I submitted this discussion paper to dEbates for Science journal, just in case they might print it in response to a recent very good energy discussion published in Science and involving multiple papers.  In that discussion, the committee reached the correct consensus that all the presently proposed energy and environmental solutions were not going to do the job.

I'm continuing to wrestle with the briefing on the emerging thermodynamics of permissible COP>1.0 EM systems, and it is really tough.  Have downloaded and perused more highly technical material on thermodynamics in the last four weeks than in the rest of my life put together. Out on the thermodynamics forefront there is still much debate, many positions, multiple interpretations, and often very sharp differences of opinion.  But there is also exciting new work.  Work by Denis Evans et al. is particularly important.  The thermodynamicists are getting closer to recognizing that the notion of entropy implicitly assumes the previously production of negentropy, to have the initial order in the first place.  Thermodynamics is very much a rapidly-developing and vibrant area.  It's obvious, though, that a somewhat comprehensive briefing (such as I'm trying to slowly get together) is sorely needed by would-be students of COP>1.0 EM systems, even if the briefing is still somewhat limited because of my own limitations. Zounds!  An astonishing number of researchers still do not know the technical difference between COP>1.0 (perfectly permitted by the energy conservation law) and efficiency greater than 100% (which would violate the energy conservation law).

I haven't yet found anything in thermodynamics sources, e.g., which addresses the proven asymmetry of the source charge in its fierce exchange with the active vacuum.  The source charge continuously consumes entropy (absorbs disordered and uncontrolled virtual energy of the vacuum), transduces it (coherently integrates it) into observable photons (observable order and observable EM energy), and re-emits observable photons in all directions.  At least that is what the negative charge does; the positive charge does it in the opposite (time-reversed) fashion, at least in my approach which uses the QFT and modified Whittaker 4-circulation between time domain and 3-space.  I do hope some good thermodynamicist has somewhere addressed that source charge asymmetry in its vacuum virtual energy flux exchange and considered the unusual thermodynamics involved.

Will keep searching.

Best wishes,

Tom

From: Science dEbates
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:51 PM
Subject: Thank you for your response to Science

Dear Thomas E. Bearden,

Thank you for your submission.  Below is a copy of your dEbate response as we received it.  Your dEbate response, if accepted, should be viewable within a few days time.

"Solution to Present and Future Energy and Environmental Problems"

<!-- article ID: 298/5595/981 -->

The basis for easily and cheaply providing unlimited clean EM energy has been in particle physics for 45 years and has been ignored.  Let me briefly explain.

Simply combine the long-vexing problem of the source charge and its associated fields and their potentials -- called by Sen [1] the most difficult problem in electrodynamics -- with the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957, which resulted in a Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang that very same year, after they strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956 and 1957. [2]

In modern QFT, an "isolated" observable charge is clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign. Hence the ensemble is a special dipolarity. The asymmetry of opposite charges proven by Wu et al. [3] in 1957 rigorously applies.

As a dipolarity, because of its asymmetry the charge continually absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) it into observable photons, and re-emits those quanta as real, observable EM energy in all directions, establishing its associated fields and potentials and their energy across the universe at light speed. This is the solution to the source charge problem, which still does not appear in the Maxwell-Heaviside model or in the electrical engineering model. Neither of those models include the active vacuum and its exchange with the charge, much less the asymmtry of the charge in that energetic exchange.

Burning hydrocarbons, using nuclear fuel rods, building hydro dams and windmills, etc. -- and turning the shaft of a generator -- do not directly add a single watt to the generator's external circuit (the power line), but only crank the shaft of the generator to turn it. The rotation transduces the mechanical shaft input energy into internal magnetic field energy inside the generator. All this magnetic field energy is then dissipated to do work on the internal charges, separating them and forming the internal source dipolarity between the terminals of the generator.

That is all that despoiling the environment for the coal and nuclear fuel, the oil and gas, the windmills, etc. does. It makes the dipole inside the generator. And we have to keep remaking the dipole only because of our own prevailing practice.

