John Bedini's Formation of Negative
Resistors in Batteries
Explanation
April 26, 2000
First we must include the usual warning that the
experimenter assumes all legal responsibilities for his experiments,
at his own volition. This author assumes no responsibilities or
liabilities for such actions.
John has kindly given his permission for me to explain
his use of the lead acid battery and how he gets the vacuum to
contribute excess energy to the battery and to the circuit. I'll
discuss the battery a bit, very informally because I don't have a lot
of time to go back and look up all the references, etc. and prepare a
formal paper. But we'll cover the gist of it so you can understand how
John uses batteries and
switches them in his units, and why he does it the way he does. We'll
point out the processes that are involved in his methodology, and why
he can use a lead acid battery to produce COP1.0 in perfect compliance
with the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and the conservation of
energy law. One must use a combination of electrodynamics and particle
physics to grasp these processes and mechanisms, because classical EM
theory does not include the active vacuum interaction, even though
it's been clearly proven (theoretically and experimentally) in
particle physics for decades.
Vacuum energy already powers every electrical circuit
and every electrical load today, and always has done so from the
beginning. Contrary to the received view, extraction of usable EM
energy from the vacuum is the easiest thing in all the world to do,
and it is ubiquitous to all our circuits and power systems. All the
coal, oil, and natural gas ever burned in powerplants added not a
single watt to the powerline. All that energy input from the fuel
combustion was used only to continuously restore the source dipoles in
the generators,
dipoles that our scientists and engineers unwittingly design the
external circuits to keep destroying. The source dipole, once
established, was and is a "negative resistor" of enormous power that
has powered every electrical circuit and load from the beginning. As
we shall see, Bedini discovered how to make a negative resistor right
inside the battery itself.
Every electrodynamicist already assumes (and utilizes)
the fact that you can freely change the potential energy of any EM
system, at will. It's called "regauging". E.g., Jackson's Classical
Electrodynamics, second edition (and any other important EM book one
chooses), applies arbitrary Lorentz "regauging" to the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, changing them to a new set erroneously
said to be identical to the
others in every way. They are not. Specifically, that little change
(symmetrical regauging after first Lorenz in 1867 and later H.A.
Lorentz), simply discards all open Maxwellian systems far from
thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum. In short, it
arbitrarily discards all overunity EM systems, including those that
could permissibly capture and use energy from the active vacuum to
power themselves and their loads simultaneously. A priori, such
Maxwellian systems are far from thermodynamic equilibrium in the
vacuum flux -- much as a windmill is out of equilibrium with the
wind's energy exchange with it.
First, to understand John's work one must be aware that
there are several currents in a lead acid battery, not just one. For
our purposes we will need just two: the heavy lead-type ion current in
the battery, and the electron current in the battery but also
commuting into the external circuit.
Note particularly that the electrons communicate between
the inside of the battery (e.g., the plates) and the external circuit,
but the lead ions do not. There is thus an interface and a sharp
separation between the electron current and the ion current.
Here's the point everyone is missing. Check the
mass-to-charge ratio of each of the two currents. (I have it
somewhere, from calculating it years ago, but have no time to search
for it again. So someone should look up the numbers again and add them
up; it's straightforward.). As I recall, the lead ions' m/q ratio is
several hundred thousand times the m/q ratio of the electrons. For our
purposes here, all we need to know is that the m/q ratio for the lead
ions is very much bigger than
the m/q ratio for the electrons.
So there is obviously a hysteresis (time delay) in the
response of the massive ion current to far less massive electron
currents that interact and try to change the ion current and its
momentum. This time-delay in ion response to electron urging can be
adroitly manipulated and used to cause the vacuum to add energy to the
ions and also to the electrons. In short, the delay can be manipulated
to freely "regauge" the system, freely changing its potential energy,
and dramatically increasing how much potential energy is available for
battery recharging and how much is available for powering the external
circuit (loads and losses).
Instead of thinking of the energy John inputs to the
battery as the "powering" energy, one must think of it as "triggering"
and "timing" energy which initiates certain other key interactions to
occur. These additional interactions then add lots of additional
energy to the ions and the electrons, all for free or nearly so. In
short, John "switches'" and "triggers" certain kinds of vacuum
interactions, including the highly specialized formation of a negative
resistor in
the battery itself. He then "triggers" that negative resistor in
certain ways to increase its functioning even further.
John's method does the following:
(1) It forms a true negative resistor in a most
unexpected way, inside a common lead acid battery,
(2) it uses that negative resistor to extract excess
energy from the vacuum and furnish it both to the ions in charging
mode and to the electrons in load powering mode, and
(3) it adds several other stimuli which increase the
amplification of the negative resistor and further enhance the effect,
increasing the excess energy extracted from the
vacuum and collected in the charging process and also in the powering
process.
Specifically, the delay in ion response can be
manipulated to place the battery in ion recharging mode while the
signal pulse electrons are simultaneously placed in external circuit
powering mode. By manipulating the hysteresis and adroitly timing the
electron pulses and pulse widths, one can break the forced Lorentz
symmetry of the excitation discharge in a usually closed current loop
containing both the battery's source dipole and the external load.
This is possible since John's method deliberately opens the loop so
that the vacuum
energy enters freely, increasing the potentialization (energy
collection) upon the ions and the electrons as well.
Suppose we "hit" a battery's terminals with an
instantaneous leading edge rise of a pulse of electrons and potential.
