On the Principles of Permissible Overunity EM Power Systems

T. E. Bearden

CEO, CTEC, Inc.

Fellow Emeritus, AIAS

28 July 2001

Abstract and Summary:

We develop the major principles of emerging overunity EM power systems as open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from the active vacuum. Such systems were arbitrarily omitted from Maxwell's theory by curtailment. Heaviside's reinterpretation and simplification of Maxwell's equations did retain such overunity EM systems as one major subset. Lorentz then regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations by arbitrary symmetrical regauging to provide still simpler equations and a further reduced subset of permissible Maxwell-Heaviside systems. Lorentz regauging erroneously discarded the entire class of Maxwellian EM systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum.

Generators and batteries do not furnish energy to their external circuits. Instead, the source dipole, once formed, extracts energy from the vacuum via the broken 3-symmetry of its constituent charges. The generators and batteries only perform work upon their internal charges to separate them and form the source dipole. Hence one does not input energy to a conventional power source to power the circuit; instead, the input energy is only for the power source to create its source dipole. Once made, the broken symmetry of the dipole extracts usable EM energy from the vacuum and pours it out the terminals of the power supply (Figure 1). The extracted energy from the vacuum is in the form of Heaviside/Poynting energy flow, consisting of two components (Figure 2). The portion striking the circuit and diverged into the conductors to power the electron current is the Poynting component. The remaining Heaviside nondiverged component misses the circuit and is wasted. Every dipolar power supply is already a COP>1.0 EM converter system.

Closed current loop design of present power systems insures that Lorentz symmetrical regauging is self-applied by every system (Figure 3). The depotentialized electrons in the ground return line are forcibly rammed back through the back emf of the source dipole, scattering the dipole charges and destroying the source dipole. This kills the flow of energy being extracted from the vacuum by the former dipole. Such systems use their collected energy to destroy their free energy mechanism (the source dipole) and its extraction of energy from the vacuum, faster than they can power their loads. Hence present EM power systems are self-crippling systems inherently self-limited to COP<1.0.

Classical EM still erroneously assumes any charge as existing in an inert vacuum and creating—right out of nothing—all the EM energy flow it continuously pours out in all directions across the entire universe, providing the EM energy in the fields and potentials associated with the charge. This erroneous assumption that every charge is a pure source and a perpetual motion machine was resolved over 40 years ago in particle physics by the discovery of broken symmetry (Figure 4 ). However, classical electrodynamicists have never changed their century-old model to incorporate the proven active vacuum exchange.

For circuits, electrodynamicists presently do not calculate the entire associated EM energy flow, which is large. Instead, they calculate the small Poynting component of the flow—that component of the flow that strikes the surface charges in the circuit and is thereby diverged into the circuit to power the electrons (Figure 2, Figure 5). The nondiverged energy transport (Heaviside) portion of the EM energy flow that misses the circuit is arbitrarily discarded. Following Lorentz's method { [1] }, electrodynamicists calculate the Slepian vector equivalent (i.e., the Poynting component) and erroneously label it the entire EM energy flow. Instead, it is the energy dissipation flow inside the circuit, not the entire EM energy flow associated with the circuit, both inside and outside it.

For a nominal circuit, the entire EM energy flow extracted by the source dipole from the vacuum may be on the order of 10¹³ times as great (Figure 6) as the Poynting component actually intercepted by the circuit { [2] , [3] } and then used to produce the Slepian vector and power the losses and loads while also killing the source dipole. [1]

Examples of legitimate overunity systems and processes developed by scientists (Sweet, Kron, Lawandy, Letokhov, Chung, Mandel'shtam and Papaleksi) are briefly presented. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.

A summary of the major principles and characteristics of permissible EM power systems with COP>1.0 is presented at the conclusion. The reader is directed to my website, www.cheniere.org, for appreciable additional COP>1.0 system information.

Introduction Beginning with Magnetics

Kinetic Magnets: Self-Oscillation in Magnetic Materials

The present author was for some years a colleague of inventor Floyd Sweet. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Sweet solid state vacuum triode amplifier { [4] } (Figure 7) produced ordinary, standard EM energy (6 watts in the first unit; 500 watts in later units) unless specially rigged to do antigravity. A retired electrical engineer proficient on the bench, Sweet's second power unit produced 500 watts with a COP » 1.5´10⁶. The system used barium ferrite permanent magnets whose materials were conditioned into self-oscillation at an initiated ELF frequency. Such a magnet is loosely referred to as a "kinetic magnet".

Self-oscillation in permanent magnets is fairly well-known { [5] }, though not in electrical power system circles. Sweet's unique contribution was to stimulate self-oscillation at lower frequencies than what is ordinarily thought possible, and to do it more strongly than commonly found in the literature. The unit could also be rigged to do anti-gravity {4 }(Figure 8), and would reduce its weight on the laboratory bench by 90%, but that is beyond the scope of this present paper.

It should be obvious to the reader that a permanent magnet with self-oscillating fields can be surrounded by conductors or coils in which the kinetic fields "cut" the conductors and induce currents freely. A resistor can be connected in a closed circuit with the coils, and the resistor will be powered by the kinetic magnet so that free work is continuously performed. In short, any competent university laboratory can produce such a demonstrable little overunity EM power system with a little effort from presently known self-oscillation in magnetic materials {5 }. That alone is sufficient to prove that overunity EM power systems are permissible, since it only takes a single white crow to prove that not all crows are black.

Sweet activated his magnets by a proprietary process which he never fully revealed. Nevertheless, materials scientists competent in self-oscillation in magnetic materials can produce such an example magnet, which remains self-kinetic at somewhat higher frequency than the Sweet VTA for some period of time such as minutes, several hours, a day, or even a week.

Sweet's mentor was the great Gabriel Kron, [2] whose negative resistor we discuss later. Sweet greatly admired Kron and knew the details of Kron's negative resistor. A possible connection between Sweet's VTA and Kron's negative resistor cannot be ruled out.

The Researcher Must Be Aware Of Numerous Magnetic Effects { [6] }

Overunity researchers into magnetic approaches must progress beyond the simplified notion that a permanent magnet is just a blob of uniform material with a magnetic pole at each end. One must be aware of a wide range of odd and unusual effects in magnetic materials { [7] }, if one wishes to address unusual magnetic engines.

Multivalued magnetic potentials (MVMPs) [3] arise naturally in magnetic theory { [8] }, and such potentials can yield a nonconservative magnetic field. In that case, integration of F·ds around a rotation loop may permissibly be nonzero, producing an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and permitting the system to exhibit COP>1.0. The MVMP "potential self-jump" is an asymmetrical self-regauging. [4]

Many magnetic materials are also photorefractive, and readily produce nonlinear optical effects at various frequencies. As one example, multivalued phase conjugate reflection can occur { [9] }. Such effects did occur in the Sweet vacuum triode amplifier.

If the magnetics researcher doesn't know what a Wiegand wire { [10] } is or the Dromgoole { [11] } effect is, or what the exchange force is, he needs to read the literature. The Wiegand effect occurs in a magnetic pulse wire which, in a magnetic field of a certain size, will self-reverse its dual magnetic state and deliver a very sharp, free magnetic pulse. By surrounding the wire with a coil of many fine turns, one can get a 12-volt pulse of electrical energy, for free. These assemblies are widely used as sensors and switching initiators.

The Dromgoole phenomenon is an interesting effect whereby a voltage placed on a solenoid wrapped around an iron wire may be increased up to 300 times as much by twisting the wire through 90 degrees.

The exchange force is a result of nearly instantaneous "spin flipping" of electrons in the magnetic material, producing a momentary sharp change in magnetic field, both in magnitude and orientation. [5] This exchange force momentarily may be more than a thousand times as strong as the normal B-field.

There are hundreds of other novel magnetic effects in magnetic materials, many of them involving unusual spin effects. The serious overunity magnetics researcher needs to laboriously compile a set of references on such topics. One never knows in advance when one may meet one or more of these phenomena in magnetic experiments with odd devices. About half the known magnetic phenomena are well understood; the remainder run the gamut from "somewhat understood" to "not understood at all".

A Caution on the Rare Production of Higher Polarization EM Energy

With great rarity, some novel uses of stresses and opposing forces in highly nonlinear electromagnetic circuits can produce and have produced "unusual" forms of EM energy. I am occasionally asked about these anomalous phenomena experienced by an experimenter encountering one or more of them. Let me explain these "unusual EM energies," at least what I understand of them from limited experience with them.

In quantum field theory { [12] } and quantum electrodynamics, there are four photon (EM energy) polarizations { [13] }. The x- and y- polarizations or any combination of the two are where the 3-space energy transported by the photon (or transported by a transverse EM wave comprised of such photons) is oscillating perpendicularly in 3-space to the line of propagation of the photon or wave.

If vibrations in the x- and y- directions are "frozen" so that the spatial energy cannot oscillate laterally, the transported energy will pulsate longitudinally like an accordion, back and forth along the propagation line of motion. That's called a "longitudinal" or "longitudinally polarized" photon (or EM wave). Most of the "unusual EM energy" effects produced in various nonlinear coils and other devices have involved the inadvertent production of such longitudinal EM waves (LWs). Irradiation by LWs can be detrimental to the body if too powerful. [6] Irradiation by weaker longitudinal EM radiation can make one ill { [14] }, while stronger LW radiation can maim or kill { [15] }, particularly if strongly pulsed.

In theory a purely longitudinal EM wave would have infinite velocity and infinite energy. In the real world, however, one can only make "partial" LWs, with some transverse wave residues. These "imperfect" LWs are known as Undistorted Progressive Waves (UPWs) { [16] }. In theory at least, a UPW can travel either slower than light (in which case it's called an electromagnetic particle) or faster than light (then it's a superluminal wave). Most major weapons laboratories of the world either have already discovered or are now discovering and using longitudinal EM waves.

But back to our basic longitudinal EM wave, for further development.

If we now "freeze" the z-direction as well, then the 3-space energy in the wave does not oscillate at all, but just moves along as a slug of spatial energy. However, photons carry not only a piece of spatial energy, but also a piece of time. Time is actually spatial energy compressed by the factor c². With the spatial energy component "frozen", now the time component oscillates its magnitude. In short, that is called a "time-polarized" or "scalar" photon (or, if waves are used, a time-polarized or scalar EM wave.).

EM waves also carry not only spatial energy but also time-energy, since they transport photons. However, presently physicists just ignore and do not model the energetics of the time-component transported by the wave in spacetime (vacuum). They—usually unwittingly—portray only the 3-spatial intersection of the wave after observation.

Observation is a d/dt operator invoked on spacetime L³T, destroying the T and leaving the L³. For that reason, all observation is spatial. No observable even "persists in time", since it is a frozen instant 3-snapshot of an ongoing 4-interaction. Rigorously, the "spatial" wave portrayed in the texts is the material force field wave in the detecting matter (as in the Drude electron gas in a detecting wire antenna). None of the dozens of texts checked shows the EM wave in spacetime, but only a broken consecutive series of frozen snapshots in 3-space. [7] That is not how the EM wave exists in space at all. (See Figure 9).

The conventionally unknown time-polarized EM wave is the most powerful of all EM waves, and in pulses or with any substantial power can have quite lethal effects upon anything living. Adroitly used, it can also have beneficial effects. Mind operations are totally electromagnetic, but consist of time-polarized EM wave and photon operations rather than transverse.

The Russians, e.g., have long since developed weapons utilizing time-polarized EM waves and generators for them. Russian forces tested such a time-polarized EM weapon in Afghanistan, on two occasions { [17] }. The Mujahedin thought this invisible "death ray" was some new kind of instant-acting nerve gas. A powerful pulse of time-polarized (scalar) waves instantly destroys all life of any kind in the struck area or object or zone. It does so by simply snapping the time-domain mind completely loose from the 3-spatial body, resulting in instant and total death (hence the name mindsnapping). Everything living, at cellular level or even much finer, has its own correlated "mind-part" in the time-polarized EM domain. So mindsnapping kills all living parts, from the finest level to the largest { [18] }.

Time can be taken to be spatial energy { [19] } compressed by a factor of at least c². So it has at least the same energy density as mass. When one uses time-polarized EM waves, one is using the time-components of the EM waves and photons, hence the equivalent of extremely powerful nuclear energy—one where all the mass can be converted to spatial energy! So a little bit of transduction of time-energy into spatial energy can produce enormous spatial energy { [20] }.

We previously extended the conventional conservation of energy law—which conserves the net total of the spatial energy and the mass-energy—to include conserving the net total of the spatial energy, mass-energy, and time-energy { [21] } (Figure 10).

Usually researchers stumble into weak LW emission phenomena (hopefully only mildly!) when experimenting with something like opposing or biwound coils with cores of various materials (especially mixed organic material cores) or with plasmas irradiated by multiple EM waves where the difference frequencies can serve as extremely active radiation { [22] }. Under the right circumstances, the peculiar actions of the difference frequency are directly amplified by all the EM noise present { [23] }. Certain plasmas also transform transverse EM waves to longitudinal EM waves. The conglomerated results of such phenomena can be hazardous if powerful.

I advise anyone against experimenting with such, unless he is a very experienced researcher, takes extreme precautions, and uses very little power. Since LWs can affect nuclear detectors, one is also advised to have several different types of them closely on hand and monitoring. One experiments with such effects at one's own risk, and the risk can be substantial if other than minimal power is used. Neither this author nor the publishers of this volume are responsible for accidents or effects suffered by experimenters in this area, who experiment at their own volition and risk.

Unless rigged for antigravity (Figure 8), the Sweet device did not produce or radiate longitudinal EM waves. Otherwise I would no longer be among the living, because I was closely exposed to it many times for long periods.

A Heat Pump Can In Theory Be Close-Looped

The common home heat pump under ideal conditions has a COP = 4.0. Its maximum theoretical COP is 8.22, and probably a 6.0 heat pump could be designed for optimum conditions. The COP>1.0 is made possible by the heat pump extracting excess energy from its external environment (the heat energy gleaned from compressing environmental gas and extracting the heat).

In theory, one can "close loop" a motor-generator-heat pump combination of some sort, where the system will provide electrical power output while also running itself, taking its energy from the ambient heat energy of the air. That doesn't violate conservation of energy; all the energy for the outputs and the losses are in fact extracted from the external environment by the heat pump's COP>1.0 performance.

Of course the ambient air will usually not remain ideal. When the ambient air gets colder, its heat energy content reduces appreciably. The efficiency of the heat pump drops precipitously, until one must switch to the resistive heating elements to provide the necessary heating at COP<1.0. So close-looping the system isn't practical in most cases, and even when made practical by burying long air lines, etc. it is quite expensive. The complexity and maintenance also become burdensome. [8]

Overunity Systems Are Already Known

Overunity systems are quite ordinary. They are not fancy, and are conceptually similar to a waterwheel, a windmill, a sailboat, or a solar cell array. Or a little Seiko kinetic watch. The only difference is that we're trying to do it with EM power systems, and unwittingly facing the anathema of the closed-loop circuit which guarantees COP<1.0. It follows that the first requirement is to produce an operation in the circuit which violates that "single closed-loop operation".

Overunity systems are already prescribed by physics and thermodynamics. They are already in the standard physics texts, and certain overunity processes are well-known in the literature— including some EM overunity processes which we've cited in many previous publications. The skeptic should refer to lasing without population inversion, the Lawandy patents, the Letokhov publications and processes, Letokhov's negative absorption of the medium (a medium can emit more energy than we input), negative resonance absorption (a particle can collect more energy than one would think impacts on it, and then emit that excess energy, as in the Bohren experiment), the fiber fuse, Russian parametric oscillator power systems of the 1930s, Kron's negative resistor, etc.

In short, as in any field of physics, one must read the literature and find out what physics actually says and already contains about overunity processes that have been proven experimentally. It's not as simple as just having an EE degree or graduating from an electronics and motor course. None of the material taught in conventional educational institutions will explicitly tell one that an overunity EM power system is even possible, much less show what the principles of such a device are, or how to go about building one. One will have to discover the principles and methods oneself; there are no handbooks and there are no great experts—the present author included!

Also, contrary to prevailing opinion, real overunity EM systems have been built, including by leading scientists, and suppressed or abandoned for one reason or another.

Gabriel Kron's Negative Resistor

Arguably one of the greatest electrical scientists of all time was Gabriel Kron. Working for GE, Kron built a true negative resistor in the 1930s, and it could power itself and the network analyzer at Stanford University, under a GE support contract with the U.S. Navy. Here is a direct quote from Kron { [24] } to show what we refer to:

"When only positive and negative real numbers exist, it is customary to replace a positive resistance by an inductance and a negative resistance by a capacitor (since none or only a few negative resistances exist on practical network analyzers.)"

In that sentence, Kron was required to insert the words "none or". In another quote, Kron { [25] } also revealed that he was not allowed to use the negative resistor to openly power the Network Analyzer. Quoting and reading through the spin-control:

"Although negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer, in practice it is more convenient to use a second type of circuit, in which the positive and negative resistances are replaced by inductors and capacitors and the dc currents and voltages are replaced by ac currents and voltages of fixed frequency. The use of the second type of interpretation is equivalent to multiplying the wave equation by i = Ö-1."

In that quotation, one should just extract what is said in the first part of the first sentence: "Negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer." And quoting Kron { [26] } from another publication as to what his overunity secret of the open path { [27] } was:

"...the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously—following Maxwell— engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum-point, the 'ground'). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix... which created 'lamellar' currents..." "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search."

Kron's secret has never been released by General Electric, Stanford University, or the U.S. Navy (the work was done under a Navy contract). It has never been deciphered { [28] } outside those groups { [29] }, with the possible exception of Floyd Sweet, who worked in General Electric with Kron (but not on the Network Analyzer project).

However, we will point out that Lorentz discarded all the "open circuit" or "Kron open path" Heaviside energy flow associated with a circuit, and energy flow that normally does not strike the circuit and power loads. It is a fact that this discarded energy flow is independent and open vis a vis the circuit ground and other parts. The entire "time current" domain is also independently an open path current that can move from one part of the circuit to another. We assure the reader that such time-currents do exist and are met with in both underunity and overunity EM circuits and systems. Every charge and dipole receives time-energy and converts it to 3-spatial EM energy, pouring that energy out in all directions. We personally believe the time-domain-induced energy currents account for at least a part or all of Kron's "open circuit path" discovery. Certainly there is enormous surplus EM energy flow there, in novel form, to be collected and used. It is there in every electromagnetic circuit, and it is presently just wasted and not even recognized.

The present scientific community simply will not allow funded research and publication in such "out of the box" energy research areas. No such "funded research packages" come from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Sciences, for research professors, post-docs, and graduate students to bid on. From time to time university scientists still try to work in overunity systems, but are viciously attacked and suppressed for their scientific impudence. Cold fusion research (involving transmutations at low spatial energy) is a primary example; there are many others. This is sad, because the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, prior to Lorentz's symmetrical regauging circa 1886, include both COP <1.0 and COP³ 1.0 Maxwellian systems. Lorentz symmetrical regauging changed the equations so that the COP>1.0 systems—which are disequilibrium systems a priori—were just arbitrarily discarded. Only equilibrium EM systems are retained in the Lorentz-regauged Maxwell-Heaviside Equations.

Chung's Negative Resistor

Professor Deborah Chung { [30] } at University of Buffalo also has invented a true negative resistor utilizing crossed carbon filaments, and thoroughly tested it. The university filed a patent application and moved toward licensing for commercial applications. However, the university's web site abruptly pulled off the University's offer of a technical package to companies signing nondisclosure and wishing to license the technology.

Chung's paper was submitted to a journal and after a protracted period in review was finally published. [9] It appears that the university has classified defense contracts, and the Chung negative resistor may have been classified or made totally proprietary for use on such programs.

However, J.-L. Naudin in France has replicated the Chung-type negative resistance experiment, as well as several versions which can be performed by experimenters much more readily. [10] The reader is referred to his website.¹⁰

Other Overunity Systems

Lawandy's Processes and Lasing Without Population Inversion

Lasing without population inversion is always overunity in optical gain. In COP it is underunity overall, so long as the stimulation input power remains externally provided. It does not take a genius to examine the latest experiments confining over 1,000 "random" photon interactions inside the optically active material—both in the forward time and time-reversed paths—to see that self-stimulation and self-oscillation are inherently possible. The simple Lawandy experiment { [31] } itself can be done in any university nonlinear optics laboratory, and the experiment works every time. Visually it is also quite spectacular (Figure 11). The related fiber fuse effect is also impressive (Figure 12). Why the Lawandy and related work—including his several patents { [32] } and marvelous results by others { [33] }— is not being explored for power system applications is a deep mystery. There is, however, a rapidly growing body of literature in this area.

A closely related phenomenon is the Bohren's experiment involving emission of excess energy from a stimulated medium due to resonant particles sweeping out a greater "reaction cross section area" in the prevailing Heaviside energy flow { [34] } (Figure 12). Another related experiment is the highly anomalous fiber fuse { [35] } (Figure 13).

Self-Powering Russian Overunity Parametric Oscillator Power Systems

In leading physics institutes and laboratories in the 1930s, the Russians built overunity parametric oscillators—and some pretty big ones. That work is fully documented { [36] } in the Russian scientific literature and in the French scientific literature. The devices were developed and tested in several physics institutes and laboratories. With linear loads the oscillators would progressively build to self-destruction. With nonlinear loads, the devices would stabilize and power themselves and their loads.

This work appears to have been deliberately suppressed by the Communist regime just prior to WW II. After the war all such technology passed under the ruthless control of the KGB, and into the special weapons research and development area, still highly classified and KGB-controlled to this day. We know of no similar work going on today in the West.

The Seiko Kinetic Wrist Watch

Rigorously, any overunity system—electrical or otherwise—must be an open thermodynamic system far from equilibrium. I wear such a little system on my wrist, in my wristwatch, which taps the mechanical energy in its dynamic environment (my arm movements) to move a little mass, which operates a little electrical generator, which charges a little capacitor, which powers a little motor operating the watch. It's a neat little watch and a clever design by Seiko. It exhibits a broken symmetry in its energy exchange with its active environment (my mechanical arm movements). Effectively it receives "free" energy and uses that to power itself and its load. [11]

Miscellaneous EM Overunity Power Systems

A solar cell is a perfectly valid EM overunity EM power system, as is any windmill-powered generator. Any receiving wire antenna of itself is a free energy "electrical" system whenever it freely receives EM energy arriving from space and then outputs its received signal to the circuit. It receives energy from its environment and outputs most of it, with some scattered as heat. A hydroelectric turbine-driven generator is also an overunity EM power system, as is a simple paddlewheel in a river.

The operator himself does not have to input energy to any of those systems. They are in fact all "energy converters", freely converting the form of some energy they freely receive from the environment, so that the output is electrical energy. More rigorously, they are open systems far from equilibrium in the energy exchange with their active environment.

However, those systems suffer from the common pandemic of modern EM power systems: the design of the external electrical circuit portion to so that it rigorously enforces Lorentz symmetry during excitation discharge into the load, by self-regauging itself to implement it. Hence these systems are not good solutions of the "energy crisis", nor do they solve the ever-increasing problem of polluting the biosphere with hydrocarbon combustion products and nuclear wastes.

The Mead-Nachamkin Zero Point Energy Converter

In 1996 Mead and Nachamkin { [37] } were granted a patent on an overunity EM power system process for extracting zero-point energy of the vacuum. If one closely examines the patent wording, the device is patented as an energy converter and does not overtly state that it is a free energy system. It is, since the input energy is freely received.

Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, any "free" energy system a priori is a converter. It must receive the energy from its active environment, and convert that energy to a form usable to power its loads and losses. [12]

Open Systems Far from Thermodynamic Equilibrium

In any overunity system, the total of the operator's energy input and the environmental energy input is always equal to the total of the energy output in the load and the energy dissipated in the system's losses.

The thermodynamics of such systems has been well-known for decades { [38] }. As an example, Ilya Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1977 for his contributions to that kind of thermodynamics.

The tired old classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law—which only applies to a closed system or a system in equilibrium with its environment, [13] is all that the skeptics ever seem to have studied or know about. One would wish the arch skeptics would find out what has happened in physics and thermodynamics in the last 40 years! Classical thermodynamics does not apply unless the given system is in equilibrium with its active environment. It does not apply to any system out of equilibrium.

A common example of such a disequilibrium system is the windmill, or the waterwheel, or the sail boat—all used for thousands of years. Each of those three overunity systems rigorously obeys the conservation of energy law while it's doing free work. It just gets that free energy from its environment, and converts it to a form useful to its owner/operator. The operator does not have to furnish the input energy to it. He still has to pay to build it and maintain it, just as with any other system. The energy is free, but the system and its maintenance are not free.

The greatest of all overunity systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, however, is the ubiquitous charge. Every electrical or magnetic charge in the universe is already an overunity EM power system, freely receiving a flux of virtual photon energy from its seething vacuum environment, converting a portion of that absorbed energy, and outputting that converted portion as an EM energy flow across the entire universe. Presently we crudely harness these natural free energy systems called "charges", in our rather inept power systems.

In the future we must learn to apply the free energy aspects of charges and dipoles in far more efficient ways. Presently we build only electrical power systems which kill the free "source dipole converters" faster than they power their loads.

That is really because we have never seriously tried to build anything else!

Energy Conservation and Its Relation to Work Obtainable

Much stuff and nonsense have been written about the conservation of energy in physics and electrical engineering.

The primary and master law of conservation of energy is this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. But it certainly can be converted in form!

Let us be rigorous. We have great difficulty in trying to define energy. It isn't the "capacity to do work," because it isn't capacity. Having capacity and identically being capacity are two quite different statements!

