Dear Dr. Diamandis:
I was very happy to see that the X-Prize Foundation is expanding its activities and prizes to go after solutions to such problems as energy, transportation, and curing of diseases. Solutions to these problems have long been needed, and substantial progress can indeed be made -- very quickly -- if the sharp young grad students and post doctoral scientists at our best universities can be funded and allowed to work "outside the box" on these problems. As you know, it is fashionable to speak of research "out of the box", yet in practice our present scientific community maintains a very authoritarian control over what research is allowed at our universities and most other laboratories.
There is a ubiquitous but well-concealed reason that these three problem areas you are expanding into have not already been resolved or had great progress made in solving them. The problem lies in a most unusual place, one seldom even suspected and hardly ever challenged. There are very serious areas and falsities in the classical electromagnetics (CEM) and electrical engineering (EE) model, that have been there since the model's formulation in the 1880s and the further crippling restrictions (Lorentz symmetry, discard of the huge curled Heaviside energy flow component) imposed in the 1890s by Lorentz. E.g., Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the equations, just to make them simpler and easier to solve. Thereby he arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems! Nature did not and does not discard them; Lorentz did. And sadly, today all our electrical engineering departments, professors, and texts continue to arbitrarily discard them.
It is precisely those arbitrarily discarded asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that make possible solutions to the problems of (1) energy, (2) transportation, and (3) medical healing via special EM stimulation of the cellular regenerative system to reverse the damage existing in its cells.
These astounding errors in the CEM/EE model have been pointed out by eminent scientists – such as Nobelist Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, Henry Margenau, Mario Bunge and others -- but to no avail. Correction of these severe falsities in the old 1880s EE model has not been allowed by the scientific community. It will not be allowed unless considerable governmental pressure from the highest levels is exerted upon the community.
For a compilation of these terrible errors, see my paper "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model", available freely at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc .
As an example, this paper also gives overall details of a magnetic Wankel engine (a special rail gun or linear magnetic motor wrapped almost in a circle, which readily "kills" its own back mmf to produce a motor without back mmf). The magnetic Wankel engine can readily be built and tested by any university EE department or physics department or decent laboratory. In a real load, the magnetic Wankel engine will produce more useful work output than the amount of energy the operator himself inputs and pays for to kill the back mmf. The excess input energy is freely received from the active vacuum, so the performance of the asymmetric motor is analogous to the performance of a home heat pump. A heat pump may have an efficiency of only 50%, but it has a coefficient of performance (COP) of COP = 3.0 to 4.0. It is absolutely possible to build asymmetrical EM systems that readily take excess energy from their vacuum environment and use it to exhibit permissible COP > 1.0 performance. The reason our electrical engineers do not build such systems is because our engineers are ruthlessly conditioned to only consider, design, and build symmetrical systems (whose COP
Technically, by killing its back mmf for very little operator-input energy expended, the magnetic Wankel engine becomes a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system receiving almost all its input energy from the seething vacuum. In short, any university can successfully build it and test a radical departure from the standard EE curriculum and practice, to its heart's content. The electrical engineer is already familiar with the Lenz law effect used to cheaply kill the back mmf, but he will not understand at all where the continuing EM energy input to the operating COP > 1.0 magnetic Wankel comes from, nor how it is being produced.
The magnetic Wankel engine is also easily adapted to be self-powering, requiring no further input of energy from the operator, but taking all its required input energy freely from the environment (analogous to a solar cell array driven electrical power system). In that case, its COP = infinity. Recall that efficiency is defined as the total useful energy output or work output, divided by the total energy input from all sources, and expressed as a percentage. The efficiency of any real system with losses is always less than 100%, else one would be violating the conservation of energy law. On the other hand, the COP of a real system with losses is defined as the total useful energy output or work output, divided by only the operator's input (that he has to pay for!), and expressed as a decimal fraction. If the environment freely inputs sufficient additional energy to overcome the losses and then still have more input, the COP > 1.0. And example is the common home heat pump. The heat pump usually has an efficiency of only about 50%, thus wasting half its input energy from all sources. However, it receives so much additional free or nearly free energy input from its environment, that it still outputs three to four times as much energy as the operator must pay the power company for. So its COP = 3.0 to 4.0.
If the U.S. scientific community (NAS, NSF, NAE, DoE, NASA, the national labs, and the universities) will simply fund some sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists to correct the sad old CEM/EE model and apply the corrected model anew, the present energy crisis -- and our bone-crushing dependence on foreign oil, natural gas, etc. -- can be solved quickly (in 2 years), cheaply, cleanly, and permanently.
So the reader should check the "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model" paper referenced, to become familiar with the unpublicized falsities in electrical engineering that have been used in electrical power engineering for a century. These falsities are still being dogmatically employed in systems for power, transportation, and healing.
E.g., Maxwell's actual theory IS NOT taught in our universities. Instead, an Lorentz-curtailed version of Heaviside's limited subset of Maxwell's theory is what is being taught and used. Quoting Paul Nahin (a biographer of Heaviside):
".... nowhere in Maxwell's writings do the equations for the electromagnetic field appear as we write them today. Maxwell used an amalgamation of Cartesian component and quaternion notation, and it was Heaviside who first wrote the electromagnetic field equations in modern vector form." [Paul Nahin, Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude, IEEE Press, New York, 1988, p. 9].
For Maxwell's original EM theory, see James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864. Also see: The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as one, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover, New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-597.
In the 1880s Maxwell's 20 quaternion-like Maxwellian equations in 20 unknowns were severely curtailed by several scientists including Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz, etc. after Maxwell was already dead. Circa 1892 Lorentz then administered the “coup de grace” to this already sharply reduced "subset" of Maxwell's theory. Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already sharply curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations, thereby arbitrarily discarding all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Nature did not and does not discard them; Lorentz did and our present electrical engineering professors still do. The unaccounted asymmetrical Maxwellian systems of course include the very systems that can freely take part or all their necessary input energy from the vacuum environment and use it to power their loads partially freely or completely freely.
We ourselves do not have to learn how to extract usable EM energy from the vacuum! All we wish, anytime we wish, anywhere we wish! Nature already ubiquitously does it, and this is another of those things that has been suppressed by the falsities in CEM/EE. Every charge and dipole in the universe already continuously and freely absorbs virtual photons from the virtual state vacuum, coherently integrates the converted virtual mass energy until the next quantum level of excitation is reached. Then the charge or dipole suddenly decays its excitation by emitting an observable (quantized) photon. So every charge and dipole in the universe is already a "free EM energy gusher, if we will but learn to use it properly. We just have to correct the horribly flawed and insane way we’ve been taught to symmetrically collect and use the freely out-gushing energy flows. Instead, we must build and utilize asymmetrical collection and dissipation systems that dissipate the energy to power our loads, but do not dissipate any of it to kill the source dipoles.
To show how much energy is available (and not even considered and used) in a very simple piece of material, we quote Swann with reference to a simple telephone wire, with no current ongoing:
"Think of the cables which carry the telephone current in the form of electrons. In the absence of the current the electrons are moving in all directions. As many are moving from left to right as are moving from right to left; and the nothingness which is there is composed of two equal and opposite halves, about a million million amperes per square centimeter in one direction, and a million million amperes per square centimeter in the other direction. The telephone current constitutes an upsetting of the balance to the extent of one hundredth of a millionth of an ampere per square centimeter, or about one part in a hundred million million million. Then if this one part in a hundred million million million is at fault by one part in a thousand, we ring up the telephone company and complain that the quality of the speech is faulty." W.F.G. Swann, Physics Today, June. 1951, p. 9.
We point out that the generator used to produce the voltage and amperage in that cable doesn't produce even a tiny fraction of that enormous energy continuously ongoing in the Drude electron gas in the absence of organized current. So obviously all that energy does not come from the generator or other source such as a battery! Instead, it comes directly from the seething virtual state vacuum, via each and every charged particle in the circuit.
Every EM field and potential -- including a static field and a static potential -- is already an ongoing set of free EM energy flows (from its associated source charges), as shown shortly after the birth of the 20th century by Whittaker [E. T. Whittaker, 1903, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math. Ann. 57: p. 333-355; E. T. Whittaker, 1904, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions.” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, 1: p. 367-372].
Consideration of how such a “steady flow” process creates and continually replenishes all static EM fields and potentials led Van Flandern to characterize a static field as analogous to an unfrozen waterfall. 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.” [T. Van Flandern, 1998, “The speed of gravity—what the experiments say.” Phys. Lett. A 250: p. 8-9].
Consider the following little experiment: Simply assemble some charge or make a dipole, and thereafter leave it alone so it is not destroyed. That silly thing will sit there and freely pour out real usable EM energy (real observable photons) at light speed in all directions, as long as one cares to observe and measure. Every charge and dipole in the original matter in the universe has been freely doing this – steadily and continually emitting real, observable photons – for some 13 billion years or so, and none has “run down” or exhausted its steady and free EM energy flow. Yet no instrument known to man can measure any OBSERVABLE energy input to the charge!
Bewildered comments on this have been made by quite a few physicists. Some examples are:
“[I]t is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state.” [M. Bunge, 1967, Foundations of Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York Bunge, 1967, p. 176].
"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated. …The recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?" [B. Kosyakov, 1992, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Soviet Physics Usp. 35(2): p. 135, 141].
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. Sen, 1968, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London, England, p. viii].
This startling problem – known but scrubbed from almost all the textbooks – is called the “source charge problem”. It was not solved for a century, until the present author solved it in 1999 and published the first crude solution in 2000, 2002, and subsequently [e.g., T. Bearden, 2000, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole." Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia. Vol. 1: p. 86-98; T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, 2002].
An unsolved source charge problem presents a terrible but experimentally-proven dilemma to physics: Either (1) the conservation of energy law fails completely and we must discard most of physics and thermodynamics, or (2) the charge or dipole is freely absorbing and coherently integrating the incessant virtual energy fluctuations of the quantum mechanical vacuum (which is what it does, and conservation of energy rigorously applies). All EM fields and potentials – and every joule of observable EM energy in the universe – have been and are produced and are continually replenished by – this known, free, continuous EM energy extraction mechanism. This source charge capability can easily be demonstrated experimentally so that one can see it oneself.
However, the charge and its continual absorption of disordered virtual state energy bits, their reordering, and their coherent integration to quantum energy also represents a real physical system continuously producing negative entropy. Specifically, it continually consumes positive entropy of the virtual state vacuum fluctuations and produces negative entropy in the observable state (in its continually established and replenished fields and potentials).
The proof that a real physical system is permitted to 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. We proposed the source charge and the source dipole as the first known physical system easily shown to do so.
The proof that eliminating the artificial Lorentz symmetry condition does allow free EM energy currents from the vacuum into the system for its use, 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.
A listing of areas already known and accepted by leading thermodynamicists to readily allow violating the hoary old second law of thermodynamics is given by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999. Areas known to violate the second law of thermodynamics are given on p. 459; one such area is simply strong gradients. Indeed, merely pinning (temporarily) the charges in a circuit so that dq/dt = 0, and suddenly amplifying the voltage while dq/dt = 0, is work-free and yet freely increases the available collected potential energy of the system -- a very simple negative entropy operation readily demonstrated.
Other than a bit of switching and control, freely increasing the magnitude of potential energy in a system is work-free, so long as the form of the input energy is the same and does not have to be changed. In short, rigorously work is the change of form of energy. It is NOT the change of magnitude of the energy, as is mistakenly stated in about half the university sophomore thermodynamics textbooks for external system parameters such as the potential. The amount of electrical energy W collected from a voltage V in a circuit containing q charges, is given by W = Vq. So long as q is pinned and no current flowing, q is constant. Hence one may merely increase the voltage alone, to get all the W one wishes from a static source of voltage! If one multiplies the voltage by 1,000, the same charges will now freely collect 1,000 times more energy than initially, with no other change!
Then just switch away the static source of potential (which has not been drained or depleted at all since it furnished no current, power, or work). Recomplete the circuit gap by a diode and a resistor in series, and then let the charges q become unpinned. Now that circuit will freely dissipate that energy almost freely collected, to power its loads and losses. Then repeat it iteratively. Or use the iterative "dumps" from the freely potentialized external circuit to charge capacitors, then use the capacitors to furnish steady voltage and current to the external circuit's loads and losses.
The hoary old second law of thermodynamics -- that a system could either produce more entropy or remain in the state of entropy it is in -- is only a "half-law" anyway. Starting with an equilibrium (state of maximum entropy) condition, the system must first be moved out of equilibrium (thus lowering its entropy, and thereby constituting a negative entropy process). The old second law has always just assumed that first reaction, but then failed to account for it. Hence it has always been an oxymoron implicitly assuming its own contradiction has first occurred but been unaccounted. In short, it has always assumed that, given a system slightly away from equilibrium, and with no further negative entropy operation, it can only remain as is or decay back to equilibrium (produce positive entropy).
Every charge, every EM field, and every EM potential (and every joule of EM energy in the universe) already violates the old second law of thermodynamics, and always has. It has long been known that, for many-particle systems, the individual tiny parts of the system continually violate the second law. Quoting Maxwell (who was also a thermodynamicist) as he referred to a gas:
"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, "Tait's Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].
So the only thing necessary to free ourselves from the energy crisis is to (1) change the present horribly flawed EE model, and then (2) correct the sadly flawed old second law of thermodynamics. And then (3) turn the sharp young grad students and postdocs loose on it. Then we will quickly relearn how to asymmetrically use the source so that we never allow it to be destroyed or depleted, once we have paid to separate the charges and made it. In other words, we must simply use only an appropriate asymmetrical collecting circuit -- one of those that Lorentz discarded circa 1892 and that our EE departments and professors continue to discard to this day.
When unmolested, the source dipolarity -- even a static voltage source -- will pour out EM energy unceasingly from now till the end of time, for us to collect and use that freely outflowing real EM energy at will. But again, such collection circuits are asymmetric a priori. All our engineers are ruthlessly taught to design and build only symmetrical electrical power systems, which do freely evoke energy from the vacuum via their source dipolarity, but then deliberately nullify the effect of having a free energy gusher as every dipole and charge in the source.
Our present symmetric power systems are insane systems which use precisely half their collected free EM energy to destroy the source dipole! The other half of the freely collected EM energy in the external circuit is dissipated in powering the circuit’s losses and the load. With the circuit itself continually destroying the source and cutting off the free flow of EM energy extracted from the vacuum, it destroys its own dipolar source faster than it powers our desired loads! Thus we have to continually restore the dipole if any excitation of the circuit is to occur. To remake the source dipole, we continually have to crank the shaft of the generator, putting in more mechanical energy than we get out as useful work in the load. Rigorously, this practice self-enforces COP
In short, we pay the electric power company to continually and deliberately use its EM energy (all of which is freely extracted from the vacuum) to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its generators and always lose.
A close colleague and I have recently filed a provisional patent application on an asymmetric process – already proven in hard physics – for reducing the hydrocarbon fuel consumption or nuclear fuel rod consumption of power plants by some 75%. We state unequivocally that the basic mechanism we adapted is already experimentally proven and reported -- and replicated many times -- in physics since 1967, although it has not been properly understood. In the follow-on application, once such a modified power plant were up and running and powering its external grid and loads, it could also easily be close-looped so that all further fuel consumption ceased until the power plant had to be shut down again for maintenance etc.
Every charge and dipole in the original matter in the universe has been freely pouring out real, usable EM energy since the beginning – for some 13 billion years or so. If one makes a dipole or assembles some charge, it will freely pour out real EM energy to use for the next 13 billion years if the universe lasts that long! So one does not need to burn fuel or consume nuclear fuel rods to obtain absolutely free flows of real electrical energy! Not at all. The only problem is to learn how to do the interception, collection (potentialization), and dissipation of some of that freely flowing EM energy to power our desired loads, without using half the free energy to deliberately destroy the source of energy!
There is no crisis or problem with the availability of free EM energy, cheaply and cleanly. Instead there is a problem of the mindset of our present electrical scientists, who insist on only allowing symmetrical electrical power circuits to be taught and modeled and built. These "modern" circuits use half their freely collected EM energy to do nothing but destroy their dipolarities – which are extracting the free EM energy from the vacuum in the first place. The other half of the collected potential energy is used to power the loads and losses. So the COP of such systems is always COP
Over the last century, this terrible EE model -- and the scientific community's propagation and severe enforcement of it – has caused most of the world energy crisis, and it has also denied proper economies to struggling impoverished peoples the world over. Hundreds of millions of these struggling poor peoples have died during the last century because of that incorrect model and their resulting lack of any decent living standards -- leading to starvation, ravage by opportunistic diseases, etc. If scientific ethics is to be maintained and not just made a joke, we must correct these known and serious falsities in the present CEM/EE model, as quickly as possible.
The main point is that one of our most sacrosanct but horribly flawed scientific models -- and the adamant promulgation of it by our organized scientific community -- is what is really responsible for the energy crisis. EM energy itself is free, free, free and it occurs in ever-flowing free streams and gushers, once we pay a little bit for just one time, in order to make the source charge or dipolarity.
The question now is when and if our scientific community will fund and allow our sharp young doctoral students and post doctoral scientists to correct these grave deficiencies in the electrical engineering model and in electrical engineering practice. So far, we have not noticed any move to do so; indeed, the exact opposite is true, and professors and students who try to "rock the boat" against the accepted but horrible old CEM/EE model are rather resoundingly disposed of, their careers damaged or ruined, etc.
And Feynman's pointing out that force fields do not and cannot exist in space, in his three volumes of sophomore physics, is just ignored and that part is never taught.
Sadly, it appears that, not only is our scientific community still fiddling while Rome prepares to burn, but it seems to be doing everything in its power to insure that, once Rome burns, it will burn completely.
So it is with a great deal of hope that one reads of the new prize areas that will be opened up by the X-Prize Foundation. If some of this can be used to fund those sharp young grad students and post docs, and a few of our eminent higher group symmetry EM theoreticians, then perhaps the scientific community can at long last be goaded out of its long sleep, giving us a quick solution to all three of the new areas.
P.S. Just to give a bit more insight, force and force fields cannot exist in space, but only in matter. EM force fields thus exist only in charged matter, never in space. Quoting Feynman:
"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin…" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].
In short, an EM field in space is a precursor-to-force field and thus a force-free field, comprised solely of a curvature or torsion of spacetime (general relativity view) or a change in the virtual particle flux of vacuum (particle physics view). It is the ongoing interaction of this force-free precursor field in space, with charged matter, that produces the force fields in that charged matter.
Sadly, this also means that there is not now, and apparently there never has been, a single EE department, professor, or textbook that even teaches how to calculate the actual EM field in space, though all purport to do so. The force field they teach does not exist in space, but only in charge matter DUE TO THE ONGOING INTERACTION WITH THAT CHARGED MATTER OF THAT PRECURSOR FORCE-FREE FIELD CONDITION OF SPACE.
To his great credit, at least Jackson mentions the problem, and admits that the classical electrodynamicists just assume it away arbitrarily. Quoting Jackson:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 249].