Tom Bearden writes: Hi Physics
World,
I very much enjoy your publication as a way
of keeping up with overall physics progress. Please keep up the good
work!
My own work has been in a
"field-that-is-not-yet a recognized field", which is extracting usable EM energy directly from the
seething virtual state vacuum. Let me expand on that a bit, as it
may be of interest to you.
As you are probably aware, recent rigorous
physics work of Klimov et al. has now completely proven the capability of
building physical devices (in his case, very small nanocrystalline solar cells)
which directly extract and use excess
usable energy from the virtual state. Klimov's work has been
rigorously validated by two great independent laboratories: (1) Los Alamos
National Laboratory and (2) National Recoverable Energy Laboratory. This
rigorously proven work produces a coefficient of performance of performance from
200% to 700%, and this methodology and its proven results is now published in
leading physics journals and nanocrystalline
journals.
So one never has to again reprove that
real physical systems can extract and use
(to power loads) EM energy taken directly from the seething local virtual state
vacuum.
One can also further surmise that, if tiny crystals
of tourmaline (which are known to continually emit real photons whose energy is
also extracted freely from the vacuum) are used as the "photon sources" to
freely furnish the input photons to the Klimov microscopic solar cells, then
"self-powering" of the Klimov nanocrystalline solar cell system is made
possible, with all the system's input photon energy also freely taken from the
vacuum via the crazy action of the tourmaline.
If you are really interested in helping
solve the pressing world energy crisis, then please note that it is a PHYSICS
problem, and not an electrical engineering problem! As you are undoubtedly
aware, the sad old electrical engineering model was deliberately crippled by
Lorentz (who deliberately symmetrized Heaviside's original equations at the
instigation of the infamous J. P. Morgan) in 1892, prior to the very birth of
electrical engineering itself. The EEs thus use -- and always have used -- the
artificially symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz equations, not Heaviside's asymmetric
equations!
Thus from its inception the present
electrical engineering model and technology has been deliberately and
diabolically crippled by limiting it to the conception, design, development, and
deployment of only self-symmetrizing EM systems --
systems which a priori destroy their own internal source dipoles inside the
generator faster than they power their loads.
There is much more if you are interested.
We can easily point out a way in which the EE can use a two-stage switched
system in ASYMMETRIC fashion, thus drawing only static potential from the system
source dipole and never "drawing current". This is possible because so-called
"static voltage" is actually a continuous and steady flow of real photons,
extracted from the local vacuum by the proven (since 1957; Nobel Prize to Lee
and Yang) ASYMMETRIC interaction of the dipole with the virtual state. A dipole,
being a broken symmetry, must automatically receive virtual photons from the
vacuum in its seething interaction, excite in the virtual state until the
observable state is reached by the excitation, and then decay the excitation by
emitting a real photon. It continually does this, so it continually produces the
so-called "electrostatic" scalar potential (voltage). As Lee pointed out,
whenever we have a broken symmetry (such as a dipole is proven to be), then
"something previously virtual has become
observable".
If a source is required to furnish only
"static" voltage, it can do so forever without storage of very much internal
charge.
So by potentializing the external circuit
with it in PINNED state momentarily (so that the electrons in the conductors
momentarily cannot move as current), one may potentialize the coulombs of pinned
charge in the external circuit with static voltage only, and without drawing any
current from the primary source. Once the external circuit's pinned charges are
potentialized, then one switches away the external dipolar source (while the
external circuit is still "pinned"), and the now-open-ended potentialized
but-still-pinned external circuit is then recompleted separately (as by
switching in a diode and resistor load in series with the diode allowing only
the standard complete circular rotation of current.
The "statically potentialized" pinned
external circuit has very real energy stored in it; the number of joules of
stored potential energy is given by the product of the voltage and the amount of
interacting pinned charge so potentialized.
Then the temporary pinning expires, and
this ALREADY POTENTIALIZED and recompleted SEPARATE external circuit will expend
half its stored potential energy to destroy its dipolarity, but it will also use
the other half to power its loads and losses.
Then one simply reiterates the two-stage
situation and potentializing operation. One POTENTIALIZES "STATICALLY" -- and
dissipates non-statically after the primary "static source" is switched away and
the diode-and-load inserted.
In this deliberately ASYMMETRIC two-stage
operation, one only "pays" a tiny bit of energy input to operate the switching,
which may be made very efficient. For "self-powering", the switching circuit is
simply made a tiny "load" in the external circuit.
This system can readily be built by even
any competent electrical engineering department if its doctorate engineers
"think just a bit differently".
There are also a dozen known falsities --
pointed out by eminent scientists such as Nobelists -- still being taught in the
sadly mutilated old electrical engineering model, in all our electrical
engineering departments. Go to the use of a better (higher group symmetry)
modern electrodynamics model (such as quaternion electrodynamics, very close to
Maxwell's original theory), and the operation of such asymmetric systems now is
included (as it was and is in Maxwell's original 20 quaternion-like equations in
20 unknowns).
As an example, Nikola Tesla -- who gave us
AC power, the rotating magnetic field that makes modern generators and motors
possible, etc.) -- already had discovered ASYMMETRIC circuits in 1890, and was
briefing scientific societies that one did not need to "burn fuel" to produce
electrical energy! Instead, he pointed out that all the EM energy we need can be
obtained directly from the "active medium" (he used that phrase because modern
quantum physics and its concept of the active vacuum were not even born
yet).
Well, was Tesla mad or did he actually have
what he said?
Indeed, he had what he said! For rigorous
proof, see the following paper by a great electrodynamicist and cofounder of
ultrawideband radar (which itself was said to be "impossible" by the standard
science community, even after working models were available. Of course, later
UWB radar was proven and developed, and its founders were fully vindicated.) See
T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,"
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett
shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of
potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit
that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented
circuits did exactly this.
In Summary: So the standard
but seriously crippled symmetrical EE system self-enforces
COP<1.0 a priori. And it forces us to usually keep consuming fuel to provide
the input energy to keep restoring that source dipole, or else provide
controlled wind power, water current power, etc! By cranking the shaft of the
generator, we do not input
the EM energy that actually powers the load, but only the energy that is
translated into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator, and
dissipated therein to restore the internal source dipole that the inane
symmetric EE circuit keeps deliberately destroying.
"Work" is rigorously the change of form of
energy. And the change of the input shaft rotation mechanical energy to internal
rotating magnetic field energy is thus work, and we have to "do work" to
continually restore the internal source dipole inside the generator --
not to power the loads in
the external circuit!
It's eerie, but that is the only reason for the present world energy
crisis, our continued dependence on consumption of oil and other
fuels, etc. We have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator only because the
self-symmetrized EE system deliberately uses half its potentialization energy to
continually destroy the internal source dipole inside the generator, and the
other half to power the external circuit's loads and
losses.
Since the highly crippled and truncated
electrical engineering model and its standard practices themselves are the problem, then to
solve the problem we
obviously must correct and update that electrical engineering model itself.
Specifically, we must learn to design,
deploy, and utilize asymmetrical EM systems of the type (2) kind that we
require.
Obviously it is a physics problem, not an electrical engineering
problem!
We already have higher group symmetry
electrodynamics models readily available in modern physics, and so we even have
a few highly competent higher group symmetry electrodynamicists (such as Barrett
and Harmuth, co-founders of ultrawideband radar). The higher group symmetry
electrodynamics models also do incorporate asymmetric Maxwellian systems (Type 2
systems) as well as the standard symmetrical Maxwellian systems (Type 1
systems).
Hence we need to fund and provide a
Manhattan Project using such special higher group symmetry electrodynamicists,
modeling physicists, experimentalists to conduct the necessary physics
experiments for proper fitting of the eventual "models",
etc.
It is a primary physics problem, not an electrical engineering
problem!
This is the answer -- the only really
viable answer -- to the escalating energy crisis worldwide, and its portent for
the imminent economic collapse of the United States and much of the Western
World.
Very best
wishes,
Thomas E.
Bearden
Lt.
Col., U.S. Army
(retired)