Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002
1:31 AM
In early measurements,
in one set of experiments the magnetic field of the magnet did appear to
decrease slightly after some time in a few tests. However, sometime later
we found that the field measurement instrument probe was defective, so we
changed things out with good ones. Since then, we have not noticed any
appreciable change in the magnetic field of the permanent magnets in
measurements. We can't completely rule it out just yet, but if the field
is being decreased it appears to be so slowly that the magnet will last
for years.
Just now I'm working on
a complicated and extensive briefing, which will be placed on my website,
dealing with the emerging thermodynamics of COP>1.0 EM systems. Here we
deal rather exactly with such questions as perpetual motion or not, how
one permissibly bypasses the second law of thermodynamics (the law of
increasing entropy), according to thermodynamics itself, etc. There are
some very important new research developments in forefront thermodynamics
research that are significant to this field, and we will cite them and
explain them. Specifically, a charge is a disequilibrium steady state
system, hence permissibly exhibits some rather startling thermodynamic
phenomenology. It exhibits negative Gibbs entropy, and that Gibbs entropy
then continuously increases negatively toward negative infinity, as time
passes. In the briefing we argue that the Gibbs entropy is in fact a real
system entropy for a charge or dipole, when the vacuum interaction is
considered as well as the proven asymmetry in that interaction.
Among many scientists
and engineers there is a continuing ill-informed and totally erroneous
equating of COP>1.0 as being "perpetual motion freely creating energy from
nothing". That is totally false. As an example, Planck's statement
defining a perpetual motion machine is this:
"It is in no way possible, either by
mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual
motion, i.e., it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a
cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing."
So the rigorous
characteristics of a prohibited
perpetual (continuous) motion machine is one which (1) produces continuous
work or energy output, and (1) has no energy input at all, or insufficient
energy input, so it "creates" the needed energy from nothing, thereby
violating the first law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of
energy).
Summing it up: A
prohibited perpetual motion
machine is one which creates energy from nothing, and therefore is
prohibited by the law of conservation of energy.
Note also that the
second law of classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to systems in
equilibrium or very close to equilibrium. It specifically does not apply
to systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with an active
environment.
Also note the peculiar
thermodynamics definition of "closed system". A closed system is defined
as one in which mass does not cross the system boundary, but energy can
and does. An open system is defined as one in which mass crosses the
system boundary, and energy may or may not cross it (it is free to cross
it). So a normal inert electrical power system (from the generator on
through the power transmission lines and all the losses and loads) is
considered a "closed" thermodynamic system (it does not give off or
receive mass), but the system is actually quite open with respect to
energy exchange with
its environment. One must be aware of the peculiar historical definition
of the closed system and the open system in thermodynamics. A system not
exchanging energy or mass is said to be an "isolated" system; there is
really no such thing in all the universe.
If a machine produces
continuous ("perpetual") motion but the energy is input to it and is not
created, then it is not a so-called "perpetual motion machine creating
energy from nothing". It is in fact a
permissible perpetual
(continuous) motion machine, where by "perpetual" we mean "continuous
indefinitely". A machine is indeed permitted to produce continuous motion
indefinitely (so long as something does not break), if it receives the
necessary input energy freely, from either the environment or the operator
or both. We usually refer to it as "perpetual motion" if the operator
does not have to input any of the energy, but instead the environment
freely inputs it all. Examples of
permissible perpetual motion power systems are a windmill, a
water wheel, a sailboat, a solar cell array, and every charge and dipole
in the universe. All of those systems freely produce energy (and work, if
the energy output is harnessed), without the operator having to input any
of the energy himself. The environment furnishes all the necessary input
energy. It is not implied that "energy is created from nothing", so these
"continuously operating" and "continuously working systems" are
permissible by the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics. The
subtle ones on that little list are the charge and the dipole.
So let us explain.
In 1956-57 Lee and Yang
strongly predicted broken symmetry, which --- if true --- represented a
revolution in much of physics. So important was their prediction that
scientists jumped onto it immediately, and tested it quickly. Wu and her
colleagues quickly proved it experimentally in early 1957. Again, so
revolutionary a change was this, that the Nobel Committee moved with
unprecedented speed and awarded a Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the very
same year --- December 1957.
