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, 261 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • 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

    Which camp do belong in: The future or the past?
    Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 @ 00:31:07 GMT by vlad

    Science Leslie R. Pastor writes: They said that 'cold fusion' was a joke, a lie........
    The 'educated idiots' followed suit....and denounced Dr. Fleischmann and Dr Pons.....
    Source: http://quanthomme.free.fr/energielibre/fusion/liensff.html
    Tesla was ridiculed by Edison......but whose paradigm prevailed, whose technologies dominate?


    It is simply marvelous, how the incompetent and the inaccurate equate with the inane and ignoble ignoramuses that abound in academia. The future does indeed belong to the imaginative.

    All the Best,
    Leslie R. Pastor

    PS: Let us not forget that N. Tesla had no Ph.D degree in electrical engineering, [he was way ahead of this time]. During his formative years AC wasn't even a 'paradigm'......Tesla 'created' that paradigm when he came to America. Bearden just like Tesla 'created' the 'M.E.G." paradigm for the next century. He will be remembered and respected by future electrical engineers for his tireless work to establish the 'new' paradigm a la Tesla.
    (Source: various Yahoo groups).

     
    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: 5
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Which camp do belong in: The future or the past?" | Login/Create an Account | 2 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: Which camp do belong in: The future or the past? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Thursday, November 06, 2003 @ 00:35:33 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Tom Bearden writes: Thanks Leslie.

    Our intention is to just put the material out there on the website, along with the hard physics references for the real principles and concepts of overunity systems taking their excess energy from the active vacuum. That way, the young grad students and post docs will be able to just start where several researchers have finally arrived (after 30 years of very hard work), and then go much farther. They will get it done, if we do not succeed.

    By the way, Heaviside never even attended university, but was entirely self-taught. It is Oliver Heaviside's equations that are taught in University as "Maxwell's equations". Of course later Heaviside was awarded an honary doctorate, etc.

    There are much better systems of electrodynamics already available in physics than what electrical engineering teaches and uses (i.e., than the Maxwell-Heaviside equations).

    Some of the major flaws of the standard electrodynamics model used in electrical engineering are:

    1. It still assumes the material ether, more than a century after the material ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments. Maxwell assumed the material ether from the beginning, as did everyone else at the time, and not a single equation was changed after the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed that "luminiferous ether". One day they just said, "Well, there is no ether so we are not using one" and kept right on using the same equations unchanged. The assumption of force fields in mass-free space is where that ether assumption is maintained. There are no force fields in space, contrary to everything in the electrical engineering books and curriculum, and this is quite well known in physics. As Feynman put it, there is only the potential for the force field to be created upon some charged mass, if some should be inserted. But before the insertion of the charged mass, there is absolutely no force field, never has been, and never will be. Even Jackson (superb electrodynamicist and one of my heroes) avoids the issue by this statement:

    "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." That quote is from p. 249 of the second edition of his rightfully famous Classical Electrodynamics.

    2. Contrary to popular opinion, the EE model does not use or even specify the E-field or the B-field themselves, but only their point intensities as determined by the diversion of energy flow by an assumed unit point charge (charged mass) at every point in space occupied by the field or potential. The actual electromagetic field and potential themselves are in fact sets of EM energy flows, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904, and involve both the active vacuum flux and the curvature of spacetime. What is calculated and represented erroneously as "the" potential or "the" electric field is actually what is diverted from the field or potential by a unit point static charge assumed at every point in space. As an analogy, a fixed "standard" rock in a river will diverge some of the water flow around it -- but that diverged flow from the river's flow is certainly not the river itself. Further, if the same rock is churning violently to and fro, it will obviously diverge much more of the energy flow, and thereby give a greater "field intensity" or "potential intensity" than the same charge in static form. 90% of the electrical engineers do not realize the difference between field and field intensity, nor the requirement that the intercepting charge be absolutely static. Nor do they realize that the very definition of "field intensity" changes when the intercepting unit point charge is in particle resonance, as compared to being a static charge (assumed in the definition).

    3. The EE model erroneously assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges. That assumes a total violation of the conservation of energy law. Thus either electrical engineering model is falsified, or the conservation of energy law is falsified. Further, few electrical engineers even realize their model contains that assumption. Most EE professors just get very angry when it is pointed out to them.

    4. The EE model assumes a flat spacetime (that assumption has been falsified since 1916 whenever the potential energy or the field changes at any point in a circuit), and it also assumes an inert vacuum (that has been totally falsified since 1930 or so).

    5. The model ignores the fact that the "isolated charge" polarizes the vacuum (as shown by quantum field theory and particle physics), and thus any "isolated classical charge" is an intense (essentially infinite) bare charge surrounded by clustering virtual charges of opposite sign. Both the bare charge inside and the screening virtual charge outside are infinite! The difference is finite, and is the textbook value of the "classical charge". The difference is what our instruments see through the outside screen, of the inner infinite charge showing through that screen, and that is the textbook "value" of the classical charge.

    6. Since it ignores vacuum polarization, the model thus ignores the proven asymmetry of opposite charges that applies to every charge. Since 1957, it is well-known and proven that the asymmetry of opposite charges causes the "isolated charge" ensemble to continuously absorb disordered virtual energy from the vacuum, coherently integrate it into observable size, and then re-emit the integrated energy as real observable EM energy in all directions, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing the associated fields and potentials. In the nearly half century since the proof of the asymmetry of such opposite charges, and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, that has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department, nor has it convinced the EE professors to change their seriously flawed and hoary old obsolete model.

    7. Lorentz circa the 1890s discarded the giant Heaviside nondiverged "curled field" component of the energy flow vector. The magnitude of that discarded component is often a trillion times greater than the magnitude of the little Poynting vector component that is accounted. Very few persons today even realize that such an extra anomalous, usually nondiverged energy flow component exists around every circuit and EM device. Most will not believe it when it is pointed out to them. If one analyzes the area of "negative resonance absorption of the medium", considering curved spacetime and also the active vacuum aspects, then one finds that such experiments actually prove the existence of the Heaviside component by diverging and using some of it experimentally. (The vector divergence of the curl is not zero in a curved spacetime, but only in flat spacetime). So there is experimental proof, if properly assessed. The scientists in that field of "negative resonance absorption", however, never speak of COP, but only of the change in the reaction cross section. Anyway one cuts the cookie, the experiments in the IR and UV result in 18 times as much energy output from the re-radiating medium as the operator input in his Poynting energy flow component input.

    8. Lorentz also (arbitrarily) symmetrically regauged the Maxwell equations, thereby discarding that entire class of Maxwellian systems that are nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems in the vacuum flux, and are continuously extracting extra usable energy from the vacuum and outputting it. In short, he discarded all the permissible COP>1.0 EM systems taking extra energy from the vacuum and using it to power loads. Instead, he assumed that the potential energy of the system is indeed freely changed (twice), but only so that the excess energy is "bottled up" and used only to produce additional stress in the system. Specifically, he assumed that none of the free regauging energy could be used to translate electrons as current, so that one could freely power loads with the vacuum energy actually added freely to the circuit or system. One need not point out how utterly inane that practice is, if one is interested in electrical power engineering using energy from the vacuum. The very first thing that must be accomplished, in an overunity circuit, is for it to violate the closed current loop function for at least a significant fraction of its operational cycle.

    9. The EE circuit model, particularly in electrical power engineering, calls for the standard closed current loop circuit as "standard practice". Such an inane circuit self-applies and self-enforces that symmetrical self-regauging, thus carrying out Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the system and forcibly preventing COP>1.0 systems that take excess energy from the vacuum and using it. This stupid circuit equalizes the back emf and the forward emf, thus assuring that we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and always lose.

    10. Electrical engineers are taught lots of non sequiturs. E.g., "power" is rigorously the rate at which work is done. Work is rigorously the change of form of energy. So power is the rate at which some energy is changed in form. Power only exists right where the change of form of the energy is being accomplished, in the component doing it. Engineers speaking of "drawing power from the source" are speaking a total non sequitur. But that sort of mistake has become universal and deeply ingrained, and it keeps them designing and building only COP
    To bring in a couple errors in other pertinent models:
    11. The present first law of thermodynamics is mistated because it defines the change of magnitude of an external parameter (such as the potential or the field) as work a priori. That is false; rigorously work is the change of form of some energy, not mere change of magnitude of some energy. Change of magnitude of potential energy in the same form is mere regauging, and that is guaranteed work-free by the well-known gauge freedom axiom. Every electrodynamicist uses gauge freedom to regauge the equations (implying freely changing the potential energy of the system being described), so that closed analytical solutions can be obtained. Not one of them specifies where and how the excess energy is furnished to the system to change its potential energy. But the present statement of the first law of thermodynamics does exclude free regauging, which if true would falsify much of present physics and electrodynamics. The first law simply needs restating correctly, and I have a fact sheet which will shortly be posted, explaining the correction.

    12. The present statement of the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the known time asymmetry of thermodynamics itself, because it erroneously excludes negative entropy processes. Every charge in the universe continuously produces negative entropy, and Evans and Rondoni have shown theoretically that a NESS system can permissibly do that (but felt that real systems probably could not). Fact is that every charge does it. So every charge in the universe already totally falsifies the present statement of the second law of thermodynamics. We have a fact sheet which points that out, and restates the second law so that it is consistent with (1) experiment, (2) the proven violation of the second law in experiments such as shown by Wang et al., (3) the known temporal asymmetry of thermodynamics, and (4) Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry, extended group symmetry methods, and extension of Klein geometry to object-oriented geometry.

    13. Further, there are several areas already known and recognized to violate thermodynamics (the second law in particular). E.g., Konepudi and Prigogine, in their Modern Thermodynamics, 1999 corrected printing, point these areas out on p. 459. One of those areas is sharp gradients, and as Kondepudi and Prigogine point out, not much is known about such gradients either theoretically or experimentally. We have previously proposed a straightforward explanation of why sharp energy discharge gradients produce violation of the second law, and experimentally the violation can indeed be proven and has been. Our upgraded fact sheet on our website, dealing with the source charge problem, includes some discussion of what happens in spacetime itself when one has such very sharp gradients or sharp discharges.

    So as you can see, the present electrical stuff taught in university still leaves a great deal to be desired, and it still contains many horrendous errors.

    The above types of facts are what are extremely valuable to young researchers just starting out in overunity systems. If they are introduced to these things at the outset, then much of the confusion we old dogs had to wade through can be dispelled. That's why I'm confident that free energy devices will eventually make it onto the market. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but it will happen because this kind of information and that from other colleagues is now made available openly, in terms of actual physics.

    Best wishes,
    Tom B.



    Re: Which camp do belong in: The future or the past? (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Thursday, November 06, 2003 @ 20:37:29 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    If you're real quiet you can hear the sounds of the paradigms beginning to crack and collapse into rubble. It wouldn't be the first time, it seems like when the current fashionable line of thought is wheeled out and presented to the rest of the world, it is usually dead within a short time. Back in the 1880's Lord Kelvin came up with the "Trefoil" theory of the atom, which if you investigate the concept you find bears a startling resemblance to String Theory. I would not be surprised that String Theorists didn't have it in the back of their minds when they developed the "new" idea.
    Will our knowledge of the Universe be different in 130 years? Or will we still fall short of completion? For the sake of the human condition, lets hope we never do have all the answers.



     

    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.