Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:57 am.
The problem with our current ‘science’ structure----.is that it is ‘compartmentalized,’ abstracted, and differentiated. And this presents a serious problem----when one is attempting to advance true ‘novelty of fact’ information into the mainstream ‘science community’ for analysis and objective review as to veracity and viability. Our ‘science’ methodology is ‘compartmentalized,’ when it is controlled by ‘corporations’ having a vested interest in ‘status quo’ methods of energy transference and usage. The information is abstracted and thus differentiated when it is restricted within a ‘closed’ peer-reviewed system that does not tolerate any nonconformance to the existing ‘paradigm’ of ‘acceptable’ information transference. What is needed are ‘open systems’ of analysis having true ‘objective thought’ regarding ‘novelty of fact’ criteria. This is absolutely essential if we wish to pursue forward-moving advancement in significant inroads enabling the discovery of novel approaches to our current energy problems.
Our currently accepted knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics is inadequate to address ‘novelty of fact’ attributes recently uncovered by our modern physicists, many of whom have stated categorically that there are significant aspects of our understanding that need to be updated and clarified. The nature of ‘energy’ needs to be fully addressed and more adequately understood in explanatory terms and terminology cognizant of their recent discoveries and exploratory research, such as those of Ilya Prigogine and Richard P. Feymann.
My association with Tom Bearden has given me such a perspective regarding the clarification of the laws of thermodynamics, for he states that “The present second law of thermodynamics is written only for time-forward entities, and need not apply for the time-reversed case. The second law also assumes that, prior to its application, a system originally in equilibrium has first been moved away from equilibrium (state of maximum entropy) to an out-of-equilibrium condition with its entropy lowered. In short, it assumes that a negative entropy operation has first occurred, but not been accounted. So the second law as written is an oxymoron, assuming that its own contradiction has previously occurred but has been unaccounted. Merely viewing the energy-dissipating forward time case in reverse allows an appreciation of the time-reversed case. In other words, the second law of thermodynamics is incomplete as presently stated. The complete law has a corollary to cover the increase in order as the time-reversal of the system increases. Thus the complete law consists of two parts: (1) the entropic, time-forward case, and (2) the negentropic time-reversed case. Since the re-ordering can be amplified at will by a PPCM process, the correct distinction between the two subsets of the complete law is important, and applies to real systems. [From a paper written by Floyd Sweet http://www.cheniere.org/misc/sweet.htm and Tom Bearden http://www.cheniere.org ]
For those who are familiar with Gabriel Kron [General Electric], Sweet was mentored and his career guided by Kron http://www.cheniere.org/references/sweetcredentials.htm
A formal correction to the present second law of equilibrium thermodynamics is given in Fact Paper 2003-03, “Leyton’s Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution To The Major Asymmetry Problem Of Thermodynamics, http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Leyton%20Hierarchies%20of%20Symmetry9.doc .
Tom Bearden http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/vacprob1.htm has also amplified that statement in his recent books, Energy From The Vacuum, chapter 2 through 6, and Oblivion, pp. 286-330. And for those who are interested in the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, chapter 7 addresses significant aspects regarding the methodology of capturing vacuum energy from the very ‘fabric’ of ‘space-time.’ The late Gene Mallove, while he was alive provided significant answers to these and other questions on his interesting website http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/faq.html essentially addressing many of the fundamental questions regarding entropy and the inadequacy of the current (understanding of the) thermodynamic laws. Two examples of current research willing to provide ‘novelty of fact’ discoveries are Randell Lee Mills and Myron Wyn Evans, who both discovered ‘new’ science. Mills discovered how to lower the ground state of the hydrogen atom, creating a ‘novel’ state of matter, including ‘novel’ sources of ‘energy,’ while Evans provided a ‘novel’ unified field theory. The subject-matter is currently being vociferously and vehemently challenged by the current ‘paradigm’ dwellers, those who have significant vested self-interest and investment within their ‘cartelization’ of energy usage. As long as these ‘cartels’ are allowed to control ‘energy’ transformation and transference, they will continue to obstruct and obfuscate ‘newer’ science of energy capture and delivery.
