Dear Tom, I think that this reply should be published. I am very interested in the fact that there is now a device which shows the validity of the logic. In respect of funding I suggest that NASA be approached as suggested by Bob Flower, and of course, your group should be an important part of the application. The Alpha Foundation officially supports this initiative, and I believe that Dr. Barrett is thinking along the same lines. The NSF also must start to seriously consider your work, in my opinion, following the example of one Thomas Jefferson, who as Vice President personally evaluated patent applications as part of the job. In those days you could drop in at the White House to see a fellow citizen who happened to hold the Office of President, as it should be. No one is unimportant, as you say and seconded by one Tom Paine. If there is a device up and running it is of no interest to Nature whether it was made in a University. If rejected by this particular journal the reply should be submitted for publication elsewhere. MWE cc colleagues. ------------------------- FROM: INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com CC: (unknown), INTERNET:DADUNES@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:gjohnson@ksu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:bscott@metz.une.edu.au (unknown), INTERNET:thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com (unknown), INTERNET:TCupolo@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:science@mail.frii.com (unknown), INTERNET:Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov (unknown), INTERNET:sorenbh@ibm.net (unknown), INTERNET:alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com Robert G. Flower, INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:fsmart@tarapublishing.com (unknown), INTERNET:jdodd@hiwaay.net (unknown), INTERNET:henry.monteith@enmu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil (unknown), INTERNET:Puthoff@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:jhayes@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:JLKenny@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:Mhermanns@aol.com Dr Fred Wood, INTERNET:fwood@igc.apc.org Dr Fred Woods Sr., INTERNET:csiri@igc.apc.org (unknown), INTERNET:ExplorePub@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:mps@internetmci.com (unknown), INTERNET:ine@padrak.com (unknown), INTERNET:ghawk@eskimo.com (unknown), INTERNET:jdecker@keelynet.com (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au (unknown), INTERNET:barrier@csranet.com Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), Fishnchips (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), [70403,3645] DATE: 30/11/97 14:29 Re: Letter to Editor Sci AM re negative article Exploiting Zero Point Energy Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from mrin79.mail.aol.com (mrin79.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.189]) by arl-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id OAA19884; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Tebearden@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin79.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA27047; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971130141732_-892997374@mrin79> To: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com cc: Fishnchips@compuserve.com, Barrett506@aol.com, barrier@csranet.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, jdecker@keelynet.com, ghawk@eskimo.com, ine@padrak.com, mps@internetmci.com, ExplorePub@aol.com, csiri@igc.apc.org, fwood@igc.apc.org, Mhermanns@aol.com, btillman@colsa.com, JLKenny@aol.com, jhayes@colsa.com, Puthoff@aol.com, steveferguson@compuserve.com, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, henry.monteith@enmu.edu, jdodd@hiwaay.net, fsmart@tarapublishing.com, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com, 70403.3645@compuserve.com, sorenbh@ibm.net, Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov, science@mail.frii.com, TCupolo@aol.com, thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com, bscott@metz.une.edu.au, gjohnson@ksu.edu, DADUNES@aol.com Subject: Letter to Editor Sci AM re negative article Exploiting Zero Point Energy Dear Ken and all cc's: Below for your information is a letter to the editor of Scientific American, submitted by E-mail, with comments on the negative article in the Dec. 97 Issue by Philip Yam, "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy." Unfortunately Yam -- who is a science writer of first caliber -- simply rather much echoed the conventional establishment position which holds the virtual energy flux of the vacuum in great disregard, even though particle physics for 40 years has shown that (1) it exists, (2) it is violent (energy density greater than the sun's surface energy density, e.g., in the Lamb shift, and (3) there is no equilibrium possible for mass systems anyway unless this very vacuum energy exchange is included. Obviously, if the energy establishment admits to significant energy exchange between vacuum and mass system, then it follows that by producing a broken symmetry in that exchange, real observable energy can be extracted from the vacuum. In other words, a system which does that is an open thermodynamic system far from equilibrium with its energetic environment. Such a system can in theory (1) be self-operating, and (2) power a load simultaneously, and (3) self-oscillate, and (4) self-asymmetrically regauge itself. This of course would usher in a revolution in electrical power systems, putting much of the power structure into great disarray. Ironically, particle physics for 40 years has already shown that every charge and every dipole is already just such a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux. These are the ways, however, that the struggling overunity energy revolution is continually suppressed and pooh-poohed. So we had to make a comment, although I do not expect it to ever see the light of day in Scientific American. Sincerely, Tom Bearden To the editor: Philip Yam's article, "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy," contains good science only so far as it contains the notions of zero point energy and virtual particle flux of vacuum. By referring only to orthodox critical scientists, he missed the entire point of what is emerging in the field of overunity EM machines (EM devices which are open systems not in equilibrium, and therefore not bound by classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law). You ought to probe deeper and examine just how such Maxwellian systems got eliminated from consideration in the first place. The answer may shock you. Electrodynamicists presently ASSUME that the charge is the source of the potentials, the force fields, and all that energy that is in them and fills all space surrounding the charge. In short, it already ASSUMES that the charge CREATES energy right out of nothing. That of course violates the most sacrosanct conservation law: that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So orthodoxy already assumes perpetual energy producing machines -- the source charges. That is a foundations error of the gravest magnitude. Yam should have commented on that, to put the critics in perspective. Particle physics for 40 years has already given the correct answer. Any charge and any dipole is already a broken symmetry in the virtual particle flux exchange of vacuum. By definition of broken symmetry, this means that the charge (1) absorbes virtual energy continually, (2) radiates some of that energy back to the vacuum as virtual particle emission, but (3) integrates some of its received virtual energy into observable energy, and emits it back to the vacuum. That, of course, by process of elimination has to be the Poynting energy flow from the charge or dipole. So every charge in the universe and every dipole in the universe already "extracts vacuum energy" in copious usable form. This removes the unacceptable "sheer energy creation of energy from nowhere" presently assumed for the charge by electrodynamics. All the electrical energy we produce and use, is already extracted directly from the vacuum. Now look at a simple circuit, say a battery or generator powering a resistor. The only function provided by the battery or resistor is to use some energy (magnetic fields for the generator, chemical energy for the battery) to separate charges and form the dipole. Neither the battery nor the generator provides an electron to the external circuit; electrons in the current are provided by the freed electrons from the materials in the circuitry, to form the Drude electron gas. The source dipole itself, by its broken symmetry in the active vacuum flux, extracts energy directly from the seething vacuum and outputs it as the flow of Poynting energy filling ALL OF SPACE surrounding the conductors in the external circuit. The amount of total Poynting energy flow is stupendous (about 10exp13 times what the circuit is able to feebly intercept and collect and power the circuit with). Only a tiny "sheath" of the Poynting energy flow S along the circuit conductors strikes the surface charges, diverging a tiny component of the S-flow into the circuit, where it forms the Slepian current j(phi) and powers the circuit. Lorentz stated that all the vast remainder of the nondivergent S-flow was physically insignificant (his exact term), so he used a closed surface immediately around the conducting wire or component, and integrated the entire Poynting vector around that surface. This of course discarded the entire vast nondivergent component of the Poynting flow, retaining only that small component that is intercepted and diverged into the circuits. That component, of course, is numerically equal in its energy density flow to the Slepian vector j(phi). Heaviside himself pointed out that the energy captured by the circuit is only a tiny component of what is available, but was ignored. The Lorentz procedure is assumed in every textbook, and in current practice almost universally. Now mechanisms for overunity EM devices can easily be seen, e.g.:. (1) Additional collectors with intercepting charges to intercept and diverge more of the otherwise divergent Poynting flow, (2) greater geometrical interference with the Poynting flow, to cause "bunching" of the Poynting energy and therefore increased divergence, and (3) iterative retroreflection of the huge remaining nondivergent Poynting energy flow after its first pass by its intercepting/collecting circuit charges. As an example of (2) we have the well-known Fresnel bunching in waveguides and channels and antennae, and of (3) we have the well-known overunity anti-Stokes emission in intensely scattering media -- which for 50 years has been certified to emit more energy from the medium than the operator/experimenter inputs. A concrete example of an adaptation of (3) already in the literature is Lawandy's lasing without population inversion (see his article in Nature and his patents). A beautiful example of (2) is the increased interference and divergence from the Poynting flow given by a particle in the resonant illuminated condition (See Bohren's beautiful paper in American Journal of Physics). But here is the real clincher. Electrodynamicists already ASSUME that the energy of a system can be arbitrarily increased, freely, at will. This is assumed by simply changing the potential arbitrarily, in regauging the equations. Here is the showstopper, right from Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition. When Maxwell's (actually Heaviside's interpretation of Maxwell's) equations in potential form are produced, they are two coupled equations where the variables are not separated. In those days, electrodynamicists thought that potentials were just mathematical conveniences and had no reality. The fields were (incorrectly) considered to be the primary causes of all EM phenomena. So to decouple the equations and separate variables, the mathematicians just altered the scalar potential phi as a first step. Well, that is an ASYMMETRICAL regauging, because a net new, free force emerges. The electrodynamicists already accept and assume that it costs no work to merely change the potentials (reguauge) or to simple produce an extra force (asymmetrically regauge). But they reasoned that, if a new net force remains, they have thereby changed the generic system under consideration. So they just arbitrarily changed the other potential (A) such that the new net force emerging from that asymmetrical regauging was precisely equal and opposite to the first one. With these two ASYMMETRICAL regaugings just so carefully selected from the infinite set that could be chosen, one then has no remaining NET force resultant, even though (1) the potential energy of the system has been changed twice, (2) two free forces have been produced and remain, and (3) therefore the system has been placed in a condition of increased stress because the two forces are equal and opposite. ALL OTHER MAXWELLIAN REGAUGED SYSTEMS WERE EXCLUDED. This symmetrical regauging condition is referred to as the "Lorentz condition" and it is universally applied to derive a NEW and adapted set of "Maxwell equations" which now prescribe only a Maxwellian system that is brutually and arbitrarily forced into local equilibrium in its vacuum flux exchange, prior to even being considered. Such a highly restricted subset of Maxwellian systems is what is actually "permitted" by arbitrary decision in present electrodynamics! What nonsense! Since the system has been ASSUMED into local equilibrium (only such Maxwellian systems have been retained for CONSIDERATION AT ALL), then for those systems conventional thermodynamics of a system in local equilibrium in its environment rigorously applies. The second law of classical thermodynamics applies, and such systems can never go "overunity", since overunity requires an open system not in local equilibrium. As you can see, the electrodynamicists have merely ASSUMED AWAY BY ARBITRARY DECISION, THAT ENTIRE CLASS OF MAXWELLIAN SYSTEMS THAT ARE IN AN OPEN EXCHANGE WITH THEIR VACUUM ENVIRONMENT, AND FREELY RECEIVING EXCESS ENERGY, CREATING AN EXCESS NET FORCE, AND UTILIZING THAT FREE FORCE AND ENERGY TO PERFORM USEFUL WORK. But here is another "showstopper." Just to make certain, we are all taught to build circuits that circulate the spent load current back to the primary source dipole, and USE HALF THE FREE POYNTING ENERGY FLOW ACTUALLY INTERCEPTED AND COLLECTED FEEBLY BY THE CIRCUIT, TO RAM THE GROUND RETURN CURRENT BACK THROUGH THE BACK EMF OF THE SOURCE DIPOLE, THEREBY SCATTERING AND DESTROYING THE SOURCE DIPOLE AND THE ASYMMETRY IN THE VACUUM FLUX THAT IS ACTUALLY FURNISHING THE POYNTING ENERGY FLOW IN THE FIRST PLACE. So we are trained like little parrots to build only those circuits that will use half their intercepted energy, to destroy the disequilibrium in the vacuum flux that was furnishing all the energy in the first place. That of course guarantees the restoration of the Lorentz condition. So we pay the power company to have a giant wrestling match inside their generators, so as to continually kill their source dipoles which are "gushing" rivers of Poynting energy down the circuit, and directly extracting all that energy flow from the vacuum. So they burn a little coal or oil, say, to rotate the shaft and form the magnetic fields that force apart the charges to form the dipole. That creates a broken symmetry in the local vacuum flux, and the dipole extracts virtual energy and emits observbable Poynting flow down through all space surrounding the external conductors. Divergence of a tiny, tiny amount