PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:   Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.





    

Site:LRP:Zero-Amp-Technology

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by Leslie R. Pastor

ZERO-AMP TECHNOLOGY

Sent By: Todd C. Hathaway on April 2nd, 2009
Source: http://www.worldviewopinion.com/blog/energy/_archives/2009/4/2/4141407.html

I received additional information regarding Peter Sumaruck Today (March 26, 2009) regarding his invention (Zero Amp Technologies)

I was contacted this morning by Todd C. Hathaway regarding an invention by Peter Sumaruck, specifically, ZERO-AMP TECHNOLOGY (November 22, 2008), Todd gave the phone to Peter Sumaruck, who agreed to send me information regarding his significant invention.

Demonstration of Peter Sumaruck's Zero-Amp Technology (Video)

Peter Sumaruck Internet Radio Interview With James Robey

Ken Rasmussen (November 25, 2008) provided me with his Video taken of Peter Sumaruck and his invention Zero-Amp Technology, authorizing me to give it to Thomas Eugene Bearden for his review and analysis. When Tom Bearden has reviewed the video, I will post his analysis, and explanation.

After Speaking with Todd C. Hathaway & Ken Rasmussen (November 29,2008) it is agreed that Peter Sumaruck does want this information posted.

Todd C. Hathaway: (November 29, 2008)

"Just got off the phone with Pete - he again reiterated his approval/desire to post the 6:40 clip of his summary of the technology and Sterling Allan and Jim Dunn's review of the technology before their $26 million offer was rejected, so replace the old link with the new one; otherwise, it will simply be posted directly on the Zero-Amp Tech wiki page and/or the Zero-Amp Tech blog page."

Thanks, Todd

Transcript of the Video:
Transcript from 11/24/2008 meeting following demo:

Jim Dunn:

"This is definitely a major breakthrough and we're not sure exactly what Peter has done here, but we've all witnessed the five A/C motors running without any real load on them, but running each,, drawing, you know, a couple amps of current and totaling as much as 16 amps off a...a...maybe a fraction of a watt of input into his controller, so we're all baffled about, uh, are there more than a hundred mice on the, uh, little wheels inside the (laughter), two big fat squirrels."

Sterling Allan:

"Jim's going to be the more authoritarian on,, uh, what's going on here but, to put it simply, you have the input wattage, which is very low, it's, uh, I think 0.5 watts going in and then you have 4000 watts going out. If you do the math on that we, we calculated 70,000 COP, of course, that's not taking into account reactive power and things like that, that's just straight watts in..."

Jim Dunn:

"There's no power factor in there. It's still significant..."

Sterling Allan:

"Yeah."

Jim Dunn:

"...still significant."

Sterling Allan:

"...so obviously there's something, uh, very worth pursuing here that could revolutionize, uh, our entire infrastructure of modern society...electrically."

This Transcript (above) characterizes what an asymmetric circuit enables. Since we know that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, fundamentally, we know that the extra 'energy' is coming from another source. What Pete Sumaruck has in his possession IS an asymmetric circuit, which enables the 'extra' energy to enter his circuit from the ambient, ("energy from the vacuum") spacetime, tapping into the fabric of the CREATION itself.

Official Directory By Sterling D. Allan (He Viewed the Invention)

Analysis of Demonstration Requested and Theorized by Sterling D. Allan

"Lead-out-energy machines By 2004, after a 6 month delay for parts, this new electric generator - tested tried and true was ready for mass production. Without warning, Hauke and Martin called Sumaruck and his attorney into their office. An order came down that the project had been cancelled by U.S. Congressman Michael "Chet" Edwards, Democrat, 17the district, and Texas State Senator Kip Averitt, Republican, 22nd district, both from Waco, Texas. The Congressman and the State Senator claimed that the Army could not be trusted with this kind of technology. Soldiers would try to figure out how the technology works; they would be distracted from battle; they'd want to quit the army, go home and make their own gen-sets. "We can't lose control of our people." They opted for a conventional war, one they could control.

There is likely to be some truth when the names of US Congressman and Senator were quoted."

Source: http://bbs.english.sina.com/viewthread.php?tid=360&page=3&authorid=443

INTRODUCTION (From Peter Paul Sumaruck's Website)

NEW ENGINE FOR TRUCKS - No Oil, No Diesel, No Natural Gas, No Ethanol, No Emission, No Pollution - How Can That Be?

Brief Overview of ZERO-AMP TECHNOLOGY

The Secret Life of Energy - You always Get Out MORE Than You Put In.

WHAT RUSSIA WANTS...or, Shevardnadze's Notebook

For more detailed answers to questions, contact charlotte@worldviewopinion.com or zero.amp.tech@hotmail.com ... to speak to the inventor, 1-254-733-1354

Reference:

Radio Program (Interviews)

Mother Jones Back Talk

Yahoo 360 Blogspot: Zero-Amp Technology

Tom Bearden provides an explanation for the phenomenology (Zero-Amp Technology):

From:Tom Bearden
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:34 PM
To:"Leslie R. Pastor"
Cc:"Todd Hathaway"
Subject:RE: Important: Zero-Amp Technology

Hi Les,

Hey, that is wonderful! Extraordinarily glad the inventor has an agreement now, with the proper "good" folks.

Very glad to see Steve and Todd there and very closely involved. That will get him the funding and also some protection.

And of course, I'm absolutely delighted that Peter persevered all these years and got it done. Like his service in the Navy Seals, this is also a great contribution to the service of his country and to the entire world.

As more information is available, I will be doing everything within my power to provide a decent and straight explanation of how the invention works. Some things can be stated right now: Obviously he has again discovered asymmetric EM systems (prescribed by Maxwell's original theory but deliberately omitted from the Heaviside equations by Lorentz in 1892).

Electrical engineers are also so concerned with the fiction of "drawing power" from a source that they do not understand that the electrons for the current in a system are provided by the system itself. And all the energy delivered to the system (when an action is taken to flow voltage onto the system and "potentialize" it) is delivered in the VOLTAGE. Voltage is joules of energy collected and experienced by one collecting coulomb of charge. So the ENERGY appearing in the potentialized circuit or system or subsystem is a result of the potentialization (flow of voltage) onto that system's available collecting charges. IF THE SYSTEM HAS MORE AVAILABLE CHARGE, FOR A GIVEN VOLTAGE FLOWING ONTO IT AND POTENTIALIZING IT, IT WILL "COLLECT" MORE AVAILABLE ENERGY FROM THE SAME VOLTAGE!

Since the electrical engineer is trained to always "loop" all the current in the external circuit back through the primary (source) circuit, then his self-symmetrizing circuit automatically does equal work in destroying the source dipole in the source, as is done in the entire external circuit's losses and loads. So the COP (useful work done in the loads divided by the operator's energy input to the system) will always be self-enforced as COP < 1.0. And that is the only type of circuit or system that the EE is trained to build or even think about or know about.

But think for a moment: Suppose that you can control and "shuttle" the collected energy over in the external circuit around in that circuit at will, so that you can discharge that energy only where you wish to discharge it to power the loads (and the losses in the external circuit). In that case, you would not use ANY of the energy back in the primary source to destroy it. Except for a bit of switching energy, this "asymmetric" system would now produce lots more work in the loads than the operator has to pay for in his switching and control.

Here's a problem in the electrical engineering: the EEs are not taught what powers the system at all. It ISN'T cranking the shaft of the generator! Let's see how (from modern physics since 1957 and award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang) the circuit is ACTUALLY potentialized and thus "powered" as the potential energy is dissipated. First, to the generator we input some mechanical energy to rotate the shaft. Once the shaft rotates, then -- courtesy of Nikola Tesla who invented the rotating magnetic field -- the mechanical input shaft energy is transduced into rotating magnetic field energy. The rigorous definition of work is the transduction of the form of some energy into another form of energy. That is "doing work", and you still have the energy remaining AFTER the work is done. If the energy is still in the system and not "lost" (i.e., not dissipated from the system), it can still be used again and again to change its form again and again, continually doing work.

Well, what then happens to that rotating magnetic field energy we now have inside the generator? NONE of it passes out of the terminals into the external circuit. Instead, all of it is DISSIPATED FROM THE GENERATOR/SYSTEM by forcibly forcing the internal positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other direction, thus separating opposite charges by a finite distance and forming the SOURCE DIPOLE.

So all that cranking the shaft of the generator does, is to form that source dipole.

Since 1957 and award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, we have known that any dipole is a broken symmetry, a priori. And we have known (as stated by Nobelist Lee) that any broken symmetry automatically changes some virtual energy into observable energy. So the source dipole continually absorbs virtual photons from its seething virtual vacuum interaction, integrates the energy to quantal (observable) size, and thus continually emits a flow of real observable photons -- real EM energy flow. This flow then passes out of the terminals onto the external circuit/subsystem, potentializing it.

All EM energy in this world -- and in every EM circuit -- comes directly from the seething vacuum via a source dipolarity. Always has, always will.

If we would then leave that internal source dipole alone, we could cease cranking the shaft of the generator, and the system would continually power itself from energy continually extracted and input directly from the vacuum via the source dipole. But that would be an asymmetric electrical circuit/system, and since 1892 and from its very birth, electrical engineering has been totally limited to symmetrical systems! Systems which pump all the spent current back up through the source dipole inside the generator, against ist back emf, thus continually destroying that source dipole -- and thus destroying the free flow of EM energy from the dipole because the dipole is continually destroyed.

So then we have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator -- NOT to power the loads, but to keep restoring the source dipole inside the generator, that the inane symmetrical circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers the loads.

Anyway, as you can see, electrical engineers are not even taught how their own circuits are powered, and what actually furnishes the energy to power the loads.

There is no conservation law of work. Work ruthlessly is the "change of form" of some energy, and -- via the conservation of energy law of special relativity -- once that form is changed (once work is done) you still have all the energy remaining, but just in different form. The energy may escape FROM THE SYSTEM (in which case it is said to have been "dissipated"), but it did not escape from the universe.

So, from an input of -- say -- 100 joules, in a lossless circuit where energy is input in form 1 to subsystem A, suppose the LOSSLESS subsystem A is designed to do work by changing that input "form 1" energy into "form 2" type energy. Then one will have done 100 joules of work in subsystem A, and will still have 100 joules of energy left in form 2. Now suppose that this 100 joules of "form 2" energy is input to subsystem B, where subsystem B is designed transform "type 2" energy into "type 1" energy, doing work thereby and still having 100 joules of energy left, now back in type 1 form. The output of subsystem A thus feeds subsystem B with input energy in form 2, thereby powering subsystem B, and subsystem B in turn feeds subsystem A with input energy in form 1, thereby powering subsystem B.

This system -- without violating any of the laws of nonequilibrium thermodynamics or violating any laws of physics, will sit there and "self-power" itself. On each "circulation" it will produce 200 joules of work, yet always retain and keep "using" the original 100 joules of energy!

Again, the point is, there is no conservation law of work, including in any system where the energy once changed in form remains and is not dissipated (thrown out) of the system. The universe regularly uses its energy over and over, since the "changed form" energy produced by a work process still remains in the universe.

Electrical engineers do not understand that type reasoning at all, nor do they comprehend that it is in theory possible, but not in their terribly limited and mutilated old 1892 model. Yet it is perfectly good physics. And it is perfectly permitted in nonequilibrium steady state thermodynamics.

In a real system, one will usually have some inevitable losses (places where some of the energy inevitably escapes from the system and is "lost" from it. But one can build systems with losses, which nevertheless continually take excess energy from their environment and thus still put out more energy than the operator himself inputs. A common and well-known example is the home heat pump. It is only about 50% efficient, which means that it loses and wastes half the energy input to it from all sources -- from the operator (paying for the power line input) and from the environment (from the heat extracted and received from the environment). Yet it receives so much extracted heat from the external environment that it still outputs three to four times as much heat energy as the energy input that the OPERATOR HIMSELF pays for. So the COP = 3.0 to 4.0, even though the efficiency = 50%. Or expressing everything in percentage, the COP = 300% to 400%, even though the efficiency is only 50% and half of all input energy is just lost and wasted.

Sadly, most engineers do not understand the difference between COP and efficiency!

When we toss out that old crippled 1892 EM model, then the "active energy environment" for any charge in the circuit is the seething vacuum, which continually interacts with any charge. Interaction from the active vacuum is an established fact in modern physics. For example, a good source paper, with some 217 references cited, is Walter Greiner and Stefan Schramm, "Resource Letter QEDV-1: The QED Vacuum," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 76, No. 6, June 2008, pp. 509-518.

Further, in modern physics, because of the polarization of the surrounding vacuum by a common "little" charge -- e.g., a single "finite" charge such as a single electron -- actually involves two infinite charges each having infinite energy. Their difference is finite, however, and that finite difference is what we see and detect with our instruments which are peering through the screening external infinite charge at the infinite "bare" charge within. Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:

"[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.].

So if we have two simple charges of opposite sign, separated a bit, then the resulting dipolarity actually is an "infinite energy" powerhouse that absorbs virtual energy from the seething vacuum continually, and re-emits it as real, observable EM energy flow -- steadily. It will do so until the end of time, if just left alone and not destroyed.

And this is what we mean when we speak of "extracting energy from the seething virtual state vacuum". The extraction is already freely done for us by any dipole, due to its "broken symmetry". We just have to harness and use that continual, unending, free energy flow that flows from every dipolarity -- and in particular in our system, from its source dipole.

Since Peter's system and circuitry is continually powering itself, once kick-started, it means that it is continually taking ALL its input and output energy from the local vacuum. And unless something breaks, it can take a finite amount and rate of energy flow from the vacuum for any finite time, no matter how long! But we are "way out of" electrical engineering! This is physics, from the ground up. --- In short, the electrical engineer's entire technology and discipline DOES NOT contain the functioning that Peter's circuit is delivering. But the original Maxwell theory does contain it. EE assumes a totally inert vacuum consisting of nothing but empty space. That is totally false, and long since known to be false to physicists, who regularly have to calculate and use that vacuum interaction!

As the time ripens for additional release, one will have to put a really decent physicist on it, who is skilled in the higher group symmetry electrodynamics systems that are available in physics, in addition to quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, etc. These models and higher group symmetry electrodynamics go far beyond the sad old electrical engineering model, and these models do explain and prescribe phenomena that are totally impossible in electrical engineering. But phenomena that can and do occur in nature!

Please tell Peter to ignore the naysayers; I will wager not a single one of them knows any higher electrodynamics, but only electrical engineering. Most will not even know what "symmetry" in group theory really means. And they will NOT understand that the deepest insight possible into the nature and functioning of our models (systems of equations) and their resulting physical systems is given by group theory -- which has been in our universities and in physics since 1870, and which is not even taught in the electrical engineering curriculum! Quoting two Nobelists:

"It is increasingly clear that the symmetry group of nature is the deepest thing that we understand about nature today." [R. P. Feynman and S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 73].

Also, please tell Peter not to sweat the naysayers -- those who do not even know that Newton's first law of motion is the law of PERPETUAL motion, and that our solid state physics students regularly do real perpetual motion experiments in their laboratories every year at every modern technical university. Simply evoke a superconducting current into a closed-loop superconducting circuit, and that current will circulate forever. Standard textbooks in solid state physics even give the theory and how to calculate the length of time that it takes for that current to decay by a finite amount. It requires infinite time for it to decay to zero, but -- e.g. -- to decay by half requires about 10exp23 years (in the standard textbooks), which is many orders of magnitude longer than the present universe is thought to have existed. And these naysayers also do not realize that there is no "second law of thermodynamics". Rigorously, there is a "second law of the hoary old equilibrium thermodynamics, and in modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics one can violate it at will, by several methods recognized and taught in the standard textbooks. Heck, even Maxwell -- who was also a thermodynamicist of some note -- knew that the hoary old "second law" was easily violated and -- at smaller levels -- violated in every system anyway. Quoting Maxwell:

"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." [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

Please give my best wishes to Peter Sumaruck and his associates, and to Todd and Steve etc.

Cheers, Tom

Tom Bearden Echos His Appreciation To Todd Hathaway
Provides Brief Cursory Explanation Regarding Zero-Amp Technology

From:Tom Bearden
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:53 PM
To:"Todd Hathaway"
Cc:"Leslie R. Pastor"
Subject:RE: Zero-Amp Technology

Todd,

Let me echo Les' praise and appreciation!

Awfully glad you are on the team, and looking after the security.

I'm very excited as it appears that he has found a way to break the symmetry between the source circuit and the external (receiving) circuit. In other words, this would mean that, completely contrary to a normal "powering" symmetrical situation, the current from the external circuit IS NOT circulated back through the back emf of the source circuit. Maxwell's original theory (20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns) does contain such systems. With the severe truncation of Maxwell's equations first to Heaviside's vector equations, then even further to the symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz equations used in electrical engineering since its very birth, the electrical engineering model contains only SELF-SYMMETRIZING systems.

Apparently Peter has uncovered how to build ASYMMETRIC systems not in the Heaviside-Lorentz equations at all, but that ARE in the original Maxwell theory and ARE permitted by nature.

Note that his system DOES NOT violate the first law of thermodynamics. Since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for their prediction of vastly extensive broken symmetry in systems, we have known that any source dipole is a true and proven broken symmetry. We further (as pointed out by Nobelist Lee) know that whenever we have a broken symmetry, then "something previously virtual has become observable". In short, for the source dipole, it continually receives virtual energy in the form of absorbed virtual photons from the seething local vacuum. And because of its broken symmetry, the dipole integrates some of this virtual energy excitation into quantum size excitation -- and thus continually emits a steady stream of real, honest to God photons -- real, usable, EM energy. Easy to prove that. This means that all EM energy (which always comes from a dipole) is actually extracted from the seething vacuum and THEN poured out as real photons -- real usable EM energy.

Since EE assumes an empty vacuum containing nothing but empty space, it does not assume any vacuum energy (or vacuum energy input) at all. That, of course, is known to be totally wrong by modern physics. But it has never been corrected in the severely flawed old EE model.

Anyway, the bottom line is that, to USE some excess EM energy extracted freely from the vacuum by the dipole, one a priori must build an asymmetric system -- and the electrical engineer is totally prohibited from doing that, because of the severe limitation of his symmetrized model.

BUT NATURE PERMITS IT! AND SO DOES MAXWELL'S ACTUAL THEORY.

For proof that Nikola Tesla in the 1880s and early 1890s had in fact discovered some asymmetrical EM circuits and systems (permitted by Maxwell's theory and by the original Heaviside equations), see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett's analysis using EM expressed in quaternions shows that Tesla's circuits allow shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits and their controlled dissipation at will, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal and that an ordinary circuit cannot do. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. [Paper is carried on the cheniere.org website at internet link http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf. ]

As you are probably aware, Barrett is one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar and is a very fine higher-group-symmetry electrodynamicist of note.

So before electrical engineering and the EE model was even born, Nikola Tesla in the late 1880s had already discovered that the "medium was active", and he had stumbled onto ASYMMETRICAL CIRCUITS. So he really could have given the world free energy from the "active medium", using the ASYMMETRICAL CIRCUITS he had discovered experimentally.

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetrization condition provides EM systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

In an overall EM system, all the energy transfer is in the voltage, and voltage decomposes into a bidirectional flow of longitudinal EM waves (in the literature now for a long time). The system circuitry itself furnishes the charges which, when potentialized, then produce current. Ergo, if you can freely or nearly freely potentialize an external circuit and prevent its circulating its large current back through its source, you will have an asymmetric system which freely produces far more power (and work) in that external circuit than you are producing in the primary source circuit.

Here is how a system is actually powered -- something they do not teach electrical engineers at all.

How a Generator Powers Its Load

The shaft energy cranked into the generator has nothing to do with furnishing EM energy to the external loads to power them, but only with restoring the internal source dipole that the inane self-symmetrizing circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.

Let's follow the input crankshaft mechanical energy to see that this is true.

When we crank the shaft, we start to rotate the rotor. Its rotation energy -- courtesy of Nikola Tesla -- then is transformed into internal rotating magnetic field, completely inside the generator. The rigorous definition of "work" is transformation of the form of some energy. So we have done work, but we still have the energy left, since it has remained (in its new form) inside the generator as the rotating magnetic field energy, instead of escaping from the generator system.

Then all this rotating magnetic field energy is dissipated on the internal charges inside the generator, forcing positive charges in one direction and negative in the other, and thus producing the "internal source dipole" by that separation of opposite charges. The energy also is dissipated from the generator in the process, so it escapes the system and is lost.

So that is all that the input shaft mechanical energy does. It forms the internal source dipole, and nothing else before it escapes the system.

Once formed, however, the source dipole is a proven broken symmetry (known rigorously since 1957) and as such it continually transforms virtual state energy from its vacuum interaction into real observable photon energy that pours from the terminals of the generator out along through space outside the external circuit conductors. In any special relativity situation, only the small Poynting (diverged) component enters the wires to power up the electrons.

But the electrical engineer has deliberately built a symmetrical circuit, by hooking the external current circuit (the forward emf circuit) in a closed circuit loop with the internal source dipole itself (the back emf circuit).

So half the collected EM energy is used to power the external circuit's loads and losses in the "forward emf" region of the current flow. That means that less than half is used to power the loads, since all real circuits have some losses.

The other half of the collected EM energy is expended to forcibly pump the spent electrons (in the current) back through the source dipole against its back emf, thus scattering its charges and destroying that dipole -- and thus cutting off the free extraction and flow of real EM energy from the vacuum.

So to continue furnishing its energy flow from the vacuum and out of its terminals, the system has to continually have its internal source dipole restored because the symmetrized circuit is continually and forcibly destroying that source dipole. And so we have to continually crank the shaft to continually put in some more mechanical energy to continually transduce into some more rotating magnetic field energy to be continually expended in restoring the source dipole and thus sustaining the free EM energy flow from the vacuum and pouring out the generator terminals.

Even in a 100% efficient dipole-restoring input process, we would have to input as much energy as was used to destroy and scatter the dipole. That means we have to input at least half as much energy as was collected in the external circuit. And we get less than half the collected energy in the external circuit to power our loads.

It is easily seen that in the standard self-symmetrizing electric system we thus always have to input more mechanical shaft energy than the useful energy we get out there in our loads to power them. This inane symmetrized EM circuit therefore self-enforces COP<1.0.

And that is the only kind of circuit an EE can build or even think about, and it has been so since 1892.

The only reason we have to consume fuel is to crank the shaft of that generator to restore its source dipole -- it is NOT to directly power our loads for our usage! The energy that actually powers the loads freely comes from the local vacuum, via the broken symmetry of the source dipole inside the generator once it is built (and then continually restored).

Voltage also is defined in terms of "joules per collecting coulomb". So the flow of 1 volt from the source circuit into the external circuit can potentialize lots and lots of available charges in the external circuit. The ENERGY collected from that "flow of voltage (electrostatic scalar potential) is the product of the inflow voltage and the CHARGES IN THE EXTERNAL (RECEIVING) CIRCUIT.

So he can produce lots of collected energy in that external circuit, WITHOUT having such high current flowing in his primary source circuit and not needed.

That's what a true "asymmetrical system/total circuit can do. Note that the EE model was deliberately limited only to SYMMETRICAL systems -- those which "self-symmetrize".

So electrical engineering DOES NOT contain any systems or circuits such as he is using.

Indeed, the EM model cannot even be used for analysis of his circuitry, to see what he is actually doing. For that, one must use a higher group symmetry electrodynamics -- such as quaternion electrodynamics, available in physics. Using that as the analysis tool, the asymmetrical functions can be seen and become clear. But it is PHYSICS, not electrical engineering!

I've very, very excited about this tremendous find. And I'm tremendously elated that you are on top of it, and can bring to bear the necessary "special security" that Peter Sumaruck is going to need.

Fantastic!
Hang in there,
Tom

From:Tom Bearden
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:05 PM
To:"Todd Hathaway"
Cc:"Leslie R. Pastor"
Subject:RE: Sumaruck Technology

Hi Todd,

Finally got the video to play (after having a technician do some appreciable work on my computer) with sound, and view it.

Very nice indeed. I did notice that none of the NEC folks made any comment at all regarding symmetric EM systems versus asymmetric systems. The reason, I believe, is that they have no knowledge of that at all, and thus are completely unaware of the tremendous revolution in physics that occurred in 1957 with the prediction by Lee and Yang of extensive broken symmetry in physical systems, and its prompt experimental proof by Wu and her colleagues (published in Feb. 1957). So dramatic a revolution was this, that the Nobel Committee moved with unprecedented speed, and awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year, in Dec. 1957.......


- Leslie R. Pastor - index of articles
- Directory:Tom Bearden
- PESWiki home page

Retrieved from "http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Zero-Amp-Technology"
Personal tools
Related

items for sale


Departments
Related

Support
Toolbox