Subject: RE: Is Tom Bearden a fraud?

Very nice response, as always.  A pleasure to know you, and to know that a few folks in the COP>1.0 community and cold fusion community are struggling to do real scientific work, driven by experimental results rather than dogma.

Maxwell's original 1865 theory does contain two major types of EM systems: (1) those in equilibrium with an active environment or in an inert environment, and (2) those far from equilibrium in an external active environment (today, the active quantum mechanical vacuum, well-known and proven in particle physics).  Notice that classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics only applies to the first class of Maxwellian systems.  It does not apply to the second class; for that class, one must apply the newer thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium in an active environmental exchange.  In the latter discipline, Prigogine received a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his contributions to that field.

It is that second class of Maxwellian systems that are permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and by the conservation of energy law, to exhibit COP>1.0 performance.  They are still less than 100% efficient, but the operator himself does not have to furnish all the energy.  A common windmill, e.g., may have an efficiency of only 40%, but its COP approaches infinity.  COP is work out divided by energy input by the operator. Efficiency is work out divided by total energy input, whether by the operator or the environment or both.  No system has an efficiency greater than 100%, but it can have a COP>1.0 even so.  A common home heat pump is an example; so is a windmill, a waterwheel, and a sailboat.

So controversial and criticized were Maxwell's equations that Maxwell himself started curtailing them, before his death in 1879.  The second edition of his Treatise, published posthumously, had already been largely modified and curtailed by Maxwell himself.  No one but no one was going to accept those quaternions, with the exception of Tait.  And Tait was so quarrelsome and argumentative that few could tolerate him, let alone get along with him.

Then after Maxwell's death in 1873,  Heaviside (and Gibbs and Hertz, etc., but mostly Heaviside) sharply curtailed Maxwell's 20 quaternion equations and 20 unknowns (listed specifically in his 1865 paper) to a set of some four vector equations (two equations in the potential formulation).  At this point, both classes of Maxwellian systems are still included.  So there are still COP>1.0 EM systems modeled in the theory.  However, the variables are not separable, and so numerical methods would have to usually be used.  That was intolerable in the 1880s, when there were no computers and no sharp grad students using Mathematica etc.

So Lorentz sharply curtailed the Maxwell-Heaviside equations yet again, based on work that Ludwig Lorenz had already shown in 1867, two years after Maxwell's seminal 1865 theory was published.  Lorenz had symmetrized the equations (he also independently developed them himself, and history has terribly shorted Ludwig Lorenz).  For the truth of this statement, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 73, 2001, p. 663-680.

So H. A. Lorentz also symmetrically regauged (symmetrized and curtailed) Maxwell's equations, so that the variables now could be separated.  Now please observe:  Once the "broken symmetry" is removed from the master equations, one has just discarded all the permissible Maxwellian systems that are in broken symmetry (in disequilibrium) with their active environmental exchange.  There went all the Maxwellian systems capable of COP>1.0, tossed out completely arbitrarily just so that the variables can be separated and one can have analytical solutions rather than purely numerical solutions.

The discarding of permissible Maxwellian systems was done for no other reason that to get equations simpler and easier to solve.  Period.   But that also unwittingly discarded all charges and dipoles, since all such are known to be in broken symmetry with the active vacuum.  In short, this more limited electrodynamics --- so proudly and confidently applied by all our electrical engineering departments and professors --- simply "eats itself by swallowing its own tail", and is therefore a logical oxymoron.  That such continues to be taught more than 100 years later, is a shocking commentary on such institutions as the NSF and NAS.

So that is how the "mystique" was born that COP>1.0 EM circuits are impossible.  It also means that something being ubiquitously done by every electrical power circuit has to be applying and self-enforcing that Lorenz-Lorentz symmetrical regauging.  And so it is.  It is self-applied and self-enforced by the standard closed current loop circuit, where all the spent electrons in the ground return line are forcibly pumped back through the source dipole in the generator, forcibly destroying the dipole and its ongoing extraction of EM energy from the vacuum.

The incredible thing is that every charge and dipole in the universe already illustrates perfectly that extracting EM energy from the vacuum is simple and straightforward.  For example, here is a gedankenexperiment:

Just suddenly create a little dipole on the bench in the lab, where that point is taken as the "origin" of a universal coordinate system.  Suppose that, along a randomly selected radius from that point, you have also previously established --- at every second of light-speed distance -- perfect sets of instruments.  One second after the dipole was instantly formed, the first instruments read, and their reading (field strength, energy density, etc.) remains and is sustained thereafter.  One second after that first instrument package reads, the second instrument package reads, and the reading (field strength, energy density, etc) remains and is sustained thereafter.  And so on.

In this experiment, one is watching the formation of the fields and potentials associated with that "source dipole and its charges", being created from the moment of birth of the dipole, and spreading across the universe.  One is also watching the alteration of the local energy density of the vacuum, spreading radially from that dipole from the moment of its creation.

Now wait one year.   At that time, the instrument package out beyond the edge of the solar system, that is one light-year away, suddenly reads, and the reading thereafter remains and is sustained.  The outflow of the energy creating the fields and potentials and their energy, is still spreading on out beyond that at the speed of light.

The original dipoles in matter, since the beginning of the universe, have been pouring out real EM energy like that for some 14 billion years, extracted directly from the seething vacuum.  They are still ongoing and have not "run down" yet.

In that one year, you have now altered the energy density of a great volume of surrounding space one light year in radius.  Now integrate the fields and potentials over that entire volume, to determine the amount of EM energy that was poured out freely the first year.  That is an ENORMOUS amount of EM energy that has poured out at a steady rate from that little dipole.  And the outflow of energy is still ongoing at the same rate.  And if we do not destroy the dipole but just leave it alone, it will continue to pour out real EM energy at the same rate for the next 14 billions years.

Now here is the real kicker.  Even with the best of instrument packages (perfect ones), there is absolutely no observable/detectable EM energy flow in 3-space INTO that dipole.  Yet there is a continuous EM energy flow outward from it, continuously and steadily, as we have just shown, and as even classical electrodynamics has begrudgingly admitted.

>From whence and how comes the energy input to the source dipole?  Is there any input energy at all, or does the dipole freely create EM energy out of nothing at all, continuously, and then continuously pour it out at the speed of light?

Either there has to be an EM energy input to the dipole, or else we have just destroyed the entire conservation of energy law.  There is no other alternative.

In electrodynamics, there has been no solution to that problem, and it is just shrugged off by engineers and scientists --- except a good physicist (such as Sen) will point out that it is an unsolved problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics.  Indeed, Sen called it the "most difficult" problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics, as have others.

So long as the electrodynamicists do not resolve the problem, but continue to accept and teach the "source charge", then just so long are they all guilty of advocating the grossest kind of perpetual motion machines: those that create energy from nothing.  Presently, they implicitly accept that every charge and dipole in the universe in fact is just such a perpetual motion machine.  And in what they teach to every electrical engineering student, that same "fantastic set of perpetual motion machines called charges and dipoles" is implied.

We solved that problem in 2000 and the paper was published  in 2000 in J. New Energy; it was my "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole" paper!  The problem itself is loosely called the "source charge problem" or "the problem of the association of the fields and potentials (and their energy), reaching across all space" with their source charge.

The solution or basis for its solution was already in particle physics, since 1957.  It was the known and long since proven --- theoretically and experimentally ---  broken symmetry of opposite charges, precisely such as are on the opposing ends of a dipole.  By the very definition of broken symmetry, that dipole must continuously absorb virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum, transduce it (coherently integrate it) into real, observable EM energy, and then re-emit the energy as honest-to-God, real, observable EM energy.  In short, the opposite charges of the dipole are acting as a transducer, receiving and transducing virtual-form EM energy from the vacuum and outputting and emitting observable EM energy.  Lee and Yang were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1957 for having predicted such broken symmetry (that's one case).  They strongly predicted it in 1956-57, and Wu and her colleagues proved it experimentally in early 1957.  Such a profound change was that to all of physics, that in an almost unprecedented action the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, December 1957.

How does this solve it for the isolated charge?  Simple.  It is well-known in quantum mechanics that surrounding every isolated observable charge is a clustering of virtual charges of opposite sign.   This "shielding" of the bare charge must be and is routinely calculated, to give the "observable" value for the charge of a fundamental charged particle, such as a proton or an electron.  It is standard knowledge and practice in physics, though it is not in classical electrodynamics which does not even model the active vacuum, much less a broken symmetry in the exchange between every charge --- and hence every EM system --- and the vacuum.

So we took one of those clustering virtual charges and a differential piece of the observable charge, and called the two a "composite dipole".   The "isolated observable charge" thus becomes a set of composite dipoles ---- each of which exhibits that proven broken symmetry of opposite charges.  As a set of broken symmetries, the individual charge thus continuously receives and absorbs virtual photon energy from the seething vacuum and pours it out in all directions in the form of real, observable EM energy.

So we solved and published the solution to what had been called till then the "most difficult problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics".

Also, classical electrodynamics texts very begrudgingly admit that a simple static arrangement --- such as a charged parallel plate capacitor lying on a permanent magnet, so the E-field of the cap and the H-field of the magnet are at right angles (or at any nonzero angle) --- can and often is a seat of continuous EM energy flow.  In the simple "free energy generator" consisting of that cap and magnet, at 90 degrees one maximized E X H, and so has just maximized the standard energy flow vector from the standard Poynting theory in every textbook.  Again, if energy continuously pours out from that simple gadget, then from whence and how is the energy input to the gadget so that conservation of energy applies?

This is precisely what is behind my statement that has been so startling: To wit:

"There is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, EE professor, or EE textbook that even knew and taught what powers an electrical circuit."  That is a true statement, even through the rigorous basis for what powers every EM circuit has been in particle physics now for 45 years.  It is not in the electrical engineering model at all.

So, rigorously, there never has been and there is not now an energy problem! Instead, there has only been and is a problem of (1) how to catch and collect in a circuit a significant portion of the EM energy flow so easily and cheaply evoked from the vacuum anywhere in the universe (present circuits catch about a trillionth or 10 trillionth of the energy actually evoked by the source dipole formed between the terminals of every generator and battery), (2) how to dissipate that collected energy (or most of it) in an external load to power the load, and without (3) using precisely half the "caught and collected EM energy in the external circuit" to do nothing but destroy the source dipole, faster than the circuit powers the load with part of the rest of the collected energy (what's left after powering the losses in the external circuit).

Since collection and external dissipation of free energy --- without destroying the emitter/extractor/transmitter (the gusher; the source dipole or source charge) of the energy faster than the load is powered --- is the only electric power problem, then obviously no one is working on it.  None of our universities, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the great national laboratories, the universities, the private research laboratories, etc. are working on that single problem.  Instead, they are spending billions on conventional things, just to do them a little better and a little easier.

To work on the energy problem, what you do is a host of things such as studying that little crossed capacitor and permanent magnet arrangement, and figuring out how to intercept that steady flow of energy, deviate some of it into a collecting circuit or other collector, then independently discharge the collected energy in an external load to power it.  You study how to do that without kicking that capacitor and magnet apart or destroying them. Ironically, every EM power circuit ever built for the last century or more has in fact "forcibly kicked apart the source dipole" faster than it powered the load.  And our great universities, electrical engineering departments, and power companies are very proud of their continuing ability to do such a stupid thing on a truly massive scale, polluting and destroying the biosphere in the process.

They have not yet even found the problem, much less decided to work on the solution.

It can be solved easily for a few million dollars, funded to turn those sharp young graduate students and post-docs at our best universities loose on the problem!  And simultaneously releasing the iron dogma with which they are chained, and which will destroy them if they even mention or attempt to work on COP>1.0 EM circuits (except the accepted ones such as solar cells, where the input energy to the transducing dipolarity is thought to be observable, not virtual!  Little do they know that even in solar cells, the standard closed current loop circuit continually destroys the real source of the EM energy passing onto the connected external circuits, and that the input observable energy does naught but continuously restore that source dipole). Fund those young grad students and post docs, and do not destroy their careers, and the solution will be completely accomplished in less than 2 years and for something like 20 million dollars or so.

There are a thousand ways in which the problem can be solved!  A few of them (more than a dozen) are mentioned in M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517.  There are many more.

An easy way is to simply intercept and use (in separate receiving antenna circuits with loads) some more of that extra Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component surrounding the conductors of every circuit and just wasted. That component is often a trillion times as large in magnitude as the feeble Poynting component intercepted and diverged into the circuit to power the electrons.  Heaviside showed that, Poynting never considered anything but the little component that enters the circuit, and Lorentz originated the neat little trick of integrating the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface assumed around every volume element of interest.  That trick drops all accountability of the huge Heaviside nondiverged energy flow, and thereby prevents electrodynamicists from having to fact the awful truth that the source dipole formed between the terminals of every generator and battery already extracts enormously more energy from the vacuum --- and pours it out of the terminals --- than is input as mechanical shaft energy to the generator or is the available chemical energy dissipated by the battery.  In short, it prevents them from facing the awful truth that, as energy transducers, every circuit ever built is already a COP>>1.0 circuit, and it has been the sheer stupidity of the way we build our circuits that has been responsible for the universal COP<1.0 system.

But so long as the scientific community does not even recognize and realize what actually powers every electric circuit, and every charge and every dipole, and does not even model what powers it, nor does it teach it, then we will never have a solution to the electrical power problem because we will never even be aware what the problem really is.  We will not clean up the biosphere, but will continue to rape and despoil the planet as we have done now for over 100 years, and as our present scientific community has every intention of continuing to do.

One could excuse the scientific community until the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957.  Since then, the appalling and continued scientific ignorance in the field of electrical power is completely inexcusable by any recognized scientific standards.

To use one of Tesla's phrases, it is the "most inexplicable aberration of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded in history."

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden