Thread: Not so alternative power technology

You wouldn't by any chance be related to the late Richard Feynman, hmm?

Mick.

Nah Mick,

Richard P. Feynman was born in New York City on the 11th May 1918. - that would make him 41 years older than me (or 95) if he were still around.

I just have a curious mind is all. And I read a lot.

For example....

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,


Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment



In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.
They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.
No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.
The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction”.

• Authors Note – recall that the described slight variations in the two results – that were dismissed by Mitchellson & Morley as “statistically insignificant” – but which in the context of this discussion ARE significant in this authors opinion. Also note that as explained already they also never had 2 speedboats called photon of light A & Photon of Light B, in a river with any significant current or they would have seen the obvious design flaw in their experiment of returning the 2 light beams to the interferometer by bouncing them back to the interferometer off a fully 100% silvered mirror along their own previous path, thus negating any observable effect of the space ether upon the photons speed of the light .

“For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong?

In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution - but he was wrong.

Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.

His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt.

While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."

Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.

Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."

Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.

But not so.


It was only an “integration constant” to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements.

What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."

Time zones relate time to distance.

Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientists had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.

Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel.

This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.

This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.

This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.

What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?

It's not the same as on earth.

A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually *four* possible explanations for the null or failed result.”
• Again Authors note – recall that I already postulated 3 possible interpretations of the Mitchellson Morley experiment.
“Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities.

Many scientists in 1905 could not, and some still do not, fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities, - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.

In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic, or theory, produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.

That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.

That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second. This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour. But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.

That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head.

Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.

This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.

If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same, regardless of the motion of the light source.

Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth.

Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.

Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.

It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!.


Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

It has become the basis for much of modern physics.

"Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"

The answer is simple.

It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness. But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.

Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.
Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.

They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.

Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."

For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.

But not so.

Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts.

Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.

Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.

In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error. They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.
For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error?

It's so simple even a child could figure it out.
It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.

That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.

He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.

I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.

The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.

The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.

Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.

Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning.

But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.

Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at +V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.

That clearly is paradoxical.

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two.

For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two.

For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5).

And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.

But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise.

The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.

Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.

He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.

But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.
Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.

He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college class notes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity."

Dr. Lorentz never accepted, nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox.

Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper.

That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.

There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant.

It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all simply variations of the same force.

Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."

No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.

But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.

All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.

It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.”

Ok so here it is,

Einsteins 21 equation proof for special relativity.



Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Next we have Einsteins Fine Structure Constant Alpha.

Alpha = E^2/hc

where

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

So

Starting at Equation 5 where velocity of light C^ 2 is introduced

(Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

and

Substituting Alpha for C

We get

(Eq 5) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/Alpha^2) - .5

Fleshing out Alpha squared

we get

(Eq 6) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/E^2/hc x E^2/hc) - .5

Resolve from here.

No doubt the Boards resident Physicist Bob L could do this in his sleep.... and probably point out the error of my amateur physicists ways (or call it all bollocks) ...

I'm always keen to learn...so look forward to standing corrected.

I've been wrong before - this wouldn't be the first time.

What I'd like for my birthday is an anti gravity ship that isn't affected by black holes or anything else the universes can throw at it, and also travels faster than time. That's not too much to ask is it? surely we've come that far.

I'd say we are close Huon....

Anti Gravitics is a field that's well protected these days..... spinning magnetic fields rotated against the coriolis effect of earths spins will be the key to solving anti gravity - a few have managed it, but all been bought out / shut down or bumped off, bit like water powered cars etc.

Heck just the terms anti gravitics, ion propulsion etc - will see the NSA etc capturing the posts via their Echelon listening posts (in our case Pine Gap).

Some places it's best for our health just not to go...

Well just in case they are listening. I LOVE WIKILEAKS I LOVE WIKILEAKS I LOVE WIKILEAKS ETC. Must be the Irish in my genes. Go the wee people.

Wiki and Snowdon are whats called in the trade "a hangout operation".... again, better not to go there.

PressTV - How to identify CIA limited hangout op?

How to Identify a CIA Limited Hangout Operation « TARPLEY.net

Tis all a sucker game play IMHO.

We are the suckers!

Any way, let's restart with off the grid power. For more than a quarter of a century (sounds impressive ay) swambo and I haven't paid a power bill. Mind you it was pretty basic in the early days.When we first moved onto the property, we heated our water with a chip heater, two solar panels powering some tractor batteries for lighting. Pigs in #### couldn't have been happier.
Then we went fancy and built a stone house but still stuck with off the grid power systems;48vlt, 7.5 kva inverter, photovoltaics, solar hotwater, minihydro power.In other words we can run anything (TV,ghetto blaster, computer, fridge, washingmachine, bandsaw, lathe, drillpress , tormec, power tools etc.
So any other stories out there on off the grid power supply?


