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, 254 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

  • (June 9, 2021 - June 11, 2021) ICCF-23 online

  • 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

    A dipole, circuit, and energy [field]
    Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 @ 23:01:22 MST by rob

    Science From JLNLabs group:


    Will only comment a little; I've just about written everything already that I could say, in many places. Here's a sort of summary of some of the key points.
    My life these days has become very simple; I care for my wife 24/7, and also continue very physically limited myself. I only have a little time to do writing
    and work in little snatches and grabs. This will not be changing. The race now has to go to the younger fellows and their efforts. If it is ever to get done, they are going to have to do it.

    (1) The dipole obviously consists of opposite charges.

    (2) the broken symmetry of opposite charges is already proven in particle physics, and is one of the asymmetries predicted by Lee and Yang, for which they received the Nobel Prize in 1957.

    (3) Symmetry means that on new observable is created; e.g., by the Lorentz symmetrical regauging of Maxwell-Heaviside equations. The regauging does assume that the potential energy of the system is changed twice, and for free, but it also assumes this occurred just so that the two extra free force fields produced are equal and opposite. Hence they vectorially sum to a net zero vector, and there is no NET force field available to expend the excess regauging energy by pushing extra electrons through the load "for free".

    (4) Assumption of such symmetrical regauging is totally arbitrary, and there is no law of nature anywhere which requires it. Lorentz originally did it so that the resulting equations - which are much simpler because of their symmetrizing - are much easier to solve algebraicly. Otherwise, asymmetrically regauged
    equations (i.e., broken invariance) usually requires numerical methods, which in
    the old days before computers was a real bear. So it was reasoned that, if the
    net force field does not change, then "everything is the same". That of course
    is a flatly false assumption; the excess regauging energy has indeed been
    assumed, but only wherein it has been "locked up" as system stress (or change of
    same) with a zero net resulting translation force.

    (5) there are no force fields in empty space, and this is also known to
    foundations physicists (Feynman, Wheeler, Lindsay, Margenau, Bunge, etc.).
    Classical EM is flatly wrong in continuing to assume force fields in space;
    simply check Feynman's discussions in his three volumes of sophomore physics. In
    short, CEM still assumes the old luminiferous material ether, more than a
    century after its falsification in 1887.

    (6) The present CEM recognizes that all EM fields, potentials, and every joule
    of EM energy in the universe comes from the associated source charges. Yet the
    model assumes there is no energy input at all to the source charge. So it
    erroneously assumes that all EM fields, EM potentials, and every joule of EM
    energy is and has been freely created from nothing at all, by the associated
    source charge(s). Hence every electrical engineering department, professor, and
    textbook implicitly assumes the universal and wholesale violation of the
    conservation of energy law, and doesn't even realize it.

    (7) The present CEM/EE does not calculate the force-free E-field in space, or
    the force-free B-field in space. E.g., check the definition of E-field. It's
    actually the EFFECT of the interaction of the force-free E-field in mass-free
    space, ongoing with a unit point static charge. It's the EFFECT of the ongoing
    interaction of the real E-field in static charged matter. Take the simple
    F = Eq. Let E be nonzero, and q be zero. Then F = 0, but the force-free E-field
    still exists. There is no force involved in E, when q is zero (in mass-free

    (8) Also check Feynman. We really have no actual definition of energy. As he
    said, "We really do not know what energy is!"

    So the foundations of CEM/EE have remained seriously flawed since before 1865.

    For those interested in extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum: The source
    charges and diopoles already do that; we do not have to "learn how to do it",
    but only have to "learn how to use the free "gushers of real EM energy" already
    universally available. But we have all been taught to use Lorentz-symmetrical
    equations (invariant). Well, those equations already erroneously assume there is
    no active vacuum (and no curved spacetime). Both assumptions are well-known to
    be in error. But together they assume that any EM system you build CANNOT
    extract any energy from the vacuum, because it already assumes the vacuum and
    space to be totally flat and inert. Of course, to obtain COP > 1.0,
    thermodynamically any system will irrevocably have an efficiency less than 100%
    because of its losses. But if the external environment inputs sufficient energy,
    the system can still exhibit COP > 1.0 , or even COP = infinity (which just
    means that one takes a bit of the output energy, uses controlled feedback to the
    system input section, and thereby replaces the operator's usual input. Clearly
    permitted by thermodynamics. But not by the silly invariant and Lorentz
    symmetrical CEM/EE model equations.

    So these are the magic requirements I try to point out to beginning young

    (1) First, invariance (and Lorentz symmetry) of the circuit or system must
    be broken, at least temporarily. Otherwise, forget it. This also means that the
    standard closed current loop circuit, with the "external" source of potential
    insanely wired into its own external circuit as a load, must also be violated,
    at least temporarily.

    (2) Once a good broken invariance and broken Lorentz symmetry exists, then
    one is permitted to extract EM energy from the vacuum. Broken symmetry actually
    implies that something virtual (as in the virtual energy of the vacuum) becomes

    (3) What you must take from the "external source" is potential only, never
    using current during the "magic" asymmetrical regauging period.

    (4) Once one has a proper broken symmetry operation to exploit, then it must
    be evoked sufficiently frequently (or sufficiently strongly) in each cycle so
    that the extra excess regauging energy freely received by the system is more
    than the system losses. In that case, the system still has all its losses, and
    its efficiency still is less than 100%, but it also outputs more work or useful
    energy than the operator himself inputs. The remainder of the necessary input is
    freely input by the environment, via the asymmetrical regauging (the broken
    symmetry, or broken invariance).

    (5) And for goodness sake, one should get off the sad old refrain - which is
    quite false -- that "The Second Law of thermodynamics is inviolate". That's
    totally malarkey, as is well known to nonequilibrium thermodynamicists. The
    Second Law is as easily violated as snapping a twig; as a simple example, one
    does it anytime one applies voltage to a circuit, without current or without
    appreciable current. Reason this through: Mere amplification increase of voltage
    alone is not work or power. Yet it directly increases the collected potential
    energy in the system, by the simple equation W = Vq, where W is the joules of
    potential energy collected in the system from a potential V, by interacting
    (intercepting) charges q. For any constant V, by use of sufficient "pinned
    static q", one can extract as much energy W as one wishes. Check out Whittaker
    1903 and 1904; all EM potentials and fields are also "sets of EM energy flows".
    Hence from a given fixed E-field one can collect or evidence as much force F as
    one wishes in charged mass q, by the equation F = Eq.
    If one has believed the Second Law to be inviolate because that is what he
    was taught, then he should go check this very solid reference: Dilip Kondepudi
    and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative
    Structures, Wylie, 1998, printed with corrections 1999, p. 459. There you will
    find listed some well known areas that are recognized and accepted by the
    thermodynamicists themselves to violate that archaic old Second Law we were all
    blindly taught. One of these areas of violation, e.g., is a strong gradient. And
    as Kondepudi and Prigogine state, not much is known about it, either
    theoretically or experimentally. [We have elsewhere explained exactly why
    strong gradients can do this, what the violating mechanism is, and we have also
    explained the basic negative energy aspects of that result, as well as negative
    impedance aspects of it.]
    But the Second Law is definitely not inviolate, and further it applies only
    very near to equilibrium (the condition of maximum entropy). Any system which
    simply departs from equilibrium --- by potentialization, asymmetrical regauging,
    fluctuation, materials effects (one such is listed by Kondepudi and Prigogine),
    etc. --- lowers its entropy, and thereby violates the second law. Simply
    departing from equilibrium condition is a negative entropy operation and it
    violates the Second Law. The Second law is actually an oxymoron that implicitly
    assumes its own contradiction has first occurred. It assumes that a negative
    entropy has previously occurred, moving the system out of equilibrium and
    lowering its entropy - but this assumed operation is deliberately not
    "accounted" by the Second Law. [We have previously corrected and extended the
    Second Law to remedy this very serious defect, and prevent it from contradicting
    itself]. Then the present Second Law assumes (and accounts) that this "now
    excited system" out of equilibrium, decays back to equilibrium condition,
    thereby increasing its entropy as it decays. The "law" accounts only half the
    actual process it assumes. Every charge in the universe also steadily and
    continuously produces negative entropy, in total violation (and falsification)
    of the present Second Law. It is consistent with the revised statement of the
    Second Law that we have proposed.

    (6) And finally, anyone wishing to do work and research in COP>1.0 EM
    systems must be quite clear in his understanding of COP, efficiency, work,
    symmetry, broken symmetry, invariance, etc. Sadly, more than half the present
    researchers do not really know the difference between COP and efficiency,
    thermodynamically. One also must be aware of the terrible limitations of the
    flawed foundations assumptions in CEM and EE. If one just thinks in terms of CEM
    and EE, be aware that these models already EXCLUDE all COP > 1.0 EM systems
    taking their excess energy freely from the vacuum. So unless one studies EM
    effects that VIOLATE present CEM/EE theory, one is totally on the wrong track.

    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 rob

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

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 3

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "A dipole, circuit, and energy [field]" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register


    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.