Bearden - Fact Sheet - Overunity EM power systems, Energy from the Vacuum

Fact Sheet 2003-06

Permissible NESS COP > 1.0 Electrical Power Systems Taking Energy from the Vacuum

Problem: Develop the concepts for COP > 1.0 electrical power systems that receive and utilize EM energy from their active vacuum environment.

· For convenience, we shall compare the operation of the COP > 1.0 vacuum-powered (VP) system to the COP > 1.0 operation of a heat pump.

· In addition to any energy input by the operator, a COP > 1.0 EM system must have an extra energy input from its active environment.

o For an EM system powered from the vacuum, the input active vacuum energy is in disordered virtual state form, while the output energy of EM fields and potentials is in ordered observable form.

o However, contrary to the heat pump’s positive energy output, the output of the VP EM system may consist of both positive energy and negative energy.

o It may involve special currents of Dirac sea holes (negative energy electrons) {28} flowing or appearing (in the Coulomb gauge) as negative energy potential, as well as its currents of ordinary electrons.

· All observable EM fields, potentials, and their energy come from their associated source charges. There is no observable energy input to the source charge. If the conservation of energy law is to remain valid, the charge must receive an appropriate virtual energy input from the seething vacuum.

· The source charge coherently integrates its absorbed disordered virtual EM energy from the vacuum and re-emits ordered observable EM energy, flowing radially outward in 3-space, to form and sustain its fields and potentials and their energy spreading at light speed.

· The source charge’s reordering and integration of the absorbed vacuum energy is a giant negative entropy process. Since the resulting ordered fields and potentials may reach across the universe, the present second law of thermodynamics is totally falsified. It must be revised to also include processes producing negative entropy, as well as its present inclusion of only positive entropy processes.

· We have stated the necessary revised second law as:

"First a negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order (available controlled energy). Then that initial available controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions over time, unless additional negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."

· The second law revision also resolves the long-vexing problem of the recognized temporal asymmetry of thermodynamics itself. As Price states {}:

"A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."

· Price also states {}:

"…{The] major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."

· The so-called “heat death” of the observable universe—its expected lapse into equilibrium and maximum entropy as closed systems do—has not occurred. Instead, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which indicates negentropic operations are ongoing and continuing to increase the energy of the observable universe.

· The observable universe is not thermodynamically closed. Instead, through its charges it is in constant and open energy (and some mass) exchange across its quantum boundary with its “outside” virtual state vacuum underpinning. With ubiquitous negative entropy operations ongoing across the quantum interface by all the charges of the universe, the present second law is universally violated.

· The requirement to extend the second law to include such continuous negative entropy processes is experimentally established by every charge.

· The solution to the dark energy problem (a mechanism for large-scale negative gravity accelerating the expansion of the universe) and the cause of the excess positive gravity in the spiral arms of the galaxies may be associated with these unaccounted processes, as previously proposed {}.

Focusing on the COP > 1.0 System Problem:

· The thermodynamics of nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems is well developed, particularly for dissipative systems {} using only positive energy, and in the absence of sharp gradients—which are known to permissibly violate the present second law of thermodynamics {}.

o Such a system can exhibit COP > 1.0 and output more energy than the operator inputs, since the active environment furnishes the extra energy.

o If the environment furnishes all the input energy, the system can exhibit COP = ¥ (“self-powering”) because the operator inputs nothing.

o Such COP > 1.0 and COP = ¥ systems in disequilibrium with conventional (observable) energetic environments (wind, water, solar radiation, etc.) are well known.

· The electrical power engineering model still assumes an inert vacuum, a flat spacetime, and a material ether. All three assumptions have been falsified for decades. In modern physics the active vacuum environment continuously furnishes and exchanges energy to every charge in the universe. In turn, charges act as NESS systems and continuously use some of their absorbed energy from the vacuum to furnish all the observable EM field energy and EM potential energy in the universe.

· The charge continuously pours out observable (real) EM energy in all directions, forming and replenishing its associated fields and potentials at light speed.

· The question arises: “Are useful and practical NESS electrical power systems permitted, where the vacuum is the active environment furnishing all or part of the input energy?” We answer that question in the affirmative.

Approach:

· First we call attention to a curious fact: Every electrical power system is already a COP >> 1.0 system if its long-ignored giant Heaviside energy flow component is accounted as well as its conventional small Poynting energy flow component. We discuss this shortly.

· Then we give two examples of proven, legitimate COP > 1.0 EM systems taking some or all of their input energy from the vacuum:

o One is well known in a special area of physics and provides COP = 18.

o The other is ubiquitous throughout the universe and provides COP = ¥.

· The latter example also completely falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics (i.e., the assumption that S(t) ³ 0) and forces its revision to also include continuous negative entropy processes that involve S(t) Þ (- ¥). This fulfills a somewhat startling theoretical prediction of Evans and Rondoni {}.

· The examples also force the use of a more capable geometry and group theoretic methods than the Klein geometry {} and Klein’s group methods utilized since 1872. The required new geometry and group methods have been given by Leyton {}.

· Leyton’s work represents a profound advance in physics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry, robotics, and pattern recognition. We discuss the Leyton hierarchies of symmetry in a separate fact sheet {}.

· We also advance some necessary definitions and systems background information.

· Next we briefly discuss the vacuum aspect and its interactions of interest, as well as curved spacetime interactions of interest.

· We briefly summarize the heat pump’s operation, to serve as a convenient comparison.

· Then we advance the major concepts for COP > 1.0 and COP = ¥ EM systems taking some or all of their input energy from the vacuum.

· The two testable and proven examples, taking energy from the vacuum, are sufficient to prove that vacuum-powered electrical power systems are permissible and exist.

· The two examples are experimentally validated. No amount of theory can refute a single well-replicated experiment’s results, else one abandons scientific method itself.

Peculiar Fact: Every electrical power system is a COP >> 1.0 system when its Heaviside energy flow component is included.

· Two scientists—Heaviside {} and Poynting {}—simultaneously and independently proposed EM energy flow through space in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead. Before that, the concept did not exist in physics.

· Poynting never considered anything except the relatively small, diverged component of the energy flow that enters the conductors and powers the circuit. We measure the energy actually in the circuit and powering it, so we measure the Poynting component.

· In addition to the diverged energy flow component, Heaviside also discovered an accompanying nondiverged curled energy flow that is enormously larger than the diverged flow component. Because of its zero divergence in a flat or reasonably flat spacetime, the Heaviside component does not usually interact with normal instruments or anything else, so we do not measure it. Extracting energy from this available, enormous, but wasted energy flow from every generator and power source would solve the world’s energy crisis for centuries. The Heaviside nondiverged flow component is often a trillion times as large as the Poynting flow component.

· Given a significant curvature of local spacetime, the divergence of the curl need not be zero. In that case, a part of the Heaviside energy flow curled component is transduced into an extra Poynting energy flow component diverged into the circuit. Our instruments will measure the anomalous extra Poynting energy flow component.

· In the 1880s, neither the electron nor the nucleus had been discovered. Most of particle physics did not yet exist, nor did relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory. No one could propose a possible source of such a startling Heaviside curl-energy flow pouring from the terminals of every generator and battery (and charge and dipolarity).

· To the electrodynamicists of that day, Heaviside’s component implied creating energy from nothing and violating the conservation of energy law. Consequently, a decade or so later Lorentz simply disposed of the irksome problem in a clever and smooth manner, since it apparently had no solution.

· Lorentz proposed that the Heaviside huge curl form of energy flow “had no physical significance” since it did not interact and “does nothing”. So he simply integrated the entire energy flow vector around an assumed closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest {}. That trick neatly disposes of the nondiverged, huge, bothersome Heaviside component we do not measure or utilize, while retaining the diverged Poynting component that we do measure and utilize. The trick is still used by electrodynamicists and electrical engineers today, and most no longer even know of Heaviside’s extra energy flow component.

· To reiterate: Interaction of the curl-field Heaviside component is usually negligible, since in vector algebra the divergence of the curl is zero—in a flat spacetime. However, if one curves spacetime with some significance, then the divergence of the curl is not zero. In that case, part of the long-neglected Heaviside energy flow component will be diverged into the circuit after all, as an additional Poynting component freely furnished by the curvature of the local spacetime environment.

Proof of Heaviside’s Energy Flow Component.

· The Bohren experiment {18} (and in fact the entire field of negative resonance absorption of the medium) discussed below, produces sufficient spacetime curvature to diverge some of the available Heaviside energy flow, converting that part to additional Poynting flow. By its own self-resonance, the particle also precisely “synchronizes” to the swirl cycling of Heaviside’s curled field component.

· Thus the experiment achieves a COP = 18, outputting some 18 times as much Poynting energy flow as the operator inputs by his accounted “Poynting” energy flow. Unknown to the operator, he also inputs a huge unaccounted Heaviside energy flow curled component, part of which—in the Bohren-type experiment—is being transduced by the extra curvature of spacetime.

