The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

 

Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:31 AM
Subject: RE: question about MEG
 

Shawn,

In early measurements, in one set of experiments the magnetic field of the magnet did appear to decrease slightly after some time in a few tests.  However, sometime later we found that the field measurement instrument probe was defective, so we changed things out with good ones.  Since then, we have not noticed any appreciable change in the magnetic field of the permanent magnets in measurements.  We can't completely rule it out just yet, but if the field is being decreased it appears to be so slowly that the magnet will last for years.

Just now I'm working on a complicated and extensive briefing, which will be placed on my website, dealing with the emerging thermodynamics of COP>1.0 EM systems.  Here we deal rather exactly with such questions as perpetual motion or not, how one permissibly bypasses the second law of thermodynamics (the law of increasing entropy), according to thermodynamics itself, etc.  There are some very important new research developments in forefront thermodynamics research that are significant to this field, and we will cite them and explain them.  Specifically, a charge is a disequilibrium steady state system, hence permissibly exhibits some rather startling thermodynamic phenomenology.  It exhibits negative Gibbs entropy, and that Gibbs entropy then continuously increases negatively toward negative infinity, as time passes.  In the briefing we argue that the Gibbs entropy is in fact a real system entropy for a charge or dipole, when the vacuum interaction is considered as well as the proven asymmetry in that interaction.

Among many scientists and engineers there is a continuing ill-informed and totally erroneous equating of COP>1.0 as being "perpetual motion freely creating energy from nothing".  That is totally false.  As an example, Planck's statement defining a perpetual motion machine is this: "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."

So the rigorous characteristics of a prohibited perpetual (continuous) motion machine is one which (1) produces continuous work or energy output, and (1) has no energy input at all, or insufficient energy input, so it "creates" the needed energy from nothing, thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy).

Summing it up: A prohibited perpetual motion machine is one which creates energy from nothing, and therefore is prohibited by the law of conservation of energy.

Note also that the second law of classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to systems in equilibrium or very close to equilibrium.  It specifically does not apply to systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with an active environment.

Also note the peculiar thermodynamics definition of "closed system".  A closed system is defined as one in which mass does not cross the system boundary, but energy can and does.  An open system is defined as one in which mass crosses the system boundary, and energy may or may not cross it (it is free to cross it).  So a normal inert electrical power system (from the generator on through the power transmission lines and all the losses and loads) is considered a "closed" thermodynamic system (it does not give off or receive mass), but the system is actually quite open with respect to energy exchange with its environment.  One must be aware of the peculiar historical definition of the closed system and the open system in thermodynamics.  A system not exchanging energy or mass is said to be an "isolated" system; there is really no such thing in all the universe.

If a machine produces continuous ("perpetual") motion but the energy is input to it and is not created, then it is not a so-called "perpetual motion machine creating energy from nothing".  It is in fact a permissible perpetual (continuous) motion machine, where by "perpetual" we mean "continuous indefinitely".  A machine is indeed permitted to produce continuous motion indefinitely (so long as something does not break), if it receives the necessary input energy freely, from either the environment or the operator or both.  We usually refer to it as "perpetual motion" if the operator does not have to input any of the energy, but instead the environment freely inputs it all.  Examples of permissible perpetual motion power systems are a windmill, a water wheel, a sailboat, a solar cell array, and every charge and dipole in the universe.  All of those systems freely produce energy (and work, if the energy output is harnessed), without the operator having to input any of the energy himself.  The environment furnishes all the necessary input energy. It is not implied that "energy is created from nothing", so these "continuously operating" and "continuously working systems" are permissible by the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics.  The subtle ones on that little list are the charge and the dipole.

So let us explain.

In 1956-57 Lee and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry, which --- if true --- represented a revolution in much of physics.  So important was their prediction that scientists jumped onto it immediately, and tested it quickly.  Wu and her colleagues quickly proved it experimentally in early 1957.  Again, so revolutionary a change was this, that the Nobel Committee moved with unprecedented speed and awarded a Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the very same year --- December 1957.

Yet the tremendous impact of that important revolution in physics has not made it across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department in the ensuing 45 years (nearly a half century!).  The electrical professors and Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamicists have not modified the archaic old EE model, which does not model the active vacuum, its energy exchange with the charge and with the dipole, or broken symmetry in that energy exchange.

One of the proven broken symmetries is the asymmetry of opposite charges --- such as are on the opposite ends of a dipole.

Also, in modern physics (e.g., quantum field theory) an "isolated" observable charge is not really isolated at all.  Instead, it is clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign in the seething vacuum.  Hence a charge is actually a special kind of dipole.  Further, the magnitude of the "bare" charge in the middle of the clustering is infinite (with infinite energy).   The clustering virtual charges also constitute an infinite magnitude of charge. However, the difference between these two opposite infinite charges is finite, and is simply the ordinary value of that "isolated charge" given in the classical textbooks and handbooks.  That "finite difference" is what the external observer (or a measuring instrument) "sees" of that infinite bare charge in the middle, through the clustering screen of infinite opposite virtual charges.

Every charge already involves polarization of the vacuum and dipolarity asymmetry in its exchange with that vacuum.

So a single "charge' is actually a special dipolarity, and also exhibits broken symmetry in its fierce exchange of virtual energy with the seething vacuum.

Rigorously this means that the charges of the dipole (including the dipolarity of a single "isolated" charge classically) continuously absorb virtual photons from the vacuum, coherently integrate this virtual EM energy into real, observable EM photons, and re-emit the cohered (integrated) EM energy as observable, real photons in all directions at light speed.  In turn, this continuously emitted real EM energy establishes and continuously replenishes the associated macroscopic EM fields and potentials and their energy, expanding outward at the speed of light.

So every charge in the universe freely and continuously emits real, observable, usable EM energy in all directions at the speed of light.  The charges in the original matter of the universe have been doing this for some 14 billion years, and have not run down yet.  All dipoles in the original matter have been doing it for 14 billion years also.  We do not have to re-prove that; it has been proven for nearly a half century, even though it has not been added into the Maxwell-Heaviside theory or electrical engineering yet.

The brutal and proven fact is that every "source charge" and every dipole continuously extracts real EM energy from the vacuum and pours it out in an unending stream, freely, from the moment of its creation or appearance.  Again, the EEs do not even include the active vacuum in their model, much less a broken symmetry in that vacuum's energetic exchange with a charge or with a dipole. Yet every joule of EM energy in the universe --- whether in mass or in space --- has been extracted directly from the seething vacuum via the asymmetry of the source charge in its exchange with that vacuum.

Another fact is that the associated macroscopic fields and potentials and their energy are deterministic as a function of radius from the charge.  We easily calculate the intensity of the formed "static" E-field and formed "static" B-field at any point in space, as well as its directions.  We also calculate the intensity of the associated scalar potential at any point, etc.

It's easy to make a permissible perpetual motion (continuous energy flow) system.  Just lay a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the E-field of the cap is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet.  That beast sits there and continuously pours out Poynting energy flow EXH. That appears even in standard theory.   As Buchwald states: "[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static."  Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44.

It has been well-known and accepted in thermodynamics for decades that a single charge, atom, molecule, or small group of them does not necessarily have to obey the second law, from statistical considerations alone.   Modern thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics, and when the statistics is violated or inapplicable, so are the laws of thermodynamics with regard to entropy either violated or inapplicable, etc.   Conservation of energy, however, must not be violated.

So the second law is violated permissibly by the source charge.  And since the associated macroscopic EM fields and potentials and their energy are formed deterministically, then they also violate the second law, since the statistics does not apply to deterministic structures.

Hence all electrodynamics major entities --- the source charge and the dipole, the fields and the potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe --- exist in violation of the second law.  Further, this exhibited and demonstrable violation holds to any macroscopic size magnitude (including across the entire observable universe) and any time duration (including for 14 billion years that we know of) desired.

With respect to macroscopic electrodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics in a peculiar sense is as dead as a doornail.

The received EE and classical electrodynamics models used in our universities do not model or include any energy input at all to the source charge.  Yet the models agree that the source charge somehow continuously creates and replenishes its associated fields and potentials and their energy, spreading out in all directions at the speed of light from the moment of appearance of the charge.

In short, every electrical engineering department, professor, and textbook implicitly assumes that every charge in the universe is a prohibited perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy from nothing, continuously, and continuously violating the conservation of energy law (first law of thermodynamics).

They also assume that every EM field, potential, and joule of energy in the macroscopic universe is created by these prohibited perpetual motion machines called charges, without any EM energy input to the charge at all.

Thus the greatest prohibited perpetual motion machine advocates of all human history are our conventional electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks --- and the na´ve critics who so harshly attack COP>1.0 EM system researchers, cold fusion researchers, etc. while placidly upholding the terribly flawed EE model taught in our universities. The critics themselves unwittingly and implicitly assume that ALL electromagnetic energy is created from nothing, and always has been.

They are in fact unwittingly hoisted upon their own perpetual motion petard, yet are so na´ve they do not even realize it.

You can see why we say that in 45 years the great revolution in physics that occurred in 1957 has not made it across the campus, and the EEs have not modified their terribly flawed "prohibited perpetual motion machine" electrodynamics to include the novel source and mechanism of the input energy to the charge.  Until they do that, they are inescapably advocating prohibited perpetual motion machines violating the first law of thermodynamics on a gigantic scale.

It would be nice if the self-appointed pundits --- so smugly assuming that COP>1.0 EM systems are prohibited perpetual motion machines creating energy --- would learn a little particle physics and thermodynamics. One does not have to reprove what has been proven many times since 1957, for which a Nobel Prize has been awarded, and which is already standard knowledge in particle physics.

We point out that a permanent magnet contains a dipole, consisting of the north and south magnetic charge on opposing ends. As such, it is long proven that the magnet's asymmetry continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transduces it into real photons, and emits those real photons in all directions at the speed of light, thereby establishing the associated magnetic fields and potentials and continuously replenishing them.  That mechanism, of course, does not appear in any electrical power engineering manuscript or textbook, nor is it taught in the electrical engineering curriculum.

So there is no problem at all in extracting all the EM energy flow one wishes from the seething vacuum, anywhere, anytime.  Just make a little dipole, and leave it alone and intact.  It will extract and pour out real, usable EM energy continuously from then on, so long as it remains intact. That is particle physics and the broken symmetry of opposite charges, not EE and not Tom Bearden.

Every charge, magnet, dipole, etc. exhibits a coefficient of performance (COP) of infinity. No problem!  So does a windmill and a solar cell.  That is permissible, and COP = infinity only says that the operator himself doesn't have to input any of the input energy.  It simply says that the active environment freely inputs all the energy, and conservation of energy continues to rigorously apply.  Some common things demonstrating COP = infinity are: A windmill driving a pump and pumping water, a water wheel driving a mill and grinding corn, a sailboat running before the wind, a solar cell array in the sun that is powering a motor and some lights, a bicycle coasting downhill, a permanent magnet, an electret, every charge in the universe, and every dipole in the universe.

That is straightforward physics and thermodynamics.  Note that Planck's definition allows continuous or "perpetually" acting machines and systems, so long as the environment continuously inputs the required energy.

In short, it would be nice if the na´ve critics learned that there are permissible perpetual (continuous) motion machines such as a windmill that freely receives its input energy from its active environment, and there are prohibited perpetual (continuous) motion machines that one has erroneously assumed receive no energy from their environment or the operator, and thereby  create energy from nothing at all.  Continuous motion or continuous output of energy or continuous performance of useful work does not imply creation of energy! It only requires that the energy be furnished, since it cannot be created.

Presently most of the "free energy" community, nearly 100% of the harsh skeptics, more than half the EEs, and even many professors and textbooks tend to imply, state, or assume that COP>1.0 EM systems are equated to prohibited perpetual motion machines that create EM energy in violation of the first law.   That is totally untrue and without any foundation whatsoever.  If COP>1.0 required energy creation, then there could be no EM fields and potentials and their energy produced by the source charges, so that the COP of each charge is infinity. There could not even be charges!  There could be no windmills, no waterwheels, no solar cell power systems, no electrets, no permanent magnets with fields, etc.  While energy cannot be created, it can jolly well be changed in form!  And that includes from virtual form to observable form.

Again, one keeps a sense of humor.  The most strident and ill-informed skeptics are precisely the ones who erroneously assume, imply, or flatly state that that COP>1.0 is (prohibited) perpetual motion, because it implies creating energy from nothing.  They are also the ones defending and accepting the standard EE model, which makes them unwittingly among the greatest prohibited perpetual motion advocates of human history.  No legitimate COP>1.0 EM system researcher has ever claimed a prohibited continuous motion machine that creates energy from nothing.  Instead, the researchers have claimed permissible continuous motion machines that freely receive their energy from the environment.

It would be nice if the harping critics would simply go study some physics and thermodynamics.

It would also be nice if the skeptics quit deliberately lying and stating that the MEG inventors wrote the two formal papers dealing with how the MEG takes the energy from the vacuum.  Indeed, the two papers -- particularly the second one --- were vigorously refereed and approved by the referees with vigorous defense by the authors.  The defense prevailed, and the two papers were approved by the referees and published in the second leading physics journal, Foundations of Physics Letters.  The authors are M.W. Evans et al. of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study --- some 14 authors' names appear on the papers.  Only one of them -- yours truly -- is one of the MEG inventors.  Evans, e.g., has more than 600 scientific papers published in the hard literature,  is a prestigious editor of two or more series of scientific volumes, etc.  Others of the group are also skilled scientists.  These were not "idle little papers" whipped up by squirrelly inventors on the spur of the moment.

Since every joule of EM energy is already extracted from the vacuum via the asymmetry of the source charge or dipole, and since macroscopic EM fields and potentials violate the second law permissibly because they are deterministic instead of statistical, it should not come as a surprise that macroscopic EM power systems can be built which do the same function.  After all, the EM fields and potentials associated with the source charge and dipole are macroscopic and deterministic to any magnitude and time duration desired.  Rigorously this means that practical power systems extracting usable electricity from the vacuum, and using it to freely power loads, are theoretically permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics.  It then requires the necessary effort and change in thinking, to develop and build a prototype.

Anyway, there is no "energy crisis" and there is no problem in producing a steady and continuous flow of EM energy directly from the vacuum.  A permanent magnet does it, the source dipole between the terminals of a generator does it, every charge does it, and so forth.  Getting the free and continuous flow of copious EM energy established from the local vacuum is the easy, cheap part.

The only real "energy problem" --- and the hard part --- is in catching some of that resulting freely flowing energy in an external circuit, and then freely dissipating it in an external load to power that load, without destroying the asymmetry (the dipole) that is freely extracting the energy flow from the vacuum in the first place.  In our book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, we give quite a few ways of approaching that problem, as well as the principles that are involved.

Since catching and using the freely flowing "real EM energy extracted from the vacuum"  is the only energy problem, then obviously that is why the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the great national laboratories, the electrical engineering departments, etc. are not working on it at all.  Sadly, they have not yet recognized the problem, much less the solution.  We actually have a scientific mindset problem, not a great and insurmountable technical problem.

Whenever that mindset can be overcome, and the sharp young grad students and post docs are freed to research and work the problem, in 2 to 3 years there will no longer be an energy problem, ever again.

Max Planck also pointed out that such a scientific mindset does not change quickly!  In his 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."

It usually takes at least 50 years or more for such a strident mindset to get changed.  If so, we've had 45 years pass already, after the prediction and proof of broken symmetry, guaranteeing the easy and simple extraction of copious EM energy from the vacuum at will, anywhere, anytime. So it would appear we have yet a few years to go before the scientific community hopefully gets its head turned back around and on straight, muzzles the self-appointed and ill-informed harsh critics who engage in ad hominem attacks and in fact in savaging cur dog pack attacks, etc.  And before the scientific community leaders will allow funding for the grad students and post docs to work on the problem, together with a few interested and highly qualified professors.

One is reminded that the same community (its predecessors) did the same kind of savaging of Mayer when he discovered and stated the modern statement of the conservation of energy law in the first place.  Conservation of energy was considered an insane idea of no merit whatsoever.  So savagely was Mayer attacked that he suffered a breakdown and attempted suicide, requiring medical care for some time.  Yet towards the latter part of his life, his principle had so eased the calculations and understanding that --- to their great credit --- three noted scientists came to his defense, and he was completely vindicated and recognized. So he was increasingly lionized toward the end of his life.

Most innovators are not so lucky.  They are savaged unmercifully in their lifetimes, and then only vindicated after their death.  The scientific community is still doing it that way.  The very ones who so savaged ultrawideband radar (and savaged Harmuth and Barrett and others) now pose as "Heck, we did it first!"  or "We were the real pioneers".  The bigots who have so savaged cold fusion are now staring full in the face of rigorous thermodynamics experimental proof that, in solutions, the second law can be and is violated at colloidal level (a micron) and for up to two seconds.  That is, little special zones of size up to a cubic micron can form --- by sheer statistical fluctuation --- for up to two seconds, and in that little zone the reactions of interest can run backwards.  The only reason that solutions do not produce a nuclear union of, say, two H+ ions (which are just two free protons) is because of the "Coulomb barrier" between them.  Like charges usually repel, and so two protons are prohibited by the normal Coulomb repulsion from approaching each other and each entering the strong force region of the other.  The high energy physicists do it the hard way, by firing one of the protons at the other with such velocity that it smashes on through the Coulomb barrier and reaches the strong force region, producing a nucleus of a new element and thus a transmutation or nuclear reaction.

The easier way to do it is to get those little "reaction reversing zones" to form with sufficient probability, so that in one of the zones like charges such as the two H+ ions (the two free protons) temporarily attract.  We point out that, in water, a cubic micron has some 30 billion molecules of water in it.  So that's lots and lots of ionic interactions and "H-bond forming and breaking" actions going on continuously.  In short, in such a large number of interactions, there emerge such "reversal zones" forming by purely statistical fluctuations, as rigorously predicted by the Evans and Searles fluctuation theorem and validated experimentally.  So there is a real probability emerging that two H+ ions can occasionally attract each other into their mutual strong force regions, forming a quasi-nucleus.  Then as the reversal zone dies away because the fluctuation dies, a quark flips in one of the protons, changing it to a neutron.  Voila!  The quasi nucleus now is a real nucleus of a deuterium ion.  And the resulting emergence of excess deuterium is indeed shown in a great many of the now more than 600 successful cold fusion experiments.  Two D+ ions, e.g., may attract together into a quasi-nucleus in such a reversal zone, and then just "tighten further together" into an alpha particle as the zone decays, without even having to flip a quark. In that case, two D+ ions have combined and transmuted into a helium ion nucleus, called an alpha particle.

So current thermodynamics theory predicts and experimentally substantiates the formation of such temporary reaction reversing zones, due to the statistical fluctuations.  The reversal of the "like charges repel" normal law into "temporarily like charges attract", in such a temporary zone, then temporarily eliminates the Coulomb barrier and converts it into the "Coulomb attractor".

Since the Coulomb barrier is really the only thing preventing transmutation reactions in normal chemistry, then the fact that thermodynamic fluctuations do  reverse the Coulomb barrier strongly implies that just such new nuclear reactions as we have advanced do and will occur.  Doesn't prove the suggested mechanism, of course, but is consistent with it.  Consistency is the first part of proof.

And so the novel nuclear reactions providing nuclear transmutations at weak spatial energy do occur, as shown by the experiments.

Anyway, dipoles and charges do not "run down" in their ability to extract EM energy from the vacuum, and freely pour it out.  So at least in theory, unless there is some other mechanism involved, the magnet can and will continue to pour out EM energy indefinitely, or at least as well as a magnet does in other conventional applications.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

References:

  1. D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648.
  2. G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.
  3. D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002 (in press). 
  4. T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.
  5. M. W. Evans et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.
  6. M. W. Evans et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393.
  7. M. W. Evans et al., "The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum," Found. Phy. Lett., Dec. 2002 (in press).
  8. M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.
  9. M. W. Evans et al., "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equations: Elimination of the Lorenz Condition, Found. Phys., 30(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130.
  10. M. W. Evans et al., "The Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296.
  11. M. W. Evans et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.
  12. M. W. Evans et al., " Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111 (9), 2000, p. 407-409.
  13. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, 977 p., ISBN 0-9725146-0-0.
  14. T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001; Vol. 2, p. 639-698.  The 3 volumes  comprise a Special Topic issue as vol. 119,  I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, ongoing.
  15. T. E. Bearden, "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3-vols., Wiley, 2001;  Vol. 2, p. 699-776. 
  16. Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999.
  17. Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993.

Dear webmaster,
 
I have no technical background, but in reading the patent just granted to your organization (congratulations!), I saw on page 12 that "continued operation of the MEG demagnetizes the permanent magnet". 
 
In your testing, how long do the magnets last before they must be replaced?
 
Thanks.
 
Shawn