Once the dipole is made, via its broken symmetry it continuously extracts and transduces real, usable EM energy from the seething vacuum. That energy is poured out of the terminals of the generator, filling all space surrounding the external conductors which act essentially as a sort of waveguide. A tiny bit of this energy flow from the vacuum is intercepted  (the Poynting component) [4] and diverged into the conductors to power the Drude electrons and the power line's losses and loads.

Every dipolar EM circuit ever built has been and is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipolarity of the circuit. The eerie notion that EM energy cannot be usefully extracted from the vacuum has been a known non sequitur since 1957.  It is also refuted by rigorous papers already published by the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, in higher group symmetry electrodynamics and unified field theory. [5]

The arbitrary but ubiquitous closed current loop circuit - a diabolical invention - utilizes half its collected Poynting energy to drive the spent electrons back through the source dipole -- against its back emf -- inside the generator and destroy the dipole. The other half of the collected Poynting energy is used to power the external circuit's losses and load.  Hence less collected energy is available to power the load than is used to destroy the primary source dipole.  The inane circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging and destroys its source dipole faster than it powers its loads.  The circuit is deliberately designed to destroy its free extraction of EM energy from the vacuum faster than it does useful work. All the energy related environmental problems, pollution, wastes, etc. spring only from the necessity to continuously restore the dipole that we ourselves keep forcibly destroying.

At least as much energy must then be input to the shaft (100% efficiency assumed) to restore the dipole, as was used to destroy it. Hence to keep the energy flowing from the vacuum and powering the circuit and the loads, we must continuously input more generator shaft energy than the EM energy used to power the loads.  That circuit rigorously and arbitrarily self-enforces COP<1.0.  It is not a law of nature that does it, but standard scientific and engineering practice because "it's always been done that way".

Further, the extra Heaviside component of energy flow outside the circuit -- that is not diverged into the conductors to power the circuit but is just wasted -- is immensely greater in magnitude than the collected Poynting component. [6] This nondiverged component was discovered by Heaviside in the 1880s then was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz on the grounds that it did nothing so had no physical significance.

The Bohren-type experiment (negative resonance absorption of the medium) [7,8] clearly shows that a resonant intercepting charge will sweep out more reaction cross section area than the static charge used to define fields and potentials and energy flow.  The extra "outsweep" will intercept, diverge, and collect (and use) part of the ignored Heaviside component.  The Bohren experiment [7] outputs some 18 times as much energy as one inputs in one's Poynting component (not counting one's Heaviside component input).  It proves that the huge Heaviside component already present in all power systems and circuits can be intercepted and used.

When Heaviside's component is accounted, every generator extracts from the vacuum and freely outputs far more energy than the mechanical energy we input to the generator shaft -- up to a trillion times as much. We nominated this long-ignored giant energy component accompanying every field/charge interaction as the probable source of the excess gravity that is holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together. [9] Recently we also proposed the role of the giant Heaviside component in producing the excess antigravity that is expanding the acceleration of the universe. [10]

The Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component [11] has been ignored since Lorentz discarded it circa 1890. [12] Without realizing that particular result, engineers still use Lorentz's closed surface integration trick to exclude the Heaviside component while retaining the Poynting component.

There is no problem in directly extracting from the vacuum - anywhere, anytime - all the cheap clean EM energy desired.  Just make a dipole.  Either that dipole with its opposite charges continuously pours out real energy from the vacuum (which it does) or the Nobel Committee erred in giving the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang and particle physics continues to err greatly in teaching the asymmetry of opposite charges in the seething vacuum energy flux.

Or, simply lay a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so the E- field of the capacitor and the H-field of the magnet are at right angles. That maximizes EXH and the Poynting energy flow.  That trivial assembly pours out EM energy continuously [13] at the speed of light, as long as it remains intact.  That's how difficult it is to extract a continuous free flow of EM energy from the vacuum.

The problem is in building the intercepting circuit to catch and use some of the freely flowing energy to power loads without disarranging the source. The fields and potentials are not really "static", but are disequilibrium steady state conditions. They are continuously being established and replenished at the speed of light, by the continual motion of internal parts, in the fashion discussed by Van Flandern [14].

As is known but usually avoided, a system in diseqilibrium steady state can exhibit negative Gibbs entropy, with the entropy increasingly more negative and approaching negative infinity as time passes. [15]

All EM charges, macroscopic fields and potentials, and EM energy exists in permissible violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  The charge is shown to violate it experimentally, which cannot be refuted by theory.  The associated fields and potentials are deterministic (we easily calculate them at every point in space, and experimentally prove it). Hence they violate the statistical premise on which the second law is based.

The only real energy and environmental problem is in intercepting the easily available giant EM energy flow, catching it in the intercepting circuit, and dissipating it in the load without using half of it to kill the source dipole freely furnishing the energy flow from the vacuum.

We published the solution to the source charge problem in 2000. [16] Conventional electrical engineering models still assume that the charge freely creates energy from nothing at all, pouring it out continuously to form and replenish its associated EM fields and potentials expanding at light speed.  The charge will continue to consume entropy (disordered vacuum energy) and produce negative entropy (its derministically ordered macroscopic EM fields and potentials) so long as it exists.  Charges in the original matter of the universe have been doing so for some 14 billion years, and are still doing it.  Hence we have an available mechanism where the "fuel" is universally available, unlimited, and totally clean.

Presently the scientific community's mindset is quite dogmatic with respect to COP>1.0 of EM circuits, even in the face of experimental refutation of that opposition. Strident but misguided defenders of the present model continue to identify proposed COP>1.0 EM systems as forbidden perpetual motion machines creating energy. Ironically, it is the critic whose own model is the real "perpetual motion machine" model assuming that every charge freely creates all EM fields and potentials and their energy, out of nothing at all.

No amount of theory can refute a single replicable experiment that contradicts it, if we apply scientific method. To falsify the current "COP>1.0 EM system means forbidden perpetual motion machine" mindset, we only need exhibit a single replicable COP>1.0 EM experiment.  That is easy: The easily replicated Bohren experiment [7] exhibits COP = 18, and every charge and solar cell exhibits COP = infinity.  The solar cell receives its energy from a conventional source, while the charge receives its energy from an unconventional source, the active vacuum.

If the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation will fund and allow research on the only energy problem -- catching some of the energy flow and using it without destroying the extraction mechanism, then vacuum energy will quickly provide the complete solution to the energy crisis. Simultaneously it will reduce the energy- related environmental problems far below what they are now or what they are projected to be in the future, even if all the presently proposed solutions are acted upon.

For that desperately needed scientific work, we have hopefully provided the first guidelines and reference material on how to proceed, and what can work and what doesn't. [17]

The scientific community urgently needs to remove the present dogma with respect to EM energy from the vacuum, and change the present electrical engineering model to agree with what has already been proven in particle physics.  The solution to energy and its related environmental problems can be had quickly and cheaply, for less than the cost of a single major electrical power plant and faster than building one.

References:

1.  D. K Sen, "Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

2.  T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev.,104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; errata are given in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371; T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

3.  C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.

4.   J. H. Poynting, "On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, Part I, 1884, p. 343-361; --- "On the Connection Between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 176, 1885, p. 277-306.

5.   M. W. Evans et al., "The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum,"  Found. Phys. Lett., 15(6),  Dec. 2002, p. 561-568; --- "Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equations: Elimination of the Lorentz Condition," Found. Phys., 30(7), 2000, p. 1123-1130; --- "The Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra," Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296; --- "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; --- "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-51; --- "Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605; --- "Derivation of the B(3) Field and Concomitant Vacuum Energy Density from the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), Aug. 2001, p. 387-393. Also T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Edited by M. W. Evans, Part 2, Wiley, New York, 2001, p. 639-698.

6.   Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94; --- "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480.

7.   Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.

8.   H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.

9.   T. E. Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", J. New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.

10.  T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Chap. 8: Approach to Antigravity, Cheniere Publishing, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002. Available from http://www.cheniere.org.

11.  Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887.

12.   See H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186.  Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz integration mechanism that discards the Heaviside component.

13.   Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44.

14.   Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say," Phys. Lett. A, vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9.

15.   D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002 (in press).

16.   T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.

17.  T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Publishing, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, 977 pages.