ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 184 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now
Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 @ 20:28:21 UTC by vlad

Science Another good & informative synopsis on Tom Bearden's theoretical work posted by Leslie R. Pastor to the New Energy Congress forum (less than two months old and still in identity forming growing pains):
Tom Bearden has valiantly presented http://www.cheniere.org/misc/adas.htm clarification regarding our flawed energy systems of current delivery. The flaws are obvious and present a picture of dynamic 'controls' upon the populations of planet Earth. Energy is ubiquitous and free for the 'extraction.' All that is needed are the right tools and the right delivery. This can be accomplished immediately, but what is necessary is the will to do so, and a clear understanding of the MODEL presented. Tesla's 'wheelworks of nature' are still 'moving' waiting patiently for us to harness them. He showed us how to accomplish this a long time ago. We need to correct our flawed 'models,' so that we may properly 'view' this basic reality of 'natures laws.' Then we may truly be free to further ourselves and save our planet and its indigenous population.


Tom http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1380 explains what these errors and omissions are. He further uses the concept of the electret to explain the static dipolar http://www.cheniere.org/references/electret.htm 'potential' between two opposite 'charges.' E. T. Whitaker http://www.answers.com/topic/e-t-whittaker showed that every scalar potential decomposes http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/index.html into sets of internal EM energy flows in the form of bi-directional longitudinal EM wave pairs.



Hence Van Flandern's analogy http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/vanflandern.htm is correct and the standard EM textbook is wrong, as to the nature of a "static potential". Indeed, every "static" EM field or potential decomposes into just such sets of internal energy flows, as shown by combining two papers by Whittaker http://www.cheniere.org/references/superpotential.htm in 1903 and 1904.



As a dipole, the electret is already a system, which extracts virtual state energy from the vacuum and transduces it into real, observable EM energy pouring steadily from the dipolarity. This process, evidenced by the steady presence of the potential, totally violates the present hoary old second law of thermodynamics because it steadily produces negative entropy. Instead of the "truly frozen static" potential taught in CEM/EE theory, the "static" potential is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. It is continuously producing negative entropy (absorbing the totally disordered virtual state fluctuation energy of the vacuum, re-ordering it, coherently integrating it to observable (quantum) size, and then re-emitting the energy as real observable EM energy flow). http://www.cheniere.org/references/electret.htm



>From my previous http://pesn.com/2005/07/24/9600128_ZPE_Drop_in_Ocean/ discussions with Tom Bearden we discovered that the amount of available 'extractable' energy from the vacuum is literally unlimited and eternally viable literally till the end of 'time.'



John Bedini http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/bk/page1/ an associate and close friend of Tom Bearden has provided his own source data on similar subject-matter corroborating the above information.



As I see it, the real problem is understanding and properly presenting the correct MODEL in physics, which clearly identifies the appropriate objectives we all seek. In a recent email Tom Bearden explains:



"For energy systems, the worst falsity is Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrization of the equations circa 1892, which arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Nature does not discard them; Lorentz did and EE professors (check Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, e.g.) continue to symmetrize the equations - thereby eliminating all COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum systems from the model."



Tom Bearden has already provided http://twm.co.nz/Beard_scal_vac.html significant 'documentation.' He further explains, "There are also many models for the active vacuum. One "close" model is the zero-point energy model. The ZP is the lowest level of an OBSERVABLE particle, which (because of QM) has motion and energy left even at its lowest observable level (zero absolute temperature). Classically, it would have no movement left at all, but quantum mechanically it does." However, that IS NOT the virtual state (nonobservable) disordered fluctuation energy of the vacuum! Instead, it is the lowest OBSERVABLE energy state. Therefore the two are quite different [ZPE, EFTV]. Tom Bearden clarifies his position and explains the nature of the problem:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/bearden/testunify.html "But a regular scientist has a problem. The ZPE is of course experimentally established. So he can work in that area, and the academic community will begrudgingly permit it without calling him a perpetual motion nut and worse. But if he gets over the line and goes after the VIRTUAL FLUCTUATION ENERGY OF THE VACUUM ITSELF, then he's viciously attacked, suppressed, hounded, and the entire works."



To hide the absolute necessity for going after that DISORDERED virtual fluctuation energy of the vacuum, the experimental fact has been ruthlessly suppressed that every charge already does it, already produces continuous negative entropy, already reorders and coherently integrates its continually absorbed virtual state fluctuation energy for coherent virtual excitation to the next quantum level, then abruptly decays by emission of a real photon.



Every charge in the universe is thus a Feynman ratchet, http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=4574 which consumes positive entropy of the virtual state, and produces negative entropy of the observable state. That can easiest be understood if one switches to the more modern (and more complete) Leyton geometry than the hoary old Klein geometry of 1872, still used today in most of physics. In Klein geometry, when symmetry is broken at a given level, the information and ordering at that level is lost, and so the symmetry is reduced to the next lower level. That's a "wired-in" positive entropy operation, due strictly to the choice of the groups and their characteristics that the geometry employs.


When Leyton's geometry and more modern groups are used, then when symmetry is broken at a given level, the information and ordering at that level is not lost but remains. Also, a new symmetry at the next higher level automatically is produced -- and that is a "wired-in" negative entropy operation. In short, it absolutely requires changing and extending the hoary old second law of thermo to include production of continuous negative entropy -- proven possible in real systems by Evans and Rondoni a few years back.

Nature favors Leyton geometry, and every charge and dipole in the universe proves it. And every charge in the universe already extracts real useful EM energy from the virtual state fluctuations of the vacuum, NOT from the ZPE remaining energy. We ourselves do not have to find how to build a system at the elementary level that will extract energy from the virtual state vacuum. Every charge does it, and every EM field and potential is made that way by its associated source charges. Every joule of usable observable EM energy in the universe has been extracted from the seething non-observable energy of the vacuum, that way.

Just assemble some charge or make a dipole. That beast will then sit there and automatically and continuously emit real observable photons in all directions, without any OBSERVABLE energy input. The energy input is there, of course, and conservation of energy is observed -- but between virtual and observable state. But the ordinary professor will be totally ostracized and destroyed if he allows that VIRTUAL disordered energy can be changed into OBSERVABLE ordered energy. It cannot be done in the Klein geometry model. But it certainly can be done in Leyton's model. And nature favors Leyton.



Once the correct MODEL has been clearly defined and understood, then another problem must be addressed:



"The EFTV area seems to be the only area that the individual inventor/researcher is supposed to somehow be able to combine the capabilities of a whole physics department and a large fully equipped and staffed lab, and just get everything done through ALL the research stages, including (1) exploratory development, where the phenomenology is painfully and expensively worked out, proper modeling is done, etc., (2) engineering development, where early lab prototypes are kluged together and tested until one finds the most promising system directions, and (3) after sufficient maturing ED, then progression into full-blown production engineering, to develop actual final production prototypes to be eventually produced and marketed. Those research areas and the appreciable and costly work in each of them are what has to be done, if the work is to be done scientifically.



In addition, a new theoretical model must also be developed that matches the results of the ED, since the normal power system models do not even contain what is being attempted and is to be done.



But that's not the way the orthodox scientific establishment does business. Instead of that, they very strongly constrain the "work and research" into already-approved channels. Hence they are not solving the energy crisis, and will not do so. But they will continue to reap ever more billions - even a trillion for the new pebble bed nuclear reactor power plants - and retain the control and status quo, including of the large cartels.



What is so sorely needed is (1) funding of highly selected inventors and researchers, and (2) for those who are producing the results needed, add a full and highly capable team (say, of about eight specialists) to work with them on those three stages of research and development.



And also fund some of the sharpest and best young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists to rapidly correct the present terribly flawed CEM/EE model, so that we finally have an updated model that does allow EM energy from the vacuum to be asymmetrically collected and asymmetrically used to power loads without destroying the source of potential energy flow." [Bearden]



I agree with Tom Bearden with respect to funding and I propose that what is needed is a group R&D budget for most 'inventors.' Most serious 'mainstream' corporations usually maintained a significant R&D Research Facility, such as ATT's former 'Bell Labs', neither of which is in existence today. Forget about 'investors.' Serious 'research' requires access to an unlimited budget for Research and Development.



In my opinion, what is needed is access to individuals with 'deep pockets' who are willing to fund significant [serious] research into 'first principle' and 'novelty of fact' existing 'models of performance' [fully documented in the open literature] presentations.



