Solving The Energy Crisis From PESWiki

Posted by Leslie R. Pastor 

Solving the Energy Crisis: Some Penetrating Questions and a Brief Discussion 

A single charge together with its polarized vacuum forms a dipolarity. Because of the proven broken symmetry of any dipolarity (opposite charges), together with Nobelist Lee’s pointing out that for a broken symmetry to exist, something virtual must become observable, then the words “charge” and “dipole” are synonyms for “extraction and emission of observable, usable EM energy from the virtual state vacuum.” 

Because a standard charge and dipole are “ongoing” (existing), then the words “charge” and “dipole” are synonyms for “ongoing extraction and emission of observable, usable EM energy from the virtual state vacuum.” 

This leads to a totally different grasp of what actually powers the external circuit of a generator. It is not the mechanical energy one cranks into the generator shaft! Instead, that mechanical energy is changed to rotating EM magnetic field energy inside the generator itself. This “change of form of energy” thus is work, since – rigorously – work is the changing of form of some energy. And after the form is changed, in a lossless change of form one still has just as much energy (in the rotating magnetic field energy) as one had in the mechanical energy cranked into the generator shaft. So all the mechanical shaft energy input to the generator was changed into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator, plus some dissipation and loss because of less than 100% efficiency. 

The rotating magnetic field energy, in turn, is dissipated totally on the internal charges inside the generator – forcing the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other, thus separating them and forming the source dipolarity inside the generator and between its terminals. That is all that happens with the energy paid for by the operator, to crank the generator shaft! None of it goes out on the external circuit to power that circuit and its loads. All of it is expended to simply form the source dipole inside the generator itself. 

Once that source dipole is created, then what has been created is an “ongoing extraction and emission of observable, usable EM energy from the virtual state vacuum.” By the broken symmetry of that internal source dipolarity. So the EM energy pouring out of the terminals of the generator through space along the external conductors has been extracted directly from the virtual state vacuum by the internal source dipole inside the generator. 

As we shall see, when Heaviside’s long-ignored giant curled EM energy flow component is accounted, the source dipole actually pours out of the terminals and through space outside and along the conductors an overall stream of energy that is more than a trillion times as great in magnitude as was the mechanical energy input to crank the generator shaft. 

If one leaves the internal source dipole alone and does not allow it to be tampered with or destroyed, it will freely pour out this enormous EM energy flow indefinitely, literally till the end of time. If we were to intercept and collect some of this free and unending flow of EM energy extracted from the vacuum, and asymmetrically dissipate the collected energy only in the loads and losses of the external system, we could freely power the loads indefinitely, without burning another further ounce of fuel to crank the generator. 

Instead, our engineers think, build, deploy, and use only a symmetrical interception and collection system (the external circuit) which also leaves the source dipole attached as a separate “load”. 

This silly symmetrical circuit then dissipates half its collected energy against the back emf inside the generator, scattering the charges of the source dipole, destroying the dipole, and thereby cutting off the free flow of EM energy extracted from the vacuum. To restore the dipole and thus restore its extraction and emission of energy freely from the vacuum, with a perfect 100% efficient process we would have to input as much mechanical shaft energy to the generator as was in the energy used to destroy that source dipolarity. 

So in a real system with real losses, we are always putting in more generator shaft rotation energy than was in that half of the collected energy used to destroy the dipolarity. The other half of the collected energy is dissipated in powering the external circuit and its losses, which – in a real circuit with losses – means that less than half the collected energy in the external circuit is used to power our loads. 

Hence we are always having to input more mechanical shaft power to the generator, than the external power we get out in the external loads for our benefit. In short, the silly symmetrized circuit self-enforces symmetrical dissipation of the collected energy, half against the back emf and half against the forward emf. With subsystem efficiencies less than 100%, this “standard system” thus self-enforces COP < 1.0. So we have to keep inputting energy to the generator shaft, just to keep restoring the source dipolarity that our silly symmetrized system destroys faster than it powers the loads. 

It is this kind of sheer stupidity and use of only symmetrical EM power systems that has (i) caused our scientific community to have the mistaken notion that we have to burn fuel to get energy, and (ii) directly caused the escalating world energy crisis and the deaths of untold millions of impoverished peoples of the world, who never had a chance to have a viable national economy since most modern economies are based on “cheap energy”. 