Yet the tremendous
impact of that important revolution in physics has not made it across the
university campus from the physics department to the electrical
engineering department in the ensuing 45 years (nearly a half century!).
The electrical professors and Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamicists have
not modified the archaic old EE model, which does not model the active
vacuum, its energy exchange with the charge and with the dipole, or broken
symmetry in that energy exchange.
One of the proven broken
symmetries is the asymmetry of opposite charges --- such as are on the
opposite ends of a dipole.
Also, in modern physics
(e.g., quantum field theory) an "isolated" observable charge is not really
isolated at all. Instead, it is clustered around by virtual charges of
opposite sign in the seething vacuum. Hence a charge is actually a
special kind of dipole. Further, the magnitude of the "bare" charge in
the middle of the clustering is infinite (with infinite energy). The
clustering virtual charges also constitute an infinite magnitude of
charge. However, the difference between these two opposite infinite
charges is finite, and is simply the ordinary value of that "isolated
charge" given in the classical textbooks and handbooks. That "finite
difference" is what the external observer (or a measuring instrument)
"sees" of that infinite bare charge in the middle, through the clustering
screen of infinite opposite virtual charges.
Every charge already
involves polarization of the vacuum and dipolarity asymmetry in its
exchange with that vacuum.
So a single "charge' is
actually a special dipolarity, and also exhibits broken symmetry in its
fierce exchange of virtual energy with the seething vacuum.
Rigorously this means
that the charges of the dipole (including the dipolarity of a single
"isolated" charge classically) continuously absorb virtual photons from
the vacuum, coherently integrate this virtual EM energy into real,
observable EM photons, and re-emit the cohered (integrated) EM energy as
observable, real photons in all directions at light speed. In turn, this
continuously emitted real EM energy establishes and continuously
replenishes the associated macroscopic EM fields and potentials and their
energy, expanding outward at the speed of light.
So every charge in the
universe freely and continuously emits real, observable, usable EM energy
in all directions at the speed of light. The charges in the original
matter of the universe have been doing this for some 14 billion years, and
have not run down yet. All dipoles in the original matter have been doing
it for 14 billion years also. We do not have to re-prove that; it has
been proven for nearly a half century, even though it has not been added
into the Maxwell-Heaviside theory or electrical engineering yet.
The brutal and proven
fact is that every "source charge" and every dipole continuously extracts
real EM energy from the vacuum and pours it out in an unending stream,
freely, from the moment of its creation or appearance. Again, the EEs do
not even include the active vacuum in their model, much less a broken
symmetry in that vacuum's energetic exchange with a charge or with a
dipole. Yet every joule of EM energy in the universe --- whether in mass
or in space --- has been extracted directly from the seething vacuum via
the asymmetry of the source charge in its exchange with that vacuum.
It's easy to make a
permissible perpetual motion (continuous energy flow) system. Just lay a
charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the E-field of the cap is
at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. That beast sits there and
continuously pours out Poynting energy flow EXH. That appears even in
standard theory. As Buchwald states:
So the second law is
violated permissibly
by the source charge. And since the associated macroscopic EM fields and
potentials and their energy are formed
deterministically, then they
also violate the second law, since the statistics does not apply to
deterministic structures.
Hence all
electrodynamics major entities --- the source charge and the dipole, the
fields and the potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe
--- exist in violation of the second law. Further, this exhibited and
demonstrable violation holds to any macroscopic size magnitude (including
across the entire observable universe) and any time duration (including
for 14 billion years that we know of) desired.
With respect to
macroscopic electrodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics in a
peculiar sense is as dead as a doornail.
The received EE and
classical electrodynamics models
used in our universities do not model or include any energy input at all
to the source charge. Yet
the
models
agree that the source charge somehow continuously creates
and
replenishes
its associated fields
and potentials and their energy,
spreading out in all directions at the speed of light from the moment of
appearance of the charge.
