|The Tom Bearden
|Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
Governor Davis has a big problem that one must sympathize with and understand! The "overunity energy community" is largely in the condition of having mostly only successful small experimental buildups, not robust and proven systems ready for production and full-bore on line power utility operation. It's an area where additional research and development --- and funding for that --- are very much still required for a substantial period, at least for the developments I personally know anything about.
If you can find an exception to that, and it's a proven exception, not just a "statement", e.g., then of course the situation changes. But in Governor Davis's responsible position, he cannot make a decision for something still unproven, not yet even developed to the production-ready state, and that has not been demonstrated in multiple environments and conditions already powering things like homes and larger loads, and that has not been certified and approved by the regulatory agencies. That would be like saying he ought to just use hot fusion, even though it isn't really developed yet. And hot fusion gets billions for research, while COP>1.0 system research gets zilch.
I sincerely recommend you reassess any plans to try to "fry" the governor because he doesn't jump for unproven technologies still in the embryonic stage and not meeting the legally required standards. In his position, he really can't afford to do that. If he did, he would be irresponsible and would almost certainly initiate a greater disaster energy-wise than California suffered last year already.
The real problem is not with the Governor! It's with the U.S. scientific community, which still erroneously equates COP>1.0 with perpetual motion purporting to have EFFICIENCY greater than 100% (and therefore implying machines that CREATE extra energy from nothing). Every charge in the universe already demonstrates COP = infinity (as does a windmill or a solar cell, or a waterwheel, e.g.), but that certainly is not an EFFICIENCY greater than 100% since the charge freely receives all the energy directly from the seething vacuum (Wu et al., broken symmetry of opposite charges, 1957, Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year). For COP>1.0 systems, all the energy output is in fact input to the system; it's just that for COP>1.0 the environment freely inputs some of the energy so that the operator does not have to input all of it. So the operator permissibly inputs less than the system outputs --- the excess being freely input from the environment. For COP = infinity, the operator inputs nothing at all, and the environment puts all the energy into the system.
The standard electrical engineering community and classical electrodynamics still use an archaic model, however, The old model dates from 1867 with curtailments in the 1880s and 1890s, and assumes that the source charge (every charge in the universe) freely creates energy out of nothing, pouring it out at light speed in all directions and establishing its associated fields and potentials (and their energy) expanding across the universe at light speed. In other words, their model does assume continuous, steadily increasing giant negentropy of the source charge, but it also assumes that all that energy is just freely CREATED by the charge and not input to it by anything.
So the greatest perpetual motion advocates in human history are --- unwittingly --- our own electrical professors, power system engineers, and power system scientists! They already assume every charge to be a perpetual motion machine of the very worst kind, creating energy from nothing, continuously and steadily. Then the more dogmatic of these fellows have the gall to call legitimate COP>1.0 EM researchers "perpetual motion nuts". No legitimate overunity researcher ever claims the creation of energy, or a system efficiency higher than 100%. He just claims that the active environment inputs the energy or some of it, so that the operator doesn't have to input all of it.
The U.S. scientific community still insists on an electrical power system EM model that is archaic, does not include the vacuum's proven energetic interaction with the EM system or a broken symmetry in that energetic exchange, still uses symmetrically regauged equations (which regauging discards EM systems far from equilibrium with their external environment, the active vacuum), and still considers the second law of thermodynamics inviolable. The second law most certainly is not inviolable; in fact it is an oxymoron, implicitly assuming that some negentropy has first already occurred, to generate the order that is then subsequently disordered. So the second law --- as presently stated --- implicitly assumes its own contradiction having first occurred, so it is an oxymoron. It's also under heavy fire now by some very substantial scientists anyway.
The pollution of the planet and the energy crisis also are partially the fault of the environmental community, which has largely turned to the conventional scientific community for energy advice --- the same community responsible for the problem in the first place --- without examining the assumptions the conventional community uses in its models. It needs to seek advice from some of the maverick or fore-front scientists who have already pointed out the extreme shortcomings of the classical EM model, particularly as used in electrical power engineering.
What is needed is research funding in this embryonic COP>1.0 area, in a reasonable fashion. We need to stop saying that, hey, we can just easily have a simple little old system from Radio Shack parts, and anyone can whip it together. If it were that simple, those hundreds and thousands of sharp young graduate students and post docs would have done it 50 years ago. They didn't and they haven't, so obviously it is not that simple at all.
There is not now an accepted legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems (including my own, which is not accepted, at least not yet, although certainly my own personal opinion is that it is legitimate and based on proven physics), with lots of experimental confirmation of the fundamental precepts etc. That needs doing and doing well, based on solid physics outside classical EM theory. For COP>1.0 systems, standard electrical engineering is also totally inadequate. A higher group symmetry electrodynamics is required in order to even show the COP>1.0 aspects or to understand and model how the energy is taken from the vacuum and converted into real, observable EM energy (per Wu's experimental results in 1957 and the Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang). A major effort in producing such a legitimate COP>1.0 theoretical model for EM systems should be substantially funded, and that is one effort that the activist community is strongly urged to take action on with respect to the leaders of the scientific community who control the funding --- such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation -- and of course the DoE.
