, that is fully supported by the experimental demonstration by Wu et al. of the broken symmetry of opposite charges. However, if one is free to change the system's EM potential energy We now point out that any free positive change of EM energy in the system, via regauging of either kind, is a negentropic action. This action is repeatable, since one is free to do it when one wishes and as many times as one wishes, according the gauge freedom axiom. So here again, one sees that progressively increasing giant negentropy is in fact permitted and prescribed by the gauge freedom axiom, and is experimentally demonstrated by every charge in the universe. The gauge freedom axiom is not limited to microscopic or mesoscopic systems, but is equally applicable to microscopic systems of any size magnitude and any time duration. The well-known, universally accepted, and universally utilized gauge freedom axiom thus falsifies the second law of thermodynamics, and this violation can be experimentally demonstrated with ease. Simply keep increasing the static voltage of a circuit in which the current does not move, at least momentarily. Now note that the quite old thermodynamics definition of "closed
system" is one that is closed only to Further, entropy (disordering) always has implicitly assumed that some negentropy has first happened earlier, to provide the initial order that is then to be progressively disordered. In other words, entropy can exist or occur only after negentropy has first occurred. One first has to have the order created, before it can subsequently be disordered by entropic interactions. The very concept of entropy thus assumes its own contradiction, so it is an oxymoron and always has been. Also, it follows that the second law has always implicitly assumed its own contradiction, a priori, hence the second law is revealed as an oxymoron. It has always been an oxymoron. The second law should be exactly restated as follows:
That statement agrees with experiment and broken symmetry, etc. It agrees with the continuously increasing negentropy resulting from the source charge. It agrees with the solution to the long-vexing source charge problem, which I published in 2000, based on the theoretical and experimental proof of broken symmetry of opposite charges (such as are on the ends of any dipole, and are involved in any dipolarity). It agrees with the demonstrated stable disequilibrium states. And it permits a proper science to be formed for the pursuit of practical COP>1.0 EM power systems, based on experiment as well as theory. In fact, that restatement of the second law now is consistent with the gauge freedom axiom, which in turn permits the operator to directly engineer negentropy including increasing negentropy freely and at will. Classical electrodynamics is a material fluid dynamics theory, for that is what Maxwell wrote. Anything that fluid systems can do, in theory an EM system can do, particularly in Maxwell's original quaternion and quaternion like theory involving 20 equations in 20 unknowns. A windmill, e.g., has a COP = ₯ , as does a waterwheel in a river, a sailboat, etc. Hence COP = ₯ EM systems must exist, since the EM model is a perfect analogy to the hydrodynamics model. And so they do. They are called "source charges" and every charge in the universe is one. In short, that is experimentally proven, and no amount of theory can refute it. The electrical engineering model, however, does not model the "active
environment" of the "electrical windmill", so it assumes there can be no
"free electrical wind" from the active vacuum in total violation to the
broken symmetry of every EM dipolarity in its energetic exchange with the
vacuum. If the classical assumption inserted by Lorenz and then
Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the equations is so, then there can
be no COP>1.0 EM systems built (at least in accord with that seriously
restricted and "special case" model). In fact, when first Lorenz in 1967
and later Lorentz symmetrically regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations,
that simplification of the equations actually discarded all Maxwellian
systems far from equilibrium All that is rigorous and is based on solid physics already in the literature. It also clearly establishes that COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems are indeed permitted by the laws of nature and the laws of physics e.g., as shown by every charge in the universe, the negative resonant absorption of the medium (in nonlinear optics), etc. COP>1.0 EM systems and even COP = ₯ EM systems are also permitted by the proper restatement of the second law of thermodynamics. Whoever wishes to assault overunity researchers with the label of "perpetual motion nuts" must first give a purely classical explanation of the source charge problem and where and how the source charge observably gets all that energy it continuously outputs. Else he himself is guilty of being a part of the greatest clan of perpetual motion nuts in all history the conventional scientific establishment still advocating a seriously flawed EM power system model which excludes the proven vacuum interaction and thus any asymmetry in that interaction. He must also falsify the gauge freedom axiom, and prove that one cannot freely change the voltage of an electrostatic circuit, where the current is zero. Best wishes, Tom Bearden ----------------------------------------- P. S. Overunity EM systems are highly nonlinear systems. Hence they
become sensitive to initial conditions. Many such systems exhibit
peculiar phenomena as a result: you can sometimes turn it off, and the
next time it starts it will behave differently with different COP.
By starting and stopping it several times, one can adjust back to a more
usual "initial condition" so as to resume performance. There is also
much other odd phenomenology involved that does not appear in the
textbooks. There is, e.g., a decay mechanism that nature uses for
such "excited" far from equilibrium states. We have included much of
this new phenomenology and the "decay mechanism" (and how to solve it) in
our cited book, |