Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:08:38 -0500

  Dear Nikhil,

Once you have a dipole, you have opposite charges on each end of it.

In particle physics, opposite charges constitute a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual particle energy flux of the vacuum. Lee and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956-57.  Wu and her colleagues experimentally proved it in early 1957.  This was such a revolutionary discovery and such a revolution to all physics that, in an almost unprecedented action, the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize later that same year, Dec. 1957, to Lee and Yang.

Briefly, broken symmetry means that the opposite charges on the ends of a dipole continuously absorb virtual photons from the vacuum.  The charges coherently integrate the virtual photon energy into real, observable photons, and the dipole then pours out real EM energy in all directions at the speed of light.

Classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering have foundations that are totally obsolete, and more than a century old.  Those models do not even include the active vacuum, much less a broken symmetry in it.

What has been called "the most difficult problem in quantum electrodynamics and classical electrodynamics" has long been the problem of how a charge can pour out energy continuously in all directions, at the speed of light, establishing its associated fields and potentials (and their energy) across the universe.  It is easily shown that observable (real) EM energy continuously pours out, but there is absolutely no observable (measureable) EM energy input.

Thus every charge in the universe already exhibits COP = infinity, which is overunity with a vengeance.  We do not have to reprove that; it's been proven in particle physics for 45 years.

Working on the source charge problem for two years, I solved it in 1999, by simply adapting what was already proven in particle physics.  The solution was published in Journal of New Energy in 2000.   From quantum mechanics, any "isolated" observable charge is clustered around with virtual charges of opposite sign.  So one can take a differential piece dq of the observable charge q, and one of those virtual charges of opposite sign, and one has a dipole with opposite charges on its end.  The "isolated charge" can thus be treated as a set of such composite dipoles, and thus as a set of broken symmetries. In short, the charge now is shown to also continuously absorb virtual energy from the active vacuum, coherently integrate it, and the re-emit it as real, observable EM energy in all directions, at the speed of light.

All the fields and potentials come from that action of their source charges. Hence all EM field energy and potential energy in any circuit of electrical device comes straight from the seething vacuum.

There is no problem whatsoever in extracting all the EM energy flow from the vacuum that one wishes, anywhere, anytime.  The basis for that has been proven in particle physics for nearly a half century, but electrical engineering does not even include the active vacuum exchange in their model, much less a broken symmetry in it.

In short, the real problem in free energy is the obsolescence of the electrical engineering model.

There is only one energy problem, and there never has been any energy problem except that one.

First, we can easily produce a flow of EM energy (of nearly any magnitude wished) just by making a dipole and then leaving it alone.  Because of its broken symmetry, that dipole will sit there and pour out energy indefinitely.  The dipoles (and charges with their clustering virtual charges of opposite sign as dipoles) have been doing that in the original matter for some 14 billion years, and they have not run down yet.

The only problem is this:  Given that we pay a little for a dipole, and get a great stream of electrical energy flowing, being extracted directly from the local vacuum.  In short, we have easily built an "energy transmitter" that will transmit freely and indefinitely, so long as we do not destroy the dipole or let it be destroyed.

The problem now is the RECEPTION and usage end of things.  How do we produce a circuit which intercepts that energy flow, diverges some of the gushing river of energy into the circuit, collects it on the charges in the circuit, and then dissipates that collected energy to power a load, WITHOUT using half the collected energy to destroy the source- dipole and cut off the free flow of energy?  that is the ONLY free energy problem, and of course no university, national lab, Department of Energy facility, or research group is working on it in that light.

Generators and batteries do not directly power their external circuits. Simply think a bit.  We input some mechanical energy to the shaft of the generator, to turn it, and that transduces the input mechanical energy into magnetic field energy inside the generator.  So what happens to that magnetic field energy?  It is dissipated on the internal charges inside the generator, to push the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other, forming the SOURCE DIPOLE between the terminals of the generator.

We know (already proven in particle physics, but not even included in electrical engineering) that the source dipole, once formed, pours out real EM energy flow from its terminals (the generator's terminals), and we also know that this energy is extracted directly from the seething vacuum.  It has nothing at all to do with the shaft energy we input, once that got transduced and then made the dipole.

So all the energy roaring out of the generator terminals comes from the vacuum.  I don't have to prove that; its basis has been proven in particle physics for several decades.

The external circuit then intercepts (mostly by the surface charges in the conductors) some of that energy flow filling all space around the conductors of the external circuit.  So some of that energy flow is diverged into the conductors to power up the Drude electrons, and power the circuit.

But we are all taught to use only the closed current loop circuit that includes that source dipole in the generator as half its load.  It is easily shown that one half the energy collected in the circuit is used to do nothing but destroy the source dipole and chop off the free energy flow. The other half of the collected energy is used to power the loads and the external circuits losses.  That means that less than half of it produces power in the load.

Well, to keep any energy flowing for collection and powering the load, one now has to restore that dipole.  In a perfect generator with no losses, it takes exactly as much to shove the charges back apart again and restore the dipole, as it took to destroy it.  So we have to input at least as much shaft mechanical energy again, as the stupid circuit expended in destroying the dipole.

That means we have to input more mechanical shaft energy than the amount of electrical energy we got out in the load.  Hence that silly circuit will always enforce COP>1.0, because it self-enforces the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition.

We pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match in its generators and LOSE.

to have COP>1.0, one must "break-up" that closed current loop functioning in at least some fraction of the cycle.

There is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even knew and taught what powers every EM circuit and system ever built.  That is because the electrical engineering model deliberately has never added the active vacuum exchange, and the broken symmetry in it.  That is excusable until 1957, then it isn't. Until the electrical engineering model is quite thoroughly overhauled, the model itself will continue to block out all COP>1.0 systems.

One must keep one's sense of humor.  If classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering would rigorously enforce their own model, they would have to exclude every charge in the universe from their systems, because their model assumes that the charge is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating all that energy flow from nothing, with no feeding input of energy to it at all.  So either they have to totally surrender the conservation of energy law, or they have to give up all their perpetual motion machines --- their charges and dipoles and dipolarities (and their fields and potentials, since there would then be no sources).

Anyway, maybe someday we will have some clarity of thought given to the field of what actually powers every electrical circuit, and how to model it and use it properly.  There are far better systems of electrodynamics already developed in particle physics, waiting on the shelf.  They had to develope them because the old stuff does not adequately describe nature and just "folds up".

So can you easily make a free energy machine?  Of course.  Make a dipole. Or  just lay an electret or charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so the E-field of the electret/capacitor is at right angles with the H-field of the magnet.  That optimizes the Poynting energy flow S = E x H, and that beast (by ordinary EM engineering, over in the Poynting energy flow section of the book) will sit there and pour out EM energy indefinitely.

So getting the energy flow for free is absolutely no problem.  Having it continue indefinitely is no problem.

Catching some of it and using it to power the load, without using half the caught energy to kill the energy flow, is the only problem.

so of course that is the one no one wishes to work on or consider.  Our nation spends billions on fuel cells, combustion, efficiency of generator, etc., and not one red cent on the only energy problem there is or ever will be.

Cheers,

Tom Bearden

 Subject: Electrets - usable dipoles?

I'm writing regarding some posts on the Keelynet list yesterday on the subject of electrets.  I gather that they are, essentially, the electric equivalent of a permanent magnet, providing a fixed voltage but no current.

Jerry, you commented that, because there was no (or very little) current, these could not be used to drive a load.  However, I believe these characteristics make the electret an ideal potential source for an energy generator in the style of Tom's 1993 paper `The Final Secret of Free Energy': the idea was, as I understand it, to use the potential from the source to energize a collector, but switch that collector away from the source and into an external circuit before electrons start to flow.

In Tom's approach, the collector had to have a relaxation time of around 1 ms to make the switching feasible; if an ordinary conductor were used, with a miniscule relaxation time, current would flow through the source before the switch could take place, and so the source would be degraded.

In this case, however, the internal resistance of the source is so high that almost no current will flow through it at all.  Hence I suspect an ordinary conductor could be used as the collector, and the switch take place at whatever time is convenient, well after the electrons have relaxed - since little current will have flowed anyway.  I suspect the power output would be proportional to the number of charge carriers in the collector (presumably those on the surface), and inversely proportional to the switching delay.

Depending on just how high the resistance of electrets really is, a small recharging current may be needed to balance the trickle that goes through between electron relaxation and switching in each cycle.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this; it may be an oversimplification, or I may have misunderstood something fundamental. I'll confess that I'm very new to this, having first read about free energy devices a week ago.

Best regards,

Nikhil.

P.S.  Jerry, please feel free to post this on the Keelynet list, if you think it appropriate.