Subject: Comment on Steorn’s Failed Demonstration

To: Correspondent

It’s odd, but apparently McCarthy (and Steorn) still thinks the Steorn systems are "creating" energy from nothing. And, like so many electrical engineers, they apparently do not really understand the technical difference between thermodynamic coefficient of performance (COP) and thermodynamic efficiency. The efficiency (in special relativistic situations) cannot be greater than 100%, but with extra free energy input from a local active energy source, the COP can still exceed 1.0. {[i]}

A common home heat pump, e.g., has an efficiency of only about 50%, and it wastes half of all the input energy (whether input by the operator or from the active local atmospheric medium). But the heat pump receives so much additional heat energy extracted from its local active environment that it can still output much more energy than the energy that the operator alone pays for and inputs himself. Indeed, the heat pump can usually output three to four times as much heat energy as the electrical energy that the operator pays to input.

So with an efficiency of only 50%, the average home heat pump has a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. It wastes half of all its input energy (from both the operator and the environment) but it still receives so much remaining energy freely (or nearly freely) from the active environment that it outputs appreciably more heat energy than the electrical energy that the operator pays for and inputs.

The average windmill-driven system has an efficiency as low as 35% (a great one may reach 50% efficiency). But since the operator himself does not have to input any energy at all and the wind inputs all of the necessary energy, then the COP = infinity even though the efficiency is still only 35%. All this is perfectly permissible, and no laws of physics or thermodynamics are violated.

So the Steorn group is still thinking in the "flat spacetime" and "inert vacuum" manner, exactly like in electrical engineering. In Sean’s mind he isn't extracting any excess energy from the active spacetime/vacuum environment because to him there is no active spacetime/vacuum environment in the first place! Thus, with that assumption firmly in his mind, he can only believe that the machine has to be creating the excess energy that it outputs, from nothing at all.

But in partial defense of Steorn’s mistaken view: Actually the law of conservation of energy is a special relativistic law, and it can indeed be violated in the proper kind of general relativity situation. {[ii], [iii], [iv]} So Steorn would only be permitted to violate the conservation of energy law in some truly rare case when the local situation in the machine/vacuum-spacetime interaction is general relativistic and periodic, with the periodic GR synchronized to the input energy frequency, etc. In that case, in the "GR" operation portion, one is rhythmically altering the local observer’s frame (rhythmically rotating the local inertial observation/measurement frame itself to and fro). So what one measures as "100 joules" of input energy in one frame at one oscillation position, may be 300 joules of energy when the observer’s frame is rotated to another position and that “input” is observed in that frame. That’s one way to change 100 “observed” joules of input energy to 300 joules of “observed” available energy! Physically rotate the observation frame, appreciably.

Rigorously, in the synchronized GR situation where the Killing vector {4} symmetry is violated, then such nonconservation effects are produced and they do occur – and all conservation laws (including both energy and momentum) are available to be violated for that specific case and situation. Really good modern physicists (such as Penrose) know that and do point it out, but even the average working physicist may be unaware of it. And the electrical engineers not only are totally unaware of it, but they also simply do not believe that such violation of energy conservation even exists. Most do not understand that classical electrodynamics is purely special relativistic!

The extra stress in the very sensitive, low-friction bearings of the Steorn machine when moved to the new site with a “new” local vacuum dynamics is at least a direct indicator. Much of the Steorn machine (that part that is operating by "normal symmetrized EE") will be operating "normally" and therefore it will be self-enforcing symmetry. But for overunity COP, at least one part of the truly overunity machine must be operating asymmetrically. {[v]} This means the rest of the machine that is symmetrically operating, will also be – to some extent – directly intervening and interfering with the excess energy input and output channel from the active vacuum, or attempting to do so. In short, that "normal" symmetrizing part of the machine will be trying to take half the excess free EM energy input received from that asymmetric channel, and use it back against the machine itself. That’s the old "equal but opposite forward and back mmf" creation process in the symmetrical part of the machine.

From that interference effect of the symmetrical part of the machine attempting to enforce symmetry, the evidence one will see is increased physical stress in the physical device itself. The reason: the asymmetrical energy input is an asymmetrical regauging process. It creates an asymmetrical extra force field, and the symmetrical system always takes that excess force field input, splits it in half, uses half in the “forward emf or mmf” direction) and uses the other half of it in the “back emf or mmf” manner, thus producing "equal and opposite forces" and thus additional "physical stress in that part of the system". That's what symmetrical regauging of a physical system is and does.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see how it all turns out. Hopefully McCarthy and Steorn will fare better on their forthcoming signed test reports from the 22 scientists, and on their next demonstration.

But Sean’s fundamental problem seems to be that he and his Steorn associates are still glued into ordinary CEM and EE. {[vi]} He doesn't understand that every classical charge in reality is quite a different thing in modern physics from what the EE is taught in his old 1880s Heaviside-Lorentz model, and that the "isolated" charge is not isolated at all, but is in continuous fierce interaction with its active vacuum environment (quantum field theory assures us of that!). {[vii]} Indeed, a single “isolated classical charge” polarizes its entire surrounding virtual state vacuum with charge of opposite sign. Each of the two charges involved is infinite, and each has infinite energy! We see the finite difference in the two infinite charges, and the finite difference in the two infinite energies. So our instruments “observe” the classical “difference value”, but the actual charge and polarization involve infinite entities. {[viii]}

The interaction between the charged matter in a given area or region, with its local active vacuum, is a two-way interaction. In short, differences in charge and charge dynamics produce changes in the normal active vacuum "master potential" and its dynamics (which is just the collected set of all potentials and their dynamics), thus producing differing precursor field sets ("engines" or "engine" patterns) in the background local vacuum. These altered "precursor force-free engines" from the altered vacuum environment then interact back with the matter in the machine itself, producing force fields and forces in the interacting matter of that machine. {[ix]}

So when one moves an overunity system from one location to quite a different environmental location, one will have a different "system and vacuum" interaction at the new location. If the difference is significant rather than negligible, then a precariously-balanced asymmetrical overunity machine could in fact be tipped back into an underunity machine. And the signature would be "increased stress in the physical system" itself.

Simply use a windmill-powering generating system as an analogous overunity COP system taking and using excess free energy from the wind energy from its environment. In its suitable environment, the wind blows most of the time and also pretty steadily, and thus it is fairly "predictable" most of the time. But if we just willy-nilly move that real, operational overunity windmill power system to another location at random, we have to consider the potential change in the new local wind environment and its interaction. At some places, the wind doesn't blow well at all, or it is highly variable, or both. And so the same "windmill powered generating system" may behave quite differently at different locations and in different "winds" due to the differing "atmospheric engines" represented by the environmental winds at the two different sites.

It is absolutely the same for a real overunity EM system that is extracting and using excess "EM energy wind" from its environment. Move it, and then hope that the two locations (the original one and the new one) are not too "different" in their "atmospheric or active medium" engines. Or perform the additional research necessary to make the asymmetric operation much stronger and more reliable (and more resistant to ordinary vacuum engine variations from place to place).

Of course, a quantum potential {[x]} could also be used by the bad guys from a distance, to directly alter the machine's operation once it reaches the new place and new environment. In short, just "artificially" produce a significant locally altered vacuum environment right there in the machine/local vacuum inside that machine and interacting with that machine only. And that altered immediate local vacuum interaction can easily cause the machine – struggling in most of its parts to perform symmetrically – to initiate the excess stress, while everything else around it operates "normally".

With high probability, one or the other – a natural change of local "system to vacuum" interaction and dynamics, or an "artificial" alteration of local "system to vacuum" interaction with the Steorn machine – was what happened to cause Steorn's failed demo.

The fact that it occurred with repeated change of the affected bearings in the machine shows that it was (again with high probability) not the bearings that were at fault. That means the environmental vacuum potential was indeed altered and different from what the machine is designed for.

Best wishes,

Tom

References:

[i]. For a very clear treatise on the difference between COP and efficiency, see K. Moore, M. Stockton, and T. Bearden, “Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum: /System Efficiency (e) and Coefficient of Performance (COP) of Symmetric and Asymmetric Maxwellian Systems,” http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/COPvsEFF23.pdf.

[ii]. Hilbert pointed out the collapse of conservation laws very quickly after Einstein published his theory of general relativity. See D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21. Quoting: "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."

[iii]. Other physicists have also noted this peculiarity of full general relativity. E.g., see A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179. Quoting: "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. … Unfortunately, … 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."

[iv]. Penrose explains the situation beautifully. See Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458. Quoting: “We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…”

[v]. For a rigorous proof that violation of the Lorentz symmetry in EM systems allows systems that can use available energy currents from the vacuum, see M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

[vi]. Many noted scientists such as Nobelist Feynman have pointed out the extensive number of falsities present in the aged old CEM/EE model, to no avail. For a gathering and listing (and discussion) of these falsities, see T. E. Bearden, “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model.”
This paper was also formally reviewed by the National Science Foundation. To see the NSF letter, see http://www.cheniere.org/references/NSF%20letter%20Bearden.jpg.

[vii]. E.g., see I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. Quoting (p. 357): "...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored."
Quoting, p. 372: “Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...”.

[viii]. Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110. Quoting: "… [The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."

[ix]. See John A. Wheeler and Seymour Tilson, "The Dynamics of Space-Time," International Science and Technology, Dec. 1963, p. 62. Quoting: "…curved empty space is a dynamic entity, as competent to store and carry energy as are ordinary elastic materials and electromagnetic waves."
See also W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1973. Quoting, p. 5: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve."

[x]. For a very complete account of the quantum potential, see David J. Bohm, B. J. Hiley, and P. N. Kaloyerou, "An ontological basis for the quantum theory," Physics Reports, 144(6), 1987, p. 321-375.