We already have sufficient knowledge regarding magnets and their magnetic properties to enable ‘energy’ transformation, from Howard Johnson’s ‘spintronics’ to Bearden’s M.E.G. What is needed is a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, which has been recently updated and expounded by Feynmann, Whittaker, Jackson, Barrett, Leyton, Prigogine and many others, but ultimately by James Clerk Maxwell who 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)]. http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2018
In a recent email Tom Bearden provided further understanding to Stephen Wolfram’s Properties of the Vacuum: Citing Tom Bearden:
“Yes, note that he goes to the Casimir effect and energy, which means he goes to the zero point (lowest observable state of an object such as an electron).
If one stops at the state where things are still observable, one then gets directly measurable experiments being possible, given some good instruments. Problem is, it still will not solve the source charge problem.
But since actual zero-point experiments have been done successfully (Casimir effect, etc.), an academic is okay when he works at that level. His work is acceptable then, even though academicians will look at him as a bit odd because he wants to bother with such tiny bits of energy being extracted.
E.g., Hal Puthoff (who restrains himself to the Zero point) points out the severe limitation of going after “tapping the Zero point energy:
“When you get down to the tiniest quantum levels, everything’s always ‘jiggly.’ Nothing is completely still, even at absolute zero. That’s why it’s called ‘zero point energy’, because, if you were to cool the universe down to absolute zero – where all thermal motions were frozen out – you’d still have residual motion. The energy associated with that ‘jiggling’ will remain, too. …
“It’s ridiculous, but theoretically, there’s enough [zero point] energy in the volume of a coffee cup to more than evaporate all the world’s oceans. But that’s if you could get at all of it, and you obviously can’t. So, when it comes to a practical amount of ZPE ‘[that might be extracted from the vacuum], you’re still talking about maybe 10exp26 joules/cubic meter.
"So far, the embodiments are pitifully small. [Experiments] have produced about the same amount of energy as a butterfly’s wing – picowatts [of power] or so. But the potential is there." [As quoted in William B. Scott, To the Stars, Aviation Week and Space Technology, Mar. 1, 2004, p. 50-53.
In my view, the problem is that – in trying to capture and use a bit of this "jittering" of a particle, the activity is so great and so fast that statistically it sums to almost a zero in any useful finite time. In short, this is the very idea of "entropy" – there is plenty of energy, but it is totally disorganized or nearly so. In one sense, that is what the phrase "production of entropy" means – the rather total disordering of the available energy, so it cannot be used.
So one in chasing zero point energy per se, one is chasing the "not quite zero" energy of the jitter. One has only two alternatives in that case. One will either be chasing that tiny, tiny bit of the energy that is not quite disorganized, or else one will be trying to “consume entropy (disorganized energy) to produce negative entropy (organized energy).
Note that when one speaks of the "total" density of the zero-point energy, all this almost totally incoherent energy is implicitly considered as suddenly totally coherent, thus directly additive. It isn’t.
So that is the weakness of trying to capture "some of the zero point jittering" – the statistics and the nearly total incoherence of the energy (the nearly total entropy) defeats you, since you are after the "sum total at any precise time."
Now break down the intent to go after zero point energy: one is visualizing the "total" energy of the vacuum as if it were somehow suddenly coherent, and then there would be an extraordinary amount of coherent energy to go after. In short, one has actually estimated how much negative entropy all that entropic (disorganized) energy would produce if it were suddenly organized. And that is an astounding energy density. But the fact is that it is nearly totally disorganized. For any specific direction of action or process just going after some of the "total" (disorganized) energy, one is going after the tiny residue of "organized" energy at a finite time and that will be nearly zero.
On the other hand, every source charge – by continuously emitting real observable photons very copiously in all directions, thus emitting (relatively) plenty of organized energy, and without any observably organized energy input – shows us that there is another way that is not so horribly incoherent. In short, the source charge and its steady emission of real photons, producing all the real EM fields and potentials and their real energy -- is showing us that there is a "Maxwell’s demon" that can be used to successively extract individual bits (little virtual bits) of coherent energy and then sum them coherently to as per a Feynman ratchet.
Voila! When we visualize the vacuum with its particles so fiercely bubbling up into existence and almost immediately bubbling back out of existence, let us note that we are visualizing that virtual particle – during the brief moment that it exists – as a totally ordered entity. It just doesn’t stay ordered long enough to be observably ordered. But for a very, very brief moment, it is totally ordered.
So if a process exists that would absorb one virtual photon, then another, then another in very rapid serial order, it would be absorbing ordered bits of virtual energy. And that is a Maxwell’s demon.
If each bit of individually ordered virtual photon energy, absorbed serially in that manner, is in turn transduced into a bit of virtual energy change in an already-ordered larger energy (such as the unified or ordered mass-energy of the source charge itself), then each serially absorbed virtual photon will result in another virtual increase in the mass-energy of the source charge. And this is a Feynman ratchet – the coherent addition of the individual virtual pieces of mass-energy serially resulting.
This combination of a Maxwell’s demon and a Feynman ratchet will indeed coherently integrate the successive additions of positive virtual mass-energy to the next quantum threshold. At that point, the fierce "statistical shaking" of the jittering of the source charge particle by the zitterbewegung, will "kick out" and eject an observable photon. In short, the virtual excitation when it reaches the next quantum threshold, results in an excited state that has just become "observable" excitation. And that excitation abruptly decays by the emission of a real, observable photon.
But meanwhile, the serial absorption of individual virtual photons by the source charge particle continues relentlessly. So the source charge emits observable photon after observable photon, via its "Maxwell demon and Feynman ratchet" process. And so the resulting "static" fields of the source charge particle are actually composed of individual photons in motion at the speed of light. This is precisely like Van Flandern’s beautiful "nonfrozen waterfall" analogy. Quoting:
"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. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter." [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity – What the experiments say," Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9]
The source charge not only shows us how to extract usable observable EM energy from the seething vacuum, but it also does it for us already. Somewhere the Creator must have a great sense of humor. Here he has given us a world filled with incredible numbers of freely flowing EM energy sources. All observable EM energy is already freely extracted from the vacuum by the associated charges. All we have to do, in order to get a stream of EM energy of any power wished, directly from the vacuum, is just assemble sufficient charge (or a sufficient dipole) and then leave it alone and do not allow it to be scattered and destroyed again!
So we must use an asymmetric intercept/collection system, to receive and collect some of the freely flowing EM energy from our assembled charge or dipole once formed. After collecting that free energy in this "external" circuit, we must then dissipate it only in the external circuit’s losses and the external load.
But instead, we are the stupidest folks imaginable! We painfully assemble a source dipole inside a generator (by converting mechanical crank energy into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator, and then dissipating that magnetic field to force positive and negative charges apart (inside the generator) and thus form the source dipole. Once the source dipole is formed, if we were to just leave it alone, then the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges (a dipole) will guarantee an unending free flow of EM energy forever from that dipole, or at least as long as the dipole exists. The energy is directly extracted from the seething vacuum by the broken symmetry of the source charges inside the generator, and that is the EM energy that roars out of the terminals of the generator and out into the external circuit, flowing through space outside the conductors at near light speed. That flow of energy comes directly from the vacuum, not from our cranking the generator!
Cranking the generator has nothing at all to do with directly furnishing that energy flow through space along the external circuit! Instead, cranking the shaft of the generator has only to do with producing the source dipolarity whose broken symmetry then extracts the energy from the vacuum and freely pours it out.
It is already known that a broken symmetry – such as the broken symmetry of opposite charges, experimentally proven in 1957 – involves something previously virtual becoming observable. Quoting Nobelist Lee:
"…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable." [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.]
But since Lorentz inanely symmetrized the Heaviside equations in 1892, and thus arbitrarily discarded all such asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, our electrical engineers have all been taught only symmetrical circuits and symmetrical functioning of them. So they are taught to leave the generator connected to the external "potential energy collecting" circuit as an "external load" of that circuit. And that circuit then takes exactly half its freely collected potential energy, to force the spent electrons back though the source dipole inside the generator against its back emf, and thus to scatter those charges and destroy that dipole. And thus to cut off any further free extraction of energy from the vacuum by that generator.
Thus, if we wish the flow of energy to continue, because of our own foolishness in using a Lorentz-symmetrical circuit we must crank the shaft of the generator again, to change some more input mechanical shaft energy into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator, and we must then dissipate all that rotating field energy to force the charges back apart and reform the dipole, that we ourselves just destroyed.
The other half of the freely collected potential energy in the external circuit is dissipated in that circuit’s losses and the external load. Therefore less than half the total collected potential energy goes into usefully powering the load. The other full half of that freely collected potential energy was used to destroy the source dipole and cut off the extraction of energy freely from the vacuum.