Let us assume the "hit" is in the "battery-charging" mode. The
electrons drive in instantly, trying to force the heavy ions to start
moving in the charging direction. For a moment the lead ions just sit
there, and then very slowly (compared to the electrons!) start to
reluctantly move in the recharging mode. During that "ion response
lag" time, the
electrons continue to furiously rush in and pile-up on the plates. The
charge density sharply increases on the plates in that pile-up where
the charges are "squeezing" together (clustering). So now we have a
much higher potential suddenly rising in the squeezed charge cluster,
because of the increased charge density arising there.
Refer to E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential
Equations of Mathematical Physics, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57,
1903, p. 333-355. Whittaker shows us that a "scalar" potential is not
at all what they taught us in EM theory 101. If one hasn't read
Whittaker 1903, one will need to do so.
As Whittaker shows, the scalar potential (actually its
reaction cross section is what even Whittaker is decomposing)
identically is a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM
wavepairs, where each pair is a phase conjugate pair. In short, a
"scalar" potential identically is a multivectorial, multiwave entity
(but comprised of longitudinally polarized EM waves, and those waves
come in
bidirectional pairs!). In fact, because in the phase conjugate pair
one wave is "time-forward" and the other is "time-reversed",
time-reversal and time-forward perturbations occur paired and
simultaneously in nature's electrodynamics. This is erroneously
omitted, however, in Maxwellian electrodynamics theory.
Anyway, the "scalar" potential isn't even a scalar
entity. Since Whittaker 1903, the proof has been in the literature
nearly a century and it has just been ignored!
Since the QM vacuum contains and is a virtual particle
flux (that's one way to model it) and thus contains energy, it is (or
can be modeled as) a special kind of "scalar" potential. Every EM
potential is in fact a change to the vacuum energy density. Any EM
potential in a circuit is a change to the ambient vacuum potential or
to some intermediate potential that is. Rigorously, any increased EM
potential in a circuit is a special kind of negative resistor, since
extra bidirectional, flowing EM energy from the vacuum has been added
to the circuit. However, electrodynamicists have not recognized that
regauging produces a true negative resistor. Very large bidirectional
energy flows (very large potentials) can be freely added to the
circuit at any time. However, to use these negative resistors so that
we extract usable energy from them, we have to learn how to more
carefully use bidirectional potentials so that we apply them adroitly
in two opposing directions simultaneously.
No textbook or professor ever calculates the potential
itself, but only its reaction cross section. Consider that for awhile;
it's quite rigorous. We have been and are taught to calculate only how
much energy is diverged from the potential, around a little unit point
static charge (assumed), and that little "swirl-around" energy is then
supposed to be "the potential". It isn't. The little swirl-around is
the energy diverged from the potential. Calling that "the potential"
is analogous to mistaking a tiny little whirlpool in a river as the
entire river. Same error.
For more than a century the electricians have
erroneously "defined" the scalar potential "at a point" as the amount
of energy diverged from it around a little fixed unit point static
charge at that point The amount of energy "swirled or diverted from
all those bidirectional LWs around a little unit point static charge"
fixed at a point, does indeed have a scalar magnitude. For fixed
conditions, there's a fixed amount of energy in the "swirl-around" at
any moment. But that
"magnitude of the energy in the swirl" isn't the potential; it's
what's diverted from the potential.
Obviously it's a major non sequitur to mistake "the"
potential for a tiny fraction of itself.
As a set of bidirectional LWs, the potential is an
ensemble of mighty, rushing rivers of EM energy, with paired rivers
flowing in opposite directions. From those rushing rivers of energy
comprising any nonzero "static" potential, you can collect as much
energy as you wish, just by adding more intercepting/collecting
charges. The equation is already known and very simple: W = (phi)q,
where W is the total energy collected (diverged) from a potential of
reaction cross section phi, upon intercepting charges q. Fix the phi
to a constant value, then add as much q as is needed to have W reach
any value you wish. One can collect a billion watts of power from a
millivolt, e.g., given enough intercepting charges q. The "magnitude"
of the potential isn't fixed at any point, because the potential is a
set of flows involving the entire vacuum of the universe.
Anyway, back to our battery that we just "popped" with
an electron pulse. Now we have a higher potential in that pileup of
electrons onto the interface with the ions, urging the ions forward.
Well, the potential energy being collected on those ions (i.e.,
diverged around them from the potential's multiwaves) is given by W =
(phi) q, where W is the energy collected from the new and dramatically
increased potential with reaction cross section (phi), upon charges
q -- in this case, upon the ions. And also upon the piled up electrons
on the
circuit side of the battery plate, because the waves comprising the
potential run in both directions.
Set a potential in the middle of a transmission line,
and it takes off like two scalded hogs in both directions
simultaneously, thereby revealing its bidirectional vectorial nature.
The new, increased potential from the pile-up at the interface
between electrons and ions in the battery takes off like two scalded
hogs in both directions -- into the battery onto the ions and out into
the external circuit onto the electrons.
But that increased potential at the pileup is actually a
change to the ambient potential of the vacuum. It is part of the
vacuum and a reorganization of it, reaching across the universe in all
directions (or speeding out there in all directions at light speed).
Since the internal LW waves comprising the increased
potential at the pile-up are bidirectional, we have added energy to
both the electrons out there in the circuit and to the ions in there
in the battery. Since the electrons react (relax and move) so much
faster than the ions, we can now be drawing power in the external
circuit and its load, due to the instant response of the
overpotentialized electrons, while we are still urging those
overpotentialized ions into motion in
a recharging direction.