If you recall this is what happened to Nikola Tesla, he traveled to both sides of the Atlantic giving speech after speech regarding his 'rotating magnetic field' and 'alternating current' discoveries. He filed 40 significant 'patents' regarding his 'novelty of fact' principles. But nothing happened, because the 'educated idiots' couldn't understand him. They were clueless, spellbound, and 'needed to be educated' themselves. If you recall even Thomas Alva Edison was the single most 'obstinate' stubborn antagonist, who stymied and sandbagged Tesla with the 'war of the currents.'



George Westinghouse who fortuitously attended one of those Tesla lectures, listened to Tesla's presentation, believed Tesla, offering him, a cool $$$$ million on the spot for all of his patents on AC [40 patents in all]. Tesla, grateful, for the 'acknowledgement,' accepted the offer, and later 'forgave' the most profitable aspect of that offer, the $2.50 per kWh portion. Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse formed a lifelong partnership [friendship] thereafter. Tesla had to go to Pittsburgh and 'educate' Westinghouse's engineers in building those 'novelty of fact' AC three phase and single phase motors. The rest is history.



We should explore inviting significant 'individuals of means' with 'deep pockets' who are willing to 'explore' alternative 'novelty of fact' systems of 'energy' generation. If we could create a buffer insulating and protecting 'inventors' from harassment and greed factors, then a possible solution to future energy development is approachable. Once that is accomplished, and research is underway, any resultant 'findings' of significant value, demonstrating 'marketability' could be licensed to 'manufacturers' with the rights to 'manufacture' given to 'right of first refusal' deep pocket collaborators [those who provided the initial R & D monies in the first place].'



All the Best

Leslie R. Pastor



PS:



It is interesting, that, changing from a non-technological age [horse & buggy] to a(n) [initial] developmental 'technological' stage, did not incur 'intransigence' on the part of the developing 'financial politicians.' [Ferdinand Lundberg: The Rich & The Super Rich]

http://www.namebase.org/sources/dZ.html and http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/encyclopedia/comment_1924.asp Indeed an association transpired among the original elite financial 'superstructure' and the emerging technocrats: Ford, Edison, and Westinghouse. Investment money flowed freely, while the 'infrastructure' was developing and establishing itself. But once the initial 'foundational' superstructure was 'in place,' future 'investments' were only aloud to 'maintain' that 'initial' superstructure. Any deviation met with significant curtailment of funding for any other 'non-approved' investment. [Tesla: Niagara Falls/AC Generation: Success] verses [Tesla: Wardencliffe: Free Energy: Failure]. Tesla lived between two ages [1856- 1943] and knew first hand what this changeover represented. He knew the implications of his discoveries and where they would take the future 'industrial' giant. But he was stopped 'cold,' by the investment strategists and made into a non-person after Wardencliffe. Every human-being on planet Earth should research the life of Nikola Tesla on the Internet, in the public libraries, and all the book vendors, only then will they appreciate what Thomas E. Bearden has accomplished in furthering Tesla's research into the future.





Research: Tom Bearden:



CEM/EM Factual Data


http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc

Problems with the Standard CEM/EM Model

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1543

Energy Observations & Comments: Tom Bearden

http://www.cheniere.org/images/Energy/index.html

The Final Secret of Free Energy: Tom Bearden

http://www.akasha.de/~aton/BeardenFreeE(2).html

The Russians Acknowledge Tom Bearden

http://physics.nad.ru/cgi-bin/forum.pl?forum=eng&mes=1657

Notes and Reference on the Fogel Transistor

http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/notes.htm

E. T. Whitaker

http://www.csonline.net/bpaddock/scalar/1904.htm

http://www.csonline.net/bpaddock/scalar/default.htm

A Summary of Research Not Present - Patrick G. Bailey, Ph. D.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE22.html

Archived Emails: Tom Bearden

http://www.navi.net/~rsc/physics/beard14.txt





Miscellaneous

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/radiant_energy.htm

http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/creating_the_ideal_tesla_magnifi.htm

http://www.teslascience.org/

http://www.teslascience.org/archive/archive.htm

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/monument.htm

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/twp6.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tesla_Wardenclyffe_Project/

http://www.explorepub.com/articles/energetics_notes.html

http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 3
Votes: 2


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now" | Login/Create an Account | 12 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now (Score: 1)
by sparks35 on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 @ 23:32:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Leslie....You sign this with...