The escalating world energy crisis (actually an energy from fuel crisis because of the international fuel crisis) is sufficient to do this country in and collapse its economy, very soon, unless we get a solution to it. With my own deteriorated physical condition and that of my wife, I really can only focus on the world “energy from fuel” problem. Obviously the permanent, quick (two to three years), clean (no harmful chemical or nuclear emissions at all), and cheap (for the costs of one big new nuclear power plant) answer is to transition to “energy from the vacuum” systems rather than continuing to use “energy from fuel” systems. 

The entire world energy crisis can be solved rather straightaway, anytime our own scientific community will permit it. Presently, for a variety of reasons they simply will not permit it. The answer is of course to learn how to efficiently take and use the EM energy that all our systems already extract from the seething virtual state vacuum. 

Eerily, all our present electrical power systems actually take all their EM energy directly from the vacuum, contrary to all our present EE textbooks. But these inane systems are also deliberately designed to self-impose symmetry and thereby kill the free flow of EM energy from the vacuum faster than they can use some of it to power their loads. By making us pay to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, it makes us keep consuming fuel to get the energy that restores the source dipole. This can be directly shown from hard physics already in the physics texts, but it does not even exist in the hoary old 1880s/1890s electrical engineering texts. 

So, incredibly, the main world energy problem is the horribly flawed old century-old electrical engineering model taught in all our universities. Here are a few “penetrating questions” as you requested: 

(1) Have you ever read the actual Maxwell equations of 1865? Maxwell’s actual theory has never been taught to our electrical engineers at all, even though they are lied to and told that is what they are studying. Maxwell’s equations are 20 equations in 20 unknowns, in a quaternion-like algebra – which has a higher group symmetry than vectors or modern tensors. One can do an astounding number of things in that Maxwell theory that cannot be done in the terribly mutilated Heaviside-Lorentz equations actually taught to our engineers and used by them to think, design, build, and deploy all our electrical power systems.

 Further, the original Maxwell theory contains both symmetrical and asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Presently all the asymmetrical Maxwellian systems have been deliberately expunged from the theory. The original Maxwell 1865 paper can be downloaded freely from the internet (from the ZPE website). The site links for each page are: 








(2) Do you know what the profound impact and implications of Lorentz’s 1892 arbitrary symmetrization of the already severely curtailed Heaviside equations were and are? Have you ever seen a discussion of that impact in a textbook or heard it from a scientific or engineering speaker? Or heard it from a university electrical engineering professor? Specifically, what are the differences between a symmetrized Maxwellian system – the only type retained by Lorentz and modern electrical engineers – as compared to an asymmetric Maxwellian system (the type arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz?). Why is there no discussion of this impact in our modern EE textbooks and curricula? See H. A. Lorentz, “La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,” [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. In this paper Lorentz symmetrically regauged the Heaviside theory, actually using and assuming credit for the symmetrization previously developed by Ludwig Lorenz. 

For a paper adroitly pointing out Lorentz’s propensity of using other people’s work but taking or receiving it, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680]. 

For the Lorentz symmetrical regauging as used by our present electrical engineers and classical electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell’s (Heaviside’s) equations reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6/11 on p. 246. 

The Lorentz regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p. 240. 

Simply eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional EM energy currents from the vacuum! In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof 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. 

(3) Did you know that every generator and battery etc. already pours out more than a trillion times as much total EM energy flow rate, as the rate of our mechanical energy input we furnish to crank the shaft of the generator? Have you ever read Heaviside’s and Poynting’s original papers to understand the vast difference in the two simultaneous discoveries by these two gentlemen of the flow of EM energy through space? Heaviside not only discovered the tiny component of that energy flow through space around the external conductors, that gets diverged into the conductors to power the electrons, but he also discovered an extra, ubiquitous giant curled energy flow component that – in any special relativistic situation – does not get diverged. Poynting, however, only considered and discovered the tiny diverged component that gets diverged into the conductors to potentialize the charges and “power the circuit.” He also got the direction of the EM energy flow wrong by 90 degrees, and was corrected by Heaviside. 

See Oliver Heaviside, “Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation,” The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887. Here Heaviside published less prestigiously (the publication is roughly equivalent to Scientific American today.) Heaviside eventually got more prestigious publications; see 

(a) Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, 3 vols., Benn, London, 1893-1912. Second reprint 1925. 

(b) Oliver Heaviside, "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480. Here Heaviside discusses the Faraday-Maxwell ether medium, outlines his vector algebra for analysis of vectors without quaternions, discusses magnetism, gives the EM equations in a moving medium, and gives the EM flux of energy in a stationary medium. On p. 443, he credits Poynting with being first to discover the formula for energy flow, with Heaviside himself independently discovering and interpreting this flow a little later by himself in an extended form. 

For Poynting’s work, see

(c) J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Vol. 175, Part I, 1884, p. 343-361. This is the first part of Poynting's treatise. Also in Collected Scientific Papers, John Henry Poynting, editors G. A. Shakespear and Guy Barlow, Cambridge University Press, 1920, p. 175-193. (d) J. H. Poynting, "On the Connection Between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Vol. 176, 1885, p. 277-306. This is the second part of Poynting's treatise. Also in Collected Scientific Papers, John Henry Poynting, editors G. A. Shakespear and Guy Barlow, Cambridge University Press, 1920, p. 194-223. 

(4) Do you know why Tesla – the man who gave us the rotating magnetic field in the first place, that made modern generators possible – had to be stopped by the Morgan cartel and other great cartels? Tesla was hell-bent on giving us fuel-free energy from the “active medium”. Tesla already knew that the medium itself was active and energetic, and he was already on his way to freely extracting EM energy from that active medium – long before special and general relativity, and before the modern day notion of the seething active vacuum. 

Quoting Tesla: "Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...

Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic.? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time]. 

“Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla]. 

“We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium...” [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.]. 

"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900]. 

[Years later Tesla is reported to have installed a vacuum energy powered engine in an automobile (a Pierce-Arrow) and driven it to demonstrate it to secret persons unknown. 

His nephew Petar Savo reportedly rode in it with him in 1931 and thus saw it first hand. At some U.S. energy conferences about 25 years or so ago that nephew – very aged – was still alive. I heard him describe it at a couple of conferences and met him and talked to him briefly. Petar Savo is undoubtedly dead today, as otherwise he would probably be more than 100 years old. Tesla had several hundred patents, and was the inventor of the rotating magnet field in generators, radio (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court), AC electric power, and an astounding array of things that our modern electrical life depends upon.

 He even conceived particle beam weapons! And incidentally the papers removed from Tesla’s hotel room after his death are still in existence, and they are still highly classified by the U.S. Government. They are likely to remain so.] If anyone doubts Tesla’s ability to do things in an electrical circuit that defy the old vector algebra explanation, 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 shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of Tesla’s circuits that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. 

Indeed, Barrett – one of the founders of ultrawideband radar – extended Tesla’s method a bit and obtained two patents. One is Terence W. Barrett, "Active Signalling Systems," U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. This is a signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. The second is Terence W. Barrett, "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. These patents by Barrett are in use today in signal and communications areas. 

(5) Do you know that Lorentz also was apparently impressed a second time, in 1900, to further reduce the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations, in order to eliminate that giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow? Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component is no longer accounted or even recognized, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow component in every EM system or circuit. [See H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. 

This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.] 

Later Heaviside also discovered the electrogravitational implications of his long-ignored giant curled EM energy flow component. After his death, his notes were found beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment, pointing out these startling implications. From the papers, Heaviside had also gone back to the long-despised quaternions very similar to Maxwell’s original theory. See H. J. Josephs, “The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957,” The Institution of Electrical Engineers Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76. 

This is an IEE publication of Heaviside’s hand-written notes containing his theory of electrogravitation, based on his theory of energy flow. Particularly see E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (ExH) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics. Extracting from Laithwaite: 

“Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S = (ExH) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (ExH). Taking p to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu - ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.” 

Note that a curled energy flow component can, under certain circumstances, probably interact with spinning entities – such as gyroscopes. In 1973 Professor Laithwaite, a gyroscopic expert of note and professor at the Imperial College, was slated for bigger and better things. He gave an invited lecture to the Royal Academy, and demonstrated something shocking. 

He showed that a large gyroscope he brought with him was difficult to lift above his waist with two hands when not running. He then ran it up to speed, and demonstrated lifting it over his head with one hand, and remarked that this and other things demonstrated were in violation of Newton’s laws of motion. Since Newton is lionized by the Royal Academy, this was as great a heresy as could have been spoken or shown before the shocked group. 

Accordingly, this was the first invited special Friday night lecture in 200 years or so that the Royal Institution did not publish. It had always published such papers as a Special Proceedings. Laithwaite is also the man who invented the linear motor, as well as the Maglev train system.

 After retirement, Laithwaite continued investigation and eventually realized (and showed) that a gyroscope could move mass through space, hence could comply with Newton’s laws after all, even though it became easier to pick up when running, compared to when not running. Laithwaite and William Dawson obtained a British patent in 1995, with a U.S. patent following in 1999. See E. R. Laithwaite and W. R. C. Dawson, "Propulsion System," U.S. Patent #5,860,317, Jan. 19, 1999. The 1995 European Patent Number is WO95/30832, Nov. 16, 1995. I once met Professor Laithwaite in London at a presentation I made to correct Aristotelian logic, resulting in a 5-law logic replacing the normal 3-laws. Laithwaite liked the presentation, and I spoke with him about an hour.

He informed me of Heaviside’s giant curled EM energy flow component, which I had never even heard of, and gave me some reference citations. On checking those references, I found that indeed there was this giant, long-unaccounted curled Heaviside EM energy flow component in all our EM circuits and systems, totally unused and with no attempt whatsoever to use it.

(6) Did you know that, by deliberately adding and using a synchronized general relativistic function, this long-neglected giant Heaviside component can be forced to diverge some of its energy for use by the circuit or system after all?

 Are you aware that the optical physics “negative resonance absorption of the medium” (NRAM) process actually does this in optimized IR and UV experiments to produce COP = 18, but the optical physicists still are unaware of that giant curled energy EM energy flow source that this process is minutely tapping? And that they are still not permitted to discuss the thermodynamics of the reaction, nor do they mention any possible source for excess input energy? Indeed, they are generally not permitted to say “excess energy emission,” but are required to say “negative resonance absorption”.

And they are allowed to speak only of the change in “reaction cross section” of the resonant charged particles in the medium, as compared to static charged particles. To test the U.S. and Western state of knowledge on certain technology or scientific things, the KGB often allows release of specific information by Russian scientists. 

It appears the KGB allowed Letokhov to release information about NRAM, to test whether we understood its primary mechanism and whether we realized that the huge Heaviside curled energy flow component is available and a bit of it is being used in the NRAM process. 

See the following: 

(a) V. S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p. 1442. 

(b) V.S. Letokhov, “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 26(4), Apr. 1968, p. 835-839. 

(c) V. S. Letokhov, “Stimulated emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative absorption,” ZhETF Plasma, 5(8), Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265. 

(d) V. S. Letokhov, “Double g and optical resonance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 43, 1973, p. 179-180. 

(e) V. S. Letokhov, “Laser Maxwell’s Demon,” Contemporary Physics, 36(4), 1995, p. 235-243. Considers a Maxwell's demon based on the use of selective interaction between laser light and atomic particles, including two versions (destructive and nondestructive) of the demon. The destructive version is based on the velocity- and particle-selective resonant ionization of particles in the near field of laser radiation. The non-destructive version is based on the dipole (gradient) light pressure force in near-field radiation effects. 

(f) Alekseev, A. V.; Zinin, Yu. A.; Sushilov, N. V. “Effect of negative resonance absorption in a weak polychromatic field,” Optics and Spectroscopy, Volume 69, Issue 6, December 1990, pp.736-739. 

For typical Western responses and printed papers accepted, see (g) Craig F. Bohren and Donald R. Huffman, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983. 

(h) Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys. 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. 

(i) H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18. 

(j) Mandel, P. Contemporary Physics, Vol. 34, 1993, p. 327. 

(k) Kocharovskaya, O. Phys. Reports, Vol. 219, 1992, p. 175. 

(7) Have you ever seen, or can you find, a single EE textbook or paper that points out the known assumptions in the present emasculated Heaviside-Lorentz theoretical model – much less which of these old 1880s assumptions have since been falsified by the discoveries of physics in the last 100 years? I could not find a single book which discussed it. Nonetheless, some eminent scientists – such as Nobelist Feynman, John Wheeler, Henry Margenau, Mario Bunge, and many others – have pointed out the various falsities in it, but to no avail. 

For a listing and discussion of some of the major falsities in the sad old electrical engineering model, see my paper “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model,” available at Link . See the figure on powering EM systems, to see how a generator actually powers its external circuit and the loads. It is not with the energy input by cranking the generator shaft! 

