 A dipole, circuit, and energy [field] Date: Sunday, September 12, 2004 @ 23:01:22 MSTTopic: Science From JLNLabs group: Leslie, 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 equation 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 space). (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 researchers: (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 observable. (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