In short, every
electrical engineering department, professor, and textbook implicitly
assumes that every charge in the universe is a
prohibited perpetual motion
machine, freely creating energy from nothing, continuously, and
continuously violating the conservation of energy law (first law of
thermodynamics).
They also assume that
every EM field, potential, and joule of energy in the macroscopic universe
is created by these prohibited perpetual motion machines called charges,
without any EM energy input
to the charge at all.
Thus the greatest
prohibited perpetual motion machine advocates of all human history are our
conventional electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks
--- and the naïve critics who so harshly attack COP>1.0 EM system
researchers, cold fusion researchers, etc. while placidly upholding the
terribly
flawed
EE model taught in our
universities. The critics themselves unwittingly and implicitly assume
that ALL electromagnetic energy is created from nothing, and always has
been.
They are in fact
unwittingly hoisted upon their own perpetual motion petard, yet are so
naïve they do not even realize it.
You can see why we say
that in 45 years the great revolution in physics that occurred in 1957 has
not made it across the campus, and the EEs have not modified their
terribly flawed "prohibited perpetual motion machine" electrodynamics to
include the novel source and mechanism of the input energy to the charge.
Until they do that, they are inescapably advocating prohibited perpetual
motion machines violating the first law of thermodynamics on a gigantic
scale.
It would be nice if the
self-appointed pundits --- so smugly assuming that COP>1.0 EM systems are
prohibited perpetual motion machines creating energy --- would learn a
little particle physics and thermodynamics. One does not have to reprove
what has been proven many times since 1957, for which a Nobel Prize has
been awarded, and which is already standard knowledge in particle physics.
We point out that a
permanent magnet contains a dipole, consisting of the north and south
magnetic charge on opposing ends. As such, it is long proven that the
magnet's asymmetry continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the
vacuum, transduces it into real photons, and emits those real photons in
all directions at the speed of light, thereby establishing the associated
magnetic fields and potentials and continuously replenishing them.
That mechanism, of course, does not appear in any electrical power
engineering manuscript or textbook, nor is it taught in the electrical
engineering curriculum.
So there is no problem
at all in extracting all the EM energy flow one wishes from the seething
vacuum, anywhere, anytime. Just make a little dipole, and leave it alone
and intact. It will extract and pour out real, usable EM energy
continuously from then on, so long as it remains intact. That is particle
physics and the broken symmetry of opposite charges, not EE and not Tom
Bearden.
Every charge, magnet,
dipole, etc. exhibits a coefficient of performance (COP) of infinity. No
problem! So does a windmill and a solar cell. That is permissible, and
COP = infinity only says that the operator himself doesn't have to input
any of the input energy. It simply says that the active environment
freely inputs all the energy, and conservation of energy continues to
rigorously apply. Some common things demonstrating COP = infinity are: A
windmill driving a pump and pumping water, a water wheel driving a mill
and grinding corn, a sailboat running before the wind, a solar cell array
in the sun that is powering a motor and some lights, a bicycle coasting
downhill, a permanent magnet, an electret, every charge in the universe,
and every dipole in the universe.
That is straightforward
physics and thermodynamics. Note that Planck's definition
allows continuous or
"perpetually" acting machines and systems, so long as the environment
continuously inputs the required energy.
In short, it would be
nice if the naïve critics learned that there are
permissible perpetual
(continuous) motion machines such as a windmill that freely receives its
input energy from its active environment, and there are
prohibited perpetual
(continuous) motion machines that one has erroneously assumed receive no
energy from their environment or the operator, and thereby create energy
from nothing at all. Continuous motion or continuous output of energy or
continuous performance of useful work does not imply creation of energy!
It only requires that the energy be furnished, since it cannot be created.
Presently most of the
"free energy" community, nearly 100% of the harsh skeptics, more than half
the EEs, and even many professors and textbooks tend to imply, state, or
assume that COP>1.0 EM systems are equated to prohibited perpetual motion
machines that create EM energy in violation of the first law. That is
totally untrue and without any foundation whatsoever. If COP>1.0 required
energy creation, then there could be no EM fields and potentials and their
energy produced by the source charges, so that the COP of each charge is
infinity.
There could not even be charges!
