A dipole, circuit, and energy [field]
Date: Sunday, September 12, 2004 @ 23:01:22 MST
Topic: 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

This article comes from ZPEnergy.com

The URL for this story is: