Tom Bearden's recent letter to Leslie R. Pastor (RE:solution: Free Energy Congress): Leslie,

Instead, in almost all the chat groups one sees basically only standard electrical engineering being advanced as the “criterion”. Cheez, very few of them seem to know that the vaunted EM force field they were and are taught to calculate in space, does not and cannot exist in mass free space, but exists only in mass systems. In short, we were all taught a blatant lie. Feynman even discusses this quite a bit in his three volumes of sophomore physics (but that part is never taught!). It’s there, however, if anyone cares to look. No force field exists in empty space, and never has and never will. There is not now and there never has been an EE department, professor, or text that even teaches how to calculate the true force-free EM field in space, though all purport to do so. Instead, they calculate the RESULT in charged matter of the ongoing interaction of the force free EM field in space with that charged matter, which produces the resulting “EM force field” in that charged matter. They calculate the EFFECT and interpret it as the CAUSE, which it is not. And so on. Simply put, mass is a component of force. Jackson reveals how the classical electrodynamicists just continue to ignore it. Quoting:

"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, 1975, p. 249.].

In other words, force does involve (identically is) the product of the charge and the force-free field that is in ongoing interaction with that charge. The old guys who set up the model in the 1880s before the discovery of the electron, etc., all believed in the material ether, so to them there was no point in all the universe where mass was absent. Hence their use of force fields in space. The material ether was experimentally falsified in 1887, but nary a CEM/EE equation has been changed to remove that old material ether (and force fields in space) to the present day.

That crazy old model is so riddled with falsities that it raises a serious question as to the ethics (or lack thereof) of the entire organized scientific community that continues to teach such known falsities for more than a century, even though eminent scientists (Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others) have pointed out these errors. Not a single EE text, e.g., anymore presents the highly embarrassing “source charge problem”, where one can show experimentally that any fixed charge or dipole in the universe already continually outpours real observable usable photons at light speed in all directions, but there is no instrument known to man that can measure or detect any observable energy input to that source charge or dipole. [In modern physics, a classical charge polarizes its surrounding vacuum with virtual charges of opposite sign, so that the ensemble of the “isolated” classical charge and its polarized vacuum forms a dipole ensemble. Actually any charge – even a simple single electron – is an infinite dipole assembly, since the bare charge in the middle (according to physics, NOT in EE) is an infinite charge with infinite energy, as is the surrounding virtual charge of its polarized vacuum. The DIFFERENCE between these two infinite charges, however, is finite, and that finite difference is what our instruments observe of that bare charge in the middle, as seen through the surrounding screen.

Most of the participants do not even know the exact difference between thermodynamic efficiency of a system and the coefficient of performance of that system. Indeed, there is mass confusion between these two terms and they are often used as if they were the same thing. They are not. No system ever will produce efficiency of greater than 100%. But even a very low efficiency unit – such as a solar cell array driven power system with about 20% efficiency – can produce COP = infinity (which the solar cell array power system does, which the standard windmill-driven power system does, which the standard hydroelectric power system does, etc. A common old home heat pump will have only about a 50% efficiency and will produce COP = 3.0 to 4.0. And so on.

Likewise, no one seems to appreciate the difference between extracting usable “zero-point energy” from the lowest OBSERVABLE state of observable charged particles in QM motion, and extracting usable EM observable energy from the virtual state energy fluctuations of the vacuum. The source charge or dipole does the latter, not the former. Every charge and dipole in the universe already consumes positive entropy of the disordered virtual state fluctuations of the vacuum, and produces continuous negative entropy in the observable state. That is how it continually emits real observable photons (easily shown experimentally) while not receiving any OBSERVABLE energy input. It does have the thermodynamically required energy input, but in the virtual state energy that is continually absorbed. The negative entropy (reordering) is accomplished when the disordered virtual photon is absorbed and its energy changed to mass-energy of the mass of the charged particle. Since mass is already unitary, consecutive absorptions just make additional virtual changes to the previous level of virtual state excitation. Hence these successive and “reordered” virtual mass energy changes are coherently integrated to the next quantal level of excitation – whereupon the charge emits an observable photon, abruptly decaying the excitation back to the beginning. So the charge is actually a true Feynman ratchet, continually reordering disordered virtual energy absorbed from the vacuum, and coherently integrating it into real observable photons which are continually emitted in all directions at a steady rate.

