<<
Innoplaza Aspden
>> Bearden >>
Kanarev >> Shad >> TGD >> Weinfelden >> ZPE >> Links
>>
Actual: Testatika Seminary in
March 13, 2004 >>
February 23, 2004
Flaws In Our Accepted Theories
And University Teaching
Shad's comments are right on target. There are many things
very much wrong with the standard Maxwell-Heaviside
classical EM theory used in electrical engineering. E.g.:
(1) It still assumes a material ether, more than a century after its
experimental falsification. It does that by continuing to assume a force
field in empty space, which is a non sequitur. Mass is a component of force;
if there is no mass, there is no force. Check the exact definition of "the
E-field" for example. It is not the E-field itself at all; instead, it is
what is diverged from the force-free E-field that is interacting with a unit
static point charge having mass. In short, it is what is "diverged from" the
actual force-free E-field in space. E.g.:
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates
a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels
a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric
field." Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The
Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p.
2-4. [In other words, the distortion or curvature of spacetime is actually
the electric field as it exist in massless space. It MAKES force and force
field when it interacts with charged matter. The force fields assumed in M-H
classical EM theory do not exist anywhere except in charged matter. The M-H
model does not even include the fields as they actually exist in space,
because it assumes flat spacetime. Hence it assumes there cannot even be a
force field created, since the curvature of spacetime entity necessary to
create it is assumed to be nonexistent. One can easily see the total
illogical mess that is involved and taught to our electrical engineers, so
they will not go chasing energy from the vacuum and upset the gigantic $
trillion a year ripoff of the consumers of electric power worldwide.
"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force
is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most
important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin… If you
insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" Richard
P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.
(2) It assumes an inert vacuum, falsified since at least 1930 by Dirac's
electron theory and its experimental evidences. Today that assumption is
also totally falsified by standard particle physics, which regards all
primary forces of nature as being generated by interaction of the virtual
particle flux of vacuum with mass or charged mass. In electrical circuits,
the active vacuum is actually very energetic and continually reacts with
every charge in the system, both electrical and magnetic. All EM fields,
potentials, and energy in the circuit actually come from the associated
source charges in the circuit, which continually absorb virtual energy from
the vacuum, coherently integrate it, and re-emit real photons at light speed
in all directions, establishing and continuously maintaining their
associated potentials and fields at light speed.
(3) It assumes a flat local spacetime, falsified since 1916 by general
relativity. Whenever one changes the potential energy of a system, one
changes the energy density of the local spacetime, and thus produces a local
spacetime curvature. In operating systems, one is changing the potential
energy density and the curvatures of spacetime continually. These dynamics
of spacetime then also interact back on the operating system.
(4) It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in
the universe is and has been freely created by the associated source
charges, without any input of energy whatsoever. Hence it assumes total
violation of the law of conservation of energy, to provide every field and
potential in the circuit, and all the EM energy one is working with in the
circuit. This embarrassing "problem of the association of the charge and its
field" has been rather ruthlessly swept out of the EM and EE texts, so the
students will not be aware of it and will not ask embarrassing questions. It
can be found in physics discussions, however, particularly in those dealing
with the foundations of physics. Some relevant comments by various excellent
scientists are:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and
quantal, are in a sad state." Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176.
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still
is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." D.
K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968,
p. viii.
"The very expression 'energy source' is actually a misnomer. As is known
since the early days of thermodynamics, and formulated as the first law,
energy is conserved in any physical process. Since energy cannot be created
or destroyed, nothing can be an energy source, or sink. Devices we call
energy sources do not create energy, they convert it from a form not
suitable for our needs to a form that is suitable, a form we can do work
with." Ibrahim Semiz,"Black hole as the ultimate energy source," American
Journal of Physics, 63(2), Feb. 1995, p. 151-156. Quoted from p. 151.
"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet
been formulated. …"The recurring question has been: Why is it that an
electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact
that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal? " B. P.
Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Sov.
Phys. Usp. 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.
. "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of
what energy is." Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964,
p. 4-2.
So Shad is right on when he points out the weaknesses in our present
textbooks and university teaching. These accepted models are useful to a
point, particularly to build TV sets and the normal paraphernalia. But they
are almost useless in approaching the problem of building an EM system that
optimizes and uses free EM energy from its ongoing active vacuum
interaction.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
February 24, 2004
Digging into Physics Basics
Dear Juha,
That's fine with me. I'm glad to see serious researchers digging into the
shortcomings of the standard classical EM model. If one ruthlessly makes his
system circuitry obey the standard electrical power engineering theory and
conventional EM model only, then it will never produce COP>1.0 by extracting
excess energy from the vacuum and converting it into usable EM form. The
conventional electrical engineering model already excludes all COP>1.0 EM
systems taking excess energy from the vacuum. So does the closed current
loop circuit.
The latter is a fourth thing I should probably have added as a great problem
for overunity researchers:
4. Ubiquitous and exclusive use of the closed current loop circuit, well
grounded, with the main power source included in the circuit, totally
defeats COP>1.0. All dynamicists recognize "gauge freedom", which for us
means that the potential (and hence the potential energy) of a system can be
freely changed at will. But the electrodynamicists carefully do it just so
that both potentials are changed, with the resulting two free EM fields
being "equal and opposite", so they just constitute "change of stress in the
system". That type of regauging is known as "symmetrical regauging": in
effect, you deliberately get some excess energy in a way that produces a net
zero resulting force field. Technically, this closed current loop circuit
self-enforces "symmetrical regauging" of the fundamental Maxwell-Heaviside
equations, so that no matter how much excess energy is freely received by
the system from its environment, the excess energy is just "locked up" as
stress in the system. In the symmetrized system, the system cannot be
dissipated to additionally push electrons and make extra current, driving
the current through a load to power it freely.
This inane self-crippling circuit self-enforces COP<1.0. Any COP>1.0 system
taking its energy from the vacuum or its external environment, must violate
this circuit. A simple example is a solar cell array power source, which has
perhaps a nominal efficiency of 20%, but has a COP = infinity. The main
power input, however, is from OUTSIDE the closed current loop circuit
itself, being from the solar radiation environment. So the "main power
source" is not in the closed current loop. Hence the extra energy is
collected in the solar cells and changed to electrical energy (which is a
CHANGE OF FORM of energy and requires work). Because the energy was received
from the environment and not from the solar cell generator itself, the extra
field produced for free is then able to push current through the load and
power it.
Bringing Energy into the Loop
Look at it this way. Using the closed current loop circuit with the main
generator in the loop, the only way any additional USABLE energy can be
introduced to that silly circuit is from outside it, by "brute force". Even
in conventional systems, if you want the system to do any work, you have to
have some energy provided to it from an external source: either the external
environment or what you "create" yourself and pay for. So first, one can let
the natural environment's energy flows do it, e.g. One can get the river's
water to do it, as in a hydroelectric power plant, or one can get the wind
to do it, as in a windmill generator farm. And so on.
If there is no well-understood natural energy input from the CONVENTIONAL
environment, then we have only two additional ways to do it. First, we must
haul in energy supplies (coal, oil, etc.) there and consume them, to provide
the "extra input energy from the environment". Usually we just heat water in
a boiler, to make steam, and then use the steam to drive the steam turbine
generator. Another "now conventional" way is to haul in fuel rods to a
nuclear reactor, consume the rods (usually just to make heat and heat the
water in the boilers, etc.). And so on.
We know from modern physics that the vacuum is active and has incredible
energy density. And it's everywhere, so it constitutes an energetic
environment that is also ubiquitous and freely available. However, it is
also highly unconventional, and its energy is in very unconventional form.
So no real techniques have been developed by the "conventional" scientific
community to extract and convert usable EM energy from it. But that is
exactly what most free energy researchers (overunity researchers) are trying
to do.
Broken Symmetry
If so, then it is highly necessary for the serious researcher to study and
comprehend such things as the vacuum energy, detailed in particle physics,
its "composition" of virtual particle energy flux, etc. And then one must
comprehend what "symmetry" of that flux and "broken symmetry" of that flux
are and entail. If one wants to get some of that energy to use, one is going
to have to provide a "broken symmetry" of that local vacuum and its flux.
Fortunately, that is simple; a sharp gradient or opposite charges (any
dipolarity) does it, as guaranteed since 1957 by the award of a Nobel Prize
to Lee and Yang.
Also, since we overunity researchers are striving to get a free energy input
from the environment (even though it's an unconventional environment), then
we need to realize that our system circuitry must break -- at least
temporarily -- the closed current loop circuit arrangement. It also is a
system that is not in equilibrium, and thus its entropy has DECREASED
compared to that same system in equilibrium. A system continuously receiving
excess energy from its active environment is a system said to be "far from
equilibrium". It uses a different kind of thermodynamics than the
equilibrium thermodynamics we engineers study as sophomores in university.
Nonequilibrium thermodynamics -- and particularly of nonequilibrium steady
state (NESS) systems -- is a field of its own, and it also is undergoing
extensive development these days. E.g., Kondepudi and Prigogine, in their
book "Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures,"
Wiley, 1999 printing, p. 459 give us several areas that are already known
and accepted by thermodynamicists as violating the old second law of
equilibrium thermodynamics. One of these areas is the area of SHARP
GRADIENTS, and -- as the authors state bluntly -- not much is known about
the area, either experimentally or theoretically.
Anyway, those are just suggestions and findings from long years of work with
various inventors, theorists, etc. and from both a few successes and many
heartbreaking failures.
Moving Towards Knowledge
The major problem is that there is no accepted subject or field yet as the
"COP>1.0 systems extracting energy from the vacuum" field. The serious
researchers are in fact pioneering a "field that is not yet a field". There
are no handbooks, and there are no "world renowned experts" with "total
knowledge of the field" and a Nobel Prize to prove it. It's still to be
established, both theoretically and experimentally. Presently the best that
can be done is to just set forth the basic concepts and principles that are
involved. We have tried to at least begin that effort with our book, "Energy
from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles". It's our hope that the serious
researchers, sharp young graduate students, and young post doctoral
scientists will pick up the work at that point, and be allowed (and funded)
to go do the necessary theoretical modeling and experimental fitting needed.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Thomas Bearden: Weaknesses In Our Schoolbooks, http://Bearden.innoplaza.net
<< Innoplaza Aspden >> Bearden >> Kanarev >> Shad >> TGD >> Weinfelden >> ZPE >> Links
>>