There could be no windmills, no waterwheels, no solar cell power systems,
no electrets, no permanent magnets with fields, etc. While energy cannot
be created, it can jolly well be changed in form! And that includes from
virtual form to observable form.
Again, one keeps a sense
of humor. The most strident and ill-informed skeptics are precisely the
ones who
erroneously
assume, imply, or flatly
state that that COP>1.0 is (prohibited) perpetual motion, because it
implies creating energy from nothing. They are also the ones defending
and accepting the standard EE model, which makes them unwittingly among
the greatest
prohibited
perpetual motion
advocates of human history. No legitimate COP>1.0 EM system researcher
has ever claimed a prohibited continuous motion machine that creates
energy from nothing. Instead, the researchers have claimed permissible
continuous motion machines that freely receive their energy from the
environment.
It would be nice if the
harping critics would simply go study some physics and thermodynamics.
It would also be nice if
the skeptics quit deliberately lying and stating that the MEG inventors
wrote the two formal papers dealing with how the MEG takes the energy from
the vacuum. Indeed, the two papers -- particularly the second one ---
were vigorously refereed and approved by the referees with vigorous
defense by the authors. The defense prevailed, and the two papers were
approved by the referees and published in the second leading physics
journal, Foundations of Physics Letters. The authors are M.W. Evans et
al. of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study --- some 14
authors' names appear on the papers. Only one of them -- yours truly --
is one of the MEG inventors. Evans, e.g., has more than 600 scientific
papers published in the hard literature, is a prestigious editor of two
or more series of scientific volumes, etc. Others of the group are also
skilled scientists.
These were not "idle little papers" whipped up by squirrelly inventors on
the spur of the moment.
Since every joule of EM
energy is already extracted from the vacuum via the asymmetry of the
source charge or dipole, and since macroscopic EM fields and potentials
violate the second law permissibly because they are deterministic instead
of statistical, it should not come as a surprise that macroscopic EM power
systems can be built which do the same function. After all, the EM fields
and potentials associated with the source charge and dipole are
macroscopic and deterministic to any magnitude and time duration desired.
Rigorously this means that practical power systems extracting usable
electricity from the vacuum, and using it to freely power loads, are
theoretically permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics. It
then requires the necessary effort and change in thinking, to develop and
build a prototype.
Anyway, there is no
"energy crisis" and there is no problem in producing a steady and
continuous flow of EM energy directly from the vacuum. A permanent magnet
does it, the source dipole between the terminals of a generator does it,
every charge does it, and so forth. Getting the free and continuous flow
of copious EM energy established from the local vacuum is the easy, cheap
part.
The only real "energy
problem" --- and the hard part --- is in catching some of that resulting
freely flowing energy in an external circuit, and then freely dissipating
it in an external load to power that load, without destroying the
asymmetry (the dipole) that is freely extracting the energy flow from the
vacuum in the first place. In our book,
Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and
Principles, we give quite a few ways of approaching that
problem, as well as the principles that are involved.
Since catching and using
the freely flowing "real EM energy extracted from the vacuum" is the only
energy problem, then obviously that is why the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the
great national laboratories, the electrical engineering departments, etc.
are not working on it at all. Sadly, they have not yet recognized the
problem, much less the solution. We actually have a scientific mindset
problem, not a great and insurmountable technical problem.
Whenever that mindset
can be overcome, and the sharp young grad students and post docs are freed
to research and work the problem, in 2 to 3 years there will no longer be
an energy problem, ever again.
Max Planck also pointed
out that such a scientific mindset does not change quickly! In his words,
It usually takes at
least 50 years or more for such a strident mindset to get changed. If so,
we've had 45 years pass already, after the prediction and proof of broken
symmetry, guaranteeing the easy and simple extraction of copious EM energy
from the vacuum at will, anywhere, anytime. So it would appear we have yet
a few years to go before the scientific community hopefully gets its head
turned back around
and on
straight, muzzles the
self-appointed and ill-informed harsh critics who engage in ad hominem
attacks and in fact in
savaging
cur dog pack attacks,
etc. And before the scientific community leaders will allow funding for
the grad students and post docs to work on the problem, together with a
few interested and highly qualified professors.
One is reminded that the
same community (its predecessors) did the same kind of savaging of Mayer
when he discovered and stated the modern statement of the conservation of
energy law in the first place. Conservation of energy was considered an
insane idea of no merit whatsoever. So savagely was Mayer attacked that
he suffered a breakdown and attempted suicide, requiring medical care for
some time. Yet towards the latter part of his life, his principle had so
eased the calculations and understanding that --- to their great credit
--- three noted scientists came to his defense, and he was completely
vindicated and recognized. So he was increasingly lionized toward the end
of his life.
Most innovators are not
so lucky. They are savaged unmercifully in their lifetimes, and then only
vindicated after their death. The scientific community is still doing it
that way. The very ones who so savaged ultrawideband radar (and savaged
Harmuth and Barrett and others) now pose as "Heck, we did it first!" or
"We were the real pioneers". The bigots who have so savaged cold fusion
are now staring full in the face of rigorous
thermodynamics experimental
proof that, in solutions, the second law can be and is violated at
colloidal level (a micron) and for up to two seconds. That is, little
special zones of size up to a cubic micron can form
--- by
sheer statistical fluctuation ---
for up to two seconds,
and in that little zone the reactions of interest can run backwards. The
only reason that solutions do not produce a nuclear union of, say, two H+
ions (which are just two free protons) is because of the "Coulomb barrier"
between them.
Like charges usually repel, and so two protons are prohibited by the
normal Coulomb repulsion from approaching each other and each entering the
strong force region of the other. The high energy physicists do it the
hard way, by firing one of the protons at the other with such velocity
that it smashes on through the Coulomb barrier and reaches the strong
force region, producing a nucleus of a new element and thus a
transmutation or nuclear reaction.
The easier way to do it
is to get those little "reaction reversing zones" to form with sufficient
probability, so that in one of the zones like charges
such as the two H+ ions (the two free protons)
temporarily attract. We point out that, in water, a cubic micron has some
30 billion molecules of water in it. So that's lots and lots of ionic
interactions and "H-bond forming and breaking" actions going on
continuously. In short, in such a large number of interactions, there
emerge such "reversal zones" forming by purely statistical fluctuations,
as rigorously predicted by the Evans and Searles fluctuation theorem and
validated experimentally. So there is a real probability emerging that
two H+ ions can occasionally attract each other into their mutual strong
force regions, forming a quasi-nucleus. Then as the reversal zone dies
away because the fluctuation dies, a quark flips in one of the protons,
changing it to a neutron. Voila! The quasi nucleus now is a real nucleus
of a deuterium ion. And the resulting emergence of excess deuterium is
indeed shown in a great many of the now more than 600 successful cold
fusion experiments. Two D+ ions, e.g., may attract together into a
quasi-nucleus in such a reversal zone, and then just "tighten further
together" into an alpha particle as the zone decays, without even having
to flip a quark. In that case, two D+ ions have combined and transmuted
into a helium ion nucleus, called an alpha particle.
So current
thermodynamics theory predicts and
experimentally
substantiates the
formation of such temporary reaction reversing zones, due to the
statistical fluctuations. The reversal of the "like charges repel" normal
law into "temporarily like charges attract", in such a temporary zone,
then temporarily eliminates the Coulomb barrier and converts it into the
"Coulomb attractor".
Since the Coulomb
barrier is really the only thing preventing transmutation reactions in
normal chemistry, then the fact that thermodynamic fluctuations do
reverse the Coulomb barrier strongly implies that just such new nuclear
reactions as we have advanced do and will occur. Doesn't prove the
suggested mechanism, of course, but is consistent with it. Consistency is
the first part of proof.
And so the novel nuclear
reactions providing nuclear transmutations at weak spatial energy do
occur, as shown by the experiments.
Anyway, dipoles and
charges do not "run down" in their ability to extract EM energy from the
vacuum, and freely pour it out. So at least in theory, unless there is
some other mechanism involved, the magnet can and will continue to pour
out EM energy indefinitely, or at least as well as a magnet does in other
conventional applications.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
References:
|