"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research









 

Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:02 PM
To: (Correspondent)
Subject: RE: Irish Company Challenges Scientists To Test Free Energy Technology

Thanks (correspondent)!

Hope things go well with you and your family, and that the weather is not too hot down there.

I was already on that one, thanks to a prompt earlier alert from some correspondents. The Irish group Steorn (Sean McCarthy is CEO and head of it) appears to have stumbled into building an asymmetrical permanent magnet rotator – which is one of the huge class (asymmetrical systems) of Maxwellian systems that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded more than a century ago. The scientific community still symmetrizes the Heaviside equations and thus still arbitrarily discards all those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems today, in every university EE department and text.

The Steorn group under McCarthy has a website, at http://www.steorn.net/ . There Sean describes the unit’s operation this way:

"What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy,"

Rigorously that is a description of a magnetic rotary device where the field interactions are asymmetric, right from the source magnets. And that is a type of Maxwellian system that can and does exist in nature, but that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded in 1892, just to get simpler equations easier to solve algebraically.

Steorn is making three claims for its patent-pending technology as follows:

“The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.

The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.

There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy.”

It would be preferable that the latter statement have been “the sum of these claims is that our technology produces free energy.

Meanwhile, for awhile now we have also been urging several inventors and groups, highly skilled in nonlinear magnetics, to develop little “rotary toy” kits of nonlinear magnetic assemblies with just such overall asymmetry in the line integration of F dot ds around the closed loop taken by the rotor. The condition for overall rotary asymmetry is that the line integral of F dot ds around the circular path does not equal zero, but is greater than zero. That’s exactly what McCarthy in Ireland (with that Steorn unit) describes. And that “nonzero line integral condition” type of system is exactly what Lorentz discarded way back in 1892, and that our EE departments still arbitrarily discard from electrical engineering.

Another way to put it is that, in a symmetrical permanent magnet system, the forward mmf is equal and opposite to the back mmf. So in the forward mmf region, the system self-accelerates and freely gives you some power, but in the back mmf region it is self-braking and freely takes back power. If the two are equal and opposite, then the device deliberately takes back as much as it gives, and it cannot self-power anything. Specifically, that and the manner usually used for a rotary closed loop, means that the system is arbitrarily symmetrized because the fields are arbitrarily fixed and do not change.

The self-enforcing symmetry way is precisely the basic way we are taught to build all our EM systems, so that we have to put in energy continually, lose some, and get some out to the load. The only reason we input energy (such as cranking the shaft of a generator) is to forcibly break symmetry by forcibly producing an internal dipolarity in the generator. Then  the proven asymmetry of a dipolarity (separated opposite charges) will absorb ordered virtual photon energy from the vacuum and coherently integrate it into observable real EM photon energy, and thus emit real observable photons continually without any observable energy input. When there is a broken symmetry, then “something virtual has become observable”, according to Nobelist Lee. The two scientists Lee and Yang, of course, predicted broken symmetry in physics back in the early 50s (particularly 1956 and early 57). So startling was this proposed giant revolution in physics -- if real -- that experimenters promptly proved it (Wu and her colleagues proved it experimentally in Feb. 1957. Again, this was such a giant revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee then awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, in Dec. 1957.

And since then, the implications of that vast revolution in all of physics has not even made it across the campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

It reminds me of the invention of amorphous semiconductors by Ovshinsky. “Everybody knew” that a semiconductor had to have a crystalline structure, and – so they said – Ovshinsky was either a fool or a charlatan. They called him every name in the book, etc. But he persisted, and finally a Japanese company funded the effort. Then one day our beloved scientific community awoke to find that all the Xerox machines had Ovshinsky amorphous semiconductors in them and those semiconductors were working just fine. Bummer! No one ever apologized to Ovshinsky (who is doing well and still has his website, his company, and good success, etc.). But gradually the youngsters did doctoral theses on amorphous semiconductors and post docs got amorphous semiconductor programs funded to work in them. So that’s how our scientific community “discovered” and gradually adopted amorphous semiconductors.