For the purist, electrons really move on the average
with only a very small drift velocity in the circuit, often on the
order of a few inches per hour. However, that average "drift" is
comprised of an enormous distribution of electron velocities,
collisions, etc. So what we have actually done is dramatically change
that distribution underlying the drift velocity. The "current" in a
circuit is not as simple as the physical movement of electrons like
marbles through a hollow pipe, even though loosely one usually uses
that kind of language.
I sent you the IC-2000 paper, in which we pointed out
that there is no such thing as an isolated charge anyway, when you
consider the shadowing virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum
that cluster around it. That is already well-established in QM theory.
So an "isolated charge" really is a set of dipoles, where each dipole
is comprised of a piece of the observed charge and one of the
clustering virtual charges. Each of those dipoles contains a potential
between its ends, and thus identically generates a bidirectional LW
flow across the universe, altering (and structuring and organizing)
the entire vacuum.
In particle physics, it has been known for more than 40
years (couple of Nobel Prizes awarded and all that) that any dipole is
a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual energy exchange between the
active vacuum and the dipole charges. By definition of broken
symmetry, this means that some of that virtual disordered energy
continuously absorbed from the vacuum by the dipole's charges, is NOT
radiated back as disordered virtual photons. Instead, it is
self-ordered by the charges. Open systems not in equilibrium with
their active environment -- in this case the active vacuum -- are
permitted to do that, and a dipole is such an open system in
disequilibrium with the active vacuum. So the re-ordered component of
the energy emitted from the charges is radiated back as observable EM
field energy flow, which does interact macroscopically and observably
with charges.
Rigorously, this "charges pile-up" at the plate
interface between electrons and ions has asymmetrically self-regauged
the system including both the recharging ions inside the battery and
the electron current out in the external circuit now forced into
powering mode. The reorganized vacuum has added excess energy to the
entire system, the excess being energy which was extracted from the
vacuum by that pile-up of charges, each with its associated clustered
virtual charges, so that the charge pile-up acts as a cluster of
dipoles.
We have specified a situation and process which
asymmetrically self-regauges the system, using excess energy from the
vacuum. The increased potential at the pile-up is in fact a direct
change to the entire vacuum. It is an organization of the entire
vacuum. To the system the change in the vacuum is negentropic because
the vacuum energy has been organized into a bidirectional set of
flows. Such self-organization is permissible in an open system not in
equilibrium with its external active environment. All this is based on
rigorous, proven physics, but it is not in the hoary old classical
electrodynamics, which contains a great many foundations errors and
omissions.
The set of bidirectional energy flows involving the
entire vacuum and comprising that increased potential at the pile-up,
represents a re-organization of the local vacuum to a more ordered
state. In short, negentropy. The pile-up of charges and its associated
potential (negentropic reorganization of the vacuum) constitute an
active negative resistor.
This is the way that John creates a negative resistor
directly inside a lead acid storage battery (and in several other
kinds of batteries also). The pile-up becomes a true negative
resistor, extracting additional biwave flowing energy from the
external vacuum. The negative resistor receives energy from the vacuum
in that half of the unobserved internal LWs that flow from every point
in external space to the pile-up. The negative resistor then sends
that organized energy out into the "circuit" in that half of the
potential's internal LWs that flow out into the battery and in the
opposite direction into the
external circuit and on out to every other point in the universe.
One should again check Whittaker 1903 and think about
that extra "pile-up" potential as a harmonic set of bidirectional EM
longitudinal wavepairs, until one understands this active negative
resistance effect clearly.
The absolutely permissible, justified, scientific result
is that the energy of the system is freely and dramatically increased
(the system is regauged) from the negentropic vacuum. The ions in that
increased energy flow into the battery take on more energy than we
ourselves "input", with the excess being taken from the reorganized
vacuum by the action of the negative resistor formed at the pile-up.
The charges
in the pile-up took on more energy, taken from the vacuum, and the
higher potential also flows at the speed of light back out the
terminals along the conductors, potentializing the surface charges and
increasing the intercepted energy diverged into the conductors by the
surface charges. Since a back-lash emf exists from the higher
potential at the back-up and the beginning potential in the external
circuit, current flows in the external circuit (1) in circuit-powering
mode, and (2) with greater energy collected upon the electrons from
the increased Poynting energy flow diverged into the circuit
conductors.
John puts in some electrons and potential and makes a
negative resistor. The action of the negative resistor then
overpotentializes both the battery-charging ions and the
circuit-powering electrons. The vacuum furnishes the extra potential
energy. So John now has lots more energy in the circuit than he
himself put in, both to recharge the battery and power the load.
The net result is that the system eats its cake and has
it too, courtesy of having produced a negative resistor and tricked
the active vacuum to momentarily give it lots of excess energy
(potential energy). It collects some of that excess energy upon both
the recharging ions and the circuit electrons back-forced to power the
circuit. Note that the formation of the negative resistor actually
produced in the external circuit a "back emf" which is of the circuit
powering type, even though in the battery the ion current is still
moving and accelerating in the charging position -- exactly opposed to
the electron current!
So the timing and negative resistor effect
simultaneously introduce additional energy extracted from the vacuum
to (1) the battery charging process, and (2) the load powering process
in the external circuit.
Then we deliberately cut off the pulse sharply, with the
ions now moving in the charge direction and with the electrons in the
external circuit powering the load. The sharp cutoff rate produces a
very interesting effect here also, if we end it just precisely while
most of the pile-up (and higher potential) still exists at the
plate-ion interface. In that case, Lenz's law applies due to the sharp
cutoff and it aids us, since momentarily the negative resistor
potential is even further dramatically increased by the Lenz reaction!
So even more
potential energy momentarily surges out onto the circuit electrons in
the "powering the circuit" mode, and even more potential energy
simultaneously surges onto the ions in the "charging the battery"
mode.
The result of this second effect is that (1) the
negative resistor is again increased, (2) even more energy is
furnished from the vacuum to the battery-charging process, and (3)
even more energy is furnished from the vacuum to the load-powering
process.
In short, the system suddenly and remarkably increases
the negative resistor effect, self-regauging itself for the second
consecutive time, and increasing the excess energy extracted from the
vacuum!
This second surge of excess energy comes directly from
the vacuum, from the suddenly increased negative resistor, via those
suddenly increased bidirectional longitudinal EM wave energy flows
between the pile-up and every point in all the surrounding space.
That's what a bidirectional set of wavepairs means; observable energy
flows from the pile-up (source dipole) to every point in external
space, and from every point in external space virtual (complex) energy
flows to the source dipole.
That is the second case where we cause the external
circuit to be "regauged" and change its potential energy freely, and
we cause the internal ions to be "regauged" and change their potential
energy freely.
Again we accent that electrodynamicists already assume
that any EM system can freely change its energy at any time; it's
called "regauging". It is inexplicable why electrodynamicists have not
focused upon actually producing self-regauging circuits which
asymmetrically discharge their freely increased energy, as John has
done, so that the dissipated energy is used to recharge the battery
while also powering the load. Instead, the electrodynamicists continue
to give us regauging circuits which symmetrically discharge their
freely increased energy, so that half the dissipated energy is used to
destroy the source dipole of the generator or battery while the other
half is dissipated in the external loads and losses.
On the other hand, John uses half the excess regauging
energy from the negative resistor to restore the battery (source)
dipole, and uses the other half to power the load and losses
simultaneously. So he asymmetrically discharges the free excitation
energy received from the vacuum via the negative resistor.
But back to John's battery process. Now we have the Lenz
effect pulse finally removed and the ions moving in charging mode but
slowing down now. Since the Lenz law effect dies rapidly, we have a
rapid resumption of "draw" of electrons from the pile-up into the
external circuit to power it. But for a bit, the ions only start to
slow and have not yet stopped completely. They "overshoot" because of
their sluggishness, and keep on charging the battery a moment longer.
During this third moment, the external circuit is still being powered
even though the battery is still in charging mode.
When all these "excess energy" mechanisms are added, one
finds that excess energy can be collected from the vacuum by the
negative resistor and used appropriately to produce a system with a
permissible overall COP1.0 performance. The dramatic difference in
John's method, from the conventional method, is that in John's method
the same current through the load does not pass back through the back
emf of the source dipole negative resistor to continually destroy it.
On the contrary, he inverts the phase of the current through the
source
dipole negative resistor to continually restore it.
There are several other schemes that can be used at this
point. If the follow-on pulsing etc. is matched to again initiate the
effects discussed, one can continue to draw power in the circuit while
charging the battery, etc. for about a succession of the three periods
of time:
(1) the initial hysteresis pileup, formation of the
negative resistor, and associated effects,
(2) the following Lenz law reaction, increase of the
negative resistor, and associated effects, and
(3) the follow-on period of simultaneous charging the
battery and powering the circuit from the pile-up while the overshoot
of the ions is still slowing and ending.
One trick John sometimes uses is to time the next pulse
front to arrive just at the time that the ions are almost but not
quite stopped in their "overshoot" charging mode and are preparing to
reverse into discharge mode (following the electrons in the external
circuit, which are already in that mode). With the exact timing, the
whole situation starts over. There are several other variations that
John has also used and found effective.
In developing this methodology, John long ago built
various controllers and timers, and experimented with a variety of
pulses, pulse widths, and timing to get it all just right for a
specific battery of interest. He had one little battery-powered
motor -- an inefficient little beast with only about 35-40% normal
efficiency -- which continuously "ran off the battery" seemingly
(actually, off the excess energy from the negative resistor created
and manipulated in the battery) for a couple of years. The motor
represented a "load" continually being driven by the excess energy
extracted from the vacuum by the negative resistor continually created
in the battery. He
recharged the battery and ran the motor directly off vacuum energy,
using the precise set of negative resistor effects just discussed.
John has freely shared his work with many researchers.
E.g., an excellent microwave switching engineer named Bill Nelson
visited John, observed some of John's devices working, and reasoned
correctly that the motor was just a load and played no part in
producing the excess energy. So Nelson and another engineer used an
electric light bulb as the load, adjusted the pulses and timing
appropriately, and produced a
little unit which kept its battery charged while continuously
illuminating the light bulb. John shared his research with Jim Watson,
who succeeded in developing a version that powered a much larger motor
(8 kW), which he demonstrated at one of the Tesla conferences at
Colorado Springs. Watson and his family were later to mysteriously
drop out of all contact, so that even his own financial backer could
not find him. Ron Cole visited John's lab often, and Ron and John
built several successful and similar devices together.
There are several other powering schemes that can be
worked out, using the negative resistor created inside the battery by
splitting the current phases. E.g., with the ions moving in discharge
mode and the circuit being powered, one can again introduce a sharp
voltage pulse of electrons for charging, onto the circuit. This of
course invokes Lenz's law, dramatically increasing the powering of the
circuit and the energy upon the ions driving the circuit powering. Now
the pile-up occurs even stronger, because the ions keep bearing down
in charging mode with increased energy, while the electrons are forced
to keep boring in much more densely to oppose them, yet on the other
end the electrons are even more strongly powering the circuit
momentarily because of the increased regauging energy. So the pile-up
becomes even higher than before, increasing the potential of the
pile-up even more due to the "charge squeeze" effect being greater. In
other words, we
make an even greater "negative resistor" at that pile-up. This will
greatly amplify the potential out into the circuit, and also greatly
increase the potential on the "powering" ions, so that the ions have
more energy to give to the pile-up and to the circuit, and so do the
electrons in the circuit. Again, when the "back-popping" pulse sharply
cuts off on the trailing edge, one gets a Lenz law effect of further
increase, etc.
There are a great variety of useful excess energy
schemes which can be worked out and applied, all using the excess
energy freely obtained from the vacuum by the negative resistor
created and manipulated in the battery.
Once one understands John's negative resistor effect and
how one gets it, how one increases it, and how one sustains it or
repeats it rapidly, then one can adjust that motor (or other load) and
that battery to function as a self-powering system, perfectly
permissible by the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Because of the
negative resistor effect and its extraction of excess energy from the
vacuum, this open dissipative system can output more energy than the
chemical
energy that is dissipated in the battery. In fact, the chemical energy
is not dissipated, but remains, when the timing and negative
resistance effects are properly adjusted. Then everything just runs
off the vacuum energy from the negative resistor.
The point is this. The system has two major currents
greatly differing in their momentum and responses, that can be
exploited to get these negative resistor effects., So why do all our
theorists just continue to assume a "simple current" in and through
the battery? If one ignores the duality, one will just mush around any
transient negative resistor effect and the effect will not help,
because one will get it wrong as much as one gets it right.
But if we know what is happening in there, and if we
deliberately manipulate the phenomena as John Bedini has done for
years, we can make a battery recharge itself at the same time that it
is powering the external circuit, because of a negative resistor
formed in the battery and properly manipulated. Actually the energy
extracted from the vacuum is powering both the battery's recharging
and the circuit's loads and losses.
We point out that these negative resistor effects can in
fact occur in a battery that is almost completely discharged, and John
has also demonstrated such specific negative resistor formation and
operation in a nearly uncharged battery for a sustained period of
time.
For ease in building and timing the system, John often
prefers to use two batteries and switch between them. He will charge
one as ostensibly an additional part of the load, but all the while
adjusting his pulses in the charging process to dramatically open the
process and get the injection of a lot of excess vacuum energy in
there via similar phenomenology to what we described above. Meantime,
the other battery is powering the circuit normally. Then he just
switches, and recharges the first battery including evoking the
negative resistor effects in it, while using power from the second,
recharged battery. The amount of excess charging energy he tricks the
vacuum into giving
him while charging the battery, is "free" energy he can then use to
power the system when he switches the recharged battery into
system-powering position. He continues to switch, which yields a
self-powering open dissipative system, freely extracting all its
energy from the active vacuum. In that case, he makes the charging
battery charge a lot faster by the negative resistor effects than just
with the simple energy he inputs in his pulsing and in his "normal
charging currents" to the battery. He "opens" that battery-charging
process and subsystem the way we described, so that the vacuum
furnishes more than half the charging input energy.
Now for the skeptics who love to quote the second law of
classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics is equilibrium
thermodynamics. While the system is open and receiving excess energy
from the vacuum, it is far from equilibrium and does not have to obey
the old equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law.
Indeed, classical thermodynamics does not even apply, including the
second law. Here is a magic truth: The energy of an open system not in
equilibrium is always greater than the energy of the same system in
equilibrium. Bye-bye second law of thermodynamics for non-equilibrium
systems.
In John's systems, the thermodynamics of a system far
from equilibrium with its active environment (in this case, the active
vacuum) rigorously applies. As is well-known in that kind of
thermodynamics, such an open disequilibrium system is permitted to:
(1) self-order,
(2) self-oscillate or self-rotate,
(3) output more energy than the operator himself inputs
(the excess is just taken from the active environment, in this case
the vacuum),
(4) power itself and a load also (in that case, all the
energy is taken from the active environment, in this case the active
vacuum), and
(5) exhibit negentropy. John's devices have exhibited
all five effects for years.
In other words, the laws of physics already permit this
to happen. We just have to correct the foolish old flawed notion in
electrodynamics of what powers the external circuit. Batteries and
generators do not use the energy input to them (generator shaft
energy) or available to them (chemical energy in the battery) to power
the external circuit! I fully explain that in the IC-2000 paper. The
chemical energy available in a battery and the shaft energy input to a
generator are dissipated
only to restore the source dipole that our closed current loop power
systems keep destroying by design.
No laws of nature, laws of physics, or laws of
thermodynamics are violated by John's novel negative resistor
approach. The conservation of energy law is obeyed at all times, as of
course is recognized for open dissipative systems. As an example, Ilya
Prigogine was awarded a Nobel Prize for his contributions to
nonequilibrium thermodynamics of systems similar to those we are
discussing.
I just wanted to set the record straight. You can make
an overunity system anytime you wish, with adroit use of a lead-acid
battery (or two of them) where you pay meticulous attention to the
production and use of a negative resistor inside the battery itself.
The science is there and it is correct. It's already in physics, but
it isn't in the seriously flawed classical electrodynamics. The full
basis has been in
the textbooks for decades, but it has not been applied by EM power
system designers. Instead, they continue to ignore the active vacuum
and the creation and manipulation of negative resistors in batteries
by current splitting and adroit manipulation.
How many readers have thought of using the appreciably
different response times of the electron current and the ion current?
How many professors have thought of it? How many textbooks mention it?
What EM text points out that a scalar potential is actually a set of
bidirectional longitudinal EM wave energy flows, conditioning and
organizing the entire vacuum? What paper in a scientific journal
contains it? One gets the point after only a moment's reflection.
Now for the scientists, advanced engineers, and
strategic planners. What is needed to make all this quite rigorous is
the development and usage of a dual instrumentation system., We need
to develop a proper instrumentation system to measure and portray the
ion current in the battery and its actions, and simultaneously to
measure and portray the electron current in there at the interface.
Then one can add the standard instruments to monitor the electron
current, voltage, phase angles, and power in the external circuit.
Well, to get those two "internal" instrumentation
systems, we need to enlist some good electrochemists, who know about
measuring things like that, know about overpotentials on electrodes
and plates and such, understand all the internal chemical and ion
reactions including their energetics, and have worked out measurement
techniques for such matters. To an electrical engineer, the problem
usually appears unsolvable (many, e.g., have no knowledge of
overpotential theory, or
of double surfaces theory, or differentiating multiple current types
in a battery, etc.).
We just need a really good straightforward and
well-funded scientific project by a good scientific team, to develop
the instrumentation and procedures, and then to perform enough
experimentation to thoroughly explore and measure the phenomenology in
all its glory. Then the leading theorists can produce a good
theoretical model, including of the interaction between vacuum energy
and the circuit, while the developers give us a good measurement and
instrumentation system for precisely measuring such systems. Once we
get the experimentally-fitted theoretical model and we have the
instrumentation system, then we're off and running with ordinary
applied engineering, to design and build self-powering battery-powered
systems (actually as open systems adroitly extracting and using energy
from the ubiquitous vacuum) on a massive scale for the world market.
Major universities and laboratories should fund such
work as a matter of great scientific priority. So should the National
Science Foundation and National Academy of Sciences, the Department of
Energy, the private research institutes, the Environmental
Foundations, etc. If they do so, then we'll all have overunity devices
powering our automobiles and homes and factories straightaway. And we
will also take a giant stride toward cleaning up the pollution of the
biosphere.
We need, however, to stress again one shocking point
above all else. Batteries and generators do not themselves power their
external circuits! Please read that again, and do not miss the
importance of what we are saying. All that the dissipation of the
shaft energy input to a generator does, or dissipation of the chemical
energy available in a battery does, is perform work upon the internal
charges to separate them and form the negative resistor source dipole.
Not a single joule of that dissipated generator shaft energy or that
battery's dissipated chemical energy goes out onto the power line.
Every electrical circuit and electrical load is now and always has
been powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum by the
source dipole acting as a negative resistor due to its known broken
symmetry in the fierce vacuum energy flux.
To clearly understand that startling fact, we must
temporarily set aside the 136-year old flawed electrodynamics
(Maxwell's seminal paper was given in 1864), and turn to particle
physics, because the old electrodynamicists did not have an active
vacuum in the equations, and it still isn't in there.
In the latter 1950s, particle physicists discovered and
experimentally proved broken symmetry, and also that every dipole is a
broken symmetry in the continuous virtual energy exchange between
vacuum and dipole charges. The very definition of "broken symmetry"
means that something virtual has become observable. This means that
part of that fierce, virtual, disordered energy continually absorbed
by the end charges of the dipole, is not re-radiated as virtual,
disordered energy -- but as observable, ordered energy. In short, the
ubiquitous source dipole is in fact a ubiquitous negative resistor par
excellence.
The source dipole, once made, is a true negative
resistor that freely extracts observable, usable field energy from the
vacuum, and pours it out through the terminals of the generator or
battery. The outflowing energy moves at light speed through all space
surrounding the conductors of the external circuit, and generally
parallel to them. It's a tiny bit convergent into the wires, because
in the "sheath" or boundary layer of the flow right down on the
surface of the conductors, that part of the flow strikes the surface
charges and gets diverged into the wires to power up the electrons and
the circuit.
Every electrical circuit and every electrical load is
and always has been powered by energy extracted directly from the
vacuum by the negative resistor source dipole. That statement is fully
justified in particle physics, but not electrodynamics. The
electrodynamicists and leaders of the scientific community have
refused to change the flawed foundations and gaps in EM theory, even
though a great deal has been learned since 1867 that substantially
changes the foundations assumptions used originally to construct the
theory.
The energy extracted by the source dipole from the
vacuum sprays out of the terminals of the battery or generator,
filling all space around the external conductors. A good illustration
of this incredible energy flow is shown in Kraus, Electromagnetics,
Fourth Edition. The magnitude of the energy flow extracted is so great
as to boggle the imagination. In a simple little circuit, it's about
10exp13 times as much as is intercepted in that little "sheath flow"
by the circuit and
diverged into the circuit to power it. Well, the enormity of that
energy flow extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole is totally
mystifying and embarrassing, or it was highly embarrassing back there
in the 1880s.
And therein lies one of the greatest scientific faux pas
of all time.
Energy flow through space was discovered independently
by Heaviside and Poynting and at about the same time. Poynting only
thought of, and accounted, the feeble little component of energy flow
that actually entered the circuit -- in short, the energy in that
"little sheath or strip" flow right down on the surface of the
conductors. He never even imagined all that nondiverged,
nonintercepted energy component missing
the circuit entirely and just being wasted. But Poynting published
prestigiously, while Heaviside published more obscurely, and the
theory of EM energy flow was named after Poynting.
Heaviside realized the entire energy flow, including the
huge nondiverged component that entirely misses the circuit -- the
component that Poynting missed. Heaviside also corrected Poynting on
the overall flow direction (Poynting missed it by 90 degrees). Note
that Maxwell was already dead at the time.
Then the great Lorentz entered the energy flow picture,
and confronted a massive problem. How was one to account for the
inexplicably enormous nondiverged Heaviside energy flow that was
pouring forth from those terminals? And why did the circuit catch such
a feeble little Poynting fraction of the overall flow? That output is
far more energy than even a host of power systems contained or were
thought to output.
At the time there was absolutely no conceivable way to account for the
enormous magnitude of the nondiverging energy flow component.
So Lorentz hit upon a stratagem. He eliminated the
problem rather than solving it. He reasoned that the nondiverged
Heaviside component of the energy flow was "physically insignificant"
because it was not used in the circuit and did not even enter it. So
he integrated the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface
surrounding any little volume of interest. Voila! That little trick
discarded that bothersome
huge nondiverged Heaviside component of the energy flow (it's
physically still there around every circuit, but the circuit does not
catch it and the electrodynamicists just ignore it.). Lorentz's trick
retained the Poynting component, and since that is the energy that
enters the circuit and is collected by it, then it will be the energy
that the circuit dissipates in its losses and loads. So it will match
our instrumental measurements, since we measure dissipation. I have a
1902 reference by Lorentz where he did that little integration trick,
but it is in a book so he very probably did it earlier in a scientific
paper which I have yet to locate.
Anyway, following Lorentz the electrodynamicists just
arbitrarily threw away far more available EM energy associated with
every circuit than they retained. All the electrodynamicists fell into
line, and they are still in the same line after a century, marching
along to Lorentz's cadence. The neglected Heaviside energy flow is
still physically there as a special negentropic organization of the
vacuum surrounding every circuit, just waiting to be used. E.g., if
you retroreflect the passed Heaviside energy flow component, you can
send it back across the circuit's surface charges again and catch some
more of it. Do it iteratively lots of times -- as in intensely
scattering optically active media -- and you will have asymmetrical
self-regauging and what has been called "lasing without population
inversion". Or just resonate an intercepting charge -- as per Letokhov
and Bohren -- and it will sweep out a greater geometrical reaction
cross section and collect additional energy from the Heaviside
component (18 times as much more energy as an identical but static
particle collects). Letokhov has been publishing in all sorts of
journals on this subject since 1957. In an article in Contemporary
Physics he has freely called such excess energy collection and
emission a process for a "Maxwell's demon" -- in other words, a
special kind of negative resistor.
The bottom line is that true overunity systems and
negative resistors have been built and demonstrated by several
inventors and scientists such as Bedini, Golden, Nelson, Watson,
Letokhov, Bohren, Chung, Kron, Sweet, etc. They do work, and in fact
John can demonstrate one at any time. But instead of valid scientific
attention and courteous scientific treatment, the scientists and
inventors who have pioneered this legitimate overunity area have been
hounded, persecuted, vilified, etc. Careers of legitimate scientists
attempting to scientifically investigate this area have often been
ruined.
What is needed is not another group of grasping "vulture
capitalists" and stock scam artists seeking a fast fortune by selling
stock and licenses to the gullible public. What is needed is for the
organized scientific community to face its responsibility and its
serious errors in electrodynamics, and (1) correct the terribly flawed
classical
electrodynamics as a matter of the highest scientific priority,
including at the foundations level, (2) fund legitimate overunity EM
power system investigators, scientists, engineers, and serious
inventors before they produce the final demonstration model; just as
they have funded hot fusion researchers for decades without the
process ever adding a single watt to the power line, (3) set aside at
least 1% of the energy research budget for high priority
vacuum-energy-powered systems and phenomenology research, and (4)
recognize that conventional leading institutions which are bastions of
the present theory have zero experience, zero expertise and usually
zero institutional tolerance for the new overunity EM systems area.
They do not even have, and do not wish to develop, any legitimate
theory of permissible EM power systems as open systems in
disequilibrium with the active vacuum, freely using vacuum energy via
the creation and manipulation of internal negative resistors.
The scientific community -- including the leading
scientific journals and scientific associations -- now must honestly
face its energy and biospheric responsibilities and reassess its
adversarial position on overunity EM power systems. For decades the
community has been a major part of the vacuum energy problem, not part
of the vacuum energy solution. It already intercepts, controls, "cuts
up," prepares and sends down the energy research budget packages,
which all those research professors, sharp grad students, and sharp
young postdocs must seek funding from, in fierce competition. The
scientific community has already pre-determined what shall and what
shall not be allowed as permissible EM power system research. And its
woeful past record as an adversary of overunity EM power systems
speaks for itself. Its years of neglecting and opposing practical
electrodynamically-initiated vacuum energy extraction have resulted in
the ever-increasing pollution of the planet and a threat to the life
and survival of every species, including the human species itself.
It is scientifically unacceptable when the scientific
community still implicitly proclaims the "source charge" as ostensibly
creating all that enormous energy in its fields and potentials
reaching across the universe in all directions. In short, classical EM
excludes the interaction of the vacuum in its power system theory, and
implies that the "source charge" freely creates all that field energy
and potential energy reaching across the universe in all directions,
and creates it right out of nothing. Yet this same community
habitually confronts the serious open dissipative system EM researcher
with the label of being a "perpetual motion machine nut". In our very
worst nightmares, we could not begin to advocate such a vast array of
perpetual motion machines as does the present scientific
establishment, which advocates every source charge in the universe as
a perpetual motion machine of
the grossest kind, ignoring a resolution of the source charge problem
that has been available for almost half a century in particle physics.
Many skilled scientists have tried to get
electrodynamics changed and the flaws corrected -- including Nobelist
Feynman and the great John Wheeler, as well as many others such as
Barrett, Evans, Cornille, Lehnert, Yang, Mills, Vigier, de Broglie,
etc. When Maxwell constructed his theory, the electron and atom and
atomic nucleus had not been discovered. The three dozen
electrodynamicists worldwide all
believed in the material ether, so to them there was no place in all
the world where mass was absent. A "charge" was just a piece of
electric fluid, nothing more, nothing less. Maxwell wrote a material
fluid flow theory, and he also left out half the energy, half the wave
in space, etc. because he omitted Newtonian third law reaction. Both
mechanics and electrodynamics continue to omit one of the most
fundamental principles of all nature: that the effect acts back
through the observation process upon the cause. This principle does
appear, however, in general relativity. But in mechanics and
electrodynamics, as a result of this terrible omission, Newton's third
law remains an effect without a cause, mystically appearing out of
nowhere and producing that half of the energy and effect that Maxwell
erroneously omitted.
The purpose of this long write-up is to set the record
straight on what John Bedini has been doing in his overunity battery
powered devices, including some that have been self-powering.
A final word on entropy. Simply put, entropy refers to
increasing energy disorder, where disorder is the effect. But the
back-reaction of the effect upon the cause, omitted from mechanics and
electrodynamics but present in general relativity, has not been taken
into account. That principle means that each time there is a
disordering of energy, there is simultaneously a reordering of an
equal amount of energy. Entropy and negentropy occur as twins, simply
from the occurrence of the potential as a harmonic set of
bidirectional phase conjugate pairs of longitudinal EM waves. We
usually apply one set of those waves (the forward time set) and ignore
the second set (the time-reversed set or phase conjugate set). In
every experiment where an incoming EM wave from space affects a
receiving wire antenna, not only do the Drude electrons recoil, but
also the positive nuclei recoil with equal energy, though highly
damped because of the enormous m/q ratio of the nuclei.
Eerily,
hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers have been taught to
measure the Drude electron recoil and state they are measuring the
"incoming wave" disturbance. Not so. They are measuring the effect of
half of the interaction; the other half of the cause omitted by
Maxwell interacted with the time-reversed nuclei, and produced the
Newtonian third law recoil forces. Every scientist will acknowledge
the accompanying recoil of the nuclei, then will mystically invoke a
demon who stands in the wire, observes the disturbance of the
electrons, and kicks the nuclei equally and oppositely. A similar
situation occurs in a wire transmitting antenna, where the recoiling
nuclei also perturb the surrounding spacetime with equal energy as do
the perturbed Drude electrons.
Equal energy perturbation of ST means
equal ST curvature perturbation. So two ST perturbation waves are
launched simultaneously, not one. One is a time-forward wave, and one
is a time-reversed wave, paired together. Look at it this way. The
vacuum is a giant potential, which means it can inherently be
decomposed into Whittaker's bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepair
sets. Any perturbation of the vacuum must a priori disturb those
bidirectional waves, thereby producing bidirectional wavepair
disturbances, not "plucked string" waves. There are no taut physical
strings in the vacuum! Maxwell omitted the time-reversed half of the
vacuum disturbance, because the atom, nucleus, and electron had not
even been discovered at the time, and because he assumed the taut
string wave a priori. The reasoning was just that a single electrical
fluid under tensile stress was perturbed.
Anyway, I wanted to explain what John Bedini is doing in
that lead acid battery, and why his systems really do work. He has
done enormous experimentation for years. He's built many units which
exhibited the overunity effect due to creating a negative resistor in
the battery, and some which also exhibited the self-powering effect.
With a little proper scientific funding and support, a team of
scientists working
with Bedini can quickly produce working overunity EM power systems,
the theoretical model, and the instrumentation system. Bedini-type
systems are easily and cheaply produced in conventional manufacturing
plants. Development and availability of such Bedini-type negative
resistor systems will start a rapid, world-wide resolution of the
so-called "energy" problem. That will also start a rapid clean-up of
this suffering biosphere that is now being poisoned and destroyed by
hydrocarbon combustion waste products at an ever-increasing rate. It
will also revolutionize the living standards of the developing nations
and peoples.
In spite of the previous and present vilification of the
overunity researchers by the scientific community, I have great faith
in the scientific method, once it is permitted to function and be
funded. But just now, our own scientific community continues to impose
seriously flawed theories and approaches upon the laboratories and
scientists, and actively blocks the innovative overunity EM power
systems research that could save this planet and humanity. We can do
better than that,
and we must do better than that. Else in a few more decades none of
the rest of the scientific works will matter anyway, as the nature we
are now destroying turns upon this upstart humanity and destroys us
all.
Thanks, Jerry, for bearing with this very long write-up
and explanation of Bedini's method. It is of great importance -- to
the experimenters, the inventors, the scientists, our nation, and
every human being on this planet.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
By Tom Bearden