Ultimately energy represents a change in a potential (potential state, condition, vacuum, whatever) which, however, is itself a collection of energy and thus just a form of energy. So, we can also reverse ourselves and interpret the potential as a change in the energy state. Regardless of how we proceed, effectively we just wind up stating that energy—whatever it might be—can always be changed in form. Perhaps the closest approach to defining energy can be taken from general relativity, where it can be argued on one hand that energy is a curvature in spacetime, and on the other hand that energy causes a curvature in spacetime, and on yet another hand that energy is whatever acts upon uncurved spacetime to curve it. And there is about where the matter rests. As Nobelist Feynman { [39] } stated,

" It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Along with Feynman, we have to admit that no one really knows what energy is, and this author does not claim to be an exception. We just know a lot of things that energy does. However, we do know what work is, once we assume energy as a given. Work identically is the changing of the form of energy, rigorously.

So a standard question I always ask new researchers is this: "Suppose we have one joule of collected energy. What is the maximum work we can do with that joule of energy?"

Almost invariably the answer is, "One joule of work." That is quite wrong.

If we change the form of all that joule of collected energy, we have done one joule of work. But afterwards we still have precisely one joule of energy remaining! It's just in a form differing from the form it was in when we started. Energy is never consumed, and never destroyed. Use it to do work, and we just have all of it left in a different form.

But we've done one joule of work from our original joule of energy, and we've still got one joule of energy remaining. If we then change the form of that joule of energy yet another time, we get yet another joule of work. And so on, as long as we can design an "energy-form changing" system that will not just let the energy completely escape after each transformation of the form of the energy. [14]

In theory, a single joule of energy can do any number of joules of work, if we change its form repeatedly and if we continue doing that indefinitely.

In short, energy can be—and is—recycled and reused, over and over without end. [15]

In the prevailing Big Bang theory, every joule of energy in the universe was there shortly after the big bang began. Since then, every joule of that energy has been doing joule after joule of work. And all of it is still here, and still doing more work!

There is no conservation of work law! All that means is that there is no limit on the number of times a given joule of energy can be changed in form or "transduced". Run some energy through a resistor, and produce heat. Retroreflect all the heat somewhere into some chemicals, and change it all into chemical energy. Let that chemical energy do some more work on some plates, and get some more electrical energy. And so on. Such serial form-converting reactions producing more than one joule of work from one joule of energy do not violate the conservation of energy law, the laws of physics, and the laws of thermodynamics. One is permitted indeed to get more than one joule of work from one joule of energy. [16]

But not in a single energy-form conversion! In only one conversion, one can only get one joule of work from one joule of energy—but one also still has a joule of energy remaining . If one does not further convert that remaining joule, that's the end of it. In short, one then collects a joule of energy, does a joule of work with it, and then one wastes (dissipates) the joule of energy remaining in its different form.

Most of our professors in university were not quite clear on this subject, although at least some of them understood it. But many did not, and many still do not today.

A Surprising Thing About Thermodynamics and Reservoirs

It is quite fashionable to state that one cannot take energy from a reservoir at constant temperature. Well, that is not quite true as stated. More rigorously, we cannot take energy from a reservoir in equilibrium at constant temperature. We can indeed take energy from a reservoir at constant temperature but not in equilibrium. That is, from a nonhomogeneous reservoir at constant temperature.

We quote Hsu-Chieh Yeh { [40] } for a vivid statement of this fact:

From Planck’s statement of the second law of thermodynamics it is generally inferred that it is impossible to construct an engine which produces work at the expense only of heat taken from the air or the ocean. …[It is demonstrated that]… when the air and the ocean are combined as a nonhomogeneous reservoir of uniform temperature, it is possible to construct an engine which produces work by extracting heat from the said reservoir. This does not constitute a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, rather that the “reservoir” in the Planck’s statement must be clearly stated as being in equilibrium."

The proof and a schematic diagram of a machine to successfully do that energy extraction process is shown by Yeh { [41] }.

The "Final Word" On the Conservation of Energy Law

Some arch skeptics are fanatically die-hard—and a real pain in the neck as well.

To be absolutely precise, they have no leg to stand on, if they accept what physics ultimately says on the subject of energy conservation.

Before one gets too adamant about the universality of energy conservation, here's a most astonishing thing, but quite true: In general relativity there is at basis no such thing as conservation of energy at all, unless one first makes some assumptions to inject it artificially so as to avoid facing the sheer terror of the collapse of energy conservation!

The great Hilbert pointed this out shortly after the advent of Einstein's theory of general relativity. E.g., quoting from Logunov and Loskutov { [42] }, p. 179:

"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. In Ref. 2 [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21] he wrote: 'I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity.' Unfortunately, this remark of Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible."

For situations where serious general relativity is not terribly involved, then we can legitimately speak of conservation of energy. Even so, one should not be too hasty to leap forth with the old equilibrium thermodynamics and pontificate that "there's no such thing as an overunity EM system because that would violate the infamous second law". If it's an open system far from equilibrium, classical thermodynamics and that second law do not even apply. The skeptic then objecting on the grounds of equilibrium thermodynamics is revealing that he doesn't know the difference between systems in equilibrium and open systems not in equilibrium. In short, he simply does not understand thermodynamics, and it is useless to argue with such a critic.

Before one gets overly confident about ordinary electrical and electronic circuits, and concludes that it's the rarest thing in all the world to have out-of-equilibrium operation in them, one should read the literature carefully. To the contrary, in all sorts of circuits, equilibrium often is unexpectedly departed from, leading to chaotic operation and a highly increased degree of system complexity. E.g., quoting from Ogorzalek { [43] }, p. vii:

“All real systems are nonlinear in nature. This simple observation is true also for electrical and electronic circuits even though many of them are designed to perform linear transformations on signals. …in many cases the designed circuit, when implemented, performs in a very unexpected way, totally different from that for which it was designed. In most cases, engineers do not care about the origins and mechanisms of the malfunction; for them a circuit which does not perform as desired is of no use and has to rejected or redesigned….”

“…electrical and electronic circuits constitute a group of real physical systems in which observations and measurements are relatively easy to make. ..Such an ‘experimental comfort’ enabled thorough studies confirming the existence of strange unexpected behavior in almost every type of electronic circuit – oscillators, filters, instrumentation circuits, power supplies, PLLs, electric machines, microwave circuits, electro-optic systems, etc. The main problem remains in interpreting experimental data.”

In other words, normal circuits indeed do often depart from expected equilibrium behavior. Engineers just shrug and "fix the circuit where it doesn't do that". The scientists are aware of such occurrences, but have not yet fully deciphered all the ramifications or the wild phenomena that result. But they are working on it!

Seemingly Random Behavior Can Be Adaptively Controlled

One has to be extremely careful these days about many of the old statements that were drummed into us as axioms. Some of them no longer hold, or are even true. Others have to be modified from their "absolute" form.

Such a dead notion is the belief that randomness cannot be controlled. That is no longer true. In modern adaptive nonlinear control theory combined with nonlinear oscillation theory, random oscillations can indeed be brought under control and used.

We do not intend to belabor this fairly recent development, but just state that it casts a quite new eye on the notion in some quarters that random fluctuations of zero-point vacuum energy can certainly not be "controlled". That statement is no longer absolute, and must be modified in the light of new knowledge. In fact, we propose that the ordering by a charge of a portion of its received disordered or random virtual energy, is just such an adaptive control mechanism, "controlling" part of the disorder by adapting to it so as to cohere and integrate a portion of it into observable form.

We leave this interesting but complex subject by quoting from the very first scientific work successfully combining both nonlinear control theory and nonlinear oscillation theory. Quoting from Fradkov and Programsky { [44] }, p. 8:

“In fact, the fields of nonlinear control and nonlinear oscillations were developed surprisingly independently. The present book is perhaps the first one to bring together these two important branches of nonlinear science.”

And again, quoting from Fradkov and Programsky { [45] }, p. 359-360:

“1. There is … great benefit of using the modern nonlinear and adaptive control theory. …2. There is no need to distinguish periodic and chaotic behavior. Accurate control is possible without accurate prediction. …3. There is no need to define chaos in order to control it. … 4. There is no need to use probability in order to control systems with seemingly random behavior.”

We must leave further investigation of this promising avenue to far better theorists than the present author! We mention it, however, because if the random perturbations of the vacuum energy interaction can be controlled, obviously one can extract EM energy from the vacuum. A simple charge or dipole already possesses the ability to do just that.

The Unresolved Problem of the Source Charge and Its Field Energy

But to return to the so-called "source charge". In the rigorous sense, there are no energy sources and there are no energy sinks. For example, quoting from Semiz { [46] }, p. 151:

"The very expression 'energy source' is actually a misnomer. As is known since the early days of thermodynamics, and formulated as the first law, energy is conserved in any physical process. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing can be an energy source, or sink. Devices we call energy sources do not create energy, they convert it from a form not suitable for our needs to a form that is suitable, a form we can do work with."

So there are "charge field-energy gates" and charge "field-energy converters", but there are no "source charges" and there are no energy sinks. [17]

However, one must keep one's sense of humor. Ironically, classical electrodynamicists may already be the most dedicated perpetual motion machine "advocates" in the world! In the overunity researchers' wildest nightmares, we could never begin to approach the vast scale of perpetual motion machines that the electrodynamicists already accept and prescribe.

It's that totally false concept of "source charge" that they advocate! They would have us believe that the source charge continually creates right out of nothing that enormous EM energy it continuously pours out across the universe in all directions. They would have us believe that a fearsome energy output is generated by the "source charge" without any input of energy from the environment to that charge. Classical EM assumes the inert vacuum, and nothing at all furnishing the energy to that source charge.

Of course that violates the most sacrosanct conservation law of all: that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But many electrodynamicists just "hide" that little problem and seldom state it explicitly. When pressed, they do—as stated by Sen { [47] }— admit that

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

In short, the electrodynamicists haven't solved the "source charge problem" yet. My comment is a question: How many more decades should it take, just to read the solution already arrived at by the particle physicists, and accordingly change the flawed classical electrodynamics by adding in the required active vacuum and the broken symmetry of the source charge?

Classical EM seriously errs in ignoring the active vacuum. It's well known that no mass system can even be in equilibrium without the presence of the vacuum interaction. So just to observe a power system sitting in equilibrium on the floor, is to automatically "prove" that vacuum interaction is occurring with it.

Particle physicists solved that "source charge" problem over 40 years ago, but the electrodynamicists have not yet changed their 137-years-old { [48] } seriously flawed theory accordingly. One simply has to include the active vacuum exchange with the charge and the dipole, and the broken symmetry of the charge and of the dipole, since a priori any energy source is actually an energy converter.