As Max Planck once said,

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

Energy from the vacuum is another such area. It firmly exists in modern particle physics, and just as firmly is excluded from the silly old CEM/EE model and thus from all electrical power engineering.

As Davies points out:

"What might appear to be empty space is, therefore, a seething ferment of virtual particles. A vacuum is not inert and featureless, but alive with throbbing energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an electron must always be viewed against this background of frenetic activity. When an electron moves through space, it is actually swimming in a sea of ghost particles of all varieties – virtual leptons, quarks, and messengers, entangled in a complex męlée. The presence of the electron will distort this irreducible vacuum activity, and the distortion in turn reacts back on the electron. Even at rest, an electron is not at rest: it is being continually assaulted by all manner of other particles from the vacuum." [Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 105].

McCarthy and Steorn apparently do not realize that (1) a magnetic pole is actually a magnetic charge, and separated opposite poles are separated opposite magnetic charges (a magnetic dipole), (2) the proven broken symmetry of any magnetic dipole continually absorbs ordered virtual energy (ordered individual virtual photons) from the seething interactive vacuum, integrates this ordered energy coherently into quantum energy, and re-emits real observable photons in all directions in a steady stream. That follows from solving the “source charge problem” of how any and every static charge just sits there and continues to pour out real observable EM energy (it’s quite measurable!) but without any observable energy input (i.e., the input energy is nonobservable, hence virtual, else every charge experimentally demolishes the entire energy conservation law and therefore demolishes most of present physics and thermodynamics).

Any “isolated” charge polarizes its surrounding vacuum, and hence is part of a dipolar ensemble. In modern physics, this ensemble (even of a single electron) involves two infinite energy charges, each having infinite energy, but the difference between the two entities is finite. Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:

"[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." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

When it appears in the seething vacuum, and while it fleetingly exists, a particle (such as a photon) is totally ordered. Although the entire vacuum or a large region of it statistically is disordered, each individual temporary virtual particle is totally ordered while it fleetingly exists.

So each observable source charge and dipole thus acts as a true Maxwell’s demon (absorbing only ordered virtual particles out of a statistically disordered ensemble medium – the virtual state vacuum with its virtual state energy fluctuations) and also acts as a true Feynman’s ratchet (continually integrating and “ratcheting up” real observable energy from those serially absorbed but ordered virtual photons it absorbs).

Note that standard electrical engineering assumes that all EM fields and potentials are produced by their source charges, but also assumes that these fields and potentials and their energy are freely created from nothing at all. That’s because CEM/EE does not account for the active vacuum, or for any interaction of charge and vacuum. But instead of the assumed “creation of EM energy out of nothing at all”, all EM fields and potentials and their observable EM energy are freely produced from the seething vacuum energy interaction by a combination action of a Maxwell’s demon and a Feynman ratchet, continually applied by those source charges.

The source charge may be said to consume positive entropy of the statistical virtual state vacuum, and produce negative entropy in the observable state, in violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. Not to worry, the source charge or source dipole is actually a system far from equilibrium, and in a steady state that way. So it is a NESS (nonequilibrium steady state) system. In modern far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, such a system is permitted to do five magic functions that are impossible in equilibrium thermodynamics. The NESS system can permissibly (1) self-order (closely associated with negative entropy), (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more useful energy than the operator pays to input (the excess energy is freely input and received from the active local environment, in this case the active vacuum), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy input is freely received from the active local environment, in this case the active vacuum), and (5) produce negative entropy (closely related to self-ordering).

We point out that violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics is simple and easy, particularly for smallest pieces of a macrosystem. Quoting Maxwell (who was also a thermodynamicist):

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

Just compare Maxwell’s statement to the temporary existence of each ordered virtual particle in the statistically disordered ensemble. The appearance of each virtual particle is actually the bubbling up (production) of a local negative entropy occurrence, so that the observable charge’s absorption of that temporarily ordered particle is an absorption of completely ordered energy.

In non-equilibrium thermodynamics, it is well-known and recognized that the second law can be violated, even by simple strong gradients. E.g., a listing of several areas known to allow violation of the second law, is given by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459.

Apparently Sean McCarthy (Steorn) and his team have possessed (since 2003 or thereabouts) a tried and very well-tested example of one of those asymmetric Maxwellian systems that were all arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in 1892, when he arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations. That symmetrized version of Heaviside’s already serious curtailment of Maxwell’s theory, is still taught to all our EEs as “Maxwell’s theory”, which it is most certainly not.

So we must get that silly symmetrized EE model changed in our universities, get back to a higher group symmetry algebra besides vectors and tensors, and get back to a much fuller EM theory that recovers those long-discarded asymmetric Maxwellian systems. Those asymmetric Maxwellian systems will easily and cheaply power the world, if we can just get the scientific community to get out of its present ostrich position with its head buried firmly in the sand insofar as broken Lorentz symmetry in CEM/EE systems is concerned.

E.g., proof that a real physical system can theoretically produce continuous negative entropy, thus continually violating that old second law, is given by D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. Further, this can and does occur in real systems. E.g., see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601. The authors experimentally demonstrate the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption is shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales. Again recall Maxwell’s 1878 statement about the old second law. One can indeed separate and collect those separate particles in their “negative entropy” excursions, and get useful work and effects out of it.

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional EM energy currents received from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

Evans also makes it very clear, when one “looks” through the eyes of a more advanced EM model that U(1). Quoting Evans, speaking from O(3) electrodynamics:

"…the acceptance of a structured vacuum described by an O(3) gauge group leads directly to the existence of novel charges and currents in the vacuum. These are conserved, or Noether, currents and charges and are clearly topological in origin. They spring from the fact that the vacuum is a topological space. Four such entities emerge: [1] A topological vacuum electric charge, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [2] A topological vacuum electric current, also proposed empirically by Lehnert et al. [3] A topological vacuum magnetic charge, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth. [4] A vacuum topological magnetic current, proposed also by Barrett and Harmuth.

            Each of these four objects can provide energy, which can be loosely termed 'vacuum energy': energy coming from the topology of the vacuum." [Myron W. Evans, "O(3) Electrodynamics," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 Vols., edited by M.W. Evans, Wiley, New York, 2001, Part 1, p. 84].

Note also that our universities do not even teach students the assumptions (axioms) that are incorporated in the old Heaviside-Lorentz model, which is presently being erroneously taught as “Maxwell’s theory”. I could not find a single CEM/EE text that just methodically listed these assumptions incorporated in the model. Many eminent scientists (such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, and many others) have pointed out that many of those CEM/EE foundations assumptions have long been falsified by physics, since that sad old model was glued together in the 1880s and 1890s, after Maxwell was already dead (he died in 1879 of stomach cancer).

So I gathered together a listing and discussion of the major falsities in the present electrical engineering model, so that the grad students and young post docs would have it and thus know those falsities. My paper, “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model,” is freely available for downloading on my website, at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc. This paper also shows a magnetic Wankel engine (suppressed from the world market) that can be built by any electrical engineering department or physics department, and tested at COP>1.0 to one’s heart’s content. The system is also easily close-looped for self-powering – fuel free, continuous use of the energy from the vacuum, at will.

The National Science Foundation reviewed that paper in 2005, and it passed their review. See the National Science Foundation Letter confirming successful review of the “Errors and Omissions…” paper, available at http://www.cheniere.org/references/NSF%20letter%20Bearden.jpg.

But it is obvious that the neither the NSF nor any other part of our scientific leadership is going to fund the correction of that terribly flawed old CEM/EE model, which has become so dogmatically entrenched that it has become almost a religion. The scientific leadership is also not going to fund research in asymmetric Maxwellian systems that goes back and restores the asymmetry to the theoretical model, and then explores the kinds of asymmetric Maxwellian systems that emerge from their long hibernation.