Since the process that converts mechanical energy into the rotating magnetic field is less than 100% efficient, we have to put back in mechanical energy that is greater than the half of the collected potential energy that destroyed the source dipole. That was already greater than the amount of energy that usefully powered the external load.
So we have to always put back in more mechanical shaft energy to the generator than the useful load energy that is used to power the external load.
In short, the stupid system itself guarantees (and self-enforces) that its COP < 1.0.
Now suppose we have a "shifter" circuit, intermediate between the normal external circuit and the generator. This shifter circuit momentarily pins its electrons so no current can flow, and during that brief interval it "statically" potentializes itself from the generator as a static voltage source. It draws no current during this potentialization action, so no work is done by the "static source" generator (assuming we already paid to make the dipole, once, and will not again let anything destroy the dipole). So we potentialize the "shifter" circuit freely, except for a little switching costs and switching can be made quite efficient.
Then suppose the now-potentialized "shifter" circuit is switched away from the generator and connected to the waiting "external circuit." And then the electrons in the shifting circuit are unpinned, so that current can flow. The external circuit will then dissipate the collected potential energy in the "shifter" source circuit, and give us some nearly free power in that external load – again, for only a little switching costs.
And then the shifter circuit repeats its cycle over and over. In short, we "potentialize the external collector circuit statically," never diminishing the source dipole in the generator. And then we "depotentialize asymmetrically", by not having the primary source ever connected to the external load circuit.
Such a system can be designed today by rather standard electrical engineering processes, and it will provide COP > 1.0 while its thermodynamic efficiency remains below 100%.
All we did was conceptualize an asymmetrical system – of the type that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded in 1892, and that all our electrical engineers still blandly discard by still symmetrizing those Heaviside equations.
We have to learn to do asymmetric electrical engineering power systems, not the same old Lorentz-symmetric systems.
For our view of the source charge, we must look through the eyes that Maxwell (who was also a thermodynamicist) used and what he pointed out. Speaking of the old second law of thermodynamics versus a normal macrosystem made of many microscopic parts, 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." [J. C. Maxwell, "Tait's Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].
In short, if you are down at the microscopic level, the fluctuations of the microparticles are continually violating the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. That means that each one continually gains energy (a negative entropy operation) and then releases it (produces positive entropy). The sum total of all the "gains and losses" is an overall net equilibrium – which macroscopically is equilibrium. At the deeper levels, however, the macrosystem in equilibrium (its "maximum entropy" or maximum disorganization state) is continually violating the old second law (and continually producing positive and negative entropy) at its lower level.
And of course the various thermodynamic fluctuation theorems – and real experiments – do show exactly what Maxwell stated. E.g., see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601. The scientists experimentally demonstrated the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption is shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.
So Maxwell demons can indeed exist, and they do exist in nature. And, in the proper arrangement, Feynman ratchets also can exist, coherently adding those minute violations of the second law, to gain some real, usable energy.
Indeed, the second law is not inviolate even in macrosystems. The second law states that – macroscopically – a system can only remain the same (hold its same organized, usable potential energy) or produce positive entropy (dissipate its organized, usable potential energy). Well, simply potentialize a circuit in equilibrium where the current momentarily does not flow. The voltage V adds potential energy Vq to all the charges q in the potentialized circuit. And it adds that collected energy without any work (without any production of entropy). Voila! You have just deliberately and easily violated the second law of thermodynamics.
Actually, for a system once in equilibrium(state of maximum entropy) ever to be able to produce positive entropy (do real external work), it had to first change from equilibrium (maximum entropy state) to out-of-equilibrium (lowered entropy state) so that it had some useful potential energy to dissipate later as work. And that "potentialization" or departure of the system from equilibrium, that lowers the system’s entropy, is a negative entropy operation a priori.
In the more modern thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium, the second law is rather easily violated. Such a system can:
(1)self-order (closely associated with negative entropy),
(2)self-oscillate or self-rotate,
(3)output more useful energy than the operator pays to input (the excess energy is freely input and received from the active local environment, in this case the active vacuum),
(4)power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy input is freely received from the active local environment, in this case the active vacuum), and
(5)produce negative entropy (closely related to self-ordering).
For several areas known to allow violation of the second law, see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipating Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted with corrections in 1999, p. 459]. One of those second-law violation areas is simply a sharp, strong gradient.
