PesWiki.com

Menu

Site:LRP:Evaluation of the M.E.G.

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:49 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

posted by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor.

----

From: Tom Bearden

Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:17 PM

To: 'Leslie R. Pastor'

Subject: RE: Evaluation of the M.E.G.

Hi Les,

When anyone speaks of the MEG, or of "evaluating the MEG", my first question is always, "Okay, what do they know about the Aharonov-Bohm effect?" And "Where is their qualification in measuring systems producing AB effects?" "Do they understand what an uncurled A-potential is?" (Most members of the NEC do not, and in fact have not the foggiest notion. Some of them even think there is no such thing as the magnetic vector potential itself, whether curled or uncurled).

We have laid out on our website the exact mechanism used in the MEG, with drawings etc. to demonstrate it. Anyone who wishes to study a bit can understand it. A really good simulations guy – familiar with the AB effect and simulating it – can in fact simulate the MEG’s operation, with just a little difficulty.

Of course, we also continually meet folks (almost always electrical engineers, whose 1892 symmetrized model obviously does not contain any of the various mechanisms usable to provide asymmetric COP>1.0 EFTV systems) who "do not believe the magnetic vector potential A even exists" – in contradiction to more than 20,000 papers in the hard physics literature on the AB effect, its extension to the Berry phase, and further extension to the Geometric Phase. And in spite of thousands of successful physics independent experiments on the AB effect and what it does. The AB effect is an asymmetrical effect, obviously, so it does not even exist in the EE’s repertoire or in his model. But it is darn good physics!

E.g., consider this quotation: "...empirical evidence over the last 40 years (e.g., Aharonov-Bohm effect, Sagnac effect, Josephson effect, Berry’s phase, etc.) indicate that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism does not address global and multiply connected events… Therefore, one of us (Barrett [1, 2]) has applied gauge theory, group theory, and topological descriptions to extend Maxwell U(1) EM field theory to EM fields of higher order symmetry and multiply connected form. Such extended Maxwell theory results in, in addition to magnetic and electric fields, A-vector fields of real physical significance." [H. David Froning, Jr. and Terence W. Barrett, "Investigations of Specially Conditioned Electromagnetic Fields for Local Modifications of Gravitation and Inertia," Proc. High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group, Mitre Corp., Washington D.C., May 6-8, 2003]. Again, Barrett is one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar.

Quoting Barrett again: "[T]he A field [for the potentials] was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell's theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell's theory... by Heaviside... and Hertz. The 'Maxwell theory' and 'Maxwell's equations' we know today are really the interpretation of Heaviside... Heaviside took the 20 equations of Maxwell and reduced them to the four now known as "Maxwell's equations." [Terence W. Barrett, "Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations," A. Lakhtakia, ed., Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetics Theory, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1993, p. 11.]

My very strong and sincere recommendation to the NEC is that they should enlist some young PhD physicists who know quantum field theory and modern physics, etc. where one CAN get at EM vacuum interaction mechanisms a bit. And they should enlist physicists who also are familiar with the effects employed and used by EFTV systems to provide the necessary asymmetry and thus enable COP>1.0 because of excess free EM energy received from the vacuum-system interaction (which itself does not even exist in EE).

Anyone who does not know something of asymmetric Maxwellian systems (totally outside present electrical engineering) is not "expert" or "experienced" in anything at all to do with EFTV systems. Period.

As one simple example: Tesla could move his potential energy around in a circuit at will, where and when he wished it. This "shuttling" of the energy only, is completely unknown to EEs. But if you take an excellent modern electrodynamicist experienced in higher group symmetry electrodynamics (there are several standard higher group symmetry EM models in physics already, that go way beyond the hoary and flawed old EE model), then with a proper analysis he can see and show exactly how this is done.

As an example, see the beautiful article by Terence Barrett, one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar. It is "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. http://www.cheniere.org/misc/tesla%20single%20wire.htm Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions (very similar to the original Maxwell theory!) allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this.

Barrett was so impressed with this effect, and saw a way to further improve it, that he filed two patents based on it (and extending it) which are still used in advanced communications. The patents are:

Terence W. Barrett. (1996) "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, issued Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. 14 U.S. patents cited. 22 claims, 37 drawing sheets.

Barrett, Terence W., "Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation," U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996. This is a rather direct extension of Tesla’s original work, and shows the type of thing that can be done (but NOT in electrical engineering!).

For the NRAM interactions, one also needs the rare physicist (such as Roger Penrose, e.g.) who understands that the familiar conservation laws (of momentum, energy, etc.) are actually special relativistic situations. These conservation laws (of momentum, energy, etc.) do not necessarily apply if the situation is deliberately made general-relativistic, as is the case in the standard self-resonating NRAM experiments which provide COP = 18 hard measurements (but which the journals etc. will not print or allow stated in any paper as COP>1.0). The optical physicists in the NRAM field and experiments are not allowed to say "excess emission" but must use the mind-numbing term "negative absorption". They are not allowed to discuss the COP = 18, or to discuss the thermodynamics of the process, but can only say that the "reaction cross section" is increased by 18 times.

Also, only very few EEs actually understand the difference between the efficiency of a system and its coefficient of performance. Even many professors do not understand that difference, and particularly EE professors. My good friend Ken Moore was instrumental in our hanging a paper on our website that precisely defines and clarifies the efficiency and COP of a system, and their precise difference. A system can have COP>1.0, even though its overall efficiency is never greater than 100%. A common home heat pump, e.g., has a nominal COP = 3.0 to 4.0, but its efficiency is only about 50%. But MOST electrical engineers do not know the technical difference between COP and efficiency!

As for entropy and negentropy: These have been made so "mystical" as to almost defy belief. Actually from the SYSTEM viewpoint, they are fairly simple. "Production of positive entropy" essentially (in EM systems) means de-potentialization of the system. Production of entropy by a system, e.g., then just means DISSIPATION of the energy (from the entire system) that is changed in form to do work (or produce losses).

Production of negative entropy by a system, actually just means work-free POTENTIALIZATION. If one holds the current at zero in a system, while increasing the voltage (many ways to do that!) then one is deliberately and directly producing "negative entropy" in that system.

Australian thermodynamicists have gone further than anyone along those lines, to correct what for more than a century has been "mystical" and thought to be "absolute". No model – in physics, thermo, EM, or whatever – is absolute! There are always exceptions, as rigorously proven by in Gödel in 1931.

The other thing that EEs normally are unaware of or do not understand, is what a "broken symmetry" is and what it does. That came out in physics in 1957 as a giant revolution, but the hoary old EE model has never been changed to take that into account.

As a result, our EEs are not even taught what actually powers every EM system. It isn’t cranking the shaft of the generator!

For EM measurements, a good and very experienced measurements EE is okay. But only for measurement, NOT for having any kind of understanding of vacuum engineering and extracting additional excess energy from the vacuum.

Best wishes,

Tom

----

Tom Bearden's M.E.G. Differs From Flynn's Parallel Path Magnet Technology

http://pesn.com/2006/03/05/9600243_Bearden_MEG_Flynn

Jean-Louis Naudin Has Independently Verified The MEG

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MEG

In the above email exchange between Jean-Louis Naudin and myself (Leslie R. Pastor), Jean-Louis Naudin affirms that his replication of the MEG (as built according to the US Patent) does indeed work, and is fully operational, albeit with several artifacts, that need to be completed. Such research requires the appropriate funding and specialization necessary to complete the normalization of the MEG. That funding has been deliberately withheld, by powerful interests, who have prevented funds from reaching the inventors. The funds are tied up in banks who have deliberately withheld payment of UN Funds, for several years now, so that the MEG cannot, would not, be funded.

"Sweeping the Cash" Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116847447287273191-n8f7U3OOggHCCuUTCGV9oHkDXc4_20070117.html?mod=blogs

http://www.latrobefinancialmanagement.com/Research/Financial_Firms/How%20Wall%20Street%20%27Sweeps%27%20the%20Cash.pdf

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/stock-research-wall-street-makes-fortune-sweeping-cash.html

Site:LRP:Energy From The Vacuum

http://www.cheniere.org/images/part%2022%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc23TechReview/part%2023%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc24MPMasterclass/part%2024%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc25WindMP/part%2025%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc26DarkEnergy/part%2026%20dvd%20500px1.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc27CrystalBatteries/part%2026%20dvd%20500px.jpg

http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc28%20Step%20Charging/part%2028%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc29BediniBatteryLectureConf/part%2029%20dvd%20500px.jpg http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc30Sweet_Memories/part%2030%20dvd%20500px.jpg

----

VYtUL8OU7s4 _on5Xvw1sEY -9anvz_y_Zs

Comments