Every EM system actually engineers the vacuum, changing the ongoing interaction between vacuum and charge in the system. E.g., a magnetic pole is actually magnetic charge, and so permanent magnets also have engineered the vacuum to produce their so-called “static” fields from virtual state energy continually received from the seething vacuum. Indeed, any charge (or pole) continually emits real observable photons, but no instrument can measure any observable energy input. That is because the energy exchange from the vacuum to the charge (pole) is in the virtual state, and so the source charge (or pole) continually absorbs ordered virtual photons from the vacuum exchange, coherently integrates it to the next quantal level of excitation, then abruptly decays to emit a real, observable photon. The process is continual and iterative, and so this is the solution to the long-vexing “source charge problem” that has been swept out of the literature.

The process by which the source charge (or pole) creates its “static” fields, is totally dynamic. To understand asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, we must understand how all “static” fields are actually steady state dynamic systems. We must revise our very notion of the “static” field, to be in compliance with Van Flandern’s beautiful waterfall analogy. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:

 “To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9]:

Presently I’m working on a paper to retranslate many of the concepts and operations presented in the 1880s and 1890s electrical engineering model into the actual vacuum engineering operations they are known to be today. That will still take a bit of time, but we are getting there.

In modern physics, one simply cannot separate the charge from its ongoing active exchange with the vacuum. That is particularly true for asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. E.g., quoting Aitchison:

"...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." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].

And as Wheeler pointed out:

"…curved empty space is a dynamic entity, as competent to store and carry energy as are ordinary elastic materials and electromagnetic waves." [John A. Wheeler and Seymour Tilson, "The Dynamics of Space-Time," International Science and Technology, Dec. 1963, p. 62.]

This continuous interaction between the energetic vacuum and the charges (and poles) in a Maxwellian system is totally missing from the sad old 1880s CEM/EE model. We will be retranslating some substantial parts of the old model’s concepts into the language of vacuum-charge exchange. An initial start has been done with our own MEG’s operation, in the Aharonov Bohm paper cited below.

As a first preliminary example, a paper giving the detailed operation of our MEG, and showing exactly how it first excites its surrounding vacuum and then stimulates the excited vacuum to generate free E-field energy pulses that come back into the MEG from its surrounding space, is “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B,” which is available at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/On%20the%20Aharonov-Bohm%20Effect1.doc. This paper also contains a drawing showing exactly how a standard generator-powered circuit is actually powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum. It is not powered by the mechanical energy of cranking the shaft of the generator. All that cranking the generator shaft does, is produce the rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator, which in turn forces opposite charges inside the generator in opposite directions, thus forcibly forming the internal dipole.

Once that dipole is forcibly made, its broken symmetry then continually absorbs virtual state vacuum energy, coherently integrates it to quantal energy, and thus continually and steadily emits real photons that establish and continually replenish the associated fields and potentials and their energy, spreading at light speed from the moment of formation of the dipole.

However, the silly symmetrical circuit uses half its collected external potential energy to power the back emf inside the generator, thereby destroying the generator’s dipolarity and shutting down the flow of energy from the vacuum. It shuts down the flow of energy (destroys the dipolarity) faster than it powers its loads, so it guarantees COP<1.0. Thus we continually have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, to keep remaking the dipole, that the silly symmetrical circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.

With such friends, who needs enemies!

Ken Moore and I also adapted the NRAM (negative resonance absorption of the medium) principle and effect in optical physics, so that an adaptation to steam boilers in most present electrical power plants could be produced to add a heat amplifier inside the boiler, taking perhaps three-quarters of the heat amplifier’s input heat energy directly from the vacuum and thus reducing its fuel consumption by three-quarters while maintaining the same amount of heat energy and steam being produced. This could be applied to most of the electrical power plants on earth, since most still use the steam boiler and steam turbines to power their generators. With the NRAM heat amplifier, the boiler would still furnish the same steam and heat, and so the generators would still output the same power, though with much less fuel. A second feedback adaptation would also allow the fuel consumption to totally cease, once the looping was switched in. Then the plant (from steam boiler on) would continue in operation, fed entirely by heat energy from the vacuum, until the plant had to be shut down for scheduled maintenance, etc. We obtained a provisional patent application on this process in Oct. 2005, and then passed the entire invention and PPA into the public domain, so that anyone who can raise the necessary funding can go do the project. As President Bush stated:

"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America." [President George W. Bush, May 2001].

The NRAM process has been proven and known in physics since 1967, but no one ever thinks of applying it to energy systems. In the optimized case, the NRAM process puts out COP = 18. That is, it produces some 18 times as much output energy as is in the Poynting energy component input to it. Unknown to present electrical engineers, all Poynting energy flow components are also accompanied by a giant, curled Heaviside energy flow component, something like a billion to a trillion times larger in magnitude. But in a reasonably flat spacetime, the divergence of the curl is zero, and so the curled energy flow component normally does not interact with anything. Nonetheless, it is there, and by using synchronized oscillation of the curvature of the spacetime (which NRAM does), one gets some divergence of that huge curled component anyway. In the curved spacetime the divergence of the curl need not be zero!

But the NSF also could not seem to understand that NRAM heat amplification process, or believe that it could be rather readily adapted, though it would be expensive to develop. But this process alone could dramatically reduce the dependence of the entire world on oil and natural gas etc. It also could dramatically reduce global warming (due to emissions), pollution of the biosphere, etc.

The PPA is on the website, as Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, “Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component”.

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/PPA%20Increasing%20COP%20by%20addnl%20extractn%20from%20flow1a.DOC . Now released into public domain.

This terrible reluctance of the scientific community to clean up its act and quit teaching known falsities, and to go after those long-discarded asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, is what has caused the entire energy crisis world-wide.

And as for the business of apparently “creating” energy: Many eminent scientists are aware that the universe is filled with both positive and negative energy. So long as the two sum to zero, one can dramatically increase both the positive and negative energy, without any increase of “net” energy at all. This of course is the ultimate regauging, guaranteed work-free under the gauge freedom axiom. So one can locally increase positive energy all one wishes, so long as one also creates (usually unwittingly) equal negative energy. And – unknown to electrical engineers – they “separate” and produce the two energies regularly in their circuits, which can and produce negative energy as well as positive energy. Bedini’s patented battery charging circuits, e.g., do separate energies and produce negative energy as well (which he very effectively uses in his circuits, but calls “radiant energy” after Nikola Tesla’s discovery and use of it). The so-called “vacuum” of empty space, is not empty at all in modern theory. E.g., in the Dirac theory of the electron, one has a vacuum of little “electron holes” normally filled with electrons. The hole is a negative mass-energy electron, having negative energy EM fields. The filling electron is a positive mass-energy electron, having positive energy EM fields. The empty holes comprise the “dark matter” that the astrophysicists are so avidly seeking through their telescopes, and the negative energy fields of those empty holes are the “dark energy” the same astrophysicists are seeking. A sharp gradient of energy density can lift out the electrons from a region of vacuum, leaving the holes. That is a production of equal and opposite energy. By choosing which way one captures and uses the energy, one can use either the positive energy, or the negative energy (or both if one switches things properly). Quoting the eminent scientist Stephen Hawking:

“There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. …now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.  …"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch." [Stephen D. Hawking, A Brief History of Time.].

We don’t have a world energy crisis per se, because the seething vacuum energy is easily available, inexhaustible, and ubiquitous – and clean!. Instead, we have an energy from fuel crisis, because we have a world fuel crisis and we insist on only going after energy from fuel. Obviously the answer is to get off the “energy from fuel” kick, and go for “fuel-free” energy from the vacuum!

I certainly hope that Sean McCarthy and his group will be able to force the scientific community’s hand, so it will have to correct the glaring errors in the CEM/EE model that it has been hiding for a century.

But it will be interesting to see what happens to Steorn and Sean McCarthy, and how the huge cartels, that do not wish this done and have been blocking such systems for that same 100 years, will quickly approach and deal with this new threat to their huge energy setup as they have established it so lucratively for themselves.

Best wishes,

Tom