of that otherwise nondivergent flow is accomplished by the intercepting surface charges in the conductors and components, diverging a little bit of the flow down into the circuit and forming the Slepian vector j(phi) which then drives the circuit. However, for every potentialized (by Vq) electron driven through the loads and losses, a spent electron is driven back up through the generator's source dipole, scattering and destroying the separated charges forming the dipole. So a little more fuel is burned, to rotate the shaft a little further, create the magnetic fields again, and force the charges back apart and form a source dipole again, restoring the Poynting energy flow. I would have thought that, if you were seriously interested in extracting energy from the vacuum, you might at least check with other scientists working the problem using normal EM circuits and correcting the glaring, stupendous foundations errors in electrodynamics that are now over 130 years old. Also, you should have ferreted out that Maxwell's equations do indeed permit overunity EM engines and circuits, by simply breaking the ARBITRARY Lorentz condition for SYMMETRICAL regauging of the equations, and selecting a NEW SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS WITH VARIABLES NOW SEPARATED, WHICH RIGOROUSLY ONLY APPLY TO SYSTEMS WHERE THE DESIGNER HAS BEEN INSENSITIVE ENOUGH TO UTILIZE (1) THE LORENTS SYMMETRICAL REGAUGING CONDITION AND (2) THE INSANE RETURN OF ALL CURRENT dq/dt FROM THE LOADS AND LOSSES BACK THROUGH THE PRIMARY SOURCE DIPOLE, KILLING THE DIPOLE. So all the present power systems are designed to continually kill their own extraction of free and copious energy from the vacuum. The continual input of fuel and energy is just so that their own generators can engage in a continuing and fierce sumo wrestling match which they can never win or ever quite break even on. Meanwhile, the remaining HUGE class of overunithy Maxwellian systems, artificially excluded by the electrodynamicists, still await our recognition and development. I urge you to give this long comment serious consideration. I can furnish you all the background information you need, since these are the elements of an emerging new theory of overunity EM devices and circuits I have formed. There are real systems that are using the principles; e.g., Patterson's power cell (R) has in laboratory prototype shown COP = 1200, although there was apparently irresolvable difficulty with keeping the palladium cladding on his microspheres. A new water heater by Patterson's group has now been running for months, at an efficiency greater than 2.0. Lawandy's lasing without population inversion is always overunity. Both the Lawandy process and the Patterson process are more macroscopic adaptations of the fundamental anti-Stokes emission process, utilizing multiretroreflection, multipass, and multicollection to cause the system to continually gather additional energy by recycling. We point out one other magnificent fact: Energy can be reused over and over again, it is never "used up" since it cannot be created nor destroyed. When you "use" energy to do work, all you do is either (1) diverge or scatter it, (2) change its form, or (3) a mixture of both. You still have all the energy remaining, after the work has been performed! So by simply RETROREFLECTING that energy, you can reuse it again, because it just reconverges. (The law of entropy and classical thermodynamics actually implicitly assume "single pass" energy collection. They do not apply to recollection and reconvergence (multipass, multiretroreflection, multicollection) processes. So the work-energy theorem in electrodynamics must be extended. Presently we write W = phi(q) for single-pass energy collection systems. For multipass, multicollection systems, we must add a factor lambda, to obtain W = (lambda)(phi)q. For single pass systems, lambda = 1 and so it just reduces to the ordinary W = (phi)q. For multi-pass systems, lambda may be greater than one, so that lambda>1.0 In that case, the reaction will continuously increase its local energy density, performing asymmetrical self-regauging, until reaching a threshold determined by spoiling and nonlinear processes eliminating the linearity of the lambda factor. The emitted energy from the asymmetrical self-regauging sector will be therefore at some new, higher energy density level than the operator/experimenter is inputing. I have proposed the equation W = (lambda)(phi)q as a fundamental extension of the work-energy theorem of all physics. It appears that this process is involved in many of the extremely energetic entities of astrophysics, e.g., the gamma bursters and the even more energetic objects that have been discovered. That of course is still speculation and remains to be confirmed or refuted. But the process does indeed work, and it is working now in several phenomena and energy systems in the unconventional energy community. Not everything interesting is being done in academia! If these sorts of projects and theoretical work would be funded by the scientific community, we would quickly have unlimited energy systems that shortly would dramatically clean up our biosphere and lower the cost of energy worldwide.