We stress again: There is no real energy crisis. Instead, there is a totally and deliberately arranged crisis and breakdown of our own scientific community, and one that has been (sadly) deliberately set up since way back. Some of it is nefarious and by deliberate intent. That is particularly true of the sabotage of the overall electrical engineering theoretical model since before its very inception.
-Tom Bearden

less theory.. more actual

Subject: DoE Research and funding: A “solution” already present for the world energy crisis but hidden?
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:06:55 -0500

Dear. Dr. Studt,

Why should we fund the Department of Energy, when openly it does little or nothing at all (except its conventional prattle) to solve our escalating energy/oil crisis that is rapidly propelling this nation right down the tube? In fact, some folks may conclude that DoE is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Let me give you what may be a specific example. Please have some physicists check this, including those knowledgeable in quantum field theory and particularly group theory.

Please see Vijay K. Chandhok and Bao-min Ma. “Method for producing a noncircular permanent magnet”. United States Patent No. 4,915,891, issued April. 10, 1990. This is a process for easily producing a permanent magnet having asymmetric fields � e.g., laterally to the polar line.

All we are saying here is that (1) such an asymmetric-field permanent magnet can be readily made, with a high energy product, and (2) there are already patented processes for doing so. This patent is interesting because of the reaction it seems to have evoked in our own Department of Energy.

In other words, the normal bar magnet we buy and use has symmetry in its lateral field strengths left and right. The field on the left and the field on the right, at symmetrical points, are of identical strengths.

Let us now briefly review how we normally use these “symmetrical” magnets in our motors.

Suppose we have a simple rotor-stator magnetic motor, with one magnet on the rotor and one on the stator. Let the stator pole facing the rotor axis be a north pole. The rotor magnet has its south pole facing radially outward, so in its rotation the rotor south pole approaches the stator north pole and then departs on away from it.

In the forward mmf region, when the rotation of the rotor south pole is approaching the stator north pole, the force of attraction accelerates the rotation rate, FREELY adding angular momentum (energy x time) to the flywheel and the shaft, and the rotation of the flywheel is therefore freely storing this excess angular momentum (energy x time). This excess stored energy is absolutely free, and we need pay nothing at all for it after we pay for building the assembly.

But then the rotating rotor south pole passes on by the stator north pole and out of the “forward mmf” (acceleration) region. So now the system is in the “back mmf” (deceleration) region where the rotor south pole is departing from the stator north pole. The directionally reversed attraction of the stator north and the rotor south now decelerates the rotation of the accelerated shaft and the flywheel, precisely as much as it was accelerated in the just-passed forward mmf region. So the system (with its symmetric fields) now REMOVES and TAKES BACK all that free excess angular momentum that was added to the flywheel during the forward mmf (acceleration) region.

This is the standard symmetrical EM system that self-destroys any and all excess free energy input from the seething vacuum interaction. In 1892, J. P. Morgan elicited Lorentz to arbitrarily symmetrize the already-sharply-curtailed Heaviside equations. Lorentz was a great scientist, but was noted also for using other scientists� work and taking credit for it. For the proof, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Discusses roots and history of gauge invariance, verifies that Ludwig Lorenz (without the “t”) first symmetrically regauged Maxwell’s equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it.

Lorentz just arbitrarily applied the Lorenz symmetrization (and also took credit for it), thus arbitrarily discarding all remaining asymmetric Maxwellian systems from the budding Heaviside theory which was going to be used to set up the EE model to be taught in universities as the standard electrical engineering model.

So since day one, electrical engineering has been deliberately mutilated so that our EEs do not think, model, build, and deploy “naturally asymmetric” Maxwellian systems.

But back to our simplified permanent magnet motor, using only permanent magnets with laterally-symmetric field strengths.

In short, this beast now “takes back” all the free stored flywheel rotational energy it had just given us. There isn’t anything “magic” at all; it’s simply because of the built-in SYMMETRY of the system itself.

So we have DELIBERATELY built a self-symmetrizing-field permanent magnet system which will not give us any NET free energy to retain. It keeps giving us some free energy to the flywheel in the forward mmf region, but immediately takes it back from the flywheel in the back mmf region so we have nothing “net” to use freely to “self-power” the loads.

So, to make that symmetrical-field magnet system rotate, we have to (usually) put in a coil in there, say, in the stator’s back mmf region, and then we pay to adroitly put in some external current and energy to that coil during the back mmf functioning so that the coils resulting magnetic field adds algebraically to and overcomes — that back mmf field. For simplicity, let’�s say we simply “zero” the NET back mmf field with our coil and our input of energy to it. But we pay for the input energy to break the symmetry of the primary symmetric system.

Now with our paid input the NET back mmf field is zero, so the system now is ASYMMETRIC with respect to its forward and back mmf field regions. And now system continually accelerates on each rotational cycle due to its unrestrained forward mmf, without “taking back the extra free angular momentum” in the back mmf region. We can now place a properly matched drag load on that shaft, and the LOAD now freely takes back the flywheel’s free acceleration energy, so that the system now steadily powers itself and its load, and rotates continually in doing so.

The energy we ourselves continually pay to input does one thing and one thing only. It makes the net “lateral fields” of the stator permanent magnet regions asymmetric. In short, the net back mmf field is less than the forward mmf field, and that DEFINES an asymmetric system.

We do not pay to “power” the system itself. Instead, we only pay to provide a proper broken symmetry in the system, and then the interacting vacuum (exchange of virtual particles between interacting charges etc. produces all EM forces; see standard quantum field theory) provides the necessary energy to power the system and its load.

As Nobelist Lee pointed out, whenever we have a broken symmetry (and any dipole is a proven broken symmetry) then something virtual has become observable. It is the BROKEN SYMMETRY established between back mmf and forward mmf regions of the cycle that “powers the motor and its load�, using virtual energy translated directly from the active vacuum (magnetic polarity is magnetic charge, and two unlike charges are a proven broken symmetry, continually emitting observable photons by absorbing and cohering virtual photons from the seething vacuum). That gives us the ongoing “static” field of the permanent magnet in the first place.

The magnetic field is not a “static” system at all; it is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. In modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics, such a system is permitted to easily violate the hoary old second law of EQUILIBRIUM thermodynamics, because the system (the field) is not in equilibrium.

Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts (photons) in continuous motion:

“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term “static”. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. “So are” fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity" What the experiments say," Physics Letters A", Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

Oh, someone says that we cannot have little parts or systems that freely extract and pour out real EM energy from the virtual state vacuum? Nonsense! Every charge (which polarizes its surrounding vacuum with opposite charge, thus being part of a dipolarity) and every dipole already does this, and that is proven since 1957.

We can easily extract all the free EM energy flow from the vacuum that we wish to! Anywhere, anytime! One can easily (for a couple of dollars) make a little gadget that will sit on the bench and freely pour out real Poynting EM energy flow, till the end of time if one just lets it alone and does not let its configuration be disrupted. Here�s how:

Simply place an electret (or a charged capacitor, if you wish) on top of a permanent magnet, so that the E-field of the electret is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. Then by the standard Poynting energy flow theory in all our EE textbooks in every technical university, that silly gadget will just sit there and pour out real, Poynting energy flow S, given by the simple equation S = E X H.

In case one assumes the “finite value” for the charges that is erroneously used in EE textbooks and theory. Every charge “even a single electron” actually involves two infinite charges of opposite sign, each having infinite energy! Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:

“[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron’s mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift � that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy.” [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

Also, isn’t it interesting that our EEs are not taught group theory (which has been in our universities since 1870), and thus do not actually know what powers an EM circuit? Again quoting Weinberg:

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

So one can produce an unending free EM energy “wind” from the seething vacuum, anywhere and anytime one wishes it, with ridiculous ease as our “little gadget” shows. Indeed, every charge and dipole in the universe is doing precisely that.

So evoking a “free EM energy wind of real, usable EM energy flow” from the vacuum is simple and cheap. One just has to learn how to make a proper “EM energy flow windmill” which will not tamper with the source of the “wind energy”, but will just intercept and collect and use some of that continual “wind flow energy” from its environment. And a priori, that is an asymmetric system and all such remaining asymmetric Maxwellian systems were discarded from the Heaviside equations by Lorentz in 1892.

So it is the broken lateral symmetry (for which we usually PAY to get established in the otherwise SYMMETRICAL systems that our EEs always build) of the net fields in forward and back mmf regions, which then actually furnishes the energy flow that powers the permanent magnet motor and the load, once we pay to break that normal lateral symmetry.

Here’s the magic point. Nature itself does not care how that broken symmetry is obtained, but only that it is there and present and acting. Get the materials to give that asymmetry to you “for free”, and you will not have to continue inputting energy to break the symmetry!

That violates the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics, you say! Of course! Nothing wrong with that. Every EM field and potential is a violation of the old equilibrium second law, because it is a “system” that is in nonequilibrium between the virtual state vacuum fluctuations and the emitted observable photons in those fields and potentials. And modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics permits the violation of that old “second equilibrium law” at will. E.g., see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the old second law are given on p. 459.

Indeed, in real systems the old second law is always being violated at sufficiently small regions anyway. Even Maxwell who was also a noted thermodynamicist of his day was aware of that. Quoting Maxwell:

“The truth of the second law is “a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules.” Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.” [J. C. Maxwell, "Tait's Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278�280 (7 February 1878)].

In modern thermodynamics, we can also even design and build and use systems which produce continual negative entropy. E.g., see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, “Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States,” J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. This paper proves that real physical systems can produce continuous negative entropy, in total violation to the flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics.

Indeed, the introduction of increasing disorder can and does paradoxically lead to the production of ordering at the next higher level. See M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, “Pattern formation outside of equilibrium.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(3), July 1993, p. 851-1112. This is essentially a graduate level textbook on self-organization of systems not in equilibrium. It includes a bibliography of several hundred references.

Quoting Kondepudi and Prigogine:

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

Every source charge and source dipole is just such a system. In absorbing highly disordered virtual (subquantal) photons from the virtual state vacuum interactions, it produces and emits ordered (quantal) photons in the observable state. It therefore continually consumes positive entropy in the virtual state to produces negative entropy in the observable state.
—————————-

We can be stupid and continue to use asymmetric permanent magnets, so we will have to continuously pay for input asymmetrizing energy. And since no physical process is ever 100% efficient, we will pay more for the “asymmetrizing input” than the output power in the load that we get from harnessing the “asymmetric output power”.

But now suppose we get smart. We bring in another two identical permanent magnets, but where the lateral field strengths of each magnet are asymmetrical. As one of these magnet lays on the bench, its left field “say” is stronger than its right field. If I flip it over, then the left field is WEAKER than its right field, laying in that position.

Now arrange the stator magnet and the rotor magnet (using these magnets) so that in the forward mmf region the strong fields sides of the two magnets are facing, and in the back mmf region the weak fields sided of the two magnets are facing. Do not use a coil or any other external energy input. The net “broken symmetry” of forward and back mmf regions now will freely power our system and our load, with energy absorbed in virtual form from the seething virtual state vacuum interaction.

In modern quantum field theory, we simply cannot ignore the vacuum interaction (while the sad old 1880s electrical engineering model totally ignores it). Indeed, all forces are due to that interaction. Quoting Aitchison:

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

“Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta…” [Ibid., p. 372].

Now during the forward mmf region (strong field sides facing), the rotor and flywheel will be ACCELERATED more than is paid back in the back mmf region (weak field sides facing). So now the flywheel will freely store excess angular momentum on each rotation. We can therefore attach our �drag� load, matched, and this unit will sit there and power itself and the load, continually. The input energy is freely coming from the virtual state vacuum fluctuations, being absorbed and integrated to quantal size and re-emitted per the very definition of “broken symmetry of a dipolarity”.

If you do not believe it, just model it on a good simulation program, and watch it happen.

Now let us look again at that U.S. patent, Vijay K. Chandhok and Bao-min Ma. “Method for producing a noncircular permanent magnet”. United States Patent No. 4,915,891, issued April. 10, 1990.

But let us also look simultaneously at a following International patent by one of those two inventors. See Vijak K. Chandhok, WO/2001/084569 A1, “Method for Producing through Extrusion an Anisotropic Magnet with High Energy Product”, International patent, 9 Mar. 2001. Let us particularly look at the following note:

“This invention was made with government support under a small business research and development grant for “A Simple Process to Manufacture Grain Aligned Permanent Magnets” awarded by the U. S. Department of Energy (Grant No. DE-FG02-97-ER82313). The Government has certain rights to this invention.�

Isn’t it interesting that one of the two inventors has been given a U.S. government grant, and now DoE is in fact claiming all the work was done under this grant, and therefore the government (i.e., DoE as its agent) has “certain rights” to this invention!!!

In essence, the DoE has simply assumed control of this patented process, using a government grant to do it.

Then the SAME inventor obtained a new U.S. patent; see Vijak K. Chandhok, “Method for producing through extrusion an anisotropic magnet with high energy product”, U.S. Patent No. 6,787,083 issued on Sep. 7, 2004.

What are we to make of all this?

My tentative conclusion is that (1) the DoE deliberately “appropriated” control of a patented process for easily making asymmetric-field permanent magnets. (2) It stated its “certain rights” claim in the international patent, which translates to its direct assumption of control of the patent.

If true, this means that, since 2001, the U.S. DoE has

(a) had permanent magnets with laterally asymmetric fields, as we discussed above.

(b) It has thus had self-powering permanent magnet motors and generators since at least 2001.

(c) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. President.

(d) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. Congress.

(e) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the U.S. Scientific community.

(f) It has hidden this information (apparently) from the American Public.

In short, if my tentative conclusion is correct, the DoE has had a direct, cheap, clean, permanent, and eminently practical solution to the energy/oil/fuel crisis since at least 2001, and has kept it deliberately hidden and “unavailable”, while the entire nation steadily advances to being flushed down the toilet by the rapidly escalating energy/oil crisis.

As an ex-military officer, if that conclusion is true, then our own DoE is guilty of the highest form of treason.

Please do your own investigation of these three patents and that situation, using some good PHYSICISTS, and let me know your own conclusions.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden