Well, batteries are also capacitors, and so their phenomenology is very complex.  As best I can determine (buying books on batteries, etc.), only about two-thirds of the chemistry is understood.

The "whack" is also a sharp gradient, and sharp gradients are one of those crazy areas that violate thermodynamics.  Kondepudi and Prigogine state that not much is known about strong gradients, either experimentally or theoretically.

Also, there is another effect.  If the charges "stick" (get pinned), almost anything can potentialize them!!!!!  It's because of this little effect here:

How much energy is collected from a nonzero scalar potential (voltage V, even a tiny one so long as V>0) is only limited by the amount of charge available to collect the energy:  That's one of the simplest equations in physics, where W = Vq, and W is the total energy collected on static charges q, from scalar potential V.  So even a quarter or a tenth of a volt can provide ENORMOUS energy (enough even to power the United States), if there is sufficient static (pinned) charge available to intercept the flow and collect it.

By the way, this also answers the inane objections of one of the main detractors (who also fibs quite a bit).  He couldn't believe that every charge in the universe could be spewing out photons continuously in all directions, holding that as the height of insanity.

Well, the charges can and they do.  And that silly little equation W = Vq proves it.  E.g., just suddenly form a source charge (actually a dipolarity, when the charge polarization of the vacuum is accounted per quantum field theory), and it will have a little voltage V across the dipole ends.  So long as the charge dipolarity stays intact (the charge stays intact) that voltage will remain constant, even for the next 14 billion years.  That suddenly evoked potential (voltage) spreads at the speed of light from that source dipole, from the moment it is created.  Now suppose you just have unlimited extra charge out there, sitting there and waiting.  Then W = Vq and W => infinity as q => infinity. All from that silly little source dipole (that little charge) one formed for a miniscule bit of dissipated energy (work) one paid.

Now either one has to totally surrender the conservation of energy law, or this experiment proves that the so-called "static potential" is actually a continuous and steady flow process.  Put a little intercepting charge out there  at some radial distance in advance, and collect, say, one joule of energy there on one unit of static point charge (use the distant point where those are the correct numbers that result).  Put a thousand times the charge there in advance, and collect a kilojoule there, for the same input of energy you invested in producing the source charge.    Put 10exp40 times as much static point charge out there at that point, and collect 10exp40 joules of energy there.  And so on.  And you can do this anywhere out there, at any finite radius separation, if you place enough intercepting charge at that distant point -- even though the potential there will be very, very weak (but still greater than zero). As long as it is nonzero, you can collect as much energy as you wish, from even a single electron you bounce out there onto the origin point in the lab for the experiment.

It is such things as this that clearly show how monstrously wrong our Department of Energy programs in energy are, and our electrical engineering programs in electrical power sources are.  There's no problem in (1) producing a free and continuous EM energy flow, anywhere in the universe. Just make a little source charge (which, together with its clustering virtual charges in the vacuum, is a little dipole according to standard QFT). In fact, quantum field theory (something more modern than the hoary old archaic Maxwell-Heaviside theory) tells us that the "little" source (bare) charge itself is actually infinite in magnitude, and so is the surrounding virtual charge of opposite sign.  But the difference between these two infinite charges (what we "see' when we "look" at the internal infinite "bare" charge through its intervening screen of opposite infinite virtual charges) is finite. That finite difference between the two infinite charges is the standard old value of the classical "isolated" charge, listed in the handbooks.

So anytime we are "playing" with any "finite and observable little charge", we are already shuffling and involving two infinite sets of energy (two infinite potentials, with respect to the average ambient potential of the vacuum.).  Well, each one of those two infinite scalar potentials decomposes via the Whittaker 1903 decomposition into a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs.  So we actually have involved two sets of infinite energy bidirectional flows!  All just my making that little bitty dipole, anywhere in the universe. Even for a single electron, those two sets are indeed infinite energy bidirectional flows!

The point is that there is absolutely no problem in invoking even infinite energy flows in the vacuum in such sets!  Easily.  Or else we must discard QFT.  The problem is only in how to then intercept and extract for our practical usage some of that copious, freely flowing energy -- which will continue to flow indefinitely, so long as that little dipolarity remains and we do not destroy it by being just plain stupid.

So nature's lesson is clear.  Form a little source dipolarity.  It has a potential between its ends.  Leave that source dipole alone.   The potential is actually a finite difference potential between two infinite potentials we inadvertently made. We now have unending flows of energy going, with the energy extracted directly from the seething vacuum via the proven asymmetry of opposite charges (that dipolarity).  That energy will flow perpetually, and we don't have to put another watt of power in to get it to continue. All we have to do is (1) intercept it in a separated circuit, (2) collect it in that circuit (as much as we wish, if we wish to handle sufficient charge), and (3) dissipate that collected energy in the circuit in an external load, without using any of it to go back and destroy our source dipolarity.

So naturally our electrical engineers are all taught to use half the energy that is collected by that process (not from what is input to the shaft of the generator) to destroy that original source dipolarity.  And in fact to destroy it (the actual source of the energy freely extracted from the vacuum and powering the circuit -- every EM circuit and device ever built -- faster than it powers the load.

This is the heartbreaking thing.  If the scientific community would get its head turned around straight, and not on backwards as it has been oriented in energy since more than a century, and would turn the sharp young grad students and post docs loose on this "interception and collection and usage" problem, and would give them a little funding and would not destroy their careers just for willingness to tackle this area,  then in 2 to 3 years there would never again be an energy problem anywhere on earth.  And it would cost very little by comparison to the huge amounts we are spending and just pouring down the same old rathole in a new guise.

And yes, we could get rid of most of the large scale hydrocarbon combustion --- the latest rigorous study shows that the green house gases will double in the atmosphere in about the next 30 years, etc.  We could get rid of the nuclear power plants, and most of the large fossil fuel burning plants.  We could build electric cars that were continuously refueled from the vacuum (piece of cake) as they sit there or as you drive them; never needing to stop at a gas pump (and its meter) again.  And one's house could have a similar power unit, without a meter on it.  Just a "maintenance contract with Sears", e.g., on that "appliance" that is the home power unit. Etc.  Ships would not need refueling, and neither would trucks or submarines.

Of course that would really help clean up this precious biosphere we are so intent on destroying.

But sadly, the environmentalists also have not yet found which way is up vis a vis electrical power.  They know nothing at all about the long-discarded stupendous nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component pouring from every generator's and battery's terminals, up to a trillion times more than the miniscule accounted Poynting flow.  But since that flow normally does not get diverged, it usually doesn't react with anything, even our meters. It just roars on off and gets wasted. But if you properly curve the spacetime, then conditions yielding a zero divergence (e.g., the gradient of the curl) in flat spacetime do not necessarily yield a zero divergence in curved spacetime!  Voila! It is indeed possible to intercept and collect some of that awesome Heaviside energy flow.  The Bohren experiment, e.g., shows one way to do it.  And it yields COP = 18.  Everytime.  Done in the IR (with insulating particles in particle resonance) and in the UV (with conducting particles in particle resonance).

So why is not the DoE funding the development of, say, COP = 10 or so heaters, based on the Bohren experiment  with insulating particles alone?

They are not doing it because at the top they also are compelled to buy the stupid, inane, senseless, and totally illogical argument that COP>1.0 EM power systems are prohibited.  Heck, the common old solar cell yields COP = infinity (self-powering condition), even though its efficiency may be only 17% or so and it wastes 83% of the solar energy it intercepts.

My solution of the source charge and the extraction of EM energy from the vacuum stands, and it cannot be refuted unless one abandons the entire conservation of energy law.

Further, Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry fully support it with geometry more advanced than the hoary old Klein geometry from 1872, and with better group theoretic methods than are used in Klein's Erlanger process.  Leyton's work and the source charge solution now destroy the present second law of thermodynamics utterly, requiring its correction to account negentropic processes (as shown by the continuous negative entropy produced by every charge in the universe).  We already proposed the following correction, which is consistent with experiments violating the second law, consistent with the source charge solution, and consistent with Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry.  It also solves the fundamental problem of thermodynamics: its asymmetry with respect to time duration.

The corrected statement of the second law of thermodynamics is as follows:

"First a Leyton negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order.  Then that initial controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions, unless additional Leyton negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."

Gadzooks!  We need a major funded program in this area, with a major carefully selected team of proper scientists.   Something like the Manhattan Project.

But the scientific community will spend billions on stuff and nonsense in the energy field, then pontificate that this is the best that can be done. Not one of them discusses the ramifications of W = Vq.  Etc.

Ah well!  All we can do is keep putting it out there, and hope that the young fellows (and young ladies also --- let's not forget we have some very sharp female scientists and future female scientists also!) pick up on it and get it done eventually.

So with respect to your neat little "whack", I think you just touched onto Kondepudi's and Prigogine's statement of the areas known to violate thermodynamics, including (1) rarefied media, where the idea of local equilibrium fails, and the average energy at each point depends on the temperature of the boundaries (temperature is after all a measure of energy intensity at a point, which means it is a measure of a certain kind of scalar potential; so wow!  Get a lot of the media density out of the way, and nature shows us that the potential (temperature) on the boundaries actually determines the internal temperature (collected energy at each interior point) and there is our good old W = (phi)q again.  (2) strong gradients (such as your "whack").  That one is so poorly understood that Kondepudi and Prigogine merely state that linear laws fail and "not much is known, either experimentally or theoretically".  [There!  Aren't you pleased that your little "whack" has such bodacious physics involved in it!!! And nobody really understands that "sharp little whack" as far as the phenomenology induced!].  And (3) memory effects, particularly in materials where things can last lots longer than they should last by the accepted "laws". In short, things like equilibrium and production of entropy can slow, drag their feet for a very long time, etc.  Kondepudi and Prigogine state that a revolution in materials science is ongoing because of the taking into account of fluctuations, dissipative structures, and self-organization.  [Heck, wait till Prigogine reads Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry and really contemplates it seriously!  Puts the production of negative entropy directly into our hands!].

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that your little "whack" has a devil of a lot of physics in it, and most of that physics is still unknown and not yet worked out!

That's another thing they really should let the grad students and post docs do --- just whack away at it.........

Cheers,

Tom

May 31, 2003 1:42 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: A Eureka moment - maybe

Hi Tom

For several months I have been having problems with the remote control for my TV.  I assumed this was because the connections between the batteries and the spring terminals inside were poor, and a couple of sharp blows by whacking it on the table top usually fixed the problem.

Yesterday I finally realized that the problem was in fact due to the fact that the really cheap batteries they furnish with the original unit were flat.  I changed the batteries, and all problems disappeared.

Yet for six months I have been able to get it to work by delivering a few sharp blows to the unit, just short of shattering the whole thing.

I wonder if, due to the sluggishness of the ion currents etc., by whacking it I was actually gating in energy from the vacuum to boost the batteries enough to temporarily charge them?

Sort of like the old boy on the farm that you told me about who was able to start the tractor with flat batteries by adroitly swapping the terminals.

Perhaps this percussive treatment of batteries could yield a nice little free energy generator???

Best

Tony