· Leading electrodynamicists continue to use Lorentz’s “no physical significance” argument to dispose of the Heaviside energy flow component. E.g., Jackson {}—unquestionably one of the world’s most able electrodynamicists—states:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences."

· Indeed, Jackson’s statement is true only in a flat spacetime situation. It is not true in a situation involving significant spacetime curvature.

· Whether utilized electromagnetically or not, the huge Heaviside component does have significant gravitational implications because it is ubiquitous and so large. Heaviside recognized this fact toward the end of his life, and left a draft theory of electrogravitation, using that energy flow component, beneath the floorboards of his garret apartment {}.

· Laithwaite particularly was interested in Heaviside’s theory and stressed that it might yet revolutionize science {}. Many years ago I met Laithwaite in England, and he informed me of the long-neglected Heaviside energy flow component.

· Absolute energy is not measurable, and only changes in energy are measured {}. A little reflection shows that any instrument measures only its own change. As a result, eliminating a huge component of energy flow that usually changes nothing , has little physical consequence—unless specific actions are first taken to produce a situation where the odd form of energy will act “unusually” and change something after all.

· The Bohren experiment proves the existence of the Heaviside component, and also proves that such “specific unusual actions” can be taken to extract and collect significant usable EM energy from it. If developed, extracting energy from the ignored Heaviside energy flow component could solve the energy crisis permanently.

· Enormous gradients, such as occur in large astrophysical explosions or bursts, produce both positive and negative EM energy. Their energetics lifts matter from the Dirac sea, leaving persistent special Dirac sea hole currents as currents of negative energy potential. The positive energy matter and the negative energy potentials travel in opposite directions from these explosions. Thus the bursts can and do produce large regions of extra gravity, and large regions of anomalous antigravity. The extra gravity phenomenon (the dark matter problem) and the dark energy problem (anomalous antigravity phenomenon) can probably be explained by the combination of (i) sharp gradients, (ii) production of matter from the special Dirac sea as well as persistent special Dirac sea negative energy potentials {28}, and (iii) the movement of the two in opposite directions when exposed to the same force fields. We have previously proposed the gist of that solution {3} in less detail.

Known COP > 1.0 Vacuum-Powered EM System.

· The selected COP > 1.0 EM process is well known in nonlinear optics, but it is little discussed in terms of electrical power. It is the phenomenon of negative resonance absorption of the medium {}.

· As an example, the Bohren experiment {} provides COP = 18, performed in the IR or UV. It is routinely replicated many times every year by nonlinear optics groups. It works anywhere, anytime.

· The Bohren experiment presents interesting EM foundations facts. First, we normally do not calculate “the field” or “the potential”, but only the point intensity of the field or potential as determined by the divergence from its energy flows by a unit point static charge assumed at each point in space.

· From Whittaker’s work {}, we know that the “static” field and the “static” potential are actually envelopes of sets of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, and hence are comprised of internal flows of EM energy. There is a far more fundamental internal electrodynamics, based on longitudinal EM waves, that “makes” and comprises all the “normal EM fields, potentials, and waves”.

· When one engineers the internal EM, one does what one wishes with the “external” EM. Two seemingly identical static field envelopes may not be identical at all, if they have differing internal structures and dynamics. Superposition of potentials also diffuses their internal structuring into each other. Further discussion is well beyond the purpose of this fact sheet.

· No electrical engineering text really teaches how to calculate “the field”, but only “what is diverged from it by a unit point static charge at each point.” At best that is an approximate measure of the “point intensity” of the field’s composite internal Whittaker longitudinal EM wave energy flows.

· The Bohren experiment (and the field of “negative resonance absorption of the medium”) violates the fundamental assumption—in the definitions of field and potential intensities—that the intercepting unit point charge assumed at each point in space is static. Instead, the Bohren experiment utilizes an intercepting charged particle that is in tuned particle resonance for the frequency of the EM energy being fed, and whose intensity is “being measured” by the magnitude of the energy scattered by the charge.

· The resonant charge sweeps out a greater geometrical intercept area than the static charge, and thus has an increased ...

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Pokrewne

Bearden - Fact Sheet - Overunity EM ...

pdf - ebook - pobieranie - do ÂściÂągnięcia - download

Bearden - Fact Sheet - Overunity EM power systems, Energy from the Vacuum

Pokrewne