Of course, the fact that continuous negative entropy producing systems are theoretically possible has been rigorously shown by Evans and Rondoni. Every charge and every dipole is a physical example of just such a system, and we have so nominated it. The charge’s continuous production of negative entropy indeed destroys the hoary old present second law of thermodynamics, while upholding the first law. Not to worry, there are already many known violations of the old second law, and we have formally corrected that law some time ago. The old law always was an oxymoron implicitly assuming its own negation had previously occurred, but ignored.

So most of the discussion groups do not realize that the hoary old second law of thermodynamics – as written – is easily shown to be wrong and can be violated at will with some simple tricks. Indeed, James Clerk Maxwell himself (who worked extensively in thermodynamics) pointed out that every many-particle system is continually violating that same old second law! Every statistical fluctuation of such a system that has reached equilibrium, is a negative entropy operation violating that old second law, and is RECOGNIZED and known to do so by the thermodynamicists themselves. Indeed, a simple strong gradient will allow violation at will, as will many other things. A partial list is given in Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, p. 359. Also, there are very rigorous “transient fluctuation theorems” that do allow calculation of the negative entropy productions, etc. Wang et al, e.g., have shown that certain systems violate that second law by producing negative entropy (where chemical reactions run backwards) for up to two seconds, in regions of fluid of a cubic micron in size (about 30 billion ions involved in an aqueous-type solution).

So long as these sorts of discussions are not held, the usual discussion in the usual EE terms is essentially a waste of time. So entry into the usual web discussions is almost always rather useless, unless the discussion is highly moderated and focused on such aspects. Understand, there are some exceptions, and hopefully we will be seeing more of them. But right now, the situation is gloomy.

Instead, the goal has to be to interest the sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists (in EE and in physics) in this area, and get them working in it. Slowly that is beginning to happen; a good example is the paper by M. Walters, A. Homaifar, M. R. Zolgahdri, and A. Ahmidouch, “Introducing the Practice of Asymmetrical Regauging to Increase the Coefficient of Performance of Electromechanical Systems”, given at a CONVENTIONAL conference in April 2005 and published in the proceedings. A Microsoft Word copy can be downloaded from http://www.jlab.org/~abdellah/walter.doc . The PDF copy of the paper is still locked up. However, a correspondent kindly sent me a copy of the PDF paper, and I attach that for your information, to furnish it to whomever you find interested in it.

Note particularly that the National Science Foundation issued Walters et al. a grant to cover at least part of that work, and the group is going on to study (and hopefully build and test) the magnetic Wankel engine so resoundingly suppressed by the Yakuza, and that I recommended in my “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model”, available for downloading at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . Note that we did not discover these errors; we just gathered them together and discussed them, with the necessary hard references also cited. This is so the interested young students can get immediately into that area, with the necessary references, and not have to spend 30 years of their lives painfully rediscovering and assembling it.

This paper also gives details on the magnetic Wankel engine, which is a linear permanent magnet motor (railgun) curved around almost in a closed circle but not quite, so that the back mmf region is confined to a very short sector of the stator assembly. The standard Lenz law effect is used to suddenly and momentarily generate a magnetic field that momentarily overrides and zeroes the back mmf magnetic field in that gap, long enough for the rotor magnet to pass through the gap and experience no back mmf. This is thus an ASYMMETRIC system, of the kind that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded and that is not present in EE today. Since the Lenz law effect uses a sudden sharp gradient, it means that it can momentarily evoke a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which it does. The motor thus continually develops torque in a single rotary direction, with no back mmf. It will thus continually perform COP>1.0, and thus produce more useful work than the energy that the operator has to input to the “back mmf” canceling mechanism.

The operating COP>1.0 system is readily built by any competent electrical engineering department, physics department, or good laboratory.

It is also easily close-looped so that all input by the operator can cease, and the motor will still power itself and its load continually. In that case, the asymmetric system demonstrates COP = infinity (self-powering) with energy from the vacuum, directly analogous to the solar cell array power system using solar radiation energy, etc. No laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics (once the flawed old second law is corrected) are violated.

Removing the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition does permit extraction of usable energy from the vacuum. Rigorous theoretical proof is given by M.W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

Best wishes,