Indeed, it has been proven theoretically that physical systems are allowed to produce continuous negative entropy. [For the proof, see 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. This paper proves that real physical systems can produce continuous negative entropy, in total violation to the flawed old second law of thermodynamics. The startled theoreticians expressed doubts about a real systems we can build can do this, but pointed out that for deterministic systems the "problem still exists".
We nominated the source charge (and the source dipole) as the first such physical systems that can experimentally be shown to produce continuous negative entropy in the observable state (continuous ordered flows of energy that establish and continually replenish the associated fields and potentials). They do this by continuously consuming "entropy" of the virtual state by a Maxwell’s demon process of selecting successive individual orderings and coherent integration of these orderings (a Feynman ratchet process).
Also, in a substantial general relativity situation, even the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) can also be violated momentarily. Quoting Kondepudi and Prigogine:
"One general point to note about the First Law and the Second Law is that both laws must be local laws. In fact, to be compatible with the principle of relativity, and to be valid regardless of the observer's state of motion, these laws must be local. Nonlocal laws of energy conservation or of entropy production are inadmissible because the notion of simultaneity is relative. Consider two parts of a system spatially separated by some nonzero distance. If changes in energy du1 and du2 occur in these two parts simultaneously in one frame of reference so that du1 + du2 = 0, the energy is conserved. However, in another frame of reference that is in motion with respect to the first, the two changes in energy will not occur simultaneously. Thus, during the time between one change of u and the other, the law of conservation of energy will be violated." [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipating Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted with corrections in 1999, p. 336, footnote.].
Physicists are still debating the fact that in general relativity one can indeed violate the conservation of energy law. We will leave that debate up to the forefront theoreticians! For our purposes, our electrical power systems will be "local" and thus conservation of energy will apply because we are observing them only in a single frame. Best wishes, Tom Bearden [10/03/06]
A Dynamically Theory of the EM Field -- James Clerk Maxwell
On The Physical Lines of Force [James Clerk Maxwell]
'''Tesla's Fuelless Generator & The Second Law of Thermodynamics
VYtUL8OU7s4 _on5Xvw1sEY -9anvz_y_Zs
'Excellent article by Hank Mills:'
Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current? - Could it be that the flow of aether in the form of electric field is the true "electric current", and electron flow is only a byproduct? Some researchers, including potentially Nikola Tesla, seem to think so! (PESN January 27, 2012)'''
Pretty much sums up what I've been presenting to the New Energy Congress via my research papers, along with my collaborated research with Tom Bearden and demonstrated via my applied research via the 30 coil monopole system, designed, engineered and built by Renaissance Charge LLC and paid for by me personally. John Bedini has effectively vindicated Nikola Tesla via the 30 coil monopole system, licensed by him, and paid for my myself, giving Rick Friedrich the right to build it for me.
Tesla’s radiant energy was Dirac’s ‘negative’ energy captured via the mechanism of the ‘monopole.’ Eliminate the current flow within the circuit and the ‘negative’ energy which Tesla termed as radiant energy will flow within the circuit. Structure the circuit, so that the negative energy can be captured, stored within a capacitor (battery), so that it can then be redirected as ‘static’ voltage. Then, re-structure the circuit converting the ‘static’ voltage into alternating current flow.
For those who are not aware of it, the 30 coil monopole system is the upgrade to the original Jim Watson machine from the 1984 Conference at Colorado. Site:LRP:The Thirty (30) Coil MONOPOLE System
I elected to have Rick Friedrich build the 30 coil monopole at Renaissance Charge LLC because of the close proximity to Energenx and John Bedini. I knew that those two gentlemen would effectively permit the construction of my device, under absolute and rigorous protocols of quality control. Since my device contained thousands of parts and involved significant protocols, pertaining to magnetism and timing protocols involving movement, I knew the serious difficulty that could be encountered, which at any time could derail the project. Because of the tenacious persistence of Renaissance, and Rick Friedrich's dogged desire to provide quality results, I knew that eventually they would succeed in providing the result hoped for by myself and Tom Bearden. My hopes were not in vain, they were successful and as a result they have literally vindicated Nikola Tesla regarding his claim of Radiant Energy and the 'wheel-work of nature' Site:LRP:James Clerk Maxwell
All the Best,
'Leslie R. Pastor'