"All the Best
Leslie R. Pastor"

Les...what you have become the "BEST" at is posting a whole group of stuff that very few people, if anyone, are going to take the time to read.

CAN YOU BOTTOM LINE THIS LESLIE...???

We need energy now..Not a frigging... Newton's
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Sparks35





Re: Tom Bearden's EFTV Model...NOT! (Score: 1)
by DoItDontJustWriteAboutIt on Friday, November 18, 2005 @ 13:47:36 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Bearden has been writing about his variant of EM theory for years (decades) and as best as I can tell, nobody has been able to confirm any of his claims independently despite his broad audience.  I hate to be a downer, but it would seem he's just plain wrong.

...Are we wasting time yet?  Perhaps it is time to move on to more fruitful endeavors.

"It is easier to write ten volumes on theoretical principles than to put one into practice."  -Tolstoy



Ken Rauen: He had a question regarding our Previous Post (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 @ 20:17:25 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Subject: Fw: Ken Rauen: He had a question regarding our Previous Post

--- "Leslie R. Pastor" wrote:

"Bearden does not present a clear description nor does he demonstrate the supposed energy that flows in a static dipole, such as in an electret. The clear evidence is missing and what is presented is just flowery words. Science is done in the details." - Ken Rauen

Ken is referring to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyingSaucerMachine/message/475

"As a dipole, the electret is already a system, which extracts virtual state energy from the vacuum and......"

Do you have a source statement for Ken Rauen? If you point me in the right direction, I can help you via the appropriate proper research of the proper data.

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor
------------------------

From: Tom Bearden



Les,


The problem is in terms of the model one uses in one's head and in one's approach. Sadly, even today students are not taught that they are only mastering a particular CEM/EE model and its application. Instead, increasingly it has become fashionable to imply that the model is already perfect. It isn't, and in fact it is horribly flawed, containing many falsities which I gathered together and listed at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . Note that only two of these were uncovered by me; the rest are all pointed out in various places in the literature by eminent scientists themselves (Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others).


One does not have to "explain" that the static field or potential is not truly "static"; it's been done experimentally. Or simply: Just take a very long transmission line and go to its middle. Apply a substantial voltage across it there - and the "static scalar potential - the voltage" - takes off in both directions at near light speed (if the conductors had no impedance, it would be at light speed). Now try to explain how anything "static and immovable" can race off in two directions.


So every time one potentializes an EM circuit, one invokes and uses the fact that a so-called "static" field is NOT truly static and fixed.


We give quotes and references on the "static field" problem. It is actually quite well known to foundations physicists that every charge in the universe continually emits real photons - real useful EM energy - yet there is no measurable (observable) energy input to the charge. If one doesn't believe that, then let him repeat any of those experiments he wishes. Set up a line of instruments at regular intervals in a straight line, and suddenly assemble some charge (or suddenly make a dipole; any "isolated" classical charge actually polarizes its vacuum, and there are two infinite charges with infinite energy involved - see explanation in Nobelist Weinberg's words:


"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift . that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].


Well, an entity having infinite energy (or two infinite energies) is certainly capable of pouring out any finite amount of energy - regardless of how large -- for any finite amount of time - no matter how long. So the source charge can and does sit there and continuously pour out real EM energy, without any observable energy input, and it will do it indefinitely or until the end of the universe.


All electrodynamicists assume that the EM field and the potential - and their energy -- are produced by their source charges. The point is that, if you suddenly produce some charge at a fixed point, the so-called "static" EM field appears at that point and spreads outward at the finite speed of light. The "static" field thus spreads continuously in all directions at light speed, and at every point it appears in its radial spread it establishes an energy density of EM energy in space.


Well, what is "spreads continuously in all directions?" Is that not "flow"? The where the devil did the "static" field ever become truly static? It never was. In 1903 and 1904 Whittaker showed that any EM field or potential decomposes into an on-going set of EM energy flows - and so it does in nature.


Now just wait a little - say, a year. The spreading "static" field has now reached out beyond the solar system, and it is still spreading.


Now just calculate the total "energy density change in space" established by that continuous outpouring of real EM energy.


NOW try your best to explain where that energy came from and continues to come from, in terms of the conventional sad old EE model. No instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that source charge. And yet real EM energy is pouring out continuously. That silly charge will continue to pour out real usable EM energy (real photons) at light speed in all directions for the next 13 billion years, if the universe lasts that long.


So the "static field" is not at all "fixed and immovable" as the EEs are taught and almost all believe. Van Flandern sums it up very nicely, by pointing out that the usual (mistaken) notion of the static field is that it is like a frozen waterfall. But that instead it is like an unfrozen waterfall. Specifically, he states that


"To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term 'static'. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate." [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say," Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 1-11].


And yes, the physics is in the details - including the details of that source charge experiment, and the fact that any "static" field is actually a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system thermodynamically, with parts in constant motion that continually establish and replenish the "static field" at every point in space that it occupies.


But the source charge also produces a quandary in physics. Either (1) it freely and continuously creates (from nothing at all) that energy that continuously pours out, or else (2) it reorders and coherently integrates the virtual state vacuum fluctuation energy it continually receives, from virtual state to observable state (real photons).


In alternative one, the conservation of energy law and most of present physics is falsified, as is most of present thermodynamics. Can't have it any other way.


In alternative two, conservation of energy together with physics and thermodynamics are saved, but the charge is a real physical system that steadily produces negative entropy, in total falsification of the hoary old second law of thermodynamics.


Not to worry! One can violate the second law at will, and in fact the parts of every usable macrosystem are always violating it anyway, as long ago pointed out by Maxwell when he stated:


"The truth of the second law is . a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules. Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [Maxwell, J. C., Tait's Thermodynamics II, Nature 17, 278-280 (7 February 1878)].


And finally, continuous production of negative entropy by a real physical system is indeed theoretically possible. CF the rigorous thermodynamics proof by D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. With my discovery of the solution to the source charge problem in 1999 and its publication in 2000 and subsequently, I nominated the source charge and the source dipole as the first known real physical systems that can be rigorously shown to produce continuous negative entropy. Specifically, the charge continually consumes positive entropy of the virtual state (the seething vacuum fluctuations) and continually produces negative entropy in the observable state.


That should be enough discussion on what is involved in correcting the erroneous notion that a static EM field is "fixed and immovable". It isn't, unless one gives up just about all of physics and thermodynamics.


Best wishes,

Tom Bearden
---------------

Leslie R. Pastor wrote:

For those who do not understand the nature of the question. A proper analogy would be to explain the workings of an 'ordinary' Televsion set. A marvelous 'CRT' device that we all presently take for granted, but was a developed 'process' necessitating the intervention of prerequisite data from Faraday, Maxwell, and Tesla [all necessary prior knowledge.....needed to begin to understand] Philo T. Farnsworth's marvelous 'invention.' For without the prior 'art' of Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla, Farnsworth would have been unable to 'create' the crt device that we so amazingly take for granted today.

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

------------------------------------
Good Afternoon, Tom


Just posted this now......

Will research your statements later tonight.

Obviously, more questions will be possed, you can bet on it.


Do you think Jean-Louis Naudin would help with this one?


All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor
--------------------------------


Les,



I don't know whether Jean-Louis would have the time or not; I doubt it. He's basically a bench person anyway.


The problem gets very fundamental and one must discuss foundations of physics rather than some "model of the particular physics in a given area".


Take the little analogy of applying electrostatic scalar potential (voltage) to the midpoint of a transmission line. If something (voltage) is truly static in Van Flandern's "fixed" frozen waterfall sense, it cannot move or flow, for that is a vector concept. If it has velocity, or if it is an envelope of form that is filled with parts that have motion and flow, it isn't static. It cannot be static on first principles.


A boot set on a line is truly "static" in that of itself it does not and cannot move off down the line with a "boot flow". But so-called "static" voltage on a line will not just "sit" there in place where you apply it, like that old static boot. Instead, it will take off like a scalded hog - and in both directions simultaneously. Zounds: That's a bidirectional concept. Well, of course! In 1903 Whittaker rigorously showed that the static potential "as an envelope" decomposes into a set of bidirectional EM energy flows, ongoing continuously. The paper is E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.


In 1904 Whittaker showed that any EM field pattern also decomposes into two static potentials with differential functions applied. This paper initiated what today is known as "superpotential" theory. If for each of those two scalar potentials one then applies Whittaker 1903 decomposition, then voila! One has two marvelous and additional things: (1) all EM fields and field patterns are produced by "scalar" interferometry, and (2) the field is also a special combination set of internal bidirectional flows, in interference.


