Permissible NESS COP > 1.0 Electrical Power Systems Taking Energy from the Vacuum

© T. E. Bearden, Sept. 19, 2003

Problem: Develop the concepts for COP > 1.0 electrical power systems that receive and utilize EM energy from their active vacuum environment.

• For convenience, we shall compare the operation of the COP > 1.0 vacuum-powered (VP) system to the COP > 1.0 operation of a heat pump.

• In addition to any energy input by the operator, a COP > 1.0 EM system must have an extra energy input from its active environment.

• For an EM system powered from the vacuum, the input active vacuum energy is in disordered virtual state form, while the output energy of EM fields and potentials is in ordered observable form.

• However, contrary to the heat pump's positive energy output, the output of the VP EM system may consist of both positive energy and negative energy.

• It may involve special currents of Dirac sea holes (negative energy electrons) {28} flowing or appearing (in the Coulomb gauge) as negative energy potential, as well as its currents of ordinary electrons.

• All observable EM fields, potentials, and their energy come from their associated source charges. There is no observable energy input to the source charge. If the conservation of energy law is to remain valid, the charge must receive an appropriate virtual energy input from the seething vacuum.

• The source charge coherently integrates its absorbed disordered virtual EM energy from the vacuum and re-emits ordered observable EM energy, flowing radially outward in 3-space, to form and sustain its fields and potentials and their energy spreading at light speed.

• The source charge's reordering and integration of the absorbed vacuum energy is a giant negative entropy process. Since the resulting ordered fields and potentials may reach across the universe, the present second law of thermodynamics is totally falsified. It must be revised to also include processes producing negative entropy, as well as its present inclusion of only positive entropy processes.

• We have stated the necessary revised second law as:

"First a negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order (available controlled energy). Then that initial available controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions over time, unless additional negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."

• The second law revision also resolves the long-vexing problem of the recognized temporal asymmetry of thermodynamics itself. As Price states {}:

"A century [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]or so [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:47:00 2003 ]ago[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ],[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:47:00 2003 ] Ludwig Boltzmann and other[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ] physicists [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:48:00 2003 ]attempted to explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]…t[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:49:00 2003 ]he hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]

• Price also states {}:

"…{The] major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."

• The so-called “heat death” of the observable universe—its expected lapse into equilibrium and maximum entropy as closed systems do—has not occurred. Instead, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which indicates negentropic operations are ongoing and continuing to increase the energy of the observable universe.

• The observable universe is not thermodynamically closed. Instead, through its charges it is in constant and open energy (and some mass) exchange across its quantum boundary with its “outside” virtual state vacuum underpinning. With ubiquitous negative entropy operations ongoing across the quantum interface by all the charges of the universe, the present second law is universally violated.

• The requirement to extend the second law to include such continuous negative entropy processes is experimentally established by every charge.

• The solution to the dark energy problem (a mechanism for large-scale negative gravity accelerating the expansion of the universe) and the cause of the excess positive gravity in the spiral arms of the galaxies may be associated with these unaccounted processes, as previously proposed {}.

Focusing on the COP > 1.0 System Problem:

• The thermodynamics of nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems is well developed, particularly for dissipative systems {} using only positive energy, and in the absence of sharp gradients—which are known to permissibly violate the present second law of thermodynamics {}.

• Such a system can exhibit COP > 1.0 and output more energy than the operator inputs, since the active environment furnishes the extra energy.

• If the environment furnishes all the input energy, the system can exhibit COP = " (“self-powering”) because the operator inputs nothing.

• Such COP > 1.0 and COP = " systems in disequilibrium with conventional (observable) energetic environments (wind, water, solar radiation, etc.) are well known.

• The electrical power engineering model still assumes an inert vacuum, a flat spacetime, and a material ether. All three assumptions have been falsified for decades. In modern physics the active vacuum environment continuously furnishes and exchanges energy to every charge in the universe. In turn, charges act as NESS systems and continuously use some of their absorbed energy from the vacuum to furnish all the observable EM field energy and EM potential energy in the universe.

• The charge continuously pours out observable (real) EM energy in all directions, forming and replenishing its associated fields and potentials at light speed.

• The question arises: “Are useful and practical NESS electrical power systems permitted, where the vacuum is the active environment furnishing all or part of the input energy?” We answer that question in the affirmative.

Approach:

• First we call attention to a curious fact: Every electrical power system is already a COP >> 1.0 system if its long-ignored giant Heaviside energy flow component is accounted as well as its conventional small Poynting energy flow component. We discuss this shortly.

• Then we give two examples of proven, legitimate COP > 1.0 EM systems taking some or all of their input energy from the vacuum:

• One is well known in a special area of physics and provides COP = 18.

• The other is ubiquitous throughout the universe and provides COP = ".

• The latter example also completely falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics (i.e., the assumption that S(t) " 0) and forces its revision to also include continuous negative entropy processes that involve S(t) ! (" "). This fulfills a somewhat startling theoretical prediction of Evans and Rondoni {}.

• The examples also force the use of a more capable geometry and group theoretic methods than the Klein geometry {} and Klein's group methods utilized since 1872. The required new geometry and group methods have been given by Leyton {}.

• Leyton's work represents a profound advance in physics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry, robotics, and pattern recognition. We discuss the Leyton hierarchies of symmetry in a separate fact sheet {}.

• We also advance some necessary definitions and systems background information.

• Next we briefly discuss the vacuum aspect and its interactions of interest, as well as curved spacetime interactions of interest.

• We briefly summarize the heat pump's operation, to serve as a convenient comparison.

• Then we advance the major concepts for COP > 1.0 and COP = " EM systems taking some or all of their input energy from the vacuum.

• The two testable and proven examples, taking energy from the vacuum, are sufficient to prove that vacuum-powered electrical power systems are permissible and exist.

• The two examples are experimentally validated. No amount of theory can refute a single well-replicated experiment's results, else one abandons scientific method itself.

Peculiar Fact: Every electrical power system is a COP >> 1.0 system when its Heaviside energy flow component is included.

• Two scientists—Heaviside {} and Poynting {}—simultaneously and independently proposed EM energy flow through space in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead. Before that, the concept did not exist in physics.

• Poynting never considered anything except the relatively small, diverged component of the energy flow that enters the conductors and powers the circuit. We measure the energy actually in the circuit and powering it, so we measure the Poynting component.

• In addition to the diverged energy flow component, Heaviside also discovered an accompanying nondiverged curled energy flow that is enormously larger than the diverged flow component. Because of its zero divergence in a flat or reasonably flat spacetime, the Heaviside component does not usually interact with normal instruments or anything else, so we do not measure it. Extracting energy from this available, enormous, but wasted energy flow from every generator and power source would solve the world's energy crisis for centuries. The Heaviside nondiverged flow component is often a trillion times as large as the Poynting flow component.

• Given a significant curvature of local spacetime, the divergence of the curl need not be zero. In that case, a part of the Heaviside energy flow curled component is transduced into an extra Poynting energy flow component diverged into the circuit. Our instruments will measure the anomalous extra Poynting energy flow component.

• In the 1880s, neither the electron nor the nucleus had been discovered. Most of particle physics did not yet exist, nor did relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory. No one could propose a possible source of such a startling Heaviside curl-energy flow pouring from the terminals of every generator and battery (and charge and dipolarity).

• To the electrodynamicists of that day, Heaviside's component implied creating energy from nothing and violating the conservation of energy law. Consequently, a decade or so later Lorentz simply disposed of the irksome problem in a clever and smooth manner, since it apparently had no solution.

• Lorentz proposed that the Heaviside huge curl form of energy flow “had no physical significance” since it did not interact and “does nothing”. So he simply integrated the entire energy flow vector around an assumed closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest {}. That trick neatly disposes of the nondiverged, huge, bothersome Heaviside component we do not measure or utilize, while retaining the diverged Poynting component that we do measure and utilize. The trick is still used by electrodynamicists and electrical engineers today, and most no longer even know of Heaviside's extra energy flow component.

• To reiterate: Interaction of the curl-field Heaviside component is usually negligible, since in vector algebra the divergence of the curl is zero—in a flat spacetime. However, if one curves spacetime with some significance, then the divergence of the curl is not zero. In that case, part of the long-neglected Heaviside energy flow component will be diverged into the circuit after all, as an additional Poynting component freely furnished by the curvature of the local spacetime environment.

Proof of Heaviside's Energy Flow Component.

• The Bohren experiment {18} (and in fact the entire field of negative resonance absorption of the medium) discussed below, produces sufficient spacetime curvature to diverge some of the available Heaviside energy flow, converting that part to additional Poynting flow. By its own self-resonance, the particle also precisely “synchronizes” to the swirl cycling of Heaviside's curled field component.

• Thus the experiment achieves a COP = 18, outputting some 18 times as much Poynting energy flow as the operator inputs by his accounted “Poynting” energy flow. Unknown to the operator, he also inputs a huge unaccounted Heaviside energy flow curled component, part of which—in the Bohren-type experiment—is being transduced by the extra curvature of spacetime.

• Leading electrodynamicists continue to use Lorentz's “no physical significance” argument to dispose of the Heaviside energy flow component. E.g., Jackson {}—unquestionably one of the world's most able electrodynamicists—states:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences."

• Indeed, Jackson's statement is true only in a flat spacetime situation. It is not true in a situation involving significant spacetime curvature.

• Whether utilized electromagnetically or not, the huge Heaviside component does have significant gravitational implications because it is ubiquitous and so large. Heaviside recognized this fact toward the end of his life, and left a draft theory of electrogravitation, using that energy flow component, beneath the floorboards of his garret apartment {}.

• Laithwaite particularly was interested in Heaviside's theory and stressed that it might yet revolutionize science {}. Many years ago I met Laithwaite in England, and he informed me of the long-neglected Heaviside energy flow component.

• Absolute energy is not measurable, and only changes in energy are measured {}. A little reflection shows that any instrument measures only its own change. As a result, eliminating a huge component of energy flow that usually changes nothing , has little physical consequence—unless specific actions are first taken to produce a situation where the odd form of energy will act “unusually” and change something after all.

• The Bohren experiment proves the existence of the Heaviside component, and also proves that such “specific unusual actions” can be taken to extract and collect significant usable EM energy from it. If developed, extracting energy from the ignored Heaviside energy flow component could solve the energy crisis permanently.

• Enormous gradients, such as occur in large astrophysical explosions or bursts, produce both positive and negative EM energy. Their energetics lifts matter from the Dirac sea, leaving persistent special Dirac sea hole currents as currents of negative energy potential. The positive energy matter and the negative energy potentials travel in opposite directions from these explosions. Thus the bursts can and do produce large regions of extra gravity, and large regions of anomalous antigravity. The extra gravity phenomenon (the dark matter problem) and the dark energy problem (anomalous antigravity phenomenon) can probably be explained by the combination of (i) sharp gradients, (ii) production of matter from the special Dirac sea as well as persistent special Dirac sea negative energy potentials {28}, and (iii) the movement of the two in opposite directions when exposed to the same force fields. We have previously proposed the gist of that solution {3} in less detail.

Known COP > 1.0 Vacuum-Powered EM System.

• The selected COP > 1.0 EM process is well known in nonlinear optics, but it is little discussed in terms of electrical power. It is the phenomenon of negative resonance absorption of the medium {}.

• As an example, the Bohren experiment {} provides COP = 18, performed in the IR or UV. It is routinely replicated many times every year by nonlinear optics groups. It works anywhere, anytime.

• The Bohren experiment presents interesting EM foundations facts. First, we normally do not calculate “the field” or “the potential”, but only the point intensity of the field or potential as determined by the divergence from its energy flows by a unit point static charge assumed at each point in space.

• From Whittaker's work {}, we know that the “static” field and the “static” potential are actually envelopes of sets of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, and hence are comprised of internal flows of EM energy. There is a far more fundamental internal electrodynamics, based on longitudinal EM waves, that “makes” and comprises all the “normal EM fields, potentials, and waves”.

• When one engineers the internal EM, one does what one wishes with the “external” EM. Two seemingly identical static field envelopes may not be identical at all, if they have differing internal structures and dynamics. Superposition of potentials also diffuses their internal structuring into each other. Further discussion is well beyond the purpose of this fact sheet.

• No electrical engineering text really teaches how to calculate “the field”, but only “what is diverged from it by a unit point static charge at each point.” At best that is an approximate measure of the “point intensity” of the field's composite internal Whittaker longitudinal EM wave energy flows.

• The Bohren experiment (and the field of “negative resonance absorption of the medium”) violates the fundamental assumption—in the definitions of field and potential intensities—that the intercepting unit point charge assumed at each point in space is static. Instead, the Bohren experiment utilizes an intercepting charged particle that is in tuned particle resonance for the frequency of the EM energy being fed, and whose intensity is “being measured” by the magnitude of the energy scattered by the charge.

• The resonant charge sweeps out a greater geometrical intercept area than the static charge, and thus has an increased reaction cross section in the field or potential. Hence it diverges additional Poynting energy (at that “point”), from the energy flows comprising the field and potential. In the Bohren experiment, it diverges 18 times as much as the same charge would diverge if static.

• From any given nonzero “static” field, as much force can be collected on charged mass as is desired, given that sufficient fixed charge is available or that the local curvature of spacetime is sufficiently great. A simple example is the equation
  F = Eq. For a given nonzero E, any magnitude of force F desired can be had merely by adjusting the amount of q as necessary.

• Also, from any given nonzero potential , as much energy can be diverged by/collected on charged mass as is desired, given that sufficient charge is available or the local curvature of spacetime is sufficiently great.⁴ An example is W = q, where W is the energy collected in joules on charges q from potential .

• In the presence of significantly curved spacetime, appreciable extra energy can and will be diverged from the normally divergence-free Heaviside energy flow component, as shown by the Bohren experiment {18}. This experiment clearly shows that the enormous neglected Heaviside component exists and can be utilized to furnish useful EM energy, and thus to power loads.

• It also shows that the magnitudes of the measurements of the “fixed” EM fields and potentials depend on the magnitude of the local spacetime curvature and the dynamics of the “measuring charge”, in a general relativity view.

• In the particle physics view, the magnitudes of the measurements depend on the virtual flux intensity (activity) of the local vacuum and the dynamics of the “measuring charge”.

• Of course this is already known in general relativistic field theory.

• A beautiful new grand unified field theory, finally integrating all forces of nature and providing great new insight, is now being demonstrated by Evans {}.

Known COP = " Vacuum-Powered EM System.

• Every charge in the universe is a self-powered, proven EM transducer of vacuum energy and it provides COP = ". The charge continually pours out real, observable photons (real EM energy) in all directions, without any observable EM input and without any energy input by the operator.

• Experimentally one can just suddenly produce some charge in the laboratory, and directly measure the steady establishment (and replenishment) of the associated fields and potentials (and their energy) in all radial directions at light speed. The instruments will not detect any observable EM energy input to the charge, but they will show that observable EM energy is steadily emitted.

• Either the charge absorbs disordered, nonobservable energy from the vacuum and converts it to ordered, observable energy form to comprise its associated fields and potentials, or else it falsifies the entire conservation of energy law by creating its fields and potentials and their energy from nothing. There is no alternative. Either the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, or the present second law is wrong in excluding negative entropy processes—as experimentally proven by every charge.

• This quandary arising from the association of the fields and their source charges remained unsolved for a century. E.g., Sen {} stated in 1968:

“The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics.”

• Kosyakov {} bluntly states in 1992:

“A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated. … “The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?”

• We published the solution to the source charge problem in 2000 {} and subsequently {}, taking the basis for the solution directly from physics. A separate fact sheet {} discusses the source charge problem and gives the solution.

• In the classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory and in electrical engineering, the model implicitly assumes that the charge freely creates—from nothing at all—its associated EM fields and potentials, and their energy. Those models are in error because they implicitly assume the negation of the conservation of energy law.

• This fundamental problem of electrodynamics has been quietly recognized for decades {21}, but it is still omitted by most electrodynamics texts and papers.

• At light speed, the outpouring of real EM energy by the charge establishes—and continuously replenishes—its associated EM fields and potentials and their energy.

• If the source charge is static, then its field intensities are steady state, once made. However, these “static” (actually, steady state) fields are comprised of photons (in the particle view) in constant motion at light speed. Van Flandern {} points out that a “static” field is like a perfect waterfall, with each internal part in constant motion, but it is not analogous to a frozen waterfall where the internal parts are not in motion.

• In the Coulomb (transverse) gauge, only the magnetic vector potential A need be quantized, for the particle model. The scalar potential  is not quantized {} and moves at infinite velocity, though only affecting the near field region. The Coulomb gauge is much used in quantum electrodynamics.

• Every charge produces continuous negative entropy and totally violates the present second law of thermodynamics, requiring revision of the second law to include negative entropy processes. For every charge, S(t) < 0 and " S(t)dt ! (" ").

• The charge continuously consumes virtual state positive entropy of the seething vacuum and produces negative entropy in the observable state.

• We have given the basic negentropic process {25} by which disordered virtual state energy is transduced and reordered (coherently integrated) into ordered observable state energy. This is a fundamental and universal process violating the present form of the second law of thermodynamics, in the continuous sense theoretically shown by Evans and Rondoni {6}.

• Startled by their own theoretical results, Evans and Rondoni felt that real systems could not exhibit such continuous production of negative entropy.

• However, the charge does exhibit production of continuous negative entropy, approaching negative infinity as time passes. We have nominated it as the first such physical system known and experimentally demonstrable.

• To continue toward practical vacuum-powered electrical power systems, we need some basic system definitions and concepts, which will now be developed.

Some Background Definitions and Their Ramifications.

• The efficiency  of an energy system or power system is defined as the total useful energy or external work output of the system, divided by its total energy input from all sources. Efficiency is commonly expressed as a percentage. Conservation of energy requires that  " 100% is an inviolable law.

• The coefficient of performance (COP) of a power system is defined as the total useful energy or work output of the system, divided by the operator's energy input only.

• COP is commonly expressed as a decimal fraction.

• It measures how much “bang for his buck” the system gives the operator.

• As an example, a nominal solar cell array might have an efficiency of only 17%.

• Hence it wastes 83% of its total energy input.

• However, the operator inputs nothing, since all the energy is freely input by the solar environment.

• So the COP of the solar cell is COP = ".

• A self-powering system is one which takes all its input energy from its environment and powers its loads without any operator energy input. Hence its COP = ". Five conventional self-powering systems are the windmill, waterwheel, sail boat, solar cell array, and a complete hydroelectric power system including the river's flow itself.

• A self-powering, vacuum-powered system must be analyzed and understood in terms of the supersystem, since the system receives and uses input energy from its active vacuum and its locally curved spacetime. In addition to the system and its dynamics, the active vacuum and the local curved spacetime—and their dynamics—are the other two components of the supersystem.

• Close-looping a COP > 1.0 system refers to clamped positive feedback of some of its output energy back to its input, thus furnishing its own necessary energy input. It is a method of converting a COP > 1.0 system to a COP = " system.

• Close-looping is straightforward for a conventional active environment where only positive energy is involved.

• However, it is not a simple task when energy from the vacuum is involved, because both negative energy and positive energy are involved. Instead, it is a task requiring control of highly nonlinear processes and nonlinear oscillations, and also control of both positive and negative energy—involving new phenomenology not presently in the electrical power engineering textbooks and ansatz.

Unusual Phenomenology of COP > 1.0 Vacuum-Powered Systems.

• A COP > 1.0 vacuum powered system with sharp gradients and nonlinearities also alters its Dirac sea, with some excess electrons lifted from it and leaving some persisting unfilled special Dirac sea holes (negative energy electrons) {}. These holes form flows of negative energy potential in the Coulomb gauge.

• These holes are not positrons (positive energy electrons with positive charge), since they are not yet observed and have not yet interacted with matter. They are truly negative energy electrons with negative charge and negative mass, but they are also organized into flow of negative energy potential.

• Free Dirac sea holes act as source charges, and their associated output EM fields and potentials are made of negative energy. Such special holes and their flow of negative energy fields and potentials are a part of the output of most COP > 1.0 vacuum powered systems. Their persistence and range depends on an undetermined unknown coupling factor as a function of the sharpness of the gradients, magnitude of the COP, and other factors. In short, the instantaneous flow of the scalar potential in the Coulomb gauge seems to be extended from the near field region to a greater distance (often to the system input section), when the scalar potential is comprised of negative energy.

• From the output section of the VP system exhibiting COP > 1.0, the positive energy tends to propagate outward across the system boundary. That is what “output” means. The negative energy tends to “propagate” or instantaneously appear back across the internal system in its input section—which is the normal “output” section of any negative energy current associated with the system. There the negative energy potential superposes with the incoming potentials on the potentialized electrons in the incoming current, reducing their effective positive energy potentialization and thus reducing the fraction of the incoming positive energy received and utilized by the system.

• Thus, persistent special Dirac sea holes (negative energy electrons) in the form of a negative energy “depotentialization” current from a given COP > 1.0 VP system's output, may emerge backwards from the systems input section, where it reduces the incoming potentialization of the furnished electrons (and current) from the external power source. This is not pair annihilation and there is no radiation emission, since it is mere superposition of potentials and the local curvature of spacetime relaxes.

• The negative energy potentials emerging in the input section thus form and continuously replenish an additional and highly unconventional “load” at the input section of the system, unless the process is controlled and the negative energy potentials are first transduced to positive energy potentials.

• To utilize the negative energy as part of a helpful positive feedback for self-powering, it must first be transduced into positive energy (involving normal positive energy potentialization of normal electron current). Bedini's capacitor method {} is one way to do it.

• The relative percentage and persistence of the holes comprising the negative energy potentials in the extended Coulomb gauge is a function of the magnitude of the COP and also of other nonlinear factors such as sharpness of energy gradients.

• In general, a calorimeter used to “measure” the output of a nonlinear COP > 1.0 VP device will be inaccurate. In the output section of the VP system, the calorimeter will measure the difference between the heating effect of the divergent positive energy and the cooling effect of the convergent negative EM energy (the special holes and their negative energy potentials).

• Deliberate feedback of a mix of positive output energy and negative output energy, from the output of the system back to the input, will strongly favor the negative energy which moves from output to input anyway. It will increase the coupling constant and thus increase the apparent “negative energy load” added to the input section. Negative energy often sees normal impedance as conductance.

• Significant negative energy appearing in the input section will force additional input electrons (and current) to be drawn from the outside main power source, requiring that the source furnish additional current and with more positive energy potentialization energy to overcome the superposition of negative potential, and still provide the positive energy flow necessary to power the positive energy portion of the circuit. This action destroys or can destroy the COP > 1.0 operation of the VP EM electrical power system.

• The consumption of input current by special hole current flowing as unquantized negative energy potentials is a sort of “Newton's third law reaction” peculiar to COP > 1.0 VP EM systems with sharp gradients.

• Unless controlled, it is also the means by which nature decays a vacuum-powered COP > 1.0 NESS system back to equilibrium and COP < 1.0.

• Without this automatic decay mechanism, the universe would simply explode due to a sharp fluctuation or a sharp gradient. This may have implications for inflation theories and big bang theories, and also as potential factors in inducing supernovae, gamma ray bursters, etc.

• A flow of negative energy potentials appearing in semiconductor switching units, etc. is also capable of completely disrupting their n and p operations, often destructively, causing catastrophic failure of the system.

• Clamped “positive” feedback for self-powering can actually result in an enhanced form of “negative energy” feedback destroying COP > 1.0 operation. Close-looping can be a very complex affair for susceptible
  COP > 1.VP EM systems.

• To control the abnormal degradation and decay of the COP > 1.0 VP system due to negative energy currents in unquantized negative energy potential flow form, usually one must first intercept and transduce the negative EM energy flow into positive EM energy flow.

• In that case, the transduced positive energy added onto normal current will help power the VP system rather than hindering it.

• Some basic Bedini methods have been given {29}, but much additional research in this area must still be accomplished.

Additional Definitions and Discussion.

• Regauging means freely changing the magnitude of one or both of the potentials A and  of a given circuit or system {,}.

• Symmetrical regauging is the act of changing both A and , with the changes arbitrarily chosen so the two new free EM fields that result are equal and opposite {30}.

• Hence there is no net “translation vector” force field resultant, to translate electrons as current in the symmetrically regauged system. This system cannot and will not be able to perform free work in the load by use of its regauging energy.

• The free change of potential energy in the symmetrically regauged system is locked-up as a continuously maintained change in the system's internal stress, caused by the two equal and opposite forces acting on it.

• The common closed current loop circuit—placing the dipolar source in the same circuit as the external circuit's losses and loads—self-enforces Lorentz's symmetrical regauging to include the external power system. Unless its symmetrical self-regauging operation is violated for at least a portion of the operational cycle of the circuit or system, that circuit or system with real losses will self-enforce COP < 1.0 {}.

• Asymmetrical regauging {31} is the act of changing one or both of the system potentials A and , but with the change deliberately chosen so there is indeed a resulting free net translation vector force field. This net free force field can then freely translate electrons as current in the system, changing the form of their collected potential energy and performing that amount of free work in the load.

• Changing the potential of the system also changes the system's potential energy. It also changes the magnitude of the steady NESS energy flow (per Whittaker) comprising the potential.

• Changing the potential energy changes the local energy density of spacetime, hence produces a curvature of spacetime. Curved spacetime identically is an unlimited energy source and a potential (set of energy flows). It can and will furnish energy flow continuously so long as the curvature remains.

• Under the gauge freedom axiom of modern quantum field theory (QFT), asymmetric regauging (changing a single potential) is work-free. Hence one can freely and continuously change (i) the potential energy of the system, and (ii) the curvature of local spacetime, without doing work.

• By continuous work-free energy transfer, an asymmetrically regauging system can maintain its input potential energy replenishment while separately dissipating some of that potential energy flow to perform work in a load. This is not true of symmetrical regauging systems, which can only use the free regauging energy to continuously produce stress in the system and not to do external work in the load.

• Regauging does not involve change of form of the energy whose magnitude is freely changed.

• If the energy is input in different form, then work is required to first change the form of the input energy before it can provide regauging and change the potential energy of the system.

• Any EM field, potential, or wave decomposes into a bidirectional set of longitudinal bidirectional wave pairs and their dynamics, by Whittaker's two papers {19}. Hence any EM field, potential, or wave is itself a set of more fundamental longitudinal EM waves and EM energy flows.

• By Whittaker's decomposition, the potential furnished by a dipolar source is actually a steady and unceasing bidirectional flow of EM energy {19a} pouring ceaselessly from that source. Since that is also a curvature of spacetime, then curved spacetime can provide a steady and unceasing bidirectional flow of EM energy.

• Assuming all positive energy, one can intercept and collect any amount of energy desired from that flow, and thus from a given fixed potential V furnished by a source dipolarity, without dissipating the V (the potential or the curvature of spacetime).

• An example is the simple equation W = Vq, where W is the amount of energy in joules, collected on intercepting static (pinned) charges q, from potential V provided by a convenient external dipolar voltage source. With V fixed,
  W = kq, where k is a fixed constant. From a 1.5 volt battery or electret, in theory any amount of energy can be collected if sufficient fixed charge q is available to intercept and collect its flow (available to potentialize in the flow). It is not necessary to perform work to simply potentialize charges. The “power source” need only furnish voltage and no current at all.

Recapitulating:

• Work rigorously is the change of form of energy.

• Work is not the change of magnitude of energy in the same form; instead, that is mere regauging. Regauging is work-free under the well-known gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory. It involves pure energy transfer in the same form, and therefore does not involve work {}.

• The potential and hence the potential energy of an EM system can be freely changed at will, without work, by the gauge freedom principle.

• It follows that, by proper switching and system design, an EM system can be continually made to freely and asymmetrically regauge itself, taking the energy required for its operation from its external environment (the seething vacuum)—else the gauge freedom principle is falsified and much of physics is wrong.

• Because of its nonzero net new force field, the asymmetrically regauged system also can be made to freely discharge its excess free regauging energy in the load, performing free and useful work.

• It follows that self-regauging EM systems freely powering their loads with energy from the vacuum are possible. However, such electrical power systems are not built by our engineers; the engineers design only electrical power systems which symmetrically regauge themselves and self-enforce COP < 1.0 electrically. Such systems achieve COP > 1.0 or COP = " only by including conventional energy input—wind, waves, water flow, solar radiation, etc.—from the external environment.

• To provide a certain amount of work output (either useful or just “losses”), a power system obviously must change the form of that much energy. So it must have as much total energy input to it as it dissipates (as it changes the form of)—both as useful work and as system losses. Otherwise, it would be creating energy—as conventional science and technology continue to erroneously assume for the source charge in creating its associated EM fields and potentials.

• The necessary energy input can be provided by the operator, by the active environment, or by a mixture of the two.

• If all the energy is input by the operator alone, or by the active environment alone, that system has a single “energy reservoir” from which its input energy is received.

• If some of the input energy is furnished by the operator and additional input energy is furnished by the active environment, that system has two “energy reservoirs” from which its input energy is received.

• Any system outputting more energy or work than the operator himself inputs—i.e., any system exhibiting COP > 1.0—must receive excess energy from the “second” energy reservoir, its active environment.

• To receive net energy from its environment, the system must be in nonequilibrium in its energy exchange with that active environment.

• Of particular interest in COP > 1.0 EM systems are such nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems freely receiving and using excess energy from their active vacuum environment.

• In thermodynamics, a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system is permitted to exhibit five “magic” functions (as demonstrated by the source charge). It can:

• Self-order,

• Self-rotate or self-oscillate,

• Output more energy or work than the operator inputs (the additional input energy is freely received from the active environment),

• Power itself and its loads simultaneously (all the input energy is freely received from the active environment), and

• Exhibit negative entropy (closely related to the first function).

• For COP > 1.0 or COP = " electrical power systems taking their energy from the active vacuum, we shall be primarily interested in converting EM circuits and devices to NESS systems rather than equilibrium systems. An equilibrium system has maximum entropy, so the more the system departs from equilibrium in its exchange with its active environment, the less is its entropy {}.

• For stability, one also prefers steady state nonequilibrium (NESS) systems. Every static EM field together with its source charges or dipolarity is such a NESS VP system. Examples are permanent magnets and electrets, charged capacitors, and a difference of potential between any two points in the universe (Kron's “open path”).

• We must also learn to extract useful EM energy from the moving internal energy flows comprising a static field, static potential, or stress potential {,}.

Extracting Energy from the Vacuum:

• In modern physics, the vacuum is highly active, but its direct energy changes of the charged particles interacting with its flux are virtual (subquantal) changes rather than observable (quantal) changes. In describing the continuous energetic buffeting (zitterbewegung) of an observable particle, Davies states {}:

"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.”

• Nevertheless, those virtual energy exchanges of the vacuum with charges and mass are responsible for producing all the forces of nature, including the EM forces {}. Hence virtual energy must also somehow produce observable energy and drive all force field actions of nature.

• In physics the process of turning virtual energy changes into observable energy changes must occur by an application or example of broken symmetry.

• Broken symmetry was strongly predicted by Lee and Yang in 1956-57 {}. It was experimentally proven by Wu et al. {} in February 1957, resulting in the prompt award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, in December 1957.

• As T. D. Lee points out {}, nonobservables imply symmetry and a broken symmetry implies some observable. Hence when a broken symmetry occurs in physics, something virtual has become observable.

• In modern QFT, An “isolated charge” polarizes the vacuum, and is thus surrounded by virtual charges of opposite sign. The source charge ensemble thus is a dipolarity of opposite charges. One of the proven broken symmetries of particle physics is that of opposite charges (and thus of any dipolarity).

The “Magic” Universal Negative Entropy Process:

• The source charge ensemble freely absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, changes them to virtual changes of its unitary mass, and these successive unitary mass changes coherently sum.

• When the virtual mass-energy summation reaches the magnitude of the energy in an observable photon, the zitterbewegung (constant buffeting of the charge by impact of virtual particles) of the vacuum “kicks out” an observable photon, resulting in abrupt decay of the virtually excited mass-energy back to ground level.

• Continual repetition results in the source charge continually emitting real, observable photons in all directions at light speed, having extracted and coherently integrated the observable energy from the nonobservable energy of the vacuum.

• These continuously emitted real photons establish and continuously replenish the observable, ordered EM fields and potentials associated with the charge.

• All observable EM fields and potentials—and every joule of EM field energy and potential energy in the universe—are created by this negentropic process of the source charge.

• The source charge thus is a steady state system far from equilibrium in its exchange with the active vacuum. Further, it exhibits self-ordering (coherent integration of virtual energy into observable energy), and continuous emission of real energy without any operator input (the energy input is received freely from the active vacuum environment).

• The charge consumes disordered virtual energy of the vacuum input and produces ordered observable energy output—a continuous negative entropy operation. It also requires that a broken symmetry at one level automatically create a new symmetry at the next higher level—something the Klein geometry {7a} does not provide. For that, Leyton's object-oriented geometry and hierarchies of symmetry are required {8}.

• The source charge is an example of a NESS system utilizing Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry {8} and Leyton's object-oriented geometry rather than the much more limited Klein geometry {7}. It is also a physical embodiment of the startling theoretical prediction by Evans and Rondoni {6}.

• The reader is referred to our fact sheets on the source charge {25} and on Leyton's epochal work {9} for additional information.

Operation of a home heat pump .

• The efficiency  of an energy or power unit is defined as the total useful energy or external work output of the system, divided by its total energy input from all sources. It is commonly expressed as a percentage.

• A typical home heat pump {} may have a nominal efficiency  of  = 50%, which means it wastes half of the total energy input to it from all sources.

• In addition to the operator's electrical input (which he pays for), the heat pump also utilizes some extra heat energy received from the environment.

• Thus the home heat pump has two “energy reservoirs”: (i) the electrical energy reservoir furnished by the operator and paid for by him, and (ii) the atmospheric heat energy reservoir furnished freely by the atmosphere.

• Operating in good conditions, a home heat pump of efficiency  = 50% will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The variable maximum theoretical COP may be 9.22 or so {}. Note that energy is conserved, and all energy output as work is indeed input to the system. No output energy is “created out of nothing”.

• However, the operator only inputs a fraction of the total input required, and the environment freely inputs the rest. The practical heat pump system permissibly outputs 3 to 4 times the useful energy and work as the energy furnished by the operator alone. The excess energy is freely input by the external environment.

• By “overunity power system” we refer to a COP > 1.0 system, which is permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics for NESS systems such as the heat pump. We do not refer to  > 100%, which would require creation of energy from nothing.

Electrical Power Situation in Science and Engineering:

• Most scientists believe that electrical power systems taking some or all of their energy from the active vacuum are impossible. Yet every EM circuit and system is already powered by energy extracted from the vacuum.

• Electrical power engineers and physicists consider COP > 1.0 or COP = " electrical power systems permissible if the energy is input by conventional observable active environments, such as in the case of the solar cell.

• Even in the solar cell, the usable EM field energy and EM potential energy appearing in the external circuit is freely extracted from the local vacuum environment by the source charges in the external circuit, once the circuit is made dipolar so that the broken symmetry of opposite charges is invoked. None of the EM energy of the external circuit comes from cranking the shaft of a generator or dissipating chemical energy in a battery—or from dissipating energy received from the solar radiation environment of the solar cell.

• Since scientists and engineers generally are unaware of this, they are not aware of what actually powers an EM circuit or device, or of precisely how it is powered.

How the External Circuit Is Powered:

• E.g., consider a generator. When the rotor is forcibly rotated, the input mechanical shaft energy is transduced into magnetic field energy inside the generator. Work is required because the input energy must be changed in form before any regauging (change of potential energy magnitude) occurs.

• All the resulting magnetic field energy is then dissipated directly on the internal charges inside the generator, to force apart unlike charges and produce the dipolarity between the generator's terminals—and forcibly between the dipolar leads of the external circuit {,}.

• Once the dipolarity is established, the source dipole—because of its proven broken symmetry in the vacuum flux {41}—continuously absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates the energy, and re-emits the energy from the generator terminals as real observable photons.

• We are concerned with the total energy flow pouring from the terminals of the generator and flowing through space outside the attached external conductors. The energy is extracted from the vacuum by the broken symmetry. This energy flows out of the terminals and through the external space surrounding the external circuit's conductors.

• A vast amount of energy is extracted from the vacuum and emitted from the terminals, when the long-ignored nondiverged Heaviside curled component {10,44} is accounted as well as the normally accounted diverged Poynting linear flow component {11}.

• Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the Heaviside flow component circa the 1890s {12}, stating it “had no physical significance” because it did nothing. That avoided the necessity of explaining the source of such an enormous flow of energy, many orders of magnitude greater than the accounted Poynting flow that interacted with the circuit.

• When their extracted nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component is accounted, all present electrical generators and batteries already are COP >> 1.0 EM systems, completely unknown to electrical power engineers and thermodynamicists.

• The energy input by the operator is used to force the charges apart and make a dipolarity in the circuit. He must pay for that initial work.

• If the dipole is left alone and not destroyed, its asymmetry will then continue to freely extract, cohere, and pour out real energy from the vacuum indefinitely—the charges in the original matter in the universe have been doing so for billions of years.

• The closed current loop circuit uses half its collected energy from the vacuum to destroy the source dipolarity in the primary power source. The dipolarity in the external circuit promptly decays, and the flow of energy from the vacuum ceases. The operator is forced to continue to input energy to continually restore the dipolarity that his nefarious closed current loop circuit continually destroys, if extraction of energy from the vacuum and powering of the circuit shall continue.

• The other half of the collected energy in the external circuit is used to power the external losses and the loads. Hence less than half is used to power the loads, contrasted to the other half that was used to destroy the dipolarity and the free extraction of EM energy from the vacuum.

• The closed current loop circuit thus destroys its potentialization (its depolarization) faster than it powers its load {32}.

• Consequently, fuel-using major electrical power systems self-enforce COP < 1.0, killing themselves faster than they power their loads. The operator must continually pay for more fuel to provide the energy to restore the dipolarity—which the circuit continually kills before as much energy is expended in the load as the operator inputs to restore the dipolarity. The operator is guaranteed to lose. The closed current loop circuit specifically sees to it!

• Humorously, one is reminded of a phrase by Nikola Tesla {}: This undoubtedly is

“…one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history."

Ramifications:

• There are sobering ramifications of this strange obsession of the electrical power mindset, so adamantly opposed to extracting usable EM energy from the vacuum, when such energy already powers everything the electrical scientist and engineer builds.

• Together with the ever-increasing demand for energy, our present inane method of electrical power engineering escalates the energy crisis toward possible collapse of the national economy. It increasingly contributes to global warming and degrades the biosphere by increasingly poisoning the planet. Significant biospheric destruction occurs in obtaining and producing the coal and oil.

• The present power grid system is also splintered and increasingly unstable. It was never designed for long distance switching of power sources and power flow users. It does not have good centralized control by any means, and not even all its clocks are synchronized. Parts compete against each other, responsibility is “splintered”, etc. One group (the energy seller) arbitrarily markets who (and where) gets much of the available power from who and where. Emergency signals from one area in trouble to another area needing to know it immediately, are often merely by “courtesy call on the telephone” if someone should bother to do it. The result is a system ever on the brink of instability, and easily perturbed by either natural causes or human actions. The only real “protection” is the abrupt shutdown of power plants, refineries, etc. to protect them against damage from uncontrolled surges etc. Essentially every principle in the servomechanism control book for highly nonlinear many-servo systems with competing, varying priorities is violated.

• Modern national economies are largely based on cheap energy. Largely this equates to hydrocarbon fuels—often coal, and cheap oil. Presently the supply of cheap oil is peaking—due to the Hubbert curve {}— and so use of oil products for transport and for combustion in oil-fueled power plants will be increasingly expensive.

• The supply of natural gas is also increasingly short and erratic.

• A great effort is being launched in hydrogen and fuel cells.

• The drums are beating again for resuming construction of nuclear power plants.

• The present U.S. national plan completely neglects the supersystem and ignores how all EM systems are actually powered. Based on very inappropriate advice from the U.S. scientific community, the national plan seems to be to be “do more of the same old thing”: I.e.:

• (i) Free coal from much of its required pollution reduction methods.

• (ii) Increase explorations for oil and gas.

• (iii) Develop fuel cells and hydrogen burning at all speed.

• (iv) Push very hard to build new nuclear power plants.

• (v) Build more power transmission lines, pipelines, etc., and

• (vi) Do somewhat more on alternative energy sources such as windmill-driven generation, alternative fuels, wave power, etc.

• There appears to be no major funded program to seriously investigate and develop COP > 1.0 (overunity) or COP = " (self-powering) electrical power systems freely taking some or all of their energy from the active vacuum, even though every electrical power system and EM circuit and device is powered by such energy—and always has been and always will be.

• It appears the scientific community—including the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, leading universities, national laboratories, and Department of Energy—has little or no plans for funding and encouraging or even allowing graduate students and post doctoral scientists to investigate this area, regardless of the proven asymmetry of opposite charges (any dipolarity) well known in particle physics since 1957. Most of the community appears blithely uninterested in solving its century-old source charge problem {}.

An Implacable Old Foe: The Seriously Flawed Second Law of Thermodynamics that Prohibits COP>1.0 VP EM Systems.

• Unfortunately, at the highest energy decision levels of the scientific community, the energy ansatz continues to uphold the absoluteness of the present falsified second law of thermodynamics regardless of the consequences. The prevailing attitude is still essentially as voiced by Eddington {} in 1929 when he wrote:

"The law that entropy always increases—the second law of thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by experiments—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

• Actually the second law is not absolute at all, but merely statistical, since thermodynamics is founded on statistical mechanics. Thus statistical fluctuations exist in a thermodynamic system in equilibrium, where equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy. Deviation can only decrease the entropy, so negative entropy fluctuations do occur in all such systems.

• In the past, it has been thought that these fluctuations remained microscopic, but recent work by Wang et al. {} has experimentally demonstrated negative entropy fluctuation in solutions at the cubic micron level for up to two seconds. That involves some 30 billion ions and molecules, in a situation where reactions can run backwards. It is thus not a phenomenon having “no physical significance”!

• The solution to the source charge problem, obeying Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry, demonstrates the negentropic formation of all EM fields and potentials and their energy, from their source charges. Since these fields and potentials can reach across the universe, this violates the present second law to any physical level desired and for any time duration desired.

• For that reason, the present second law is dead. Every charge, EM field, and EM potential in the universe falsifies it. We restated (extended) the present second law quite simply, merely adding a tolerance of continuous negative entropy processes such as the experimentally demonstrated source charge and its production of its fields and potentials.

Recommendations: It is recommended that:

• The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation should review the present power system ansatz and institute vigorous programs—both theoretical and experimental—in extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum. The highest priority is to sharply change and update the seriously flawed and archaic electrical engineering curriculum and program, to include inserting the supersystem and the interactions of its three components. Else we shall continue another century with the same errors we have had for the last century. They also should establish and vigorously promote strong, well-funded scholarship awards for the most gifted students who wish to pursue doctorate and post doctoral work in “energy from the vacuum” science and technology development.

• The Department of Energy should establish a strong and well-funded national program in their national laboratories—both theoretical and experimental—in extracting useful EM energy from the vacuum {}. These programs should emphasize use of the young, bright new scientists—rather than the entrenched “mossybacks” who are partly responsible for the energy problem in the first place. Of the utmost importance is to unleash sharp young graduate students and post doctoral scientists in this area, without any threat or slight to their careers and future positions.

• The national scientific associations should cease their present practice of rewarding professional die-hard skeptics who slander, libel, and harass scientific researchers in this area. Name-calling and personal insults tolerated from representatives of major scientific societies have no place at all in scientific dialog, even when strong disagreements occur. In addition, the associations should also formulate strong policies and recommendations for seeking and publishing appropriate scientific papers in the area, in their journals. New and more modern reviewers should be sought and utilized, instead of continuing with reviewers having Eddington's attitude that the present erroneous second law of thermodynamics is absolute. A statement of association policy to that effect would seem to be required, else the association remains part of the energy problem rather than part of the energy solution.

• In the political arena, we need vastly modernized “vacuum energy” physics and higher group symmetry electrodynamics advice to our legislators in Congress and to our high level decision makers in the executive branch. A scientist who has not at least published a refereed journal paper in the area of extracting EM energy from the vacuum is unqualified to recommend or referee anything in the emerging field; he or she simply has not looked at the problem.

• The universities should immediately formulate and institute programs in higher group symmetry electrodynamics. For graduate students and doctoral candidates in physics and electrical engineering, at least one major course in higher group symmetry electrodynamics and unified field theory should be required. The universities should also strongly encourage master's and doctoral theses in this “energy from the vacuum” area. They should actively seek and accept outside funding and grants for these degree programs.

• Those foundations secrets swept under the rug for so long—such as the source charge problem, Heaviside's extra huge curled energy flow component, the negative energy fields and nonquantized potentials of persisting special nonquantized Dirac sea holes in the Coulomb gauge, the absence of any force fields in mass free space, the calculation of not the EM field but the EM field intensity, the decomposition of the “old” classical EM fields and potentials into a much more fundamental Whittaker longitudinal EM wave electrodynamics, the assumption by classical EM and electrical engineering models that all EM fields, potentials, and energy are freely created from nothing, etc.—must be made crystal clear to the students, graduates, and post doctoral scientists. At least one graduate course that is a series of seminars on these foundations difficulties should be required of every master's and doctoral candidate, for attendance and listening at least. Proper course materials and books on these subjects should also be prepared and available. The proper purpose of higher education is to inform, not to indoctrinate and sustain present dogma.

• It is also highly desirable that selected inventors having significant patents, papers in the refereed scientific journals, and possible prototypes be eligible for substantial grant programs to complete the phenomenology buildups, phenomenology testing, supersystem modeling, scale-up, and prototyping. It is insane to demand of any researcher or inventor that he personally be able to complete $50 million research and development program, and have a fully developed robust power unit already developed and finished in a completely new area of physics, prior to being able to obtain exploratory and engineering development funding. The same criterion applied to the hot fusion program would have resoundingly cancelled it decades ago.

• The environmental community must also recognize that advice from the same type scientists and engineers responsible for the present electrical power systems problem will not solve that problem. The community also needs to update its own thinking and understanding of what really powers an electrical grid and power system, where the energy comes from, etc. Else the incessant increase in demand for energy will continue to escalate and aggravate (i) the energy crisis, (ii) contamination of the biosphere, (ii) death of species, and (iv) global warming.

Observations:

• This nation has the necessary talent and capability in our young graduate students and post doctoral scientists to completely solve the energy crisis forever, in three years or less, and for a total cost of less than $500 million. Some of our leading and most capable “world class” scientists will also eagerly work in this area, given the opportunity and funding and removal of the severe prejudice against the area by scientific associations and journals.

• A few persons presently hold much of the key to a quick solution of energy from the vacuum systems, and I personally consider them to be irreplaceable at the present embryonic stage. These are unique individuals, highly creative, with ability that cannot be taught but is inborn. These very few individuals should be sought out and simply endowed and supported. I personally nominate two candidates for such immediate endowment: (1) Dr. Myron Evans, brilliant theoretician, and (2) inventor John Bedini. Also an additional brilliant young doctoral candidate at a leading university can be nominated. I'm sure there are others.

• Hopefully we have laid at least a minimum conceptual foundation {} for an eventual comprehensive theory and technology of electrical power systems freely extracting their input energy from their active vacuum environment. If the young scientists coming on are funded, encouraged, and allowed to work in this area, very rapidly that comprehensive theory, model, and technology will emerge, as well as the actual power systems themselves.

• When the giant Heaviside energy flow component is considered, a single large 1000 megawatt electrical power plant outputs enough energy flow from the vacuum that—were it collected and used—it could power all electrical loads on Earth. Yet no national laboratory, university, or scientific association even recognizes it.

• While we have not stressed it, the material in this Fact Sheet also applies to “alternative” electrical power systems driven by windmills, hydroelectric dams, wave power, solar cells, etc. In their electrical generation function, those alternatively powered systems also have a miniscule real efficiency, when their presently wasted and ignored Heaviside energy flow component is considered. E.g., if use of some of the Heaviside energy flow component were developed, a single windmill could replace an entire large windmill farm.

• We have not discussed additional factors such as the use of a quantum potential (or the scalar potential in the Coulomb gauge) as a gigantic energy amplifier, but such can be developed giving the mission, the scientists and facilities, and the funding.

• With sufficient gain in self-regauging, it is conceivable that a single oil lamp or flashlight battery—or even an electret—can furnish the input energy to run an “energy accumulator” capable of powering a home or even a battleship, and no laws of physics or forefront thermodynamics are violated. One simply winds up with a NESS system obeying Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry, and a system that has immense regauging gain via its enormous energy freely received from the vacuum.

• Deliberate capitalization on gauge freedom has always been a sleeping giant solution to the giant energy problem. Again, the entire academic and scientific communities seem not to have noticed it.

Closing Thoughts:

• The real cause of the escalating energy problem is the long prevailing scientific mindset against any hint of energy from the vacuum. This type of problem in science was commented upon by Einstein {} as follows:

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them."

• It was also pointed out by Lindsay and Margenau {} this way:

"[Hypotheses made without realizing that they are being made] …are what Poincaré has called "unconscious" or "natural" hypotheses—a type which one hardly ever challenges, for it seems too unlikely that we could make progress without them. Nevertheless it should be the endeavor of the physicist always to drag them out into the light of day, so that it may be perfectly clear what we are actually doing."

• It is high time to re-examine our unconscious hypotheses and tools of thought used in modeling electrical power systems. We simply cannot continue the usual scientific snail's pace of investigating new things, that Planck wryly pointed out {}:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

• Since that is the historical process, then by all means the scientific community should be galvanized to mount its own “Manhattan Project” so the task can be completed in three years instead of 50. In that way, the scientific community will quickly correct the present mess that electrical power generation and systems are in.

• This “energy from the vacuum” effort is a doable scientific and technical task whose time has come, and it is urgently required. For the sake of our children, our beloved earth, and the lives of all the species on this planet, let us just get to it and do it.

References:

NESS is an acronym for nonequilibrium steady state. Thermodynamically, NESS systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with their active environment are permitted to exhibit COP > 1.0 (more energy or work output than the energy that the operator inputs) and even COP = " (“self-powering”, where all the input energy is freely furnished by the active environment). For general background, the reader is referred to
D. Kondepudi and I. Prigogine, "Thermodynamics, Nonequilibrium," Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, Vol. 21, 1997, p. 311-337.

We accent that, in a general relativistic case, thermodynamics is a local description only. Indeed, due to the relativity of simultaneity, during a given period energy may be conserved for one observer and not conserved for another, since something can have happened already for the first observer and not yet have happened for the second observer in a different frame.

Imagine a “standard size rock” fixed on the bottom of a rushing stream. A certain divergence of the stream around the rock will be accomplished. Now imagine the same rock not fixed, but being surged back and forth at right angles to the water flow, very violently. Obviously much more water flow will be diverged by the churning rock. Both cases are simply approximations of the intensity of the water's flow at that point, determined in differing ways.

The definition of the field (point intensity) as the “force per unit static point charge” should be amended to “force per unit point charge and its dynamic condition”. The potential's definition should be changed similarly.

The terms “self-powered” or “self-powering” are corrupted terms meaning that the system is completely powered by energy received from its active environment. They are synonymous with “COP = "”.

The sooner classical electrodynamics incorporates the more fundamental Whittaker longitudinal EM wave internal structuring inside the present “envelope” EM fields, potentials, and waves, the better. The phrase “static field” should be replaced in every textbook and paper by the phrase “steady state field”.

The present statement of the second law is thus an oxymoron that implicitly assumes its own contradiction has first occurred. Its correction also solves the temporal asymmetry problem of thermodynamics stated by Price {1}. The second law has always been grossly incomplete, and it has been wrong in excluding negative entropy processes. However, to model negative entropy EM processes and solve the temporal asymmetry problem, one must transcend Klein geometry and methods {7}, and go to Leyton geometry and methods {8}.

Fact Sheet 2003-06

27

. Huy Price, Time's Arrow [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]and Archimedes' Point[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:48:00 2003 ], [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]Oxford[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:48:00 2003 ] University Press, 199[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]6[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:48:00 2003 ], [Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:39:00 2003 ]paperback 1997[Author ID1: at Sat Feb 22 21:56:00 2003 ], p. 78.

. Price, ibid., p. 36.

. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapters 3, 8, and 9.

. E.g., see (a) Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999; (b) G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine, Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations, Wiley, New York, 1977; (c) — Exploring Complexity, Piper, Munich, 1987.

. Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, 1999, ibid., p. 459. Later in this paper we will discuss some of the negative energy and negative entropy phenomena associated with sharp gradients in COP > 1.0 EM circuits taking their energy from the vacuum.

. 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.

. See (a) Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen," 1872. Klein's Erlanger program was initiated in 1872 to describe geometric structures in terms of their automorphism groups. It has driven much of the physics development in the twentieth century. See also (b) I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.

. Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.

. T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet 2003-03, “Leyton's Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” 2003.

. See (a) 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. See also (b) — "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p. 423-480.

. J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, Part I, 1884, p. 343-361; — "On the Connection Between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 176, Part II, 1885, p. 277-306.

. 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 procedure arbitrarily selects only a small 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 the huge Heaviside circuital energy transport component that is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.

. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 237.

. See H. J. Josephs, “The Heaviside papers found at Paignton in 1957,” IEE Monograph No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76.

. See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside—establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.

. Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, 1999, ibid., p. 61.

. Cf (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) — “Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 26(4), Apr. 1968, p. 835-839; (c) — “Stimulated emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative absorption,” ZhETF Plasma, 5(8), Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265; (d) — “Stimulated emission of an ensemble of scattering particles with negative absorption,” ZhETF Plasma, 5(8), Apr. 15, 1967, p. 262-265.

. (a) 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. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. For independent confirmation, see (b) 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. 328.

. (a) E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355; (b) — “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372.

. (a) Myron W. Evans, “A Generally Covariant Field Equation for Gravitation and Electromagnetism,” Found. Phys. Lett., Vol. 16, 2003, p. 367-377; (b) — A Generally Covariant Field Equation for Grand Unified Field Theory,” Found. Phys. Lett, 16(6), Dec. 2003, p. 507-541; (c) — “The Equations of Grand Unified Field Theory in Terms of the Maurer Cartan Structure Relations of Differential Geometry,” Found. Phys. Lett. (in press); (d) — “Generally Covariant Field and Wave Equations for Gravitation and Quantized Gravitation in Terms of the Metric Four Vector,” Found. Phys. Lett. (in review); (e) — “Derivation of the Dirac Equation from the Evans Wave Equation,” Found. Phys. Lett. (in review).

. D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

. B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Sov. Phys. Usp. 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.

. (a) T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. Congr. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 86-98; also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. See also (b) M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.

. (a) Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, ibid., 2002, Chap. 3; (b) — "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 639-698. The 3 vols. comprise a Special Topic issue as vol. 119, I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), Advances in Chemical Physics, Wiley, ongoing.

. T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet 2003-01, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003.

. Tom Van Flandern, Phys. Lett. A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9.

. E.g., see Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., ibid., p. 222-223.

. R. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, 1988 discusses Feynman's excellent interpretation of the conventional negative energy hole in the Dirac Sea. The reader is alerted that there are different interpretations for negative energy entities, and there is still much disagreement on the subject among scientists.
Our own use of the term “Dirac hole” is actually a little different from the standard use of Dirac's equation. His equation prescribes a continuum of energy levels above E = m, and a continuum of energy levels below E = "m, while in between there is a gap with no energy eigenstates. We strongly believe (and COP > 1.0 VP EM systems seem to substantiate) that the region from E = 0 to
E = "m is also a region that can be a special kind of Dirac sea in the form of a nonquantized negative energy scalar potential, filled with the equivalent of negative energy electrons (so to speak), but with the equivalent Dirac negative energy electrons “nonseparated” because of the absence of quantization.
Another way of seeing this is to view this region as a region where the quantized particles (holes) can in fact use the duality principle to exist in continuous nonquantized form, as far as their interactions are concerned. This “nonquantized” negative energy potentialization can interact with the normal positive energy overpotentialization of electrons in a normal electron current, partially or totally depotentializing them of their positive energy or some of it. This depotentialization or fractional depotentialization occurs without pair annihilation radiation, because of the absence of quantized pairs (of real electron and positron). What happens is that the normal spacetime curvature for the positive energy potentialization merely relaxes.
It is a method of directly engineering the associated spacetime curvature, and thus of “directly regauging” the potentialized electrons in a power current being furnished to the system's input section from an outside power source. We believe the phenomenon happens in the Coulomb gauge, or self-evokes the Coulomb gauge, so that only the magnetic vector potential A is quantized and the scalar potential  is not quantized.

Also, in the Coulomb gauge the scalar potential  has “instantaneous velocity”, so such a potential formed at the output section of the system would instantly also appear in the input section—a multiply connected spacetime phenomenon also exhibited by Bohm's quantum potential. One might refer to this region between E = 0 and E = "m , when some of the holes are unfilled (so to speak), as the Dirac “subsea” or “fractional Dirac sea” or some such. Its significance is that quantization functions and limitations are transcended by continuous functions in the Coulomb gauge.
At any rate, it appears that in a COP > 1.0 VP EM system, electrons can be lifted from this peculiar region to leave a special kind of nonquantized “holes” in the presence of curved spacetime. Or, one may view this as simply the spacetime curving to change the “energy density of that spacetime region's nonquantized scalar potential ” in the Coulomb gauge. In that case, the potential's existence in the Coulomb gauge (or pseudo-Coulomb gauge) means that it functions in a multiply connected spacetime (or a pseudo-multiply connected spacetime).
In susceptible COP > 1.0 VP EM systems with sharp gradients, this functioning does appear and the phenomenology does occur. For all intents and purposes, this odd negative energy potential just “directly appears” in the input section, where it can and will “eat” or absorb some of the positive energy potentialization of the incoming powered electron currents from the external power source. This “eating” of the incoming potentialization (and Poynting energy flow) avoids pair annihilation and the emitting of the usual pair annihilation radiation photons. It just “relaxes” the incoming potential energy of the incoming current to less potential energy and less curved spacetime.
Our use of the term “Dirac hole” with respect to COP > 1.0 VP EM systems in this fact sheet is thus in a special sense where (i) quantization is avoided as well as pair annihilation, and (ii) unquantized Coulomb gauge negative energy potential appears in the input section of the system to reduce or “eat” positive energy potentialization transported on the incoming electron currents. This is an hypothesis empirically formulated from observing such phenomena in COP > 1.0 VP EM systems with and without sharp gradients. It is also a correction to and updating of appropriate sections of my book, Energy from the Vacuum, 2002, ibid.
Obviously much additional scientific work still needs to be done on this unusual phenomenon.

T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002, ibid., Chapter 9: “The Supersystem and Remarks on Gravity, Antigravity, and Testing.”

. To see how Maxwell's equations are conventionally regauged symmetrically, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wylie, New York, Third Edition, 1999, p. 240-246.

. For a discussion of asymmetrical regauging, see M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Some Notes on `Asymmetric Regauging',” J. New Energy 4(3), Winter 1999, p. 325-326.

. Hence our wry comment that one pays the electrical power company to use a closed current loop circuit, engage in a giant wrestling match inside its generators, and deliberately lose.

. The first law of thermodynamics thus requires a minor correction. Presently, any change in an external parameter—such as the potential V—of a system is defined as work a priori. That is a non sequitur that, if true, would exclude gauge freedom from physics. Hence gauge field theory and much of physics would be wrong. Change of magnitude of the energy of a parameter is only work if the energy to make the change of parameter is input in a different form than the energy of the parameter being changed, and then work has to be done to change its form before regauging occurs.

. Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover, New York, 1963, p. 217. Quoting: “…the condition of equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy."

. One method that we previously published is to switch to an external circuit a source of static potential as a momentary input section that potentializes the external circuit, with the circuit's electrons momentarily pinned so that the current is zero during the potentializing process. In short, the external circuit is simply regauged by energy transfer, and none of the regauging energy is dissipated as work during the regauging part of the cycle. Then the source is switched back out of the circuit and the external potentialized circuit is simultaneously completed (e.g., by a diode and resistor) so that the current can only flow in one direction when the circuit excitation (potentialization) decays and pushes current through the resistor load, producing power. In short, pin the circuit's current while potentializing the circuit in a static mode with a static potential V. Disconnect the static potential source, simultaneously completing the remaining circuit with a one-way current valve and load, and discharge the regauged potential energy in a normal dynamic circuit fashion with current flowing. If enough charges q are pinned during potentialization, the energy Vq discharged in the load during circuit decay can exceed the energy one must expend for efficient switching.

. For a method of extracting free energy from a stress potential's composite Whittaker internal bidirectional energy flows, see Bedini's battery-charging method in (a) John C. Bedini, “Device and Method for Pulse Charging a Battery and for Driving other Devices with a Pulse,” U. S. Patent #2003/0117111 A1, June 26, 2003. A simplified description of the process is given in (b) T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38. Simply put, a battery powered circuit is not really a true closed current loop, since mostly ion currents move between the plates inside the battery but not in the external circuit, and the electron currents move mostly in the external circuit half-loop between one plate and the other, outside the battery rather than inside between the plates. By sharply “back-popping” the battery for recharging while the battery is in powering mode, these two “half-loop” currents can be dephased and made antiphased. With such a “back-pop”, the heavy internal ion currents keep bearing down in powering mode momentarily because of their large inertia, but are now overpotentialized and thus deliver more energy for powering. The electrons in the “back-pop” pile up on the plate attempting to repel the incoming ions back into charging mode. This dramatically increases the charge density on the plate, resulting in overpotentialization (typically 100 volts or so in a 12 volt lead-acid battery) and creation of a significant local curvature of spacetime. The electrons that “pile-up” on the plate—in attempting to reverse the oncoming ion flow direction—produce this overpotential (regauged voltage) which reaches in both directions: onto the oncoming but slowing ions in powering mode and back out into the circuit in powering mode, overpotentializing the circuit as well and thereby resulting in collection of excess energy in that external circuit, for additional powering. We point out that the free regauging energy collected is a function of (V)q, and is limited only by q for a given overpotential (say, for 100 volts). Then as the ions reverse and move backwards in charging mode, the applied pulse is abruptly terminated, which evokes Lenz's law and causes a further sharp jump in overpotentialization. In a 12-volt battery, this second overpotential may be some 400 volts or even more. Again, this further overpotentializes the ions now moving in recharging direction, so much more recharging energy is delivered inside the battery. At the same time, the overpotential also flows in the other direction back out into the external circuit, again overpotentializing its Drude electrons for delivery of additional powering (voltage x amps). The net result is that with very adroit and meticulously timed switching, the battery can be recharged in great overpotential spurts while the external circuit continues to be powered to include substantial additional captured regauging energy from the overpotentialization in powering mode. The simplest way of applying the Bedini method is to use the free overpotentialization on a second battery not engaged in powering the system, just to recharge it, while powering normally from a primary battery. Then as the primary battery heads toward significant normal discharge, simply switch the batteries, and then continue the periodic switching of primary and secondary batteries as appropriate. In this manner, a legitimate continuous self-powering VP COP = " system can be and has been demonstrated by Bedini that obeys the laws of physics and NESS system thermodynamics. He has also discovered a further quite marvelous improvement to the process by several orders of magnitude, and is preparing a formidable patent on that new process as well. With proper development funding, Bedini will be able to recharge quite large batteries with extraordinary swiftness, using a matchbox-sized little switcher-charger and taking the excess potential energy directly from the vacuum via highly amplified self-regauging, as a direct application of the gauge freedom principle. Again, gauge freedom already implies that one can freely change the potential energy of an EM system at will. Bedini has simply found practical though unusual ways to directly apply that proven principle.

. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 105.

. An exchange between vacuum flux and the charge or mass creates a change in the energy density of the vacuum, which is a change in the energy density of space, which is a curvature of spacetime. Any force is a massless curvature of spacetime acting on a mass. Mass is a component of force, as can be seen by F " "p/"t = m"v/"t + v"m/"t. Both expansion expressions contain a mass term.

. (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev., 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; (errata in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371); (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

. C. S. Wu et al., "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.

. T. D. Lee, Symmetries, Asymmetries, and the World of Particles, U. Wash. Press, Seattle, 1988, p. 11.

. As an example, (a) William C. Reynolds, Thermodynamics, 2nd Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p. 250-252 gives an analysis of the Carnot heat pump. A nice section on heat pumps and refrigerator Carnot cycles is given in (b) David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, Third edition extended, Wiley, NY, 1988, Chapter 22.

. E.g., see Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, ibid., p. 518, Sample Problem 5.

. Any two points in the circuit (or in the universe, for that matter) that are at differing potential in one's frame, constitute at least a weak source dipolarity. This dipolarity is a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, and so it is continuously pouring out at least some real EM energy extracted from the virtual photon flux of the vacuum, unaccounted by present science. More of interest, any two points in a circuit or EM device that are at different potentials in one's frame, constitute a source dipolarity extracting energy from the vacuum. This is Gabriel Kron's open path, which he discovered decades ago in a General Electric project for the U.S. Navy at Stanford University, with the Network Analyzer simulator. He was never permitted to totally reveal the secret of his “open path”. In the Network Analyzer project in the 1930s, Kron also built a true negative resistor that could power itself and its connected Network Analyzer simulator with the generator disconnected. See (a) Gabriel Kron, “Electric circuit models of the Schrödinger equation,” Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 39. Quoting: "Although negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer, in practice it is more convenient to use a second type of circuit, in which the positive and negative resistances are replaced by inductors and capacitors and the dc currents and voltages are replaced by ac currents and voltages of fixed frequency. The use of the second type of interpretation is equivalent to multiplying the wave equation by i = ""1." The first clause states very plainly that true negative resistors were indeed available—this was one that Kron slipped through his censors. See also (b) Gabriel Kron, “Electric circuit models of the Schrödinger equation,” Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 41. Quoting: “Now a value E of the negative resistances, at which the generator current becomes zero, represents a state at which the circuit is self-supporting and has a continuous existence of its own without the presence of the generator, as the negative resistances just supply the energy consumed by the positive resistances. (If the circuit contains inductors and capacitors, the circuit is a resonant circuit and it oscillates at its basic frequency.) … When the generator current is positive the circuit draws energy from the source, and when the current is negative the circuit pumps back energy into the source. At zero generator current the circuit neither gives nor takes energy, and theoretically the generator may be removed.” In that quotation, Kron was required to insert the word “theoretically”, to prevent the blunt statement that such had actually been done.

. For a complete story and appropriate references, see (a) T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum, ibid., 2002, entries under Kron condition, Kron negative resistor, and Kron, Gabriel. It is indeed true that some known scientists have developed COP>1.0 and COP = " EM vacuum-powered systems in the past, and their work has been suppressed. See also (b) .W. Lynn and R.A. Russell, "Kron's Wave Automaton," Physical Structures in System Theory, J. J. Dixhoorn and F. J. Evans (Eds.), Academic Press, London, 1974, p. 131. Quoting: "Kron has never published details of his method of making the polyhedron self-organizing, although his published results show that in this state it has some remarkable properties, associated with harmonic integrals on multiply connected spaces." We also point out that multiply connected spaces may well involve Bohm's quantum potential; see (c) David J. Bohm, "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables, I and II." Phys. Rev., 85(2), Jan. 15, 1952, p. 166-179 (Part I); 180-193 (Part II).

. Phrase used by Tesla (who also used the more fundamental longitudinal EM waves) to describe his view of the transverse EM wave model, in Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless,” Electrical Experimenter, May 1919.

. Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001.

. On an upbeat note, the Foundations of Physics series of journals is scientifically interested in extraction of EM energy from the vacuum and in the broken symmetry of opposite charges. Accordingly a series of important scientific papers dealing with energy from the vacuum have been published, with a few here and there in some other journals as well. For example, see (a) M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261. This paper contains the giant negentropy of the common dipole, proposes a solution to the dark energy problem of astrophysics, and clearly shows vacuum energy currents; (b) M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; (c) — "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; (d) — “The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum,” Found. Phys. Lett. 15(6), Dec. 2002, p.561-568; (e) — “Effect of Vacuum Energy on the Atomic Spectra,” Found. Phys. Lett., 13(3), June 2000, p. 289-296; (f) — “Operator Derivation of the Gauge Invariant Proca and Lehnert Equations: Elimination of the Lorenz Condition,” Found. Phys., 30(7), July 2000, p. 1123-1129; (g) — “Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics,” Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; (h) — “Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics,” Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), Aug. 2001, p. 387-393; (i) T. E. Bearden, “Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum,” Modern Nonlinear Optics, M. W. Evans (Ed.), 2nd Edn., Vol. 2, p. 639-698.

. A. S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, Macmillan, New York, 1929, p. 74.

. 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.

. However, we strongly point out that, if the national labs seek out private inventors who are known to hold patents and/or have working overunity prototypes, the government must be directed to sign noncircumvention agreements as well as nondisclosure agreements. Otherwise, the labs all seek and obtain patents, and circumvention is a strong threat to any legitimate inventor attempting to work with them. The DARPA contractual practice of inserting an insidious “March In Rights” clause in the contract, giving the government (i.e., a single bureaucrat) the authority to seize the inventor's patent and run with it, is intolerable to any sane inventor and borders on being unethical piracy.

. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002.

. Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii..

. Lindsay and Margenau, Foundations of Physics, 1963, ibid., p. 25.

. Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.

---