The National Science Foundation favorably reviewed that “errors and omissions” paper. See the letter from the National Science Foundation at [1] on my website: Link 

In the hard physics literature, rigorous theoretical proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition provides 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.

And as you know, in modern quantum field theory one really cannot logically just “isolate” the charge from its fierce, ongoing interaction with the seething vacuum, and then assume that the separated vacuum is inert – as does classical EM and electrical engineering.

 E.g., quoting Aitchison: 

"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.]. 

“Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...” [Ibid., p. 372]. To see how ubiquitous and violent this “vacuum energy exchange” is, we quote Davies: 

"What might appear to be empty space is, therefore, a seething ferment of virtual particles. A vacuum is not inert and featureless, but alive with throbbing energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an electron must always be viewed against this background of frenetic activity. When an electron moves through space, it is actually swimming in a sea of ghost particles of all varieties – virtual leptons, quarks, and messengers, entangled in a complex mêlée. The presence of the electron will distort this irreducible vacuum activity, and the distortion in turn reacts back on the electron. Even at rest, an electron is not at rest: it is being continually assaulted by all manner of other particles from the vacuum." [Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 105]. 

(8) Have you ever seen a single EE textbook that discusses the tremendous impact and implication – upon electrical engineering and its theoretical model – of the discovery of broken symmetry in physics, for which Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in Dec. 1957? Did you realize that this formidable impact on EE has never been incorporated in any of the textbooks, or in what the electrical engineer is taught? In short, in the 50 years since the discovery of broken symmetry, its impact on the sad old EE model has not yet made it across the university campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

(9) Have you ever seen a single EE textbook that discusses the implications of the fact that every dipole (separation of opposite charges) is a proven broken symmetry – which means that it has to continually receive something virtual and convert it to something observable? Consider that one cannot ignore the continuous interaction of the seething virtual state vacuum with any and every dipolarity, and the incredible magnitude of the energy flow actually pouring from a generator’s terminals if one accounts the long-neglected Heaviside curled EM energy flow component. Does this not mean that it is the source dipole inside the generator or battery that, once established, is pouring out all that EM energy from the generator terminals – in both the curled and uncurled components of the energy flow vector by extracting the energy directly from the virtual state vacuum?

(10) Did you know that, according to modern physics, a single “isolated classical charge” actually polarizes its surrounding vacuum with opposite charge, so that the so-called “isolated classical observable charge” is part of a special dipolarity and therefore part of a known broken symmetry? Nobelist Lee himself pointed out that when there is a broken symmetry, something previously virtual has become observable. For a source charge, this requires that the charge continually and serially absorb virtual photons from the seething virtual state vacuum, coherently integrate those serial bits of virtual energy to observable (quantum) size, then re-emit the energy as real observable photons radiating in all directions at light speed. One can readily set up a lab test to show that, from the moment it is suddenly formed, a source charge does indeed radiate real, observable photons. And one can also show that no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that charge. Note also that “magnetic charge” is simply a “magnetic pole”. Hence the broken symmetry of the observable magnetic dipole does exactly the same thing.

(11) Are you aware that any “static” EM field from its associated source charges is thus actually comprised of a steady, ongoing flow of real photons from the associated source charges? 

And that – rigorously – the “static” EM field therefore is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) dynamic system rather than a “static” system? Every charge and dipole in the universe continually receives virtual energy from the seething virtual state vacuum, and because of its broken symmetry it re-emits the energy as real, observable photons. The continual emission of such real photons at light speed from any source dipolarity directly generates the observable EM “static” fields of the charge or dipole and their energy. Van Flandern has used a most delightful analogy to explain the true nature of a “static” field. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:

“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]. 

Every observable joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum via this broken symmetry process.

 The easiest thing in the world is to evoke a free, unending steady flow of real EM energy, taken directly from the local seething vacuum! Simply assemble the necessary charge or a dipole, and then just leave it alone and do not allow it to be destroyed by putting it in a silly symmetrical Maxwellian circuit. Instead, provide a separate asymmetric interception and collection circuit, which can collect some of that free energy and then asymmetrically dissipate some of it in the loads to power them freely.

Instead of doing that, our present engineers are trained to leave the source dipole wired into the circuit as a “load”, so that the silly symmetrical circuit uses half its freely collected energy from the vacuum to destroy that source dipole inside the generator or battery! Hence for a generator, we have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, to convert that mechanical energy input into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator. 

And then that rotating magnetic field energy is dissipated on the charges inside the generator, to force the opposite charges back apart and thereby re-establish the source dipolarity and the giant free energy flow from the vacuum due to that dipole’s proven asymmetry.

Even conventional Poynting energy flow theory shows that static EM fields are somehow a steady state flow of EM energy (of real photons). E.g., quoting Buchwald:"[Poynting's result] implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44]. 

To see this for oneself, simply lay an electret on a permanent magnet so that the E-field of the electret is orthogonal to the H-field of the permanent magnet.

Then by standard Poynting theory, that silly contraption has an ongoing steady state EM energy flow S given by S = E X H. And please note that the silly thing will continue to pour out this steady EM energy flow – by standard Poynting theory – if one just leaves it alone and does not allow anything to destroy it. In short, a “static” EM field is actually a continuous EM energy flow, and it is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. 

Note that, in assuming an inert virtual state vacuum, the standard CEM/EE model taught to and used by all our electrical engineers actually assumes that this steady outflow of real EM energy from any source charge is created out of nothing at all, in total violation of the conservation of energy law. Yet have you ever seen an EE textbook that begrudgingly points out this assumption? 

All we have to do to establish all the free ongoing flow of EM energy that we wish, right out of the local vacuum, is to pay once to assemble the necessary charge or make the necessary dipole. Then leave the source charge or dipole alone and in place, and do not let anything “destroy” it. That silly thing will then sit there and continuously pour out real, usable EM energy flow – which we mistakenly know only as the “static field!” 

If we wish to freely use that steady free flow of EM energy, then we have to change the horrid old electrical engineering model, and teach our young engineers to design and build asymmetric intercept and collection systems – not the symmetrical intercept and collection systems our engineers have all been taught to build and deploy that destroy the dipolar source faster than they power the external loads! And we have to make our electrical engineers all aware that the present theoretical model and engineering practice will not allow them to do that. Nature does not prohibit it; just our silly arbitrarily symmetrical circuits prohibit it! Our EEs are taught that are no other kinds of EM systems possible other than symmetrical systems! 

Now do you see why our engineers do not know how to properly catch and utilize the steadily flowing energy in a so-called “static” field? And why we have an escalating “world energy crisis” when the easiest thing is to simply evoke the necessary flows of free EM energy – CLEAN energy free of harmful chemical or nuclear emissions – without having to burn fuel, consume nuclear fuel rods, etc? But we have never learned how to correctly catch some of that freely flowing energy and separately use it just to independently power the loads! 

(12) Did you know that, in modern physics, a single charge actually involves two infinite charges of opposite sign, each also having infinite energy, even though the “instrumentally perceived” difference and measurement of the inner infinite “bare charge” seen through the shielding screen of opposite charge is finite? 

Consider this quotation from 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. 

(13) Did you know that negative energy can be evoked in a circuit and used easily in a self-amplifying mode, so that – once developed – a small negative energy system powered by a single flashlight battery, feeding a series of resistors, can power New York City? For the peculiar working and use of negative energy EM and negative energy currents in circuits and systems, see the several end paragraphs on it that are in "Negative Impedance: What It is and How It Works," available at Link

When a very sharp gradient in energy density is applied across a small region of vacuum, electrons are lifted from the Dirac Sea and give a rush of excess current momentarily, often known as the “Lenz law” effect. They leave behind them the empty holes. Those holes are actually negative mass-energy electrons (the so-called “dark matter” of the universe), and as source charges their fields consist of negative energy EM fields (the so-called “dark energy” of the universe). 

Quoting Hoffman: 

" is shown that extremely powerful energy sources may occur if particles of negative mass really exist in nature." [Banesh Hoffman, in “Foreword”, to Yakov P. Terletski, Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity. With a Foreword by Banesh Hoffman, translated from the Russian, Plenum Press, New York, 1968, p. viii. 

For nearly 20 years, Bedini has been evoking and using negative energy in his battery charging processes, to obtain overunity charging results. Tesla also uncovered this strange kind of energy, and called it “radiant energy” to differentiate it from “normal” EM energy. Tesla also could evoke negative energy in some of his radiant energy circuits. 

(14) Did you know that the conservation of energy law itself can be violated under certain general relativistic conditions? This is known – though not too widely – by our scientists themselves. E.g., shortly after Einstein published his theory of general relativity, the great Hilbert made the following statement: 

"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.]. 

Quoting Logunov and Loskutov: 

"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. …Unfortunately, … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179]. 

Quoting the great physicist Roger Penrose: 

“We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ?…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.] 

So the “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. 

In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering that the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this “solution” itself is in general nearly always untenable. 

The afore-mentioned little website paper on negative energy (Link) also discusses precisely when and how the conservation of energy law is violated (when the Killing vector symmetry does not hold), and also the thermodynamics, including the fact that the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics can be violated at will. 

(15) Okay, so how does one extract a little extra and free EM energy from that ubiquitous giant Heaviside energy flow component? We mentioned that a little bit of the giant curled Heaviside energy flow component can indeed be made to diverge and collect so it can be utilized. 

Using a proven optical physics effect (negative resonance absorption of the medium, or NRAM), Ken Moore and I filed a Provisional Patent Application on how to make a heat amplifier taking its excess energy from the vacuum, to be placed in a typical steam boiler. With clamped positive feedback added to the heat amplifier, one also can make the modified steam boiler entirely self-powering.

 We then hung that PPA on my website, and freely gave it away to the peoples of the world, in the hope that some large organizations will pick up on it and develop it and apply it worldwide to all our present electrical power systems that use steam boilers. The paper is Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, “Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component”. This is the PPA filed and obtained in Oct. 200, and now released into public domain and freely given away. It is available at Link . 

Development and application of that single process would itself largely solve the present “energy from fuel” crisis, dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, gas, and nuclear power, dramatically reduce the harmful chemical emissions from fuel-burning electric power plants and the formation of nuclear wastes from consuming nuclear fuel rods in our present nuclear power plants. It would also dramatically reduce our contributions to global warming – which is becoming an ever more serious threat. 

So we gave the entire thing away, to the peoples of the world, in hopes that some of the large organizations might pick it up and develop and apply it to our present world power plants. So far, nothing at all has happened. The scientific community is still dogmatically convinced that one cannot extract extra usable EM energy from the vacuum – even though every charge in the universe does precisely that, and has been doing precisely that since the big bang. 

This dogma continues even after (i) the giant revolution in physics from the discovery of broken symmetry, (ii) the fact that any dipolarity is a proven broken symmetry of opposite charges, (iii) any charge plus its polarized vacuum is a broken symmetry, (iv) Nobelist Lee pointed out that any broken symmetry means that something formerly virtual now has become observable, and (v) experimentally one can measure and prove that every charge continually pours out real EM energy (real observable photons), yet is receiving no observable energy input. 

(16) Did you know that the sad old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics is actually an oxymoron implicitly assuming its own contradiction has first occurred and has been unaccounted? Or that in the far more modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics, one can easily violate the hoary old second law of thermodynamics of equilibrium thermodynamics, at will? For a listing of known areas allowing intentional violation of the old second law, see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. 

Areas known to violate the old second law are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in the MEG) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and layered crystalline structures to invoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect). We strongly comment that these known, recognized mechanisms allow macroscopic and significant violations of the Second Law that are directly usable in real EM systems and circuits. 

For formal correction of the long-flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics, see T. E. Bearden, “Leyton’s Hierarchies Of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” available at Link.

 This paper also discusses the necessary change from the very old 1872 Klein geometry to the much more modern Leyton geometry, which is necessary for explanation of the source charge’s continuous emission of real observable EM energy without any observable energy input. 

Again quoting Kondepudi and Prigogine: 

"One aspect is common to all these nonequilibrium situations, the appearance of long-range coherence. Macroscopically distinct parts become correlated. This is in contrast to equilibrium situations where the range of correlations is determined by short-range molecular forces. As a result, situations which are impossible to realize at equilibrium become possible in far-from-equilibrium situations. 

This leads to important applications in a variety of fields. [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, p. xii.] 

"Equilibrium thermodynamics was an achievement of the nineteenth century, nonequilibrium thermodynamics was developed in the twentieth century, and Onsager's relations mark a crucial point in the shift of interest away from equilibrium to nonequilibrium. … due to the flow of entropy, even close to equilibrium, irreversibility can no more be identified with the tendency to disorder… [since it can] … produce both disorder … and order…” [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, p. xv.] 

Anyway, that gives you a working list of some “penetrating questions” about present CEM/EE and some insight into the startling implications of the questions. 

Best wishes,Tom Bearden