"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." C.G. Jung?
“In that very moment, when free energy will be given away to Humanity, it will not only be meant to use as an absolutely free, environment friendly, perpetual working energy to use in each and every industry, transportation, or private homes, but much more chains of Humanity will be broken FOREVER. A New Era of Freedom, Friendship, Understanding and Love will rule, opening a New Golden Age for people of the Earth and beyond..." Nikola Tesla
"As far as "Free Energy" goes we must learn to walk before we can run. The FE Movement is in its infancy so far as physics goes. I've been in it since 1983 when we put together the International Tesla Society here in Colorado. The movement knew less then but I see ideas, science and attitudes maturing as it spreads around the world. There were a handful of us in those days. There have been many people bashing those of us who are doing the actual work for not having it complete and ready to deploy - at our expense. The same was done to Keely in the 1880s! But time moves on and we are making great progress even though there is yet to be a deployable FE machine people can purchase for cheap at a local outlet." [Dale Pond, 03/31/2014]
Free Energy is a concept that motive (kinetic) force can be derived from other than known sources such as water or wind power, chemical fuels or heavy element sources. Usually the energy sources tapped for developing Free Energy is derived from the (scalar) etheric or plasma forces. Sometimes these etheric forces are interchanged with vacuum, space, spacetime and ZPE. These Free Energy machines and processes are primarily scalar machines, i.e., machines whose observable motion is caused by non-observable scalar potentials and forces converted into kinetic motive power. [see Mind Force the Hidden Scalar Force]
While energy cannot be created energy can be transformed from one form into another form and accumulated for use. [see Law of Transformation of Forces, Scale of the Forces in Octaves]
Some believe energy (specifically Free Energy) can be derived or developed from Space, Vacuum or Zero Point. Apparently Keely did this sometime prior to 1895. (See Chronology, Keelys Accomplishments) He may have been the first to do so. [See Keely - Electricity from Space, Apergy, Apergy - Power Without Cost, Keel, What Electricity Is - Keely]
Successful Free Energy machines are open systems. This means they are allowing into their operation forces from outside their physical construction. They are NOT closed systems. A solar cell is a type of Free Energy device that puts out power as long as the sun shines on it. A water wheel in a river will put out power 24/7 as long as the river flows. In these two examples the outside source of power is easily identified and harnessed. The more exotic Free Energy devices connect into unseen and not always recognized quantum fields and energies of diverse kinds and potentials. This unseen world (sometimes called quantum, Mind Force, Scalar, Spirit Realm, etc.) is what develops and drives the visible physical world; i.e., energy precedes matter. [see Mind Force the hidden Scalar Force, 18.14 - Mind is the Ultimate Scalar Quantity]
On the lighter side (no pun)
There is need for a more precise definition of "Free Energy" (FE) as there are diverse types of FE devices being developed. In general (IMHO) a FE device is one that provides more useable output energy than the input energy required to power the device with a consideration of monetary cost; i.e., the cost of the input/source/activating/motivating energy is less than the derived output useable energy. In this equation money/cost is to be considered and the type of source energy is disregarded. Using this definition we can see there are diverse FE devices. The simplest to understand is a waterwheel in a river that turns providing useable energy transformed from the moving water of the river activated by gravity (input energy). Once the capitalization of the waterwheel is invested the rewards can be reaped for a long time. Another similar system is windmills tapping into streams of moving air - same equation. Depending on who's definition of magnetism magnets are the same principle. Iron taps into the moving streams of magnetism in and surrounding the earth (Keely's terrestrial forces). The YT link shows one of many mechanical methods of structuring to tap into this flow which moves a shaft providing useable energy. Again once the capitalization is met there is then "free" useable energy. There is the Methernita? device that taps into flows of electrons in the atmosphere (so far as can be determined at this moment). It's capitalization was thirty years of hard work by its inventor. The commonality of these mentioned devices is 1) a mechanical structure/device, 2) a continuous natural source or stream of some substance that is cleverly 'harnessed' and 3) dipole interaction dynamics (Russell's 'rhythmic balanced interchange'). These dipole interactions are high/low levels of water (gravity actuated), high and low (air) pressure (wind power) and diverse 'charge' differences of electrons/ions/magnons. Then diverse devices powered by solar energies, either thermal or light/electrochemical. I think we can all agree on the above - as a general statement. There is another general definition, category or class of FE device that taps into sources or streams of scalar forces. These devices are more exotic and were developed by Keely, Nikola Tesla and a few others. As we proceed up the scale of energy/matter transformations the lowest energy sources are the molecular streams of substances such as moving water (gravity) and air (solar). Looking into the next subdivision of energy/matter transformations we see the immense energies being released from atomic dissociations. Atomic and nuclear power plants are a form of FE in that monetarily speaking provides more energy (income stream) than the cost of developing the input energy. It is also big, expensive, dangerous and complicated - attributes The System likes because it lends itself to centralization and restricted access (monopoly control). The scalar devices are derived from accessing the next higher subdivisions of energy/matter transformations that being the so-called etheric level or plane of subtle energy as also the 'compound interetheric' (Mind) level. The potential energy from this subdivision far exceeds by many times energy derived from the molecular, atomic and even the nuclear? levels discussed above. Nitinol is an atomic action device in that atoms rearrange themselves with temperature changes (to put it simply). One of Nitinol's attractive qualities is its ability to be made to repeatedly compress or extend (ala Russell's rhythmic balanced interchange). In all interchanges of state there are costs. Nitinol requires a certain amount of input energy to 1) trigger its reflex action and 2) release or removal of that energy to restore its original state. Having said that Nitinol is made in a wide variety of alloys and physical configurations that have a wide variety of action/reaction temperatures. As of today it is assumed there are no scalar activations of Nitinol but that doesn't mean something cannot be developed with more input. Insofar as using Nitinol as a motive factor in a power system, yes, maybe, depending on the input sources of thermal energy however derived. There are other classes of FE systems such as the Papp? / Rohner? system being a hybrid of several of the above processes and the Sweet? device using an altogether different process.
It should be noted that ALL of the above processes have input (from outside the system) energies. The often spewed statement that "you can't get something from nothing' is accurate insofar as it only considers one subdivision of the energy/matter scale. A change of state as evidenced by some of these devices is achieved by introducing other subdivisions of the scale usually into a lower subdivision. These often unseen or non-observable input sources effect a change of state with the introduction of thermal, vibratory or other causative agency into the equation creating an imbalance of some duration, form or effect which imbalance is then restored completing the energy transformation cycle. Hence none of the above described FE devices or processes "get something from nothing" because they participate in an equation not ordinarily known or considered. [see Rhythmic Balanced Interchange]
Was Keely the first to acquire electricity from the vacuum? [see Keely - Electricity from Space]
"The instrument invented by Dr. Kellner collects and produces electricity directly from the ether of the atmosphere without any friction of solid corporeal substances and without any chemical agency; the invention of one of the Prague professors, which, it is said, collects and gives out magnetism, seeming to be derived from changing the vibrations of cosmic ether, as in Keely's and Kellner's experiments, and other more recent discoveries." [Etheric Force Identified as Dynaspheric Force, Apergy, Apergy - Power Without Cost]
"If the latent force that exists in a pound of water could be sympathetically evolved or liberated up to the seventh subdivision or compound interetheric, and could be stored free of rotation, it would be in my estimation sufficient to run the power of the world for a century." [Keely, Vibratory Physics - True Science see also Etheric Vapor]
"To the question "What does the supply cost in dollars and cents, per horse-power developed?" he answers, "It costs nothing more after the machinery is made, than the vibratory concordant impulse which associates it with the polar stream." The twanging of a taut string, the agitation of a tuning fork, as associated with the resonating condition of sympathetic transmitter, is all that is necessary to induce the connective link, and to produce this "costless motive power." As long as the transmitter is in sympathy with the sympathetic current? of the triune polar stream, the action of the sympathetic instrument or engine continues." [Vibratory Sympathetic and Polar Flows]
FREE ENERGY FROM VACUUM, BEARDEN -
Subject: RE: Lifter Research Information
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 23:05:39 -0500
Happy to receive your nice letter, and by visiting your website at http://www.americanantigravity.com I was able to see the remarkable experimental work you have been doing. I'm particularly impressed when researchers such as yourself also publish detailed information on exactly how to build the devices and the circuits and repeat the experiments. So researchers wishing to test this area themselves, can in fact built a fairly inexpensive lifter? and experiment with it. They can prove for themselves that it works, and that it really doesn't fit the electrodynamics they were taught in university. Congratulations also on your videos taken of actual tests. I feel that this particular research with "lifter?" technology is long overdue, and the conventional scientific community has been much remiss for decades in not vigorously funding research in this area.
What I would wish is that the hard-working and dedicated experimental researchers such as yourself could be funded by the scientific community, DoE, or large nonprofit organizations, so that a large group of determined researchers keeps digging into the phenomenology. In any new area where things are not yet understood, it is the phenomenology and its detailed exploration that eventually leads to a breakthrough understanding of the field. Once that happens, then good theoretical models - and technology and engineering - follow apace. So in my view, what you are doing is of extraordinary importance to the development of science and particularly to the further extension of physics. It also is the forerunner to developing actual usable technology. If ever we really wish to explore space, we are certainly going to have to find and develop better propulsion and lifting systems than rockets! If the nation can afford to spend 50 years and billions of dollars attempting to conquer hot fusion?, and still seem to be another 50 years from it, then surely we can afford to spend 20 years and a billion or two dollars on this vital area of research with such great potential.
Also it was good to see so many fine researchers in this field! Just to mention a few, there is Tim Ventura? (yourself), Jeff Cameron?, Hal Puthoff?, Jean-Louis Naudin? (and quite a few other fellows corresponding on his website), Woodward, Rueda, Haisch, Campbell, Ning Li (now returned to China), Podkletnov, Serrano, Kulikov, Corum, Cox, Black, and others too numerous to mention. Also, an appreciable patenting activity has been occurring, with many patents being issued (perhaps more than 100). Even NASA? has a lifter? patent assigned to it that seems to be a variation of the T. T. Brown? capacitor effect.
Aside from these researchers, some distinguished theoreticians and academicians are also working in directly related areas. There are many theories or branch theories of gravity, of course. Sachs's unified field theory - which is engineerable by higher group symmetry electrodynamics, including SU(2)XSU(2) advocated by Barrett and O(3) advocated by Evans and Vigier - is a case in point. The Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS), spearheaded by Evans, has in fact published a paper on antigravity: it is M. W. Evans? et al., "Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605. Many other fine papers struggling with the problem of positive and negative gravity are also being published.
The real problem, I feel, is the hopelessness of conventional classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering with respect to this work. E.g., the standard EE model erroneously assumes an inert vacuum and a flat local spacetime. The inane EM model used in every electrical engineering department actually excludes every charge in the universe as an acceptable Maxwellian system. Instead, it is unable to model or solve the "source charge? problem", the fact that the charge sits there and continuously pours out real, measurable EM energy in all directions in 3-space, with absolutely no observable EM energy input. In short, the classical EM model and electrical engineering assume that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating energy out of nothing, continuously, and pouring it out. The solution to that problem has been called the "most difficult problem" in quantal and classical electrodynamics (Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.). Yet the basis for its solution has been in particle physics for 45 years, with the award of the Nobel prize to Lee and Yang in 1957. One of the things proved by Wu et al. in early 1957, when they proved Lee and Yang's strong 1957 prediction of broken symmetry?, is the broken symmetry? of opposite charges - such as are on the opposite ends of any dipole. Take an "isolated charged particle", for example. As is well-known, it is clustered around by virtual charges of opposite charges in the vacuum - the well-known polarization of the vacuum. That effect has to be accounted for, since it shields part of the charge and the magnitude of the charge that is observed is dramatically different from the magnitude of the "bare" charge if there were no such shielding. Now take a differential piece of the observable charge, and pair it with any of those virtual charges of opposite sign. Voila! The "isolated charge" is a set of composite dipoles, so it is a set of broken symmetries. This means rigorously that it continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transduced it into real observable photons, and pours them out at the speed of light in all directions in 3-space, creating the associated fields and potentials and their energy, eventually reaching across all space. That is the solution to this "most difficult problem" in electrodynamics?. We published that solution in 2000. (Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Also carried on DoE restricted website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and www.cheniere.org.). Later we uncovered very powerful support of that proposed solution, from quantum field theory? and a slight reinterpretation (slight correction) of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential. The charge is therefore a special kind of system continuously extracting real, usable EM energy from the vacuum. So is every dipole, including the source dipole formed between the dipoles of a battery or generator.
Now we can understand how every generator and battery already pours out enormously more energy than the shaft energy input to the generator or the chemical energy available to the battery, as Heaviside discovered, Poynting? never considered, and Lorentz arbitrarily discarded.
It also means that there is not now, and there never has been, a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even teaches what powers and electrical circuit or the power grid. It isn't the tranducing the shaft energy input to the generator or the chemical energy available to the battery. All that burning of hydrocarbons, use of nuclear fuel cells, building of dams and windmills, of itself does not directly place a single joule? of energy on the power line. Instead, all that mess just makes the dipole - that the standard closed current loop circuit destroys faster than the circuit can power its external load. So we have to keep destroying and polluting the biosphere, ruining the planet, etc. just to keep restoring the dipoles in our primary power generators etc., while the engineers happily design the systems to keep destroying those dipoles faster than they can use some of the extracted vacuum energy to power their loads.
Also, by assuming a flat local spacetime, the EE model assumes there can be no change in the energy density of the vacuum - falsified by every EM wave, potential, and field. If rigorously applied to itself, the model - with Lorentz symmetrical regauging - "eats itself" and is an oxymoron. The easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy - enormous amounts in a continuous great flow - anywhere in the universe. Just make a little dipole or charge up something. That's it. The only problem is to intercept some of the freely flowing energy, collect it in a circuit, and then dissipate it in a load without using half the collected energy to destroy the source dipole that is gushing forth the EM energy extracted from the vacuum.
The electrical engineer's Lorentz-regauged model forbids any open EM system far from equilibrium with an active environment (the local active vacuum and the local curvatures of spacetime). Consequently, it forbids every electrical charge and magnetic pole. But it also assumes that all the EM energy processed comes from those very source charges. I.e., it is therefore an oxymoron. This is also part of the problem that has prevented practical electrogravitation?. The huge extra Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component is not accounted and not used, but just wasted.
For example, Laithwaite? published a paper pointing out the implications of the extra energy flow term in Heaviside's energy flow theory. As you know, Heaviside and Poynting? independently and simultaneously discovered EM energy flow, in the 1880s after James Clerk Maxwell was deceased. It is known that, from the terminals of a generator (from the source dipolarity, once created), there pours out a continuous stream of EM energy flow, filling all space around the conductors of the external circuit. Poynting?'s theory considered only that component of this external energy flow that is intercepted by the external circuit and diverged into the conductors to power the Drude electrons. Heaviside, on the other hand, included not only that "caught" component, but also included the remaining component that is not intercepted by the external circuit, but misses it and is wasted. The wasted energy flow is orders of magnitude greater than the energy flow caught. However, this meant that from every generator there already pours out far more EM energy than the amount of mechanical shaft energy input to the generator - and that is indeed true. Since no one could explain what could possibly be furnishing such a torrent of excess energy, obviously there was a bit of a problem with the law of energy conservation as it was understood at the time. Since then, the broken symmetry of opposite charges - such as the opposite charges on the ends of the source dipole, once formed between the generator terminals - has been proven in particle physics?. In short, now it is known (in particle physics?, not electrical engineering) that the source dipole, once formed, continually absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) it into real observable photons, and pours out that torrent of real, observable photon energy streaming from those generator terminals. This is the solution to the problem that so puzzled Heaviside and so vexed Lorentz, goading him into creating a neat little trick to get rid of the problem itself.
Unable to solve the problem of the source of that enormous EM energy flow from the terminals of every generator or battery, H.A. Lorentz, who understood the work of both Heaviside and Poynting?, reasoned that the excess nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component had "no physical significance" since it did not power anything. So Lorentz integrated the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around any volume element of interest. This little trick arbitrarily and neatly disposed of all accountability of the bothersome Heaviside component, while retaining and accounting the Poynting? energy flow component. All EM textbooks and electrical engineering to this day repeat Lorentz's integration trick, and dutifully (and arbitrarily) dismiss that Heaviside component. It is still present in every field/charge reaction and outside every electrical circuit, since the Bohren? experiment proves its existence, and is readily replicated at any proper university laboratory. So the irony is that electrodynamics? and electrical engineering - as they are still being taught in university - arbitrarily dismiss this very large nondiverged, nonreacting component of EM energy surrounding every field/particle reaction. Even the EM fields are misdefined in terms of what is diverged or wrenched out of them - a gross non sequitur. My point is that every EM interaction involves far greater EM energy than is presently accounted for, since Lorentz discarded that huge Heaviside non-diverged component.
In honor of Heaviside, I have nominated that very large unaccounted Heaviside component as what is responsible for the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together - as a solution to the "dark matter and then dark energy" problem. (Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.)
Heaviside eventually realized in his latter hermit years - spent in a little garret apartment - that his extra energy flow component (which flowed in closed loops, in his theory) had gravitational significance. After his death, thieves ransacked his little garret apartment. Later, beneath the floorboards where he had stowed his draft notes, there were found handwritten papers by Heaviside, developing his theory of unified electrogravitation?, with that extra component of energy now converted to a gravitational component. See E. R. Laithwaite?, “Oliver Heaviside - establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite? felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of electrogravitational energy combines with the (E´H) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics.
This is interesting and possibly of great significance, because of the tremendous magnitude of that long-neglected excess energy flow component.
In addition to publishing a paper on the potential significance of Heaviside's gravitational work, Laithwaite? even suggested that Newton's laws of motion might be in trouble. A presentation of this work to the Royal Institution in 1973 and a demonstration using a heavy gyroscope? to prove it to the assembled Royal Institution members, led to the rather abrupt curtailment of Laithwaite's rising career. During the lecture he simply showed them that a very heavy gyroscope?, difficult to lift when not turning, could be lifted easily with one hand when turning at speed. Anyone could try it for himself. For the first time in its 200 year history, the Royal Institution did not publish a proceedings of an invited discourse - that one by Laithwaite? in 1973. Laithwaite's rise toward grander things was ended.
In 1970 Laithwaite? had also completed and delivered a working model of a device that continuously moved itself with "indefinite motion", using a linear motor primary rolled into a cylinder to form the stator of a motor. Laithwaite? showed that, under the proper circumstances, a steel washer (a little over an inch in diameter) could be made to roll continuously in a vertical plane around the inside of the stator. Somehow, a combination of centrifugal force and magnetic attraction (and the ever-present force of gravity) maintained the washer in contact with the stator? at all times. The little washer would roll indefinitely and continuously. This working model was delivered by Laithwaite? to the Centennial Center of Science & Technology in Ontario. So far as I am aware, no one ever tried to analyze Laithwaite?'s successful experiment in terms of a unified field theory. We know that Laithwaite? worked on sophisticated gyroscopic systems for the latter years of his life, finally achieving a mass transfer effect? of some kind. He and William Dawson? obtained a patent in 1995, with a U.S. patent following in 1999. Sadly, Professor Laithwaite? died in 1997. We recall that Laithwaite? was for some years a professor at the Imperial College in London, one of the pioneers of the linear electric motor, and also pioneered portions of the MagLev (magnetic levitation?) train concept. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, many years ago, at the Imperial College.
A while back, I also visited Transdimensional Technologies here in Huntsville, where I spoke to the Chief Scientist Jeff Cameron? and his team. One can see their website at http://www.tdimension.com/. Jeff kindly came in from a day of vacation, and he and his team gave Ken Moore? and I some very good demonstrations of the lifter? technology and their rotor technology as well. I was able to examine the equipment, etc. and can personally vouch that this experimentation is for real. Pictures of the rotor device and the simple lifter? are posted on the website. The rotor was tested in vacuum, to prove it is not an ion wind? effect. Jeff made me acquainted with NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Program? (BPP), established in 1996, which has had very limited funding for some research in this area and really should be given greater funding and greater priority. I believe that program, or what is left of it, is still managed by the Glenn Research Center?, sponsored by the Advanced Space Transportation Program?, with its overall management by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center? here in Huntsville, Alabama. The BPP has sponsored some important research, and for example the myth that the lifters could work by ion wind? effects has been disproved. Apparently two or more conferences have been held under the auspices of the BPP each year, with papers given and experimental results presented. The real problem in the area seems to be that no one yet has a truly viable theory, although several have been advanced, at least tentatively. Jeff Cameron? and team are now working on what I would call "second generation" equipment and techniques, have filed several more patents, and expect to be into practical lift vehicles in about five years.
To finish things off, I visited Jean-Louis Naudin?'s website, where a remarkable collection of photos, videos, information, etc. on lifter? technology is given at http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm . All in all, I spent quite some time on the web, visiting some other sites as well, in "catching up" to what has been going on in this field.
All this and my visit to your website vividly brought back memories of the antigravity experiment I designed and convinced Floyd Sweet to perform back in 1984, following a theory I had had since Georgia Tech in 1971. That experiment worked beautifully, but it absolutely depended upon access to a COP>>1.0 EM power system. The COP of Sweet's device was 1,500,000 and it had to be pushed to nearly double that. But the experiment did reduce the weight of an object (the power device) on the bench by 90%, at a power level of 1,000 watts. In my view, it proved my theory of antigravity?, but of course that still remains to be seen. Eventually we published a paper on the device that included that experiment, which paper is Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. I wrote the paper, but placed Sweet's name first, which was appropriate since he invented the VTA (vacuum triode amplifier?) being used to perform the experiment with a new output section I convinced him to make. Unfortunately, much of the secret of how Sweet activated his barium ferrite magnets into such powerful self-oscillation was lost when Sweet later died.
So I was delighted to hear from you and receive the photos. I'll ask Tony to post this correspondence on the website in the correspondence section, and also post the photos for all to see. Those persons interested in further information can visit your website, that of Transdimensional Technologies, and Naudin's website and find reams of additional important information, experimental results, ongoing work and investigations, etc.
It is my hope that philanthropic wealthy persons and well-heeled non-profit institutions will recognize the importance of such research, and that funding will be made available to you fellows to continue this vital work.
Very best wishes,
FREE ENERGY FROM VACUUM, BEARDEN
07/01/05: Andrew Michrowski? (PACENET) writes: You may find this new document by Thomas E. Bearden to be of interest to you and to your colleagues.
Extract from Tom's letter: "...Finally the energy problem all boils down to several key questions that one must answer:
1. What have been the serious ramifications of the 1892 Lorentz arbitrary symmetrization of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations?
2. What characteristics do the arbitrarily discarded asymmetrical Maxwell-Heaviside equations have that one would not wish to cast aside?
3. What have been the serious ramifications of the universal use of circuits which self-enforce Lorentz symmetry?, so that the circuits’ behavior must always be describable by Lorentz invariant equations?
4. What are the important ramifications of deliberate usage of asymmetric circuits which do not self-enforce Lorentz symmetry??
One particularly is invited to consider the thermodynamic implications of the above questions.
The paper attached gets into all that, and gives a listing of the serious falsities that have been propagated in the CEM/EE model by the scientific community for more than a century. The corrections for those falsities are indicated, as are the profound implications of making the corrections..."
Major errors exist in the classical electromagnetics/electrical engineering (CEM/EE) model, as pointed out by Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge?, etc. The errors, implications, and a short history of the model’s development and truncation are presented.
Whittaker proved that every EM field and potential is a set of ongoing free EM energy flows. However, with its source of potential energy flow connected as a load while physical current flows, the closed current loop circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetry? and kills its source. Lorentz regauging symmetry enforced on the model and circuitry arbitrarily excludes permissible asymmetric Maxwellian systems using free asymmetric regauging energy to provide COP >1.0 (overunity coefficient of performance).
A replicable magnetic engine is presented with zeroed back mmf, exemplifying a COP > 1.0 nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) EM system analogous to a home heat pump?. Adding clamped positive feedback provides a COP = ∞ system freely receiving all its input energy from asymmetrical regauging, analogous to a solar cell array power system.
As one benefit, the solution to the dark matter and dark energy problems arises from the corrections. Dark matter (Dirac sea hole currents) and dark energy (negative energy EM fields and potentials) can readily be evoked in circuits and systems on the laboratory bench, and their odd phenomenology explored and determined.
The flawed CEM/EE model should be corrected with highest priority. Asymmetric COP > 1.0 electrical power systems should be rapidly developed — resolving the escalating world energy crisis while dramatically reducing biospheric pollution, global warming, and the cost of energy.
The discussions in the paper show several very significant findings:
1. Contrary to orthodox view and teaching, COP >1.0 and COP = ∞ electrical power systems — using asymmetrical regauging and free input of excess energy by the environment to freely increase their potential energy for subsequent use in freely powering loads — are permitted by both physics and thermodynamics. They are permitted by the Maxwell-Heaviside theory prior to its Lorentz symmetrical regauging.
2. Such CEM/EE systems are and have been arbitrarily excluded in our standard electrical power engineering practice by (a) Lorentz’s 1892 symmetrizing of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, thus arbitrarily excluding the entire class of permissible asymmetric Maxwellian systems, and (b) the standard practice of building and using only that small class of Maxwellian circuits and systems that self-enforce Lorentz symmetry? and COP <1.0 when the free regauging energy is utilized. These two actions have been raised to a scientific dogma welded in concrete and rigorously enforced.
3. A long list of falsities and flaws in the standard CEM/EE model has been pointed out by eminent scientists to no avail. For more than a century, our own scientific community has adamantly promulgated these known falsities, regardless of who pointed them out — bringing scientific ethics itself into serious question.
4. There is presently little or no movement at all in our scientific community to correct these glaring errors and practices. To the contrary, there is even stronger determination to keep right on promulgating and enforcing them, to the ever increasing detriment of humanity, the environment, and the ethics of science itself.
5. The source charge? problem — key to self-powering, fuel-free electrical power systems — has been scrubbed from all the texts. There are no texts that discuss the implications of Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging of the equations, or that discuss the ramifications of the self-enforced Lorentz symmetry? of our standardized circuits. The continuing false use of force fields in space — a total contradiction even pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics — is particularly inexplicable, as it is never explicitly stating that the potential energy? of any EM system can be freely changed at will, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, and this is guaranteed by the gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory?.
6. There is no “availability of energy” crisis and never has been. Instead, there is a continuing crisis of scientific mindset — accompanied by elevating Lorentz-symmetric equations and circuits to a universally accepted scientific dogma.
7. The energy crisis and much of the pollution of the biosphere, as well as the increasing contribution to global warming, can be rather quickly, cheaply, cleanly, and permanently solved, whenever our leading scientific organizations will undertake it. We speak of our great scientific organizations including the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, the great National Laboratories, and our universities and many others.
This problem can easily be solved and corrected anytime the U.S. scientific community will allow the work and fund it, and not ruin the careers of scientists — particularly young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists who try to work in this area. We therefore urge the leaders of the scientific community to take the strongest possible action to correct this inexplicable century-old scientific blunder and restore ethics to science.
FREE ENERGY LINKS (provided by Leslie Pastor?)
Free Energy Secrets:
John Bedini and His Free Energy Generator
John Bedini and His Patent
Tom Bearden on Bedini Battery recharging phenomenon
Bedini's discovery by Tom Bearden
The Kromery Converter: Free Electricity [John Bedini, Eike Mueller? and Tom Bearden]
Oceans of Free Energy by Tom Bearden
Welcome to Bedini Technology
John Bedini - Energy Machine Pictures
The Hamel Spinning Disk built by John Bedini
Ideas and motors
Bedini simple Science Fair motor
Bedini's Free Energy Generator
The Nikola Tesla Switch
Ed Gray's Power Conversion Tube
Free Energy Circuit Connection - John Bedini
My Experiments with the above circuit - Geoff
The Answer - Geoff
Energy 21 Resource Data Bank
The Adams Motor
Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space
Energy Something From Nothing, A Zero Point Primer
Tom Bearden Letter regarding Joseph Neumann?
A Critical Review of the Available Information Regarding Claims of Zero-Point Energy, Free-Energy, and Over-Unity Experiments and Devices
Apergy - Power Without Cost
Electricity from Light
Electricity from Running Water
Electricity from Sound
Electricity from Water
Electricity from Water Vapor
Energy from Vacuum
Free Energy - Lindemann
INE Devices Database
Keely - Electricity from Space
Keelys Mechanical Inventions and Instruments
Perpetual Motion (not part of legitimate Free Energy research)
Robert Scragg Solar Reactor Engine
Rhythmic Balanced Interchange
Subtle Energy Physics
Tesla - Electricity from Space
Universal Heart Beat
Vacuum where accumulation of attraction force (syntropy or negative entropy) is discussed.
What Electricity Is - Bloomfield Moore
What Electricity Is - Keely
What Electricity Is - Pond
What Electricity Is - Russell
What Electricity Is - Schlosser
What Electricity Is - Steiner
What Electricity Is - Tesla
Page last modified on Monday 31 of March, 2014 12:48:58 MDT