The phenomenology of a COP>1.0 system is not just the standard EE phenomenology, but it is much more complicated. It can and does involve negative energy as well as positive energy. An electrical power system far from equilibrium with the vacuum is technically in an excited state, and all excited states have concomitant decay mechanisms. The decay mechanism for most COP>1.0 EM systems is particularly insidious, being a negative energy mechanism. So to have a stable COP>1.0 system, one is faced with the necessity of producing what is known in extended thermodynamics as a STABILIZED far from equilibrium state. When that is achieved, the COP>1.0 system will then be stable, will not decay back to COP<1.0, and can operate and do the job reliably. Now just try to find that problem discussed in the literature, except for the thermodynamics work which decidedly is not pointed at COP>1.0 systems.
Close-looping such a stable disequilibrium system for self-powering operation can then be done, but it is not a trivial task. Instead, it is quite a difficult task indeed!. I discuss that at some length in my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, available from my website www.cheniere.org. We also give two methods for solving the close-looping, self-powering problem. And we give the nature and main characteristics of the negative energy problem as well, and how to handle it.
Now just try finding any scientific data or discussion on a stabilized COP>1.0 EM system, or close-looping it for self-powering! There is nothing in the textbooks about it, or in the standard scientific literature either.
Funding for that type of intensive theoretical and experimental work needs to be forthcoming, or it will remain in the doldrums where it has long been.
Extended thermodynamics has some clues, for it already knows and clearly recognizes areas where present thermodynamics fails. One of these areas is in sharp gradients, e.g. -- which gets one into processes like Shoulders' clusters made by discharge processes (where like charges attract and cluster) and the very nice work of the Correas. However, the extended thermodynamics fellows are attempting to deal with the area in irreversible fashion, which means total application of the second law. When the second law is violated, it is because one is using reversible interactions --- now clearly proven experimentally (which means no amount of theory can refute it) by Denis Evans et al. at up to the micron (colloidal) level and for two seconds (and occasionally even a little longer). The second law has long been recognized not to apply to a charge, an atom, a molecule, or a small number of them. Now it is proven to frequently not apply to much larger phenomena (much greater numbers of charges etc.) and for much longer periods of time. We believe the new work by Evans et al., published in July in Phys. Rev. Lett., fully justifies our previous assumption of "time reversal zones" occurring in successful cold fusion experiments, so that for a short time and for some collections of particles the reactions can and do run backwards. This means that like charges can temporarily attract, totally eliminating the Coulomb barrier and converting it to the Coulomb attractor. We point out that the Coulomb barrier is really the only thing that prevents transmutation nuclear reactions from occurring in electrolyte experiments anyway. Now the violation of that Coulomb barrier is clearly permissible, by the experiments of Evans et al. Hence it may just be that we deciphered the major ingredient in the cold fusion successes (now in more than 600 successful experiments). That assumption and the resulting nuclear reactions I showed as typical of a vast new type, now should be intensively funded and followed up. The effort should include both theoretical and experimental work and funding, by some of the best available researchers and theoreticians.
As you can see, there is very rich and fruitful grounds here for strong, well-funded research, both theoretical and experimental. Like any other research area! What we do not need are "million dollar prizes" or "one-watt challenges" and such conundrums, but legitimate research funding made available for legitimate research efforts. Since intellectual property rights of some inventors are also involved, then the projects should recognize those rights via noncircumvention agreements, rather than the "squirrely" contracts usually proffered for small funds, just to get all the inventor's information. The DoE, e.g., should have a viable and very strong, ongoing, well-funded program in COP>1.0 energy research, but one that recognizes the noncircumvention rights of appropriate inventors. However, to deal with independent inventors, the government agencies must change their very tactics they now uses. The national laboratories under them are very patent-hungry and file patents themselves. The independent inventor can hardly work with them under any kind of program, unless he wishes to risk losing all or most of his intellectual property rights. DARPA, e.g., uses an infamous "march-in rights" clause that means that a single bureaucrat can prepare a memo stating that you are not getting your invention to market fast enough for the Government's needs. Whereupon the "Government" seizes the patent rights, assigns the project to a favored contractor, who then "pursues it with the vigor the government needs". Similar fiascos are usually true for trying to work with many universities; the administrations are usually greedy for patents, and usually will not sign a noncircumvention clause at all. They also pressure their professors and researchers to produce those patents!
In this type of "no funding or highly restricted funding" environment, it is little wonder that real funding for independent researchers and research groups --- and for inventors --- is very, very short, particularly if one does not wish to "sell stock" etc. or engage in possible new "dot.com" type affairs.
Anyway, hopefully that shows a little bit of what the Governor of California is up against if he tries to prematurely "go with" COP>1.0 EM energy systems. Sadly, the "overunity community" work --- including our own --- is just not yet sufficiently mature to be able to place reliable, proven, tested power systems into production. Note also that such power systems have to have lots of safety and health standards testing and certifications set by regulatory agencies, not by the Governor. No one in the COP>1.0 community presently has such systems ready, at least to my knowledge. So in my opinion it is totally unfair to try to pressure the Governor to "opt for unproven, non-developed, immature laboratory buildups", unless you can find a candidate system that is already well tested and proven, certified for the health requirements and regulatory requirements, reliable, safe, etc.
So this is a plea for the activist community to zero in on the real targets blocking overunity power system research and development, rather than unjustifiably harassing the poor Governor. He is in the position of having to choose something already tested, proven, reliable, well-funded, in production, and health-certified --- which means the standard stuff is all he can turn to, because we simply do not yet have the overunity devices to that state.
From: David Crockett Williams
Would welcome your advice on how to make the most of this opening in coming weeks of election campaign while Gov. Davis is most sensitive to criticism about ignoring such important information, especially in news stories.