COP and the Question of Perpetual Motion

Legitimate scientific researchers attempting to work in open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium are often subjected to rather vicious ad hominem attacks, charging that they are perpetual motion machine addicts and therefore raving lunatics. This of course is not true. We are simply trying to do with Maxwell's "electric fluid" systems what nature already shows us can be done with material fluid systems. We are in fact seeking the equivalent of "electromagnetic heat pump" processes and systems. It is the strident critics who are thoroughly confused and who reveal an immature knowledge of physics and thermodynamics.

As we explained, prior to their Lorentz symmetrical regauging, the Maxwell-Heaviside equations already clearly prescribe and permit COP>1.0 EM systems, including EM power systems. In addition to the present EM systems in equilibrium in their exchange with their active vacuum environment, the non-regauged equations also include Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with an active environment, such as the active vacuum. Classical equilibrium thermodynamics — stridently waved as a sacred banner by the critics accusing COP>1.0 researchers of being "perpetual motion nuts" and such EM systems as being "perpetual motion nonsense" — does not even apply to such disequilibrium systems! One should simply read the literature of the thermodynamics of such disequilibrium systems {160a-160f}. Or one should read why Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977, for his contributions to such open systems in disequilibrium.

We accent again that, under our new rules where we corrected the thermodynamic definitions of open system and closed system, we are in compliance with general relativity. Further, every EM system must be taken as an open system, since in the supersystem energy (with mass-like changes resulting across the system boundary) is always exchanged between the three supersystem components.

Fortunately there are also rational, reasonable critics such as Angrist {150, 151} where the criticism is properly scientific and not ad hominem, even though still misguided. Usually the rational perpetual motion critic applies the three laws of classical equilibrium thermodynamics, to classify "perpetual motion machines" of class 1, 2, and 3 after equilibrium thermodynamics laws 1, 2, and 3. This of itself has no intellectual content for open systems in disequilibrium with their active environment. The classical equilibrium thermodynamics — including laws 1, 2, and 3 interpreted only in terms of the operator's energy input — does not apply to open systems far from equilibrium — which are the only systems permitted to exhibit COP>1.0 in the first place. And we insist that all EM systems are open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, since every charge is, and all fields and potentials come from those source charges. Indeed, such open disequilibrium systems are permitted to violate the laws of classical thermodynamics! As an example, the entropy of such an open disequilibrium system cannot even be computed {152}, and it is less than the entropy of the same system in equilibrium, since the equilibrium state is the state of maximum entropy.

The rational critic then falls upon the horns of a dilemma, by admitting that, yes, such open dissipative systems do exist and do permissibly exhibit

COP>1.0. He then labels these as, false orfictitiousperpetual motion machines {150, 151}. In short, when such COP>1.0 machines are real and admittedly exist, they are not "true" perpetual motion machines but fictitious perpetual motion machines. My comment is that they are not perpetual motion machines at all, but permissible disequilibrium machines freely receiving excess energy from their energetic exchange with their active environment. They are no more mysterious than a windmill, a sailboat, a watermill, or a solar cell bank.

One must be precise. A bicycle is a free-energy COP>1.0 machine while going downhill. It is not such at all when going uphill. The difference is that gravitational input of energy aids the bicycle's motion in the downhill case, and opposes it in the uphill case. The active environment gives the system additional energy in one case, and takes energy from the system in the other case. Disequilibrium exchange can cut either way!

It is precisely the EM system far from equilibrium with its active environment — where the environment puts in additional energy — that the serious overunity researcher is seeking. It is a perfectly valid pursuit, even by the standards of the perpetual motion critics, who really should study both kinds of thermodynamics, not just one. They also should study how Maxwell's equations were curtailed and truncated; one result is that all Maxwellian disequilibrium systems were — and are — discarded arbitrarily by the Lorentz symmetrical regauging.

The only criticism one needs to raise vis a vis COP>1.0 and perpetual motion machines is this: If an inert (no hidden internal source) machine receives no net energy from its external active environment, but is in equilibrium in its energetic exchange with that environment,49 then

49 Here we quibble again and point out that Lorentz's symmetrical regauging actually does require that the system receive and take on excess EM potential energy from its environment (the active vacuum and the local curved spacetime). However, this excess energy can only be received in the form of two injections of field energy, where the fields are equal and opposite. Hence the energy is "bottled up" as a stress potential, with net zero translation force available to it. Since this stress potential energy cannot translate electrons, it cannot do work in an external load. It merely changes the stress of the system itself. The net result is actually a rotation of the frame in which the system exists, away from the "laboratory frame" of the observer. In short, the Lorentz condition establishes a new "equilibrium condition" for the system, by rotating its frame. It also implies that EM energy is continuously received by the system from both the active vacuum and local curved spacetime, in order to maintain the rotated frame and the new equilibrium condition. Further this classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to it and the machine cannot and will not exhibit COP>1.0. However, all EM systems contain charges, and these are indeed "hidden sources" of EM fields and potentials and their energy. It rigorouslyfollows that, since they contain hidden energy sources, all EM systems are potentially COP>1.0 systems a priori. Further, it follows that some ubiquitous design characteristic of the system itselfmustprevent the system from achieving COP>1.0, since nature does not prevent it. That characteristic feature is the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit, directing all spent electrons in the external circuit right back through the source dipole in the generator or other primary power source.

It is indeed mandatory that — if at all possible - the inventor or independent researcher identify a legitimate source of environmental energy that his purported COP>1.0 device receives and collects, and how it receives it and then uses it to power the loads. That means he should identify where and how his system violates the Lorentz self-regauging condition imposed by the standard closed current loop circuit. If the inventor himself cannot explain it — and this does happen — then someone else must explain it for him. If the machine works under proper independent test and replication, then criticism that no explanation exists for it in normal physics is of no relevance. It is a spur to the theorist to enlarge his horizons and to find the proper physics that does explain it.

We stress that we cited the works of Angrist because his voice is reasoned and he does not stoop to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. He also does point out a historical rash of machines that clearly must comply with classical equilibrium thermodynamics, because they have no discernible or stated extra input of energy from their active environment and have no self-asymmetrical regauging. When such machines have no external free input of energy from their active environment, they are systems in equilibrium with their active environment, and cannot exhibit COP> 1.0 — exactly as pointed out by Angrist. With such a reasoned critic, a scientific dialog is possible, and his main thrust — that no equilibrium system can exhibit COP>1.0 — is quite valid. With the vehement critic, it is already a cur dog fight from the outset and there can be no scientific discussion at all.

The only contention one has with a rational critic, whose criticism is based on classical thermodynamics, is when he then generalizes that all EM

continuous input of two energy flows, equal and opposite, does continuous internal work on the Maxwellian system to increase and maintain its stress.

systems fall within this class. That conclusion is a non sequitur, and ignores the entire science of disequilibrium thermodynamics and a vast body of scientific literature and scientific experiments in electrodynamics. When stated for electrodynamic systems, it also ignores the actual documented history of electrodynamics, and ignores Lorentz's arbitrary discard, from all accountability, of the Heaviside giant nondiverged energy flow component accompanying every circuit and system. It also ignores Lorenz's and then Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell equations to give new and simple equations easier to solve. This arbitrary regauging did in fact unwitting discard all open disequilibrium Maxwellian systems — precisely those permitted to exhibit COP>1.0.

See again Figure 1-1. The energy entering the circuit is entering it from the surrounding space outside the circuit. Heaviside showed that the energy flow component remaining alter the Poynting component is withdrawn is orders of magnitude greater than the Poynting component entering the circuit and powering it. It can easily be demonstrated that every generator outputs far more EMenergy in space surrounding the power line attached to it, than the operator inputs as mechanical energy to the shaft.50

50 E.g., just use a gedanken experiment followed by the Bohren {24} experiment as validated by Paul and Fischer {25}. Consider a 100% efficient DC system, powered by a DC generator, using a closed Current loop circuit. All the Poynting energy received by the system appears at first blush to be dissipated in the external load. That is not true, but let us not yet belabor the point. Include the complete circuit loop back through the source dipole in the generator. The back emf voltage across the source dipole between the terminals is precisely equal to the forward emf voltage between the terminals but around the external half-loop. The same current flows through both the forward voltage drop and the reverse voltage repotentialization. So precisely as much energy is dissipated to force the current through the back emf, as is recovered from the load.

Accept the conventional view that the shaft energy input to the generator is transduced into magnetic energy, which is then dissipated to force those charges back though the back emf. Now examine the energy flow in space surrounding the external circuit, using both the Poynting theory and Heaviside's theory. We have accounted for the Poynting diverged component, but we have not accounted for the huge remaining nondiverged Heaviside component. From whence comes this excess remaining energy flow that did not enter the circuit, was not included in the Poynting calculation, and was not expended in the circuit but was just wasted? To prove the excess energy flow really exists, perform the Bohren experiment {24} where the intercepting charges in the circuit are in resonance, and thus "sweep out" a larger geometrical cross section of interception of the impinging energy flow. These charges do sweep beyond the static unit charge cross section conventionally assumed in the definitions of field intensity (e.g., of the fields E and H in the Poynting vector S in S = (E x H). If the defining unit point charges are in resonance and sweep out a

Heaviside knew this in the 1880s. All the energy flow that is intercepted by the circuit and enters (i.e., the Poynting component) at essentially right angles, hardly even changes the angle of flow of the remaining huge flow of energy surrounding the circuit and missing it. Quoting Heaviside {153} directly:

"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference ofa quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature ofthe electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken ofthem as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance ofthe slight departure. It causes the convergence ofenergy into the wire.

So every electrical power system is rigorously a COP>1.0 "energy gating" system already, if the neglected, enormous Heaviside energy flow through space around the circuit (and missing it and wasted) is re-accounted. In that case, much greater energy pours out of the terminals of every generator, than the feeble amount of mechanical energy we input to the shaft.

We do not have an energy availability problem, and we never have had 3 • one! Instead, we have an energy flow interception and collection problem greater cross section, then the assumed Poynting vector S, for the static case, changes in magnitude by some ratio k for the resonant case to the vector SR, so now SR = k1E x k2H = k3(E x H). Since k3 is just the ratio of the actual geometrical cross section swept out by the charge to the standard geometrical cross section swept out by the static charge, then for a static charge k3 = 1.0, and for a resonant charge k3 >1.0. Hence the Bohren experiment, with k3 = 18 or so, produces 18 times as much collected (Poynting) energy "out" as we erroneously think we input by normal calculations ignoring the input Heaviside nondiverged component. The Bohren experiment {24} proves the argument; validation by Paul and Fischer {25} appears in the same journal issue.

— and we always have had one, due to the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit.

Texts — e.g., such as by Kraus {154} — do show the Poynting (intercepted and collected) component of the EM energy flow surrounding the power line attached to the generator terminals, but none of them today go into the remaining nondiverged Heaviside component. Each of Kraus' contours {76} of energy flow in space, around those power line conductors, shows only thatpart of the energyflow in space that is being drawn into the circuit. It does not show the remaining huge energy flow that (i) is not intercepted, (ii) does not enter the circuit, and (iii) is wasted. Presently no texts illustrate this Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component, and no text accounts for it except to point out that the Poynting component must be considered to be indefinite, since it can be accompanied by an additional energy flow component. The texts then erroneously conclude that the excess flow can have no physical significance.51

One can easily prove the existence of additional energy flow to be collected, in addition to the Poynting component. E.g., simply examine the Bohren experiment {155} and its replication by Paul and Fischer {156} — or one can repeat the experiment oneself. The Bohren experiment outputs some 18 times as much energy as is input by normal "Poynting component" calculations alone, because it also intercepts additional energy from the unaccounted and ignored free Heaviside input component remaining and not diverged by a static unit point charge. Bohren simply places the charge in resonance, so it sweeps out a greater geometrical reaction cross section in the energy flow, thereby penetrating into the free

— but arbitrarily discarded and unaccounted — Heaviside component, and intercepting and collecting additional energy. Bohren is perfectly aware that the excess energy caught by the resonant charges comes from the surrounding vacuum. However, he seems quite unaware of Heaviside's

51 E.g., J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237: "...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. " Jackson errs in stating that the added energy flow vector cannot have any physical consequences. It cannot, of course, unless one catches some of it and uses it to power a load, without using half of the caught energy to destroy the source dipole faster than the load is powered. One of the major applications of it is to use it with Dirac sea negative energy 4-holes in the vacuum, where the holes produce negative energy fields and potentials in surrounding spacetime, acting back upon the system which is the source of the 4-holes to produce practical antigravity.

discovery and cautious statement of the excess energy involved in every field-particle interaction, and particularly in electrical circuits.

There are several such "white crows" which are legitimate COP>1.0 EM processes in physics. It only takes one small white crow to prove that not all crows are black. As another example, the papers of Letokhov {157a-157d} are especially recommended. So long as excess energy is received freely from the environment, the system is permitted to be in disequilibrium where COP>1.0.

So far as this author could discover, none of the perpetual motion machine critics have noticed another very simple fact: The conventional electrodynamics they utilize to refute COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems implicitly assumes that the source charge — which is any and every charge in the universe — continuously creates and pours out energy in 3-space without any energy input at all. Their own conventional classical electrodynamics contains a "perpetual motion machine assumption" of the most fundamental and grossest kind. The ardent skeptics of overunity EM systems — in using that implicit conventional assumption — are themselves the greatest perpetual motion advocates of all, though perhaps unwittingly. In 2000 we resolved that long-vexing problem52 of the source charge {12}.

The more strident critics simply set up the "equilibrium thermodynamics" straw man, then knock it down and attack independent COP>1.0 experimenters with it, erroneously implying that all overunity researchers seek such in an equilibrium system. They fail to notice orthodox science's implied assumption that every charge and every dipole in the universe is already assumed to be a COP => inf. perpetual motion machine, freely creating all that continuous outpouring of energy from nothing. None of the critics have noticed and critiqued this greatest of all perpetual motion assumptions right in their own ranks, without a single exception, and the most ubiquitous. Undoubtedly that is because the scientific community honestly and freely admits that it has not heretofore solved that problem {68}, and also points out that the outpouring of energy is an experimental fact and therefore unquestionable.

The better critics — at least the rational ones such as Angrist — already admit that there exists a class of legitimate "fictitious perpetual motion

52 After publication of our paper, we also discovered very powerful support for our solution in quantum field theory. E.g., see F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984/1993, Chapter 5.

machines" which are powered continuously without the operator inputting the energy. The phrase "fictitious perpetual motion machine" is an attempt to retain the classical thermodynamics straw man, when dealing with the thermodynamics of a system far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with its active environment. That phrase has been a non sequitur since the award of the Nobel Prize to Ilya Prigogine in 1977. We stress again our new use of all EM systems as open systems, in accord with general relativity.

So when rigorously analyzed from the breadth of physics and thermodynamics, and not just from a selected very narrow portion, the entire "perpetual motion" critical literature is inappropriate or — more exactly — is inappropriately focused upon a fictitious or false target. It is simply a classic example of reasoning from a false premise.

Not one such critic seems to have noticed that every generator and battery already pours out more energy than what is input to the shaft, and that it is easily proven experimentally via the thousands of experiments showing negative absorption from the medium. None seems to have bothered to read the original Heaviside, Poynting, and Lorentz papers to see how this startling fact was buried more than a century ago.

Finally, a self-appointed "expert" who does not even know what furnishes the energy to power every electromagnetic circuit, cannot be taken seriously in his "learned criticism" , regardless of what journal publishes it. If he continues to accept the unsolved source charge problem, implying that all charges freely create EM energy from nothing, he is not expert in any facet of powering electromag letic systems and circuits.

2.1.8 Prescribed Systems Versus Changes to Maxwell's Equations

As we stated, Maxwell's theory {20} was some 20 quaternion-like and vector equations in some 20 unknowns. By discarding the scalar component of the quaternion to retain only the vector subcomponent, and by discarding many of Maxwell's potentials, Heaviside {158} truncated the Maxwell equations to essentially the present familiar set of four vector equations - or in potential form, to two equations with variables unseparated.

While this truncation discarded a great deal of Maxwellian electrodynamics phenomenology, from a thermodynamics view the resulting Maxwell-Heaviside equations still contain and prescribe two types of Maxwellian systems:

(1) systems in equilibrium with their active environment, such as the active vacuum, and

(2) systems far from equilibrium with their active environment, such as the active vacuum.

Systems in the first class of Maxwell-Heaviside systems — i.e., in equilibrium in their energetic exchange with their active environment — rigorously obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics {159}. No system in that Maxwellian class can output more energy than the operator himself inputs to the system. The greatest coefficient of performance (COP) that these systems can accomplish, is COP = 1.0 for a theoretically perfect system without internal losses whatsoever, and thus with 100% efficiency of conversion of their input energy into work in the load. Since any real system has internal losses and thus is less than 100% efficient, the practical systems of this first class exhibit COP < 1.0.

These Maxwellian systems of the first class are the electrical systems always "understood" by ardent skeptics who proclaim that no other kind of Maxwellian system exists, that therefore no Maxwellian system can exhibit COP > 1.0, and that a claim to COP>1.0 is perpetual motion lunacy and not science at all. These fellows often launch scathing and unjustified personal attacks upon any serious researcher trying to work with that second class of permitted Maxwellian systems! It would be scientifically beneficial if these self-appointed defenders of the faith would simply study some more physics and thermodynamics, review the history of Maxwell's theory and how it was altered, and understand the well-established thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium.

This false charge — that there can be no COP > 1.0 EM system because that would violate the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics — has been insidiously indoctrinated into generation after generation of physics and electrical engineering students. Today most of our electrical engineers and electrical scientists have absorbed it and believe it without question. Our power-engineering scientists believe it, and so advise the government. Hence our government believes it on the advice of our best scientists, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Our great national laboratories also believe it and are just as mentally conditioned. The universities — especially the electrical engineering departments — also believe it, and provide a mainstream suppression of the sharp young graduate students and post-docs that would otherwise have long ago revised this mess and solved the energy crisis permanently.

Again we are reminded of that first quotation by Einstein, which we included at the beginning of Chapter 1, and which admonished us to ever examine the foundations of our science to root out and correct the errors. We are also reminded of another quote by Tolstoy:

"/ know that most men, including those at ease with problems ofthe greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into thefabric oftheir lives. " [Count Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy].

The second class of Maxwell-Heaviside systems — rigorously prescribed and permitted by Heaviside's truncated Maxwellian theory — is comprised of systems in disequilibrium with their active environment. A system in this class does not obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics. To the contrary, this system obeys the well-known thermodynamics ofsystems far from equilibrium {160a-160f} with their active environment — such as the active vacuum.

Such a system is permitted to:

(ii) self-oscillate or self-rotate,

(iii) output more energy than the operator himself inputs and thus exhibit COP>1.0 (the excess energy is freely received by the system from its external active environment),

(iv) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received by the system from its external active environment,53 without any operator energy input being required), and

53 We accent the concept of the supersystem. consisting of three components: (a) the system and its dynamics, considered as in normal electrical engineering (with a flat spacetime and an inactive local vacuum), (b) the active local vacuum and its dynamics, and (c) the active local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics. All three components of the supersystem interact with each other. In conventional electrical engineering, the assumption in U(l) electrodynamics of a flat local spacetime and equilibrium with the local vacuum exchange eliminates any

(v) exhibit negentropy, which every charge and every dipole in the universe already does {12, 68}.

Let us now see why Maxwellian EM systems of the second class are not being designed and built as such, even though they are permitted by the laws of physics and reinterpreted thermodynamics, and even though they are prescribed in the Maxwell-Heaviside equations before further truncation by Lorentz {161a, 161b}. We may use the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in vacuum, because the energy flow intercepted by the external circuit pours out of the generator terminals and fills all space surrounding the power lines. It is therefore a transmission-reception problem, prior to the "potentialized current-transport" problem in the circuit.

DIY Battery Repair

DIY Battery Repair

You can now recondition your old batteries at home and bring them back to 100 percent of their working condition. This guide will enable you to revive All NiCd batteries regardless of brand and battery volt. It will give you the required information on how to re-energize and revive your NiCd batteries through the RVD process, charging method and charging guidelines.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment