Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:47:54 -0500

  Ken,

Very important.  About 45 minutes spent on a concentrated internet search showed that 95% of the available material on COP and Efficiency, including by most of the professors, appears to be rather strongly fouled up.  More than half do not clearly differentiate between COP and efficiency; in fact, most use the terms interchangeably, causing the creation of other tortuous concepts like EER, SEER, etc.  Most are based on heat engines (after all, one definition of "thermodynamics" is "the use of heat as energy"), and not suitable for energy transducers (electrical power systems), particularly any that go to COP>1.0.  Remember, the use of "heat" as "energy" is what the Editor of American Journal of Physics, Dr. Romer, was attacking in his editorial in AJP as a gross travesty.  "Heat energy", e.g., is an oxymoron. Heat is scattering of energy, while energy is ordering (of itself or some smaller energetic subsystems, e.g.).  So the term "heat energy" is saying "scattering ordering" and that is an oxymoron, as Dr. Romer points out so eloquently.

Finally I found one good website, at the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, PennState, from courses taught by Professor Ljubisa R. Radovic. He has some 21 chapters of a book in pdf form there on his website, which is http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic.  Go down until you see Chap 4, in pdf file. That's a very clear chapter.

Anyway, here's his chap 4 for your perusal.  The book is so good that I downloaded all 21 chapters.  This was the clearest thing I could find in the time allotted.

Obviously Professor Radovic does not know that all EM circuits are actually powered by energy from the vacuum due to the broken symmetry of the opposite charges of the source dipole, nor is he aware that the electrical engineering model does not even include the active vacuum environment, much less the source dipole's broken symmetry in it --- even though that has been proven in particle physics for 45 years.  And he is unaware of the arbitrarily discarded Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component surrounding every circuit, which --- when accounted --- proves that every generator and battery is already a COP>>1.0 energy transducer.  Further, he is unaware that the Bohren experiment, easily performed at any university nonlinear optics lab, proves the existence of a huge extra nondiverged energy flow (the Heaviside component) around every circuit and around every field/charge interaction.  The Bohren experiment always outputs about 18 times as much energy as one inputs.  But Professor Radovic  has his head screwed on real straight, and his students are fortunate to have a professor like him.  We should have more profs like him teaching the energy stuff, so the young folks would not get so twisted and brainwashed by the usual unclear mishmash.

When I find a professor like that, and clear writing like that, it restores my faith in science again.

We have to get across to professors like him the astounding but quite true fact that there is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, electrical engineering professor, or electrical engineering textbook that even knows and teaches what powers an electrical circuit.  Hopefully my book will help make that clear as soon as we can get it published by World Scientific.  Its target audience is those sharp young grad students, post doctoral scientists, and skeptical but open-minded professors that are not dogmatic and will still read the literature, such as to go and see what the broken symmetry of opposite charges, applied to the source dipole in the generator or battery, actually implies to electrical engineering and to what really powers every electrical circuit ever built.

We also have to make them aware that there have long been developed far better electrodynamics models (the higher group symmetry EM models of particle physics) than the more than a century old archaic and obsolete model that the electrical engineers still use.  The latter is really a very archaic piece of partial junk, since it erroneously assumes an inert vacuum environment (falsified long ago by particle physics) and a local flat spacetime (falsified by general relativity for nearly a century, whenever the energy density of local spacetime changes for any reason).

It is professors like Dr. Radovic that we will need to make aware of the history of what Lorentz-regauging did and still does to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, and how it arbitrarily discards all the Maxwellian systems in disequilibrium with their active vacuum environment, thus quite arbitrarily discarding all the permissible Maxwellian COP>1.0 electrical power systems actually permitted by the Maxwell-Heaviside equations before that arbitrary Lorentz regauging.  We also need to make such professors aware of what the "gauge freedom" axiom in quantum field theory assumes: that the potential energy of an electrical system can be freely changed at will, anytime one wishes.  And one does not have to change the potential energy twice and symmetrically as the electrical engineers insist on doing; it can readily be changed asymmetrically.  It does not require any work to simply potentialize a system; it only requires potential (voltage).  Any inert system, once freely potentialized asymmetrically with excess potential energy and a net force field to dissipate that energy in translating electrons to make current in a load,  is free to dissipate the energy as useful work in the load.  So rigorously, except for a little switching costs, one is free to asymmetrical regauge an electrical circuit, then dissipate that energy in a load to power it freely.   That present circuits do not do this,  shows clearly that some ubiquitous feature of the circuit self-prevents it.  And so it does.  It is the rather stupid closed current loop circuit, back through the source dipole in the generator, that does it.

We also need to make such professors aware of why Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in such unprecedented haste, in 1957.  They strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956, Wu et al. proved it experimentally in early 1957, and the change to physics was so profound that the Nobel Committee, in an almost unprecedented action, awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in December of the same year, 1957.  One of those proven broken symmetries was the broken symmetry of opposite charges, such as on the ends of any source dipole.   The broken symmetry of the opposite charges of the source dipole, once we pay to form it in the generator or battery, then extracts EM energy from the vacuum and pours it out of the terminals, filling all space around the external circuit.  Only the small Poynting component (about 10exp(-13) of the available energy flow is intercepted and drawn into the conductors to power the circuit.   Then half of the small Poynting energy component is used to do nothing but drive the spent electrons back through the back emf of the source dipole, dissipating half the circuit's available free energy to destroy the source dipole.  The other half is used to power the external circuit's loads and losses.  Hence half is used to destroy the dipole that extracts EM energy from the vacuum to power the circuit.  Less than half is used to power the load.  We have to put in at least as much shaft energy (100% efficient generator) to RESTORE the dipole as was used to destroy it. So we have to always put in more energy to restore the dipole, than we get out in powering of the load.  Hence that stupid closed current loop circuit self-applies Lorentz symmetrical regauging, and prevents the system from every exhibiting COP>1.0.

We need to make such professors aware that the Heaviside theory of EM energy flow considered not only the energy flow component intercepted and caught by the external circuit, but also that huge component in space around the conductors that misses the circuit altogether and is just wasted.  Then we need to make them aware that the neat little trick Lorentz invented --- integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed surrounding any volume element of interest --- is how the Heaviside component was arbitrarily discarded from any further accountability.  That energy is still there around every circuit, and is still just ignored.  The electrical engineers no longer know how much is there, etc., but only use that Lorentz trick to select that little Poynting component that actually gets caught by the external circuit to power it.

Every battery and generator already pours out far, far more EM energy than the mechanical energy input to the generator or the chemical energy dissipated in the battery.  The Bohren experiment proves it, anytime, anyplace.  In a nominal case, the terminals of the generator pour out about 10exp(13) times as much energy as was input to the shaft as mechanical energy.  And every EM circuit is and always has been powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipole's broken symmetry in the seething exchange between the vacuum and those opposite charges of the dipole.

The methods we spoke of today, however, are precisely the ones where we can prevent destroying that source dipole faster than the load is powered.  In that case, one can certainly build a COP>1.0 electrical power system, such as our own motionless electromagnetic generator, including one that is close-looped for self-powering via the thermodynamics of open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium in their active (vacuum) environment.

I believe the last kind of COP versus efficiency curves we sketched out today are what is needed to clearly show the story for all kinds of EM power systems, including COP<1.0, COP>1.0, and COP>>1.0.  Obviously, for self-powering (closed-loop) systems where all the energy is being freely furnished from the active vacuum by the known broken symmetry of the source dipole, then the COP = infinity since any nonzero useful power output, when there is no operator input at all, gives a COP = infinity.

It was a pleasure to find Dr. Radovic's work there on the PennState website for the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.  Restores one's faith in the scientific community.

Cheers,

Tom