Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: [jlnlabs] time reversal/over-unity Dear Leslie, The work of producing time-reversals (where the reactions run backwards) is well-established in thermodynamics already. Significant recent work in that respect has also been done by D. K. Evans et al. E.g., modern thermodynamics is based solidly on statistical mechanics, and uses the same statistics. It has long been recognized and well-known that a single atom, charge, molecule, or small group of same is not well-described by thermodynamics because of the small number (statistics gets pertinent when the numbers get larger than that). So in such cases, the second law of thermodynamics can be and is violated by statistical fluctuation, resulting in short reversals in little volumes where the reactions can momentarily run backward.
To put this on a scientific basis, Evans and Searles produced the
rigorous fluctuation theorem, to deal with the statistical fluctuations
that occur, generating reversals (negentropy instead of positive
entropy). See 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. Advances the transient fluctuation theorem
which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of
thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem
relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive
work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a
constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium. The fluctuation theorem was further generalized by Crooks. See Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726. Everyone still thought that the effects were at very small size and only for very short times, and so still were of very little consequence. In other words, ho hum, it's still business as usual. In July of this year, Evans and his colleagues produced something of a real shocker. They showed experimentally that, to the contrary, the effects could be at micron level and for up to two seconds. See 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. We point out that a cubic micron of water contains some 30 billion molecules. Hence a volume filled with 30 billion molecules, in which reactions can reverse and produce negentropy for up to two seconds, is an appreciable effect, particularly in chemistry. This sent an electric shock through the physics community. As Evans pointed out, it has profound implications for chemistry, for example. Many hasty and poor discussions of the paper and its rigorous experimental proof quickly occurred, trying to reassure thermodynamicists that all was still right with the world and entropy was still king. But better discussions also occurred; e.g., see Steven K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems," Physics Today, 55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21 for an excellent treatment, putting things into proper perspective.
Recently another great shocker has issued: See D. J. Evans and
Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady
States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. Here the
shocker is that, in the steady state limit, the Gibbs entropy diverges to
negative infinity. In short, the initial entropy is negative, and it
further decreases negatively toward negative entropy as time passes.
Simply put, it means that there can be and are purely negative entropy
reactions, that are also continuous. This bears strongly on my proposed mechanism for cold fusion transmutation reactions (T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 3; "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; "EM Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM Waves," Journal of New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28. It also places a very strong scientific support under my proposed solution of the source charge problem; see 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; T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 3; "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Voila! D. K. Evans and al. have now placed a very powerful theoretical and experimental base behind (1) my use in the late 1990s of little time reversal zones to generate the transmutation equations for cold fusion (such reversal zones can occur in cubic micron size for up to two seconds), and (2) my solution to the source charge problem. The charge is (a) in nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) in its exchange with the active vacuum, and (b) its continuous emission of energy to form its associated EM fields and potentials is dissipative (emission in all directions) dynamics. Further, the output fields and potentials are deterministic, not statistical; one can easily calculate them at any point and time, at any radial distance, without statistics. So to solve the deterministic dissipative dynamics problem posed by Evans and Rondoni, we have also exhibited a physical EM system --- the source charge --- that does permissibly exhibit continuous negative entropy production, thus extending the discussion by Evans and Rondoni to include such systems, and justifying such Gibbs entropy as permissible in real physical systems after all. So the solution to the source charge problem is now very strongly based, both theoretically and experimentally. Since it is experimentally demonstrated, no amount of theory that contradicts it can refute it. A single replicable experiment falsifies any contradicting theory whatsoever, unless one ceases practicing scientific method altogether. All of this means that the theory of permissible COP>1.0 EM systems is now on a very rigorous thermodynamics footing, as well as a rigorous footing in the more conventional particle physics. When the Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics is replaced by a higher group symmetry model that does not have such horrendous restrictions, the COP>1.0 EM theory is now firmly established electrodynamically as well, particularly by such strongly refereed papers as M.W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum," Foundations of Physics Letters, 2002, (in press); "The New Maxwell Electrodynamic Equations: New Tools for New Technologies," Journal of New Energy, Special Issue, 4(3), Winter 1999; "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), Aug. 2001, p. 387-393; "Derivation of the B(3) Field and Concomitant Vacuum Energy Density from the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 589-593; "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equations: Elimination of the Lorenz Condition," Foundations of Physics, 30(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130; ., "The Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296; "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), may 2000, p. 513-517; ., "Inconsistencies in the U(1) Theory of Electrodynamics: Stress Energy Momentum Tensor," Foundations of Physics Letters, 12(2), Apr. 1999, p. 187-192; "Derivation of the Lehnert Field Equations for Gauge Theory in Vacuum: Space Charge and Current," Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(2), Apr. 2000, p. 179-184; "Antigravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605. With respect to energy from the vacuum, it is now well established. Quoting M.W. Evans: " a structured vacuum described by an O(3) gauge group leads directly to the existence of novel charges and currents in the vacuum. These are conserved, or Noether, currents and charges and are clearly topological in origin. They spring from the fact that the vacuum is a topological space. Four such entities emerge: 1. A topological vacuum electric charge, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. 2. A topological vacuum current, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. 3. A topological vacuum magnetic charge, proposed by Barrett and Harmuth 4. A vacuum topological magnetic current, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth Each of these four objects can provide energy, which can be loosely termed 'vacuum energy': energy coming from the topology of the vacuum." Quoted from p. 84 of M.W. Evans, "O(3) Electrodynamics," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition (3 vols.), Edited by Myron W. Evans; article is in Part 2, p. 79-267. The 3-vol. edition is Volume 119 of the prestigious series, Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, New York, continuing, edited by Nobelist Ilya Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice. What is required now is for a single robust COP>1.0 EM system demonstrator, one which is replicable, to be advanced before the scientific community. Our own MEG still requires a hard year of expensive work before we can have it to that stage, and we will have to successfully obtain funding before we can finish it. However, there are also several other systems out there that are legitimate and can be advanced to the robust demonstrator stage. Let us hope that one or more of these systems will actually make it to formal robust demonstration, and perhaps an article in Physical Review. It will take that to break the iron dogma that COP>1.0 EM systems are impossible, even in the face of proven COP>1.0 experiments such as the Bohren experiment with COP = 18 (Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?}, Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable by any nonlinear optics group and produces COP = 18. As old Hank used to say on the Louisiana Hayride back in my guitar-picking days, "If the Good Lord is willing and the creeks don't rise," we should see COP>1.0 EM power systems gradually making it into mainstream scientific consciousness and acceptance about a year or year and a half from now. Because of the work of D. K. Evans et al., the thermodynamics objections are now removed. So a very powerful push in that direction has been completed by D. K. Evans and colleagues. Best wishes, Tom Bearden |