Particle physicists proved (both theoretically and experimentally) that the vacuum is active, highly energetic, etc. Nobel prizes were awarded, such as to Lamb [18] and to Lee. [19]

The particle physicists also proved that any charge is a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual energy exchange between the seething vacuum and that charge. [20] The very definition of broken symmetry means that something virtual has become observable. In other words, some of that enormous virtual disordered energy that the charge absorbs from the vacuum, is not reradiated as virtual and disordered energy at all. Instead, that component is first organized by the charge (by its spin?) into observable size groupings. This component is reradiated as the energy flow pouring continuously out from that "source charge" across the entire universe in all directions, thereby providing the energy in the fields and potentials from that charge. [21] Again, every energy "source" is a priori an energy converter! So is an energy "sink".

The charge does not create the energy it continuously emits, but gates and organizes some of the energy it continuously receives from its vacuum exchange. It is not a source charge, but an ordering and gating charge.

The charge is thus an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Since one has lots and lots of such charges in an EM power system, and every one of them is an open system freely receiving and gating energy from the vacuum, a priori it should be possible to tame and use some of that observable EM energy flow that the charges freely pour out, to power loads and run the system, without the operator having to continually input additional energy to the system!

That we do not do so is not a commentary on nature's prohibitions, but a commentary on the inadequacy and wrong direction of our scientific research on EM power systems.

The Marvelous "Source Dipole" Overunity Power System

It follows that a dipole, being two separated charges, is also a broken equilibrium in the vacuum energy flux, and thereby it also gates out EM energy flow in all directions in 3-space, continuously. It too is an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium. In short, it's a wonderful little overunity EM power system! It's one that every circuit contains, and may contain a very large number of them.

It is well-known that an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium is permitted to perform five magical functions (Figure 14): It can (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess comes from the active environment, in this case the vacuum), (4) power itself and a load simultaneously (in this case all the energy comes from the active environment/vacuum, and the operator need not furnish any), and (5) exhibit negentropy. Every charge and dipole in the universe already does all five functions. Contributions to the theory of such open systems far from equilibrium with their active environment is what earned Prigogine a Nobel Prize. [22]

Perpetual Motion Debunkers Begrudgingly Recognize Overunity Systems

Note that even those determined fellows who make a career out of debunking overunity EM systems as "perpetual motion machines" (but never debunk themselves or the classical electrodynamicists advocating charges as perpetual motion machines on a breathtakingly large scale!) do admit that such overunity systems exist!

First, those ardent skeptics—who instantly label overunity EM systems as perpetual motion machines—assume an equilibrium system, which cannot exhibit COP>1.0 anyway, and no legitimate researcher will contest that statement. They then classify perpetual motion machines by which law of equilibrium thermodynamics they say that the inventor claims to violate! So they classify their strawmen perpetual motion machines as perpetual motion machines of the first (Figure 15), second (Figure 16), and third (Figure 17) kinds.

They call permissible overunity systems false or fictional perpetual motion machines—because, they say, those systems are not closed systems { [49] }and are not equilibrium systems. They themselves begrudgingly admit that a proper open system, receiving and using energy freely furnished from its outside environment, can indeed produce COP>1.0 and not violate any laws, manmade or natural. In short, the implied sum and substance of their vitriol is that you cannot break equilibrium in an electromagnetic system, because the laws of nature prohibit it, and therefore in claiming overunity you are violating the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and nature. That is a non sequitur par excellence; it totally depends on the inventor claiming an equilibrium system but overunity COP nonetheless. If the inventor is not claiming a system in equilibrium with its active external environment, then the entire bombastic "perpetual motion" label is stuff and nonsense. We continue to be nonplussed at the naivete of scientific editors in publishing such non sequiturs as if something important and relevant to the problem of COP>1.0 EM power system research had been stated.

We free energy researchers never said we have classical equilibrium systems! It's the skeptics themselves who keep setting up that tired old "closed system" strawman { [50] } and knocking it down—and that strawman has nothing at all to do with permissible overunity in open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium. [23] In fact, the strawmen exist only in their own heads.

We in fact advocate the very kind of so-called "false perpetual motion machines" that the skeptics already admit can legitimately exhibit overunity COP and are permissible—and as is exhibited by every charge and dipole in the entire universe. As we said, the "classes" of perpetual motion machines the critics usually so importantly refer to, are simply strawmen set up for a proposed closed system or a system in equilibrium violating its closed or equilibrium assumption. In short, the cases are simple oxymorons (Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16).

So eerily, if one cuts through the jargon and lack of understanding exhibited by the "perpetual motion" accusers, that brand of skeptic unwittingly supports our position, though it may tear his vitals and he will never admit it in print. As we said, one must keep one's sense of humor. It's truly amazing how classical thermodynamics is used so ubiquitously to object to COP>1.0 electrical systems, when such systems are open dissipative systems and not even described by that discipline! That's as bad as faulting relativity because it does not fit Newtonian mechanics!

Generators and Batteries Do Not Output Energy to the External Circuit

Now here's a real shocker: Generators and batteries—i.e., so-called "power sources"—do not furnish energy to their external circuits! (Again see Figure 1). Well, how could they! We already pointed out that there is no such thing as a source, but only a "gate" or transducer. No gadget or function creates energy, but only transduces it from one form to another. So rigorously, batteries and generators must be receiving and gating or transducing that energy from their "external environment". The gating for the energy furnished to the external circuit is from the source d