For a modern and rigorous proof of scalar interferometry, see M.W. Evans et al., "On Whittaker's Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.


When such a common experience is universally available, one does not have to "reprove" it.


But indeed, anyone not discussing and explaining the source charge's continuous emission of observable photons, with absolutely no observable energy input, is not and cannot intelligently discuss energy from the nonobservable (virtual state fluctuations of the) vacuum.


Anyone who accepts the standard CEM/EE model - which just assumes an inert and totally inactive vacuum - does not and cannot understand energy from the active vacuum, nor where the EM field and potential energy in a circuit actually come from and how.


Let me use the following example of how the desire to believe or accept a model can "trap" us and does trap a great many people.


Take the fact that mass is a component of force, by the simple F = d/dt(mv). Put in "0" for that little m, for the case where mass is absent. Now F = 0 in that case. That is, whenever mass is absent, there is not and there cannot be any force. It's as simple as that.


When we speak of EM force, we mean force on a charged mass q. But the mass must be there in the q. Using the E-field (force field) as an example, F = Eq. Note that this equation actually states that electromagnetic force F is generated on charge q by the interaction of the "field in space" called E. Now - for the case of the absence of charged mass - put in a "0" for that charged mass q. Instantly F = 0 once again. There is no EM force in massfree space, but only in charged matter systems.


It follows that there is no EM force field in the vacuum, whenever and wherever charged mass q is absent. Instead, there is only a "condition in space itself" (a change in spacetime such as a warping) that exists in space. That's general relativity, of course, but the CEM/EE model only assumes special relativity. It specifically prohibits general relativity in its equations.


Also, the folks who formed the old CEM/EE model in the 1880s did not believe in an "empty" space or vacuum. Instead, they believed that all space was filled with a thin material ether, everywhere in the universe. So to them, there was not a single point in all the universe where mass was totally absent, because - in their belief - the thin matter of the ether was there. In that case, were that true then obviously there would have been a force field there, at any point, because there was already matter there and in the EM equations m = 0 never occurred anywhere in the universe.


Well, the material ether was falsified experimentally in 1887. But not a single CEM/EE equation was changed (corrected to eliminate that innate assumption of the luminiferous material ether). None has been changed to do it, to this day.


In CEM/EE, the situation continues to just be shrugged off. E.g., the extraordinarily capable and highly recognized classical electrodynamicist, Jackson, says it this way:


"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 249].


Now examine Jackson's statement from the standpoint of sheer logic. Jackson admits that force requires the product (interaction of) field and charge. Hence whenever we have force, we have the interaction of field and charged mass.


Yet he has first stated that - nevertheless - most electrodynamicists just accept the "notion" that force fields somehow do exist in space devoid of charged matter.


So essentially we have the false premise or assumption by most classical electrodynamicists that the "charged matter" situation equals or is identical to the "situation without charged matter".


And that is a simple logical non sequitur. Any sophomore student in symbolic logic can rigorously see it and express it with the proper logic symbology.


But at least Jackson courageously points it out and admits that the acceptance of the force field in massless space is just a "notion". How many other EE profs and textbooks have done that same thing, and admitted that it's just a notion? None that I'm aware of.


Feynman discussed this very well in his three volumes of sophomore physics. Specifically, he states:


".in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present. One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].


He also states:


".the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].


One must note that, rigorously, the potentiality to do something does not necessarily mean that it is done in a particular situation. A man always has the potentiality for committing suicide, but in a particular death rigged to look like suicide, the lawman must investigate to see if it was really suicide or murder.


But Feynman admirably tells it like it is. The field is there around the positive charge, but as just an "altered condition of space". In general relativity, Feynman knew that any field in space has energy density in space, and any change in energy density in space is a curvature (or torsion) of that space. But in the CEM/EE model, there is no curvature of space allowed in the model itself.


Feynman "cinched the saddle" when he stated:


"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]


There he clearly tells you that, only when the interacting charge is placed there does force exist upon it.


For anyone who cannot or will not see all that for himself, it will just be assumed away (as in Jackson's statement).


We are in fact discussing foundations of physics rather than applied physics. The two things are not at all the same thing.



Best wishes,

Tom




 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.