Fed up with rising gas and electricity prices?

[DimPrawn]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25191.800.html

[bogeyman]

About the Author
Moray B. King is an internationally known physicist...

Also an internationally know nutjob - as is his mate Bearden (inventer of patented device).

[DimPrawn]

They always label those who don't follow conventional ideas as heretics and loons.

[DaveB]

Part 2

Now for the rigor. In 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already-reduced Heaviside equations (much limited version of Maxwell’s theory) just to get still-simpler equations that would be easier to solve algebraically (thus eliminating much of the labor of the numerical methods required so often). In short, Lorentz thereby arbitrarily excluded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems! And today’s CEM/EE model taught to and used by all our electrical engineers is still that horribly crippled old Lorentz symmetrical theory. Further, our engineers are taught to build only systems that self-enforce that same symmetry (usually by leaving the source of potentialization connected to its own external circuit as a load, while current is flowing. Such a SYMMETRICAL system uses half its freely collected energy to do nothing but destroy its own source dipolarity. Hence we have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, NOT to power our external circuits, but to continue to forcibly restore that dipolarity inside the generator that the inane closed current loop system (with source in the loop) keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

Proof that real systems can theoretically produce continuous negative entropy is given by 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. With publication in 2000 of our solution of the long-vexing source charge problem, we have since nominated the lowly charge and the dipole as the first known physical examples of that permissible operation. Every charge and every dipole already exhibits a steady and free outpouring of real, usable, observable EM energy, with only a virtual state fluctuation input of energy from the vacuum. The source charge continually integrates its absorbed virtual state energy to the next quantum level, decaying abruptly and emitting a real observable photon. The operation iterates continually, so the source charge is a Feynman ratchet freely absorbing and integrating virtual energy into the observable state, and emitting it.

All EM fields and potentials (and their energy) come from their source charges and dipolarity. Contrary to CEM/EE, in modern physics the “isolated charge” polarizes its surrounding vacuum. The charge is actually an infinite bare charge (having infinite charge and infinite energy) surrounded by an opposing charge in the virtual state vacuum. This opposing charge is also infinite and has infinite energy. Our instruments, peering through the external “screen” of the polarized vacuum, see only the finite difference between these two infinite charges – and that is the “classical value of the isolated charge” that all our textbooks contain in electrical engineering. But one is actually dealing with a dipolarity – opposite charges – and in 1957 Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for predicting broken symmetry in physics. One of those broken symmetries is that of opposite charges! In Feb. 1957 Wu and her colleagues experimentally proved Lee and Yang’s prediction, and the revolution in physics due to broken symmetry was so great that with unprecedented speed the Royal Academy of Sweden awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang – in December of the very same year, 1957!

As Lee puts it, a broken symmetry (such as the common dipolarity) means that “something virtual has become observable”. Hence their broken symmetry solution actually includes the ability of the source charge (its dipolarity, considering the polarized vacuum and the interaction between that vacuum and the charge) to continually consume positive entropy of the virtual state fluctuations of vacuum, coherently integrate them to the observable excitation level, and then re-emit that energy as real, EM energy (real observable photons radiating at light speed in all directions).

So all EM fields and potentials are actually ongoing flows of real EM energy, freely extracted for us from the vacuum, by the source charge and dipolarity! Actually Whittaker in 1903 and 1904 published two papers establishing that any EM potential and field decomposes into sets of ongoing energy flows. So the notion of “static” EM fields and potentials must be altered to realize Van Flandern’s analogy. Quoting:

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

EM energy is free, free, free for the taking! Every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been extracted from the seething vacuum by its associated source charges. A charge, once assembled, will freely pour out real, usable EM energy in all directions, forever, so long as we do not allow the charge to be dissipated or destroyed. And the charge and its input and output form an asymmetric system – precisely of the kind so arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz and still discarded by all our EE departments, professors, and textbooks.

The problem is that we have all been deeply conditioned to consider, design, build, and use only those symmetrical systems permitted by Lorentz. Solving the energy crisis forever is merely a matter of unleashing our sharp young university grad students on the problem in this area. And in getting that hoary old CEM/EE model – so long fouled – corrected so that scientific ethics are again established and scientific truth is being taught as best it is known.

HTH

Dim

So basically what your saying is that this device is simply a flux capacitor with the Lorentz Circuits reversed resulting in an inversion of the bogosity field?

[bogeyman]

They always label those who don't follow conventional ideas as heretics and loons.

I'm not saying they're not onto something - just that they are a bit eccentric - to say the least.

[bogeyman]

So basically what your saying is that this device is simply a flux capacitor with the Lorentz Circuits reversed resulting in an inversion of the bogosity field?

I have a patent covering the application of Bogeyosity fields!

[DaveB]

If you want free power....

....got to India

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4802248.stm

[PerlOfWisdom]

They always label those who don't follow conventional ideas as heretics and loons.

Supply me with a sealed box with a 13A socket on it and leave it with me for a year. Then I'll believe it.

[bogeyman]

Supply me with a sealed box with a 13A socket on it and leave it with me for a year. Then I'll believe it.

Easy peasy!

Just don't expect to plug anything into it and have it work.

Seriously though (on this forum :rolleyes) these guys are claiming that they are tapping into some kind of extra available energy which makes this gadgets output power greater than its input.

They're not saying they can give you a sealed box that can power your telly or hoover. They are demonstrating a principle which the scientific establishment choose to ignore (largely because they can't yet explain it).

It might all be a load of old crap, but their paper goes into great detail. Sufficient detail in fact, for other reserchers to build the device and prove its operational principles one way or t'other.

Don't see why it's any less credible than 'cold fusion' on the face of it.

[Mordac]

They always label those who don't follow conventional ideas as heretics and loons.

They are usually right.