PS. I've heard people's concerns about the initial cost of installing an off the grid power system, my answer to that is if you have vision and intend to live/inhabit said property for your lifetime then you will see the fruits of your labour (in other words it will pay for itself and more)

Not being pedantic but a MEG would definitely be "off grid" power.

I did run a couple diesel gen sets on an island - for a year or so, including carting all the diesel by boat to keep them going. All I know is its bloody expensive noisy and hard work and they wear out within a couple years needing rebuilds....

Solar is a big issue here in the West right now... Our govt entered into 10 year contracts to buy back solar power at 70 odd cents, a unit - to justify the expense of borrowing $20K to install the solar panels and inverter.

Then it was cut back to 40 c a unit...
Now the govt wants to breach all its contracts and cut it too 20c a unit!
Eventually they are budgeting to cut it to 12c apparently.
I'd say the Solar industry will be dead in the water in no time flat!
Who's going to invest when the agency that's contracting to buy your excess power cannot be trusted to honor their contractual agreements?.

The island I lived at we had diurnal (2 times a day - i.e. every 6hrs 15 minutes) tidal movement of up to 7 meters each way. Absolutely ideal situation for tidal power... but the expense to set up tidal power is just immense.

Free energy from spatial circuits (eg megs - the 'source' charge) is no less worthy of discussion that solar, tidal, wind, methane, power etc etc IMHO.

All are alternate options...

Or are we restricted to discussing only what you can buy off the shelf?.

All that's really needed for making a MEG is a cheap source of doped degenerate semi conductor... so that the cycle of re charge of the coil can by synced with computer controlled (transistorized) switching gear!

But - whatever people want to discuss - I am easy.

Solar power dead in the water? I don't think so. There's a lot of r&d going on at the moment as it has been for a long time now, the spray on method of photovoltaics onto various surfaces; corrugated iron, glass etc.
And not everyone is too concerned about selling back to the grid, we've never done it nor have we paid a power bill for 28 years, mind you we did get some assistance from the government in the way of the raps package. And why not we like everyone pay taxes, levies , tolls etc. and had our power companies sold from under us. Now rumour has it that power bills will be a thing of the past instead you folk on the grid will be charged a flat rental rate, whichever way they do it the big business wont go short of a quid.
And I cant any reason why people cant discuss any type of power source, be it sun powered water powered, coal powered petroleum powered so on and so forth.
Cheers

This is all the hoo har in the press over here at the moment about the tarrif rate for solar power.

Cabinet reverses solar tariff decision - The West Australian

Cabinet reverses solar tariff decision

The Government has reversed its unpopular decision to halve the solar feed in tariff after four days of widespread, stinging criticism.
Announcing the decision midway through today’s weekly Cabinet meeting, Premier Colin Barnett admitted the Government got it wrong.
Thursday’s Budget revealed that 40c for every unit of electricity contributed to the grid would be halved to 20c by July for solar panel customers signed up to the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme.
Mr Barnett said Cabinet had approved a decision to reverse the stance.
“Quite simply, we got this decision wrong and we have to fix it,” the Premier said in a statement a short time ago. “We have listened, and we appreciate the commitment that many people have made to take up renewable energy, like solar power.
“We make many decisions in casting the State Budget - and at all times we are trying to achieve a balance on behalf of all West Australians.
“We understand that this measure would have had an unfair impact on one section of the community and it has to be reversed.”

There was talk of it becomming a federal election issue so likely the Mad Monk has told Barnett to pull his head in for 6 weeks and THEN screw us all over.

I had a sparky here doing some work today and he normally does mostly solar installs, and was saying he had 3 contracted jobs in for 10 day approvals with Western Power, and yesterday all 3 clients called to cancel their contracts for installation before they were approved due to the proposed cuts - which decision has now been reversed today! - but the Sparkys clients didn't ring back to say OK go ahead!.

Those here in the know are saying to me that solar is now officially dead in the water here in the west - our local state govt just killed it stone dead & then back flipped after the damage was already done.

Its what we have come to expect of late -its not the solar industry's fault, but it wasn't the cattle industrys fault either when the Fed labor govt banned beef exports to Indonesia and just about wiped out the beef industry.

It's not whether the solar industry stacks up or not - its whether our govt will knife it in the back overnight due to complete total incompetence.

At least that's the view this side of the pizza this week.

Who knows what 'cat #### trophy' our govt will cook up for next week.

Originally Posted by Timless Timber

Not being pedantic but a MEG would definitely be "off grid" power.

Free energy from spatial circuits (eg megs - the 'source' charge) is no less worthy of discussion that solar, tidal, wind, methane, power etc etc IMHO.

All are alternate options...

But - whatever people want to discuss - I am easy.

Hi Timeless

Interesting discussion, but in all your formulas I think I missed how the laws of thermodynamics

First Law -- You can't win.
Second Law -- You can't break even.
Third Law -- You can't even get out of the game.

apply to devices like your MEG.

Just for the amusement of the people in the West: feed-in tariffs are a State issue and the Vic government went into 15 year contracts for $0.60c/kWh for a brief period in 2009, then to 10year contracts at $0.40/kWhr until 2011. Now it is $0.08/kWh until 2016 - that's it. No more new contracts from Sept. 30 this year. All previous contracts remain valid - unless you add any capacity/panels, then any existing contracts are null and void (we knew that from the start - it was in the original contracts). After September its up to the electricity distributor to pay you what they want to - or indeed nothing!
However, prices of PV systems have fallen through the flooe and you can get 5kW systems installed for $5000 now - they will pay for themselves in two years, irrespective of feed-in.
So the investment is still worth it.
I am a bit concerned though about the rules that you have to have "pre-approval" from some of the distribution companies BEFORE you can apply to have a systme installed. I'm reading thaqt as "if there are load and balance issues with too many people putting in mini-generating plants, then they may not get approval AT ALL, because it is too complicated or expensive for electricity distributors to manage the loads on their generators". Now that's a real worry. Then you only have the option to go "island" system - cut yourself off the grid.
I can see future systems running as islands when the sun shines and the batteries are charged, and only (automatically) connect to the grid as backup if the batteries run low..... the distributors won't like that either.....
hmmmm

I am a bit concerned though about the rules that you have to have "pre-approval" from some of the distribution companies BEFORE you can apply to have a system installed.

From my rambling discussions with the sparky today, the only reason that you have to have approval to have a system installed is becauseof the contract for feed in tarrif and the fact that when you return power to the grid - you cross the meter / lead sealed inlet fuses that separates Western power side of the meter from the domestic side of the meter...so they won't let just any contractor work on their side of the system.

Apparently some time back they allowed contractors to operate on the supply side, and a couple of reversed polarity's fried a couple people in their bath - now only Western power employees have authority to access the feed in side.

I'm no sparky but that's how it was explained to me or words much to that effect - maybe I got the dumbed down version.

Ian - this from T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired) CEO, CTEC Inc.
Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS)
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)

might assist you with the whole immutable laws of thermodynamics - it's fully referenced so might prove invaluable for you.

The Problem: Detail the functioning of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) {1} and why its COP > 1.0 operation is permissible.

The solution: We explain:


The overwhelming importance of the magnetic vector potential, particularly when one looks through quantum electrodynamic “eyes” and in various gauges.
The Aharonov-Bohm mechanism {2} utilized by the MEG {3,4,5}.
Why the potential energy of any EM system (such as the MEG) can be freely changed at will, and for free, in accord with the gauge freedom principle {6}.
The difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical regauging {7,8}.
Why a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system freely receiving energy from its environment can exhibit COP > 1.0.
The direct analogy between the MEG and a common COP = 3.0 heat pump {9}. Discussion 1: Potentials are real and force fields are derived.


The old notion that potentials were merely mathematical conveniences has long been falsified, particularly by the Aharonov-Bohm effect {2}, extended to the Berry phase {10}, and further extended to the geometric phase {11}. There are some 20,000 physics papers on geometric phase, Berry phase, and Aharonov-Bohm effect.
In quantum electrodynamics, potentials are primary and force fields are derived.
The force fields only exist in mass, and are the effects of the interaction of the “force-free fields” in space that exist as curvatures of spacetime. There are no force fields in space; there are only gradients of potentials. Spacetime itself is an intense potential. Quoting Feynman {12}: "We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields."

The distinction between E-field and B-field is blurred. As Jackson {13} points out: "…E and B have no independent existence. A purely electromagnetic field in one coordinate system will appear as a mixture of electric and magnetic fields in another coordinate frame. … the fields are completely interrelated, and one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fab, rather than E or B separately."
· In other words, one can have a magnetic component and at least partially turn it into an electric component, or vice versa. This is important to the MEG’s operation.
· Jackson {14} also points out that, for the Coulomb or transverse gauge:
"...transverse radiation fields are given by the vector potential alone, the instantaneous Coulomb potential contributing only to the near fields. This gauge is particularly useful in quantum electrodynamics. A quantum-mechanical description of photons necessitates quantization of only the vector potential. … the scalar potential 'propagates' instantly everywhere in space. The vector potential, on the other hand, satisfies the wave equation ... with its implied finite speed of propagation c."
· Thus it is of primary importance to consider both the scalar potential f and the vector potential A in a system or circuit, and in its surrounding space. In the MEG, one must particularly consider the magnetic vector potential A.
· Indeed, the magnetic vector potential A is so important that it can be taken as the basis of EM energy inherent in the active vacuum {15}.
· Magnetic vector potential A comes in two varieties: (i) the normal A-potential, which has a curl component called the B-field, and (ii) a curl-free A-potential without a curl component and therefore without the B-field (also called a “field-free” A-potential).
Discussion 2: The Aharonov-Bohm effect.

· In the Aharonov-Bohm effect {2}, the B-field is localized in a specific region. Outside that region, there freely appears a field-free (curl-free) magnetic vector potential A. This is a free regauging process, and its occurrence does not require work.
· This “field-free” A-potential still affects and moves electrons. The difficulty in believing the physical reality of the potentials required 25 years for physicists to overcome before they would accept the publication of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in 1959 {2a}.
· By perturbing the A, one can produce an E-field from it by E = -¶A/¶t.
· It is stressed that, in the AB effect, a regauging has taken place. The potential outside the localization zone has been freely changed, with an extra spacetime curvature and extra energy transferred there by gauge freedom, at no cost to the operator.
Discussion 3: Engines, gauge freedom, and regauging.


The vacuum (spacetime) is extraordinarily energetic. For practical purposes, it contains unlimited energy density {16}. Since the vacuum/spacetime contains energy and energy density, it is therefore an extraordinarily powerful potential—essentially infinite in its point intensity.
A “curvature of spacetime” is identically a change in the ambient vacuum potential, and hence in the “available” vacuum energy. “Energy available” means that, to use it, there must exist a potential difference and gradient between two separated points—and thus an energy current (a “free EM wind”, so to speak). Thus a dipolarity (polarization) is required, to produce a vacuum form or “engine” that will interact on mass to produce a force, by a constant “wind of vacuum energy” acting upon it.
An engine {17} is defined as a set of spacetime curvatures and vacuum flux exchanges—and their dynamics—which can act upon the elements of a mass system to generate its state and its dynamics. The simplest engine is a gradient in the potential. Also, an engine is a set of controlled and dynamic “EM energy currents”.
An engine is also referred to as a vacuum engine or a spacetime curvature engine.
The engine exists in spacetime as curvature(s) of spacetime, whether or not it is interacting with mass.
The engine itself is nonobservable; its [I]interacting with mass is observable.
The engine may move or be moved through spacetime independently of interacting with matter. It is pure energy transfer, and it is work-free.
A force is just the coupling of the simplest engine to mass, with mass-translating orientation. Unless both the engine and mass are present and dynamically coupled, there is no force. We strongly note that mass is a component of force, by F º¶/¶t(mv), and classical mechanics errs in assuming a separate massless force operating upon a separate mass. That notion remains one of the great errors in modern physics.
When a force F translates through a distance, that is the classical notion of external mechanical work W, by the equation W = ò F·dl. Note that—classically—mass has been moved, and the “system” engine has performed “external” work on the mass.
“Stress” on a mass or in a system is the simultaneous application of two or more engines working on the mass or system in such manner that all translation vectors sum to zero vectorially. Hence no external work is done, but internal work is done on the system to produce and continuously maintain this stress with zero translation.
Work is not the change of magnitude of energy in a single form! It is the change of form of energy, from one form to another.
Thus there is a century-old error in the present First Law of thermodynamics: Any change of magnitude of an external parameter (such as the field or potential of a system) has been erroneously defined as work. It is not work if the extra energy is input in the same form. In that case it is asymmetric regauging, and involves only energy transfer without change of form, which requires no work. Regauging is free, by the gauge freedom axiom. The present form of the First Law would rule out gauge freedom—a fact which seems not to have been previously noticed.
The supersystem {17} consists of the physical mass system together with its “engines” and all the ongoing mutual interactions. Hence supersystem dynamics is analyzed simultaneously between (i) the physical system, (ii) the local active curvatures of spacetime, and (iii) the local active vacuum. All three components of the supersystem continually interact with each other.
Discussion 4: Nonequilibrum steady state (NESS) systems can permissibly exhibit COP > 1.0 and even COP = ¥.


A system far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with its environment can steadily and freely receive environmental energy and dissipate it in external loads, exhibiting COP > 1.0 (as does a heat pump) or COP = ¥ (as do the solar cell, windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, etc.).
However, Lorentz symmetrical regauging selects only those Maxwellian systems in net equilibrium with their external vacuum environment. Symmetrical regauging systems can only use their excess free regauging energy from the vacuum to do internal work on the system, changing the stress on or in the system, with the dissipated energy then being returned from the stressing action to the vacuum. Such systems cannot use their excess vacuum energy to do free external work on the load.
The standard Lorentz regauging of Maxwell’s equations thus arbitrarily discards all Maxwellian NESS systems using vacuum energy to do useful external work.
In electrical power systems, the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging. That is totally arbitrary, but unrecognized.
The present-day absence of COP > 1.0 normal electrical power systems, doing external work and freely taking all their input energy from the local vacuum and spacetime curvature, is strictly due to the archaic electrical engineering model and the prevailing use of the closed current loop circuit.
Electrical power engineers easily adapt for a COP = ¥ system such as a solar cell, utilizing energy from its observably active environment. They will not even go and learn (and adapt their archaic model) to properly utilize every system’s nonobservable active vacuum environment for energy to do external work. Instead, they will unwittingly only allow the active vacuum to produce stress in the system, by using only self-symmetrically-regauging systems (the closed current loop circuit).
For a COP > 1.0 or COP = ¥ electrical power system—taking some or all of its input energy freely from its active external (vacuum) environment, analogous to a home heat pump—the system must violate the closed current loop condition (symmetrical regauging) for at least a significant fraction of the operational cycle of the system. In simple terms, the system must be open to receiving and transducing translational energy from its external environment—in this case, the active vacuum—rather than just stressing energy.
There also emerge additional flaws in classical thermodynamics, including in its fundamental definitions:
An “open” system is defined as one that has mass transfer across its borders (and may have energy transfer as well).
A “closed” system is defined as one that has no mass transfer across its borders, but may have energy transfer across them. Since the early 1900’s, mass and energy are known to be identically the same thing, called “mass-energy”. Hence any “closed” system that has energy transfer also has its mass changed, and actually is an “open” system.
An “isolated” system is defined as one in which no energy or mass is exchanged across its boundary. There exists no such system in the entire universe, due to the universal exchange of energy and mass between vacuum and system.
The ubiquitous energetic exchange—between vacuum (and curved spacetime) and the system—does not appear in classical thermodynamics. Yet there is no final conservation of energy unless both the virtual and observable state energy exchanges are considered in one’s analysis.
In the presence of opposite charges and their broken symmetry, much of the virtual vacuum energy absorbed in a dipolar system becomes observable energy in the system. For that reason, the present classical thermodynamics rules are approximations, useful in a great many cases but not absolute. As Kondepudi and Prigogine point out {18}: “…there is no final formulation of science; this also applies to thermodynamics.” Discussion 5: Operation of a home heat pump .

· Efficiency x 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.
· The home heat pump {19} may have a nominal efficiency x of x = 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 {20}. Thus there are two energy inputs: (i) the electrical energy input paid for by the operator, and (ii) the free environmental energy input furnished by the external atmosphere and processed a bit by compressing, etc. at very low cost.
· The home heat pump thus 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.
· Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the total useful energy or work output of the system, divided by the operator’s energy input only. It is stated as a decimal, and measures how much “bang for his buck” the system gives the operator.
· Operating in good conditions, a home heat pump of efficiency x = 50% will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The maximum theoretical COP = 8.0 or so. Note that energy is conserved, and all energy output as work is indeed input to the system. No 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 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, which is permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics for NESS systems such as the heat pump. We do not refer to x > 100%, which would require creation of energy from nothing at all.
Discussion 5: Operation of the MEG, analogous to a heat pump.

· The MEG resembles a transformer, having a core of special nanocrystalline material, input coil or coils in the primary, and output coil or coils in the secondary. Its operation, however, is quite different from that of a normal transformer.
· The special nanocrystalline core material used in the MEG has a very special characteristic: The material itself freely localizes an inserted B-field (from the input coil, or from a separate permanent magnet, or both) within the core material itself. Therefore it also freely evokes the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect.
· Outside the core, there freely appears an extra curl-free magnetic vector potential A.
· The MEG thus has two energy reservoirs: (i) the normal B-field energy and flux of any transformer resulting from the energy input to its primary coil(s), but now totally localized within the core material, and (ii) an extra free A-potential energy reservoir freely appearing just outside the core material itself.
· Consequently, the MEG is free to output the normal amount of energy from the
B-field flux that a normal transformer would output, and also as much extra energy as it receives and collects from the A-potential in space outside the core.
· The MEG thus has become directly analogous to the heat pump. It has one energy reservoir—the localized B-field in the core—whose energy the operator must furnish and pay for. But it also has a second, free, environmental energy reservoir—a curl-free A-potential—freely available in the external environment.
· Accordingly, for COP > 1.0 operation, the MEG must “process” the available
A-potential reservoir energy into usable form, and use it to help power its load.
· By inputting nearly rectangular pulses to the input coil, the rise time and decay time of each pulse edge produces a resulting sharp change in the external A-potential, producing an E-field by the equation E = -¶A/¶t. Note particularly that, by adjusting the input pulse rise time and decay time, we can adjust the magnitude of the extra E-fields freely produced in space just outside the core, and this effect is easily measured.
· We strongly stress that sharp gradients—such as used for leading and trailing edges of the input pulses to the MEG, with resulting sharp field gradients in the core materials and in the uncurled A-potential—are already recognized to permissibly violate the second law of thermodynamics {21}.
· By adjusting the magnitude of the E-fields outside the MEG core and their frequency (and therefore the energy received from them), one can adjust the available converted E-field energy in the free external reservoir, and thus adjust how much of it is then collected by the MEG.
· This free E-field energy impinges directly upon the MEG’s “output” coil, which now also serves as an input coil. Almost all the B-field produced by the output coil is localized in the core material running through it and held therein.
· The E-field energy from space outside the core thus activates the output coil in almost a purely electric field manner, rather than in a mostly magnetic field manner. The MEG becomes almost a purely “electrical” transformer!
· The output current from the coil is almost in phase with the output voltage (within about 2 degrees). Hence the MEG is almost completely using its induced Aharonov-Bohm effect for its energy input—very different from any other power system transformer.
· Due to its “heat pump” type operation, the MEG becomes a NESS system, freely receiving excess energy from its second (environmental) energy reservoir that is furnished “for free” by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
· Accordingly, as a NESS system {22} the MEG can permissibly exhibit COP > 1.0. For the MEG, a COP = 3.0 or so is readily achievable, and even higher COP can be achieved by special measures.
· However, one notes the MEG’s high nonlinearity, and thus its susceptibility to nonlinear oscillations and the need for nonlinear control theory and implementation. Also, the ¶A/¶t operation and its E-fields produced, do interact with other coils on the core, including the primary, etc. Hence timing and phasing are critical. An out-of-phase MEG-like unit can worsen the COP < 1.0 a normal transformer would produce! But a properly phased MEG with proper nonlinear control will produce all signals additive as needed at their individual locations. That “optimized” MEG then will produce COP > 1.0. Scale-up also is highly nonlinear, and requires extensive phenomenology buildups and testing to achieve proper stability and control.
· COP = ¥ (self-powering operation similar to a solar cell) is permitted for the MEG (as a NESS system) by the laws of thermodynamics and physics. However, with scale-up phenomenology, materials variations, and the high nonlinearity of the situation, at least one year’s hard work by a team of multiple specialists in geometric phase, nonlinear oscillation theory, nonlinear oscillations control theory, etc. is needed, and modeling must be done in a higher group symmetry electrodynamics. It is certainly doable (just as a home heat pump can be “close looped” for self-powering operation). But it is not a trivial little conventional EM transformer task. It is not simple, and it is not cheap.
· The end result is that we have a successful proof-of-principle MEG experimental device, and a patent has been granted, with additional patent work continuing. But we still have an expensive year or more of complex and specialized lab work before we have prototype scaled-up robust power units ready for mass production and world marketing. We are presently seeking the major funding for that completion.
Conclusions:

· COP > 1.0 and COP = ¥ electrical power systems are perfectly permissible by the laws of thermodynamics and physics; as witness the existence of solar cells with COP = ¥.
· Rigorous proof is given by the Aharonov-Bohm effect itself {2}, gauge freedom, the solar cell, Bohren’s experiment {23}, and several other experimental entities such as the patented MEG. Bedini {24}, e.g., has viable, proven processes for producing COP > 1.0 in battery-powered systems, and for regauging batteries {25} and charging them with more energy than is furnished by the operator alone (the excess energy comes from free regauging).
· Overunity and self-powering electrical power systems cleanly taking their energy from the local vacuum can be developed any time the U.S. scientific community will permit it and allow it to be funded. The naïve objection of “perpetual motion machines being prohibited because they would be working systems with no energy input” is utter nonsense, as is easily demonstrated {26}. Every windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, and solar cell demonstrates that, if the energy input is continuously and freely received from the environment, continuous external work can freely be done indefinitely. Every motion also demonstrates Newton’s first law: an object placed in a state of motion remains in that state of uniform (perpetual) motion so long as an external force does not intervene to change it. It does not receive any additional energy to do so, nor does it perform any external work in so doing. Even an electrical current in a shorted superconducting circuit will circulate indefinitely (perpetually) without any additional input and without doing any work {27}. Experimental proof of it is part of the standard physics literature.
Outlook and Forecast (the author’s opinion):

· The blame for the terribly fragile and highly vulnerable present power system and power grid monstrosity lies squarely upon the shoulders of the scientific community, since the discovery and proof of broken symmetry in 1957 {28}.
· From our direct experience with several legitimate COP > 1.0 EM systems, we are of the opinion that the scientific community will uphold its present dogma, its present severely limited and flawed electrical engineering model, and its present slavish attachment to fuel cells, big nuclear power plants, hydrocarbon combustion, etc.
· Not only will the present scientific and electrical engineering communities fiddle while Rome burns, but they will help burn it. The only way that will change is for a huge boot to be applied—such as the economic collapse of the United States.
· The scientific community has always been this way, in its fierce resistance to really innovative developments. A few examples are as follows: The scientific community:
o Fiercely resisted ultrawideband radar, slandering and libeling its pioneers.
o Resisted Mayer’s original statement of energy conservation; hounded him so much that he attempted suicide and was institutionalized.
o Laughed and slandered Ovshinsky on his “insane” amorphous semi-conductor. “Everybody knew” a semiconductor had to have a crystalline structure. The Japanese who funded Ovshinsky are still laughing all the way to the bank.
o Made Wegener’s name a synonym for “utter fool” because of his continental drift theory. Why, imagine continents floating and moving! Insane!”
o Refused to accept the Aharonov-Bohm effect for 25 years (as pointed out by Feynman). Prior to the MEG, the AB effect appears never to have been applied for COP > 1.0 from “two-energy reservoir” electrical power systems.
o Uses an EE model that assumes every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been freely created from nothing, by their associated source charges without any energy input. Even very few EE professors are aware of that terrible faux pas of their model. It is not pointed out in any EE textbook, to our knowledge.
o Uses an EE model that assumes the material ether, a flat spacetime, an inert vacuum, and creation from nothing of all EM fields and potentials—all long falsified in physics. These flaws are not pointed out in any EE text or department to our knowledge, and indeed they are hidden from the students.
o Ubiquitously uses the closed current loop circuit in power systems, dooming them to COP < 1.0 and directly causing the present mess of the inadequate, monstrous, fragile, splintered, relatively unstable, and highly vulnerable power grids. This also is directly responsible for the continuing and ever-increasing hydrocarbon combustion, global warming gases, pollution of the planet, and strangling of species.
o Still largely pontificates in official publications that perpetual (uniform) motion is impossible in machines, which is ridiculous since that is merely Newton’s first law. A continuous freely working machine is also possible, so long as it freely receives the necessary energy input from its environment (so long as it operates as a NESS system). Examples are the windmill, waterwheel, and solar cell—and indeed a hydroelectric power system, if one speaks of the entire system including the river’s flow.
o Ridicules anyone who seriously speaks of the active vacuum or active ST curvature as energy reservoirs and environments to be utilized practically—even though all EM power systems and circuits are powered by EM energy extracted directly from the local vacuum by the source charges {22b}.
o Continues to ruthlessly ignore the impact of the long-discarded Heaviside giant nondiverged energy flow component, for both power systems and antigravity systems.
o Places an iron muzzle on “out of the box” innovation by professors, grad students, and young post doctoral scientists, particularly in anything smacking of COP > 1.0 EM power systems. They must compete for available funding attached to research packages that come down from on high, with the research already specified. Any professor who really rocks the boat will be either parked or destroyed, as will any grad student or post doc. Science is controlled by controlling its funding. Since its funding is already controlled, our science is already muzzled and constrained with respect to energy research and development.
· Hence, based on his available scientific advice, a Presidential decision was made to (i) allow updating old power plants without additional pollution controls, (ii) go for drilling wherever oil is to be found, (iii) massively increase the grid and the number of power plants, (iv) go for fuel cells as an intended answer to the transport problem, etc. Given the scientific advice he receives, the President sees no other choice available. That is sad, because the “energy from the vacuum” choice is available, particularly with accelerated development and funding.
· As an example from the standard physics literature, the Bohren-type experiment {23} in “negative resonance absorption of the medium” outputs some 18 times as much energy as one inputs in one’s accounted Poynting energy input. Poynting’s energy flow theory {29} does not account for a huge Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component (30) that is often a trillion times greater than the accounted Poynting component. Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the Heaviside nondiverged component circa the 1890s {31}, and EEs continue to blindly discard it and ignore it {32}.

References:

Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore, and James L. Kenny, "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," U.S. Patent # 6,362,718, Mar. 26, 2002.
(a) Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory,” Phys. Rev., Second Series, 115(3), 1959, p. 485-491; (b) — “Further considerations on electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev., 123(4), Aug. 15, 1961, p. 1511-1524. A good technical exposition of the Aharonov-Bohm effect and its topology is given by (c) Terence W. Barrett, "Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism, Part V. Aharonov-Bohm Effect," Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Myron W. Evans, Ed., Wiley, New York, 2001, p. 722-733.
(a) M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; (b) — "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; (c) — "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393. See also (d) 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) T. E. Bearden, "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; (b) — "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3-vols., Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 699-776; (c) — Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 7: “Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Geometric Phase, and the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator”.
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.
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.
For a discussion on symmetrical regauging, see Jackson, 1999, ibid.
T. E. Bearden, “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: Production of an Additional Energy Reservoir Freely Furnishing Extra EM Energy Input to the System from Its External Environment,” 10 June 2003 (in press).
M. W. Berry, "Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. A392, 1984, p. 45-57.
Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, "Phase Change During a Cyclic Quantum Evolution," Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 58, 1987, p. 1593-1596.
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. II, 1964, p. 1-3.
J. D. Jackson, ibid., p. 558.
J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., Wylie, 1975, p. 223.
M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum,” Found. Phys. Lett. 15(6), Dec. 2002, p. 561-568.
See R. Podolny, Something Called Nothing: Physical Vacuum: What Is It?, Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 181. In mass units, the energy density of the virtual particle flux of vacuum is on the order of 1080 grams per cubic centimeter. To express it in joules per cubic centimeter, it is (c2)(1080).
See T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet: “Supersystem and Engines: Understanding Energetics,” Aug. 25, 2003.
Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459. On the same page, several areas that are known to violate present thermodynamics are given.
William C. Reynolds, Thermodynamics, 2nd Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p. 250-252 gives an analysis of the Carnot heat pump.
See Robert H. Romer, "Heat is not a noun," Am. J. Phys., 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109. Heat is not a substance, not a thermodynamic function of state, and should not be used as a noun, unless one risks falling into error. AJP Editor Romer also exposes another serious EM error: In endnote 24, p. 109, he takes to task "…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place." As the reader can see, many physics professors and journal editors are quite aware of numerous foundations errors in present science.
Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid.
(a) See particularly 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. In theory a proper NESS system can produce continuous negative entropy. Evans and Rondoni were so shocked at their own theoretical results, that they felt no physical system could exhibit such a negative entropy, continually decreasing toward negative infinity as time passes. However, every charge does this already; see (b) T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003; (c) — Fact Sheet, “Leyton’s Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” Aug. 22, 2003. The MEG as a NESS system appears to be a prototype macroscopic power system that exhibits such permissible continuous production of negative entropy.
(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. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also
(a) H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.
See T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," Proc. Cong. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 24-38. Also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38. Also carried on restricted DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on The Tom Bearden Website (The Tom Bearden Website).
(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. For another legitimate overunity Bedini process, see (b) John C. Bedini, “Device and Method of a Back EMF Permanent Electromagnetic Motor Generator,” U.S. Patent # 6,392,370, May 21, 2002.
See Fact Sheet, T. E. Bearden, “Perpetual motion vs. ‘Perpetual Working Machines Creating Energy from Nothing’,” Aug. 21, 2003 for a rigorous discussion of perpetual motion (which is just Newton’s First Law), and how it differs from purported machines that create energy from nothing. Oddly, the greatest—though totally unwitting—proponents of energy creation from nothing, in all human history, are the electrical engineering departments, professors, textbooks, and engineers. Their standard electromagnetics model assumes that all EM fields and potentials and their energy are freely created out of nothing, by the associated source charges without any energy input at all. So they unwittingly assume that every joule of EM energy in the universe has been and is created from nothing. This is the unwitting ansatz that has given us COP < 1.0 standard electrical power systems, horrid pollution of the biosphere and strangling of species, accelerated global warming, and a far more poisonous and hostile environment in which to live. And, to the delight of many of the energy cartels, it is also what has kept the electrical power meter on our homes and offices and industry, and has kept the gas pump meter on the gas pumps for our automobiles and transport. One must keep one’s sense of humor! By failing to update and extend their grossly inadequate electrical engineering model, our scientific community is directly contributing to the decimation of the planet and the future collapse of the industrialized national economies.
Decay time for a current flowing in a closed superconducting loop has been experimentally shown to be greater than 105 years, and theoretically shown to be greater than 1040,000,000 years.
(a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, 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. Experimental proof was given by Wu and her colleagues in (c) C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413. So revolutionary was this discovery that the Nobel Committee with unprecedented speed awarded Lee and Yang the Nobel Prize in December 1957—the same year that Wu et al. experimentally proved the prediction by Lee and Yang.
(a) J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, 1884, p. 343-361; (b) J. H. Poynting, "On the Connection Between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 176, 1885, p. 277-306.
(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; (b) — "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p. 423-480. Also, particularly see (c) E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.
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.
We address this Heaviside extra energy flow phenomenon—and many others—in our book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, ibid., 2002. When the Heaviside component is accounted, every generator and power source ever built already outputs enormously more energy than is accounted by the mechanical shaft energy input to the generator, or by the chemical energy dissipated by the battery. Accounting its total energy output as an energy transducer of virtual vacuum energy into observable energy, every power source exhibits COP>>1.0. The Heaviside component usually has little or no effect because it is in vector curl form, and the divergence of the curl is zero—in a flat spacetime. The usual power application is in an approximately flat spacetime, so the Heaviside curled flow component is of little physical significance (using Lorentz’s original argument). However, by deliberately curving the local spacetime (e.g., as in Bohren’s experiment and in the negative resonance absorption of the medium), the divergence of the curl is not zero, and additional energy is freely collected from the neglected Heaviside component. Bohren’s straightforward experiment yields COP = 18. The simple funding of a few doctoral theses and post-doctoral physics projects in this area for three years or so would very quickly solve the energy crisis forever, very cheaply. All EM power systems already exhibit COP >>1.0, if their arbitrarily discarded Heaviside energy flow component is accounted and if it were deliberately used as an extra huge environmental energy reservoir from which copious extra EM energy were freely extracted.
E.g., if a present coal-burning plant were modified with a Bohren-process so that it “amplified” the heat input of the combustion process by a factor of 10, then only 10% of the present coal would have to be burned in that modified plant to produce its same electrical power output. The beneficial impact on the environment would be incalculable, and with less coal burned, additional pollution-reducing methods could be afforded and applied. No one in DoE, any other federal agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, DARPA, the national laboratories, or our universities has even considered it—or apparently even thought of it.