Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 118 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (August 27, 2023 - August 31, 2023) ICCF-25

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    AESOP Institute

    Closeminded Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    FringeEnergy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy21 YT Channel
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine
    Find Jobs

    James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory
    Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 @ 18:42:37 GMT by vlad

    Science Posted by Leslie R. Pastor in the NEC forum: Leslie,

    I'm terrible with exact facts and need my personal library which was destroyed, so pardon me if I don't have this exactly correct. I remember that James Clerk Maxwell had developed 5 postulates or theories. After his death 3 of the leading scientists of the time published Maxwell's findings but only 3 of the 5 were published.

    Somebody said that had the missing 2 been published that we would have had anti gravity 50 years after his death! We only know of the current and voltage in a wire and the magnetic and electrical fields resulting; but Maxwell discovered two other essential fields surrounding current moving in a wire. I have always wanted to find those original papers (even a bad copy would do); and find out for myself instead of relying on all these rumors and half-truths.

    Philip N. Ledoux

    Good Morning Tom [Bearden],

    Since you are one of the most knowledgeable sources regarding James Clerk Maxwell, may I defer Mr. Philip N. Ledoux's question to you?

    All the Best,

    Leslie R. Pastor


    Maxwell's original theory was published as:

    James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. The paper was orally read Dec. 8, 1864.

    It is also published in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as one, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover, New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-597. Two errata are given on the unnumbered page prior to page 1 of Vol. 1.

    In this paper Maxwell presented his seminal theory of electromagnetism, containing 20 equations in 20 unknowns. His equations of the electromagnetic field are given in Part III, General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field, p. 554-564. On p. 561, he lists his 20 variables. On p. 562, he summarizes the different subjects of the 20 equations, being three equations each for magnetic force, electric currents, electromotive force, electric elasticity, electric resistance, total currents; and one equation each for free electricity and continuity. In the paper, Maxwell adopts the approach of first arriving at the laws of induction and then deducing the mechanical attractions and repulsions.

    A copy of the original Maxwell paper can easily be obtained for about $15 from Amazon etc. It is:

    James Clerk Maxwell, The Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, edited by Thomas F. Torrance, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996. This booklet, which sells for about $15, contains Maxwell's original 1865 dynamical theory paper and some additional commentaries.

    Here's what Barrett - a nationally known electrodynamicist and one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar - has to say about Maxwell's theory:

    "In the case of electromagnetism, the theory was first simplified before being frozen. Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centerpiece of his theory. In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centerpiece of electromagnetic theory. According to him, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be "assassinated" (sic). A few years later there was a great debate between Heaviside and Tate about the relative merits of vector analysis and quaternions. The result was the realization that there was no need for the greater physical insights provided by quaternions if the theory was purely local, and vector analysis became commonplace.

    The vast applications of electromagnetic theory since then were made using vector analysis. Although generations of very effective students were trained using vector analysis, more might be learned physically by returning, if not to quaternions, to other mathematical formulations in certain well-defined circumstances. As examples, since the time when the theoretical design of electromagnetism was frozen, gauge theory has been invented and brought to maturity and topology and geometry have been introduced to field theory. Although most persons view their subject matter through the filter of the mathematical tools in which they are trained, the best mathematical techniques for a specific analysis depend upon the best match between the algebraic logic and the underpinning physical dynamics of a theoretical system." [Terence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes, Preface, p. vii-viii, in Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and Applications, Terence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.]

    Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer.

    In the 1880s, several scientists - Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz etc. - strongly assaulted the Maxwellian theory and dramatically reduced it, creating vector algebra in the process. Then circa 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already seriously constrained Heaviside-Maxwell equations, just to get simpler equations easier to solve algebraically, and thus to dramatically reduce the need for numerical methods (which were a "real bear" before the computer). But that symmetrization also arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems - the very ones of interest to us today if we are seriously interested in usable EM energy from the vacuum.

    So anyone seriously interested in potential systems that accept and use additional EM energy from the vacuum, must first violate the Lorentz symmetry condition, else all his efforts are doomed to failure a priori.

    We point out that quaternion algebra has a higher group symmetry than either vector algebra or tensor algebra, and hence it reveals much more EM phenomenology and dynamics than does EM in vector or tensor form.

    Today, the tremendously crippled Maxwell-Heaviside equations - symmetrized by Lorentz - are taught in all our universities in the electrical engineering (EE) department. Note that the EE professors still dutifully symmetrize the equations, following Lorentz, and thus they continue to arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Hence none of them has the foggiest notion of how to go about developing an "energy from the vacuum" system, which is asymmetrical a priori.

    The resulting classical electromagnetics and electrical engineering (CEM/EE) model taught in all our university EE departments also contains very serious falsities. Most of modern physics, such as special and general relativity, quantum field theory, etc., has been developed since the 1880s and 1890s fixating of the symmetrized Maxwell-Heaviside equations. A paper gathering together a listing these serious flaws and giving proper citations, is T. E. Bearden, "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model," available for free downloading at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc .

    This paper also shows a magnetic Wankel engine (suppressed from the world market) that can be built by any electrical engineering department or physics department, and then tested at COP>1.0 to one's heart's content. The magnetic Wankel system is also easily close-looped for self-powering (where all its input energy is freely furnished by the vacuum, and the operator need furnish none of the input energy at all - thus providing fuel free, continuous use of the energy from the vacuum, at will.

    In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Evans' own O(3) model is very advanced, and it also directly specifies mechanisms for an EM system receiving and using excess energy freely from the vacuum.

    Fortunately, today some scientists have turned again to higher group symmetry algebras in which EM is expressed. These higher group symmetry electrodynamics theories then show far more EM phenomenology than the standard CEM/EE model used in electrical power engineering.

    Anyway, that gives you a brief overview of the Maxwell theory, and the rather sharp curtailment of it that has become the accepted but very crippled model for electrical engineering. Specifically, it is that crippled model and its continued propagation and use that is directly responsible for the increasing energy crisis worldwide, and our dependence on conventional fuels etc.

    We do point out that the original Maxwell quaternion and quaternion-like theory of 1865 also contained errors, by the physics that has been learned since then. One of those errors was Maxwell's assumption of the material ether, an ether which was falsified experimentally in 1887 after Maxwell was already dead. But the present CEM/EE model still assumes that same old material ether, more than a century later.

    Also, after Maxwell published the first edition of his famous "Treatise.", not much happened. He was soundly criticized for using the quaternion approach, and even his own editor chastised him rather unmercifully for it. His attachment to the potentials as primary was also roundly criticized, since almost all theorists of the day believed that the potentials were simply mathematical conveniences having no physical reality whatsoever. To them, the force fields were the only physical reality in Maxwell's theory. Today, of course, we know in the quantum theory that it is the potentials that are primary, and the fields are derived from changes in the potentials.

    The history of Maxwell's famous treatise is as follows: The publications are James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1873, Second Edition 1881 (Maxwell was already dead), Third Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, 1891. Foreword to the second edition was by Niven, who finished the work as Maxwell had dramatically rewritten the first nine chapters, much new matter added and the former contents rearranged and simplified. Maxwell died before finishing the rest of the second edition. The rest of the second edition is therefore largely a reprint from the first edition. The third edition edited by J. J. Thomson was published in 1892, by Oxford University Press, and later was published unabridged, Dover Publications, New York, 1954. J. J. Thomson finished the publication of the third edition, and wrote a "Supplementary Volume" with his notes. A summary of Maxwell's equations is given in Vol. II, Chapter IX of the third edition. However, Maxwell had gone (in his second edition) to some pains to reduce the quaternion expressions himself, and not require the students to know the calculus of quaternions (so stated on p. 257). We note that Maxwell did not finish the second edition, but died before that. He actually had no hand at all in the third edition as to any further changes. The Second edition (unfinished by Maxwell) was later finished by Niven by simply adding the remaining material from the previous first edition approved by Maxwell to that part that Maxwell had revised. The printing of the first nine chapters of the third edition was already underway when J. J. Thomson was assigned to finish the editing of the manuscript.

    Indeed, as an example of a major error in the present CEM/EE model, we know today that matter is a component of force, and therefore the EM force fields prescribed in matter-free space by Maxwell and his followers (and by all our electrical engineering departments today), do not exist. The EM field in massless space is force-free, and is a "condition of space" itself, as pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics. Specifically, speaking of the electric field Feynman states:

    ".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].

    He further states:

    "We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]

    But the CEM/EE texts still teach that old force field in empty space. However, Jackson - a superb classical electrodynamicist of international renown - at least points out that this dramatic error in the model is just ignored. Jackson states:

    "Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 249].

    Jackson does admit it and point out that this logical problem is just ignored, for which he is to be highly commended. Most textbooks simply do not even discuss it.

    So at his death in 1879, Maxwell had already laboriously simplified some 80% of his "Treatise" himself, to comply with the severe demands of the publisher. The second edition of his book thus has the first 80% considerably changed by Maxwell himself. The third edition contained the same theory as the second edition essentially, but just with additional commentary. It is this third edition that is widely available and usually referred to as "Maxwell's theory".

    Today, there is still a widespread belief that the third edition represents Maxwell's original EM work and theory, in pristine form just as created originally by Maxwell.

    It doesn't.

    Best wishes,

    Tom Bearden



    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 5

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory" | Login/Create an Account | 19 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by jeremygaul on Monday, December 12, 2005 @ 18:36:51 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Hi, I have a post on my web blog of a paper with the complete original Maxwell equations before they were reduced.

    Here is a link to the post - http://www.jeremygaul.com/content/view/64/9/ [www.jeremygaul.com]

    I have been interested in this area of physics for quite a while and was surprised at how hard it was to locate this particular information. You would think that with all the interest in FE and physics at least some would have posted these online. This paper is not mine but mirrored from another source in case that is lost.

    These are in the original format and the subject is on the the notation of these equations. You would need understanding of quaternions and adv calc(not to mention physics) to understand the them.

    Have Fun,
    Jeremy Gaul

    Maxwell's original EM eq. in Downloads (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 @ 21:53:56 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Jeremy, thx for the tip. Andre Waser's paper: "On the Notation of MAXWELL’s Field Equations" is also available in our Downloads section.


    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, December 12, 2005 @ 19:24:28 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Maxwell originated those equations with the firm belief in the luminferous aether. Quaterions were not only equations, they described the mathematical character of the properties of the constituients of the aether, properties that bear a resemblance to the electron-positron flux that later became the "Dirac Sea".

    When the aether bit the dust with Michelsons interferometer findings in the early 20th century, those forms of Maxwells equations were modified to get rid of that particular form of representation.

    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by nanotech on Monday, December 12, 2005 @ 20:00:08 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    So what you are saying Dynacat, is that there really IS an aether flux, it is not a mere mathematical fiction, and it can be used to manipulate matter and produce energy?


    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 @ 15:51:54 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    The aether in its original form was thought of as a pervading invisible jelly that filled empty space, now we think of it as virtual electron-positron pairs whose oscillations are driven by zero point energy.

    The aether has never left us, our notions of its nature have changed.


    Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Sunday, June 18, 2006 @ 04:43:36 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Dear ElectroDynaCat,
                                 I would like to hear more information on your view of these oscillating virtual electron-positron pairs which you believe comprise the aether. How does it compare with the idea of rotating real electron-positron pairs?
                                     Yours sincerely
                                                 David Tombe


    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by lanca on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 @ 18:07:40 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    P=(Bv2xq)/(8x pi x981000)

    How many physicians,"physics" teachers,engineers will think about/visualize3D this Maxwell theory formula ?

    A little help: this,in reality,as motor (for example used by the german inventor Wolfgang Klinsing) included in a concept like
    the "Trinitymotors"-concept !(Motor,Generator,batterypack) 

    Or as motor for friction-heaters et cetera...!

    Attention:The Biot-Savart -force amplification-law effect inside !!!

    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by Koen on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 @ 04:31:16 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
    The QUESTION is:

    are Bearden's remarks CORRECT with respect to Maxwell's original equations and the 'modern' vector form of Maxwell's theory ?????

    For instance, Andre Waser and Gerhard Bruhn came to the conclusion that there are OTHER differences between the original and modern version than expressed by Tom Bearden. So I doubt Bearden's conclusion, will come back to this later.

    The MM experiment did not disprove Aether, it is still alive and well... (Score: 1)
    by jeremygaul on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 @ 19:27:51 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Here is some interesting facts on the MM experiment.

    qoute from - http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_8_1.html [www.padrak.com]

    "Kaku says the aether has never been measured in our laboratories and that its existence was disproved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. The fact is that Michelson did not perform the experiment to test or refute the existence of the aether. He lived another 44 years after performing that experiment and believed in the aether to his dying day. He was trying to sense the Earth's motion through the aether, but, since standing waves developed by mirror reflection had not been discovered when the experiment was planned, he had not allowed for that to affect the result observed. In fact, the aether energy stored in those standing waves, being trapped in the mirror system, makes the wave motion appear to be locked to the frame of reference of the mirrors, and not the aether as expected. The aether certainly was detected in the laboratory when Michelson found he could detect the Earth's rotation relative to that non-rotating aether by his light wave interference experiments jointly with Gale in 1925. The aether was detected some years earlier by Sagnac in France and is detected in modern navigation technology by the ring laser gyro. How can the speed of a laser beam traveling around a closed path inside an optical instrument detect rotation of that instrument if the beam is not keeping a fixed speed relative to something inside that instrument that does not share its rotation? That something is the aether! No amount of book learning or mathematics can avoid that simple truth, and even though the word aether is seen as something magical, it is that something that delivers free energy once we have decoded the combination of the magnetic lock which restrains its release. Note also, that the aether reveals its existence when we have rotation and we have rotation in the Adams motor."End QouteAlso the Questions at http://www.mountainman.com.au/aeth_faq.htm [www.mountainman.com.au]Or http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm [freespace.virgin.net]
    or here is an article about Maurice Allais - Nobel Laureate From 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.html [www.21stcenturysciencetech.com]

    Here is a qoute from Infinite Energy Magazine
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html [www.infinite-energy.com]

    "We will banish the term "aether" in due course, but let’s take a closer look at this much maligned substance, given its historical importance to the whole question of the speed of light. To be certain, the 1887 Michelson-Morley (M-M) null-result disproved the concept of an unentrained aether. An unentrained aether would be totally unaffected by a gravitational field. The Earth would glide effortlessly through it without dragging any of it along, by virtue of the Earth’s gravitational pull. From a scientist’s perspective, an unentrained aether would come blowing through the laboratory like a hurricane with a velocity of the Earth’s speed of revolution around the Sun (30 km/sec). And like the passing eye of a hurricane, the aether-wind would reverse direction twice each day as the Earth rotated on its axis. At 0.01% of c the M-M experiment was certainly sensitive enough to detect such an aether-wind, and a small non-null result was found, but not to the level expected for an unentrained aether."This article goes on to explain how a entrained aether exists and was proven by Dayton Miller as well as several other theories.Well have fun... there is much more out there to read about this as well as a modern reproduction of the Dayton Miller Experiments as well as the MM ones.
    LaterJeremy Gaul www.jeremygaul.com [www.jeremygaul.com]

    Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Friday, June 16, 2006 @ 09:27:32 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Regarding your query, I have just written an article which should help you to get a clearer picture of Maxwell's original work. In section V of this article, I have listed and discussed Maxwell's original eight equations. The article can be found on this web link,


    In modern texbooks, we have lost Maxwell's vortex cells which were also his dielectric luminiferous medium. We have lost his original derivation of displacement current which is based on the existence of a dielectric medium. We have lost the connection between the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force. It is also interesting that the Lorentz force sits outside Maxwell's equations today, as if it had never been equation (D) of the original eight in his 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field'.

    The 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' is now available in the ZP Energy downloads section.

    Yours sincerely
    David Tombe

    Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by aleatha on Friday, June 16, 2006 @ 10:06:07 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    I have a question. if we see that heat (infrared photons) can be produced directly from magnetism. would it not then correlate that a material could be designed that would turn magnetism directly into visible light? it would seem all that is needed is an upshift in frequency. an eternal light source would be a fun toy! i am thinking of nano-gandolinium with mixed nano-phosphorus. by putting the nano-concoction on a magnet maybe visible light would be created? i put up the post about createing maxwell's demon via the magneto-caloric effect. strange but no search engine gives me data on the obvious phrase magneto-luminous effect. if magneto caloric exists i must assume magneto-luminous does as well


    Re: Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Saturday, June 17, 2006 @ 02:43:18 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Dear Aleatha,
                       In my opinion the problem would appear to lie in the different natures of magnetism on the one hand, and light on the other hand. It is true that light is an electromagnetic wave, but this means that in a light beam, the magnetic field must be in a dynamic state.

    I can't envisage how a never ending source of light could be obtained from a bar magnet which would be surrounded by a magnetic field in the steady state. If the magnetic field doesn't naturally dissipate at light frequencies, then I can't see how it could be upgraded without putting energy into the system.

                                          Yours sincerely
                                                    David Tombe


    Re: Re: Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by aleatha on Saturday, June 17, 2006 @ 08:51:17 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    magnetism and light are not diffrent as in diffrent forces. just manifestations of an underlying force. to make magnetism "dynamic" (aka electricity) all we need is to make it oscillate. gandolinium atoms ALREADY DO THIS. it is a science fact. they are making refrigerators based on it. gandolinium does heat up when merely EXPOSED to a magnetic field so yes a static magnets field alone can make energy. i just want to find a way to make it visible. also magnetism is ITSELF the energy input. that's why you don't need to add energy. i don't know why the creation of light from magnetism is not big news. it is infra-red now but that can be engineered i am sure


    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original EM work and theory (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Sunday, June 18, 2006 @ 04:34:00 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Dear Aleatha,
                       In my own view of things, a static magnetic field represents the additional kinetic energy in a sea of rotating electron positron dipoles, over and above that kinetic energy which this electric sea would possess as a matter of course in the non-magnetized equilibrium state.

                      You say that with the assistance of gandolinium, a magnetic field yields infra red radiation without any loss of its own kinetic energy.

                      Are you sure that this infra red energy is not actually rooted in some kind of stored energy within the gandolinium itself, and that the magnetic field is not merely playing a role in some kind of triggering mechanism which releases this stored energy?

                    Every large scale energy source that we know of, involves releasing stored potential energy, which has occurred naturally for whatever reason. Once it is released and used, we can never get it back again.

                    It's a bit like the potential energy which exists in a heavy cannon ball behind a six foot wall at the top of a thousand foot cliff. We have to put a relativity small amount of energy in, to get the cannon ball on top of the wall. When we push it over, we obtain a huge amount of kinetic energy as a result of the thousand foot drop. The energy is then spent.

                     The secret of finding new energy sources lies in finding ways of unlocking already existing natural stores of potential energy.

                    In your scenario, I very much suspect that the energy is coming out of the gandolinium and not out of the magnetic field.

                    The real challenge will be to find out how to unlock energy from the electron positron sea, whether or not it is in its magnetized state.

                                Yours sincerely
                                             David Tombe


    : Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original (Score: 1)
    by aleatha on Monday, June 19, 2006 @ 08:32:27 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    the belief energy must already be in order to release it stems from the "closed system" view of the cosmos.( expiermentally disproved) the universe is actually an open system. the dirac sea is self renewing as it is fundamental. as for stored energy of gandolinium: "the higher the gauss field the more heat" is an observable fact. this indicates the magnetism is the source of the energy not the metal. the metal acts like a catalyst making the static field into dynamic energy. so if magnetism density (gauss) is the big factor in heat output we can assume (until disproved) that it is the magnetism.


    : Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Monday, June 19, 2006 @ 11:04:14 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Dear Aleatha,
                       Magnetic field energy should not be confused with the energy which already exists in the electron positron sea when it is in its equilibrium state. Magnetic field energy is an additional kinetic energy in the electron positron sea, when it is in the magnetized state. This additional energy has been introduced from some external source, via the electric current which has created the magnetic field.

                       If the gadolinium is using up this magnetic energy, and the magnetic energy is being instantly replaced, then it is being replaced from the original power source via the source electric current. If the source is a bar magnet, then I can't see how the magnetic energy could be replaced indefinitely.

                        At any rate, your observation regarding the fact that increasing the magnetic field strength increases the amount of heat radiated by the gadolinium, doesn't necessarily mean that the magnetic field must be the source of the energy. We would need to know alot more information about the atomic structure of gadolinium and how the orbital electrons interact with a magnetic field, to be able to ascertain exactly what is going on.

                         My own suspicions are that the magnetic field is causing some kind of realignment of the orbital electrons in the gadolinium, resulting in a drop to lower energy levels, and that this is causing infra red radiation to be emitted.

                        Does gadolinium radiate heat indefinitely when it is sitting in the magnetic field of a bar magnet?

                            Yours sincerely



    : Re: Re: James Clerk Maxwell's original (Score: 1)
    by aleatha on Monday, June 19, 2006 @ 19:20:06 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    yes! that last part is the meat of it. it does radiate indefintely when exposed to the "static" magnetic field! ames lab has a neat magnet fridge using gandolinium powder. you can read on it there for instance. i do not belive that permanent magnets use the magnetization energy from their birth. i think magnetization causes the material to conduct the dirac sea in a normally self-canceling loop. this means the energy in the gandolinium setup comes from the aether/zpe/dirac sea/etc. (thing has to many names) if you think magnetization is from the source current it can be shown wrong empirically. take your total input in kilo-joules to make the magnet. now take a weight and suspend it from a known height using the magnet. since it is a permanent magnet it will perform MORE work then the input energy that made it a magnet. magnets take dirac energy flow through themselves to do work. definitely look up the Ames laboratory work. it is worth the read just for the refrigeration knowledge. but it has much more potential


    The Magnetocaloric Effect (Score: 1)
    by FDT on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 @ 12:03:35 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Dear Aleatha,
                       I read about the magnetocaloric effect. The impression that I got was, that it is very much accepted that the heat energy comes out of the gadolinium.

    Although it was never made explicitly clear, I also got the impression that the heat is not generated indefinitely. I got the impression that we are dealing with a cyclic situation in which the magnetic field converts magnetic energy into heat energy within the gadolinium. That heat is given up to water. The gadolinium then exists in a new state, in which it is able to absorb heat from a refrigerator and get restored to its original state, and the cycle is then repeated. Ie. The gadolinium seems to be acting as an agent which shovels heat out of one place and shovels it into another place.

    At any rate, it is a very clever manipulation of energy in which we appear to be able to get an indefinite supply of heat where it is needed, in exchange for an indefinite supply of cold where it is needed. But I really doubt if we are actually taking energy out of the electric sea.

                                        Yours sincerely
                                                    David Tombe


    Re: The Magnetocaloric Effect (Score: 1)
    by aleatha on Thursday, June 22, 2006 @ 10:53:25 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    read the part in the graphic where it says: "when the gandolinium is exposed to a magnetic field it heats up" they say that the magnetic field causes the atoms to line up (like a pulsed electromagnet of steel) but since the amount of disorder has to remain (disorder means random atomic movement) this energy is transformed from atomic motion to infra-red radiation. this elevated temperature remains in the metal as long as the field keeps the atoms aligned. since the atoms are transduceing this magnetic energy and atoms are sustained by the ZPE it is in fact the zpe that is powering this. the atoms are like a windmill in the wind. if you cannot percieve the wind you would wrongly ascribe the power to the mill. same situation here. as for it being a cycle. that is how they use it for refrigeration. it is NOT cyclic. they are USEING it cyclic. glad to see though you at least see how interesting this is. totally new technology



    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.