George & Howard: thanks for your comments to this non-physicist. I hope to take a look at Beardon's three chapters in the recent "advances in (nonlinear) optics" book that a particle-physicist friend (and former ASAer), Mark Ludwig, has down here in the "jungle."
Beardon's scientific/technical paper device reference is:
"The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: Extracting Energy from a Permanent Magnet with Energy-Replenishing from the Active Vacuum", Thomas E. Bearden, Ph.D., James C. Hayes, Ph.D., James L. Kenny, Ph.D., Kenneth D. Moore, B.S., Stephen L. Patrick, B.S., Magnetic Energy Limited, Huntsville, AL 35801
I have appended some excerpts from it at the end of this email, so that the approach to his work is coming from him.
From: SteamDoc@aol.com
With regard to the energy supply claims of Tom Beardon, a little Google searching brings up this page:
http://www.transformation.net/media/
If you go to the bottom, you will see Beardon's promotional video in a series with those by notorious "free energy" con men Joe Newman and Dennis Lee (I don't recognize the other 2 names). While guilt by association is not conclusive, this certainly does not inspire confidence.
I was first given the impression by Beardon's general descriptions that he is in the Dennis Lee category, but he has published in reputable refereed journals and his technical (not general-audience) papers show that he is in a different league than Lee. Whether he is onto something big or not is the question I would like to find an answer to.
The website reference looks to me like a new-age-oriented attempt to grasp at anything strange and different. I would not infer from Beardon's name being in the list that he has anything to do with the others in the list, such as Lee.
It might make an interesting topic for discussion here that some of these people specifically prey on Christians for support of their quackery. Saying things like how God has blessed him with the discovery of this great technology, but the Godless scientists and big energy corporations are trying to keep him down. Any thoughts about how to help protect our brothers and sisters from such as these?
As I recall, Dennis Lee is in this category. Beardon is not, at least not that I pick up from my interactions with him. I learned of him through a Christian constitutional attorney friend of mine in Huntsville, but Beardon is not a part of his Christian circle. Beardon is also not denouncing the physics establishment nor claiming special persecution, except for a bad rap by Sci. Am.
Beardon has gotten some attention from electrical engineering publications, but nothing conclusive has been said that I've seen. If Beardon's experimental claims are as good as he has stated, it would be an easy exercise for a competent power electroncs engineer to go to Huntsville and verify/falsify the results.
A reason that I am paying particular attention to Beardon is that he appears to be the leading successor to a line of somewhat strange development, beginning before WW II with the Sweet "vacuum triode", not to be confused with the familiar Lee deForest invention. This work was taken up by a successor and disappeared into the world of classified military research. So I am interested to know whether something strange but significant is going on here or not.
Dennis Feucht
________________________________
Since the present "standard" U(1) electrodynamics model forbids electrical power systems
with COP>1.0, we also studied the derivation of that model, which is recognized to contain flaws
due to its 136-year old basis. We particularly examined how it developed, how it was changed,
and how we came to have the Lorentz-regauged Maxwell-Heaviside equations model
ubiquitously used today, particularly with respect to the design, manufacture, and use of
electrical power systems.
Our approach was that the Maxwell theory is well-known to be a material fluid flow theory,
since the equations are hydrodynamic equations. So in principle, anything that can be done with
fluid theory can be done with electrodynamics, since the fundamental equations are the same
mathematics and must describe consistent analogous functional behavior and phenomena. This
means that EM systems with "electromagnetic energy winds" from their external "atmosphere"
(the active vacuum) are in theory quite possible, analogous to a windmill in a wind.
The major problem was that the present classical EM model excluded such EM systems. We
gradually worked out the exact reason for the arbitrary exclusion that resulted in the present
restricted EM model, where and when it was done, and how it was done. It turned out that
Ludvig Valentin Lorenz {55} symmetrically regauged Maxwell's equations in 1867, only two
years after Maxwell's seminal publication in 1865, and Lorenz first made the arbitrary changes
that limited the model to only those Maxwellian systems in equilibrium in their energy exchange
with their external environment (specifically, in their exchange with the active vacuum). This is
not a law of nature and it is not the case for the Maxwell-Heaviside theory prior to Lorenz's (and
later H. A. Lorentz's) alteration of it. Thus removing this symmetrical regauging condition {31,
34-38} is required-particularly during the discharge of the system's excess potential energy (the
excitation) in the load.
Later the great H. A. Lorentz, working independently and apparently unaware of Lorenz's
previous 1867 work, independently regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations so they
represented a system that was in equilibrium with its active environment.
Implications of the Arbitrarily Curtailed Electrodynamics Model
Initially an electrical power system is asymmetrically regauged by simply applying potential,
so that the system's potential energy is nearly instantly changed. The well-known gauge freedom
principle in gauge field theory assures us that any system's potential-and hence potential
energy-can be freely changed in such fashion. In principle, this potential energy can then be
freely discharged in loads to power them, without any further input from the operator. In short,
there is absolutely no theoretical law or law of nature that prohibits COP>1.0 electrical power
systems-else we have to abandon the successful modern gauge field theory.
But present electrical power systems do no such thing. However, all of them do accomplish
the initial asymmetrical regauging by applying potential. So all of them do freely regauge their
potential energy, and the only thing the energy input to the shaft of a generator (or the chemical
energy available to a battery) accomplishes is the creation of the potentializing entity-the
source dipole.
It follows that something the present systems perform in their discharge of their nearly-free1
regauging energy must prevent the subsequent simple discharge of the energy to power the loads
unless further work is done on the input section. In short, some ubiquitous feature in present
systems must self-enforce the Lorentz symmetry condition (or a version of it) whenever the
system discharges its free or nearly free excitation energy.
Lorentz's curtailment of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations greatly simplified the mathematics
and eased the solution of the resulting equations, of course. But applied to the design of
circuits-particularly during their excitation discharge-it also discarded the most interesting
and useful class of Maxwellian systems, those exhibiting COP>1.0.
...
Several rigorous scientific papers {27-40} by the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced
Study (AIAS) have been published or are in the publication process, fully justifying that energy
currents (energy winds) can readily be established in the vacuum, and that such energy winds do
allow the extraction of EM energy from the vacuum.
Also Cole and Puthoff {54} have previously shown that there is no prohibition in
thermodynamics which prevents EM energy being extracted from the vacuum and utilized to
power practical systems.
In electrochemistry it has long been known {21} that there can be no current or movement in
electrodes without the appearance of excess potential (regauging) called the overpotential.
Further, in the most advanced model in physics-gauge field theory-the freedom to change
gauge (in electrodynamics, to change the potential) at will and freely, is an axiom of the theory.
If we freely change the potential of a physical power system, we freely change its potential
energy (in a real system, we may have to pay for a little switching energy losses).
...
In the present invention, we do not destroy the potentializing source dipole, which is the
magnetic dipole of the permanent magnet. We include the vacuum interaction with the system,
and we also include the broken symmetry of the source dipole in that vacuum exchange-a
broken symmetry proven and used in particle physics for nearly a half century, but still
inexplicably neglected in the conventional Lorentz-regauged subset of the Maxwell-Heaviside
model.
Consequently, our work and this novel process are rigorously justified in both theory and
experiment, but the principles and phenomenology are still not incorporated in the classical
electrodynamics theory utilized to design and produce electrical power systems. These
principles are indeed included in the new O(3) electrodynamics being developed by AIAS6,7 that
extends the present U(1) electrodynamics model, as shown by some 90 scientific papers carried
by the U.S. Department of Energy on one of its scientific websites in Advanced
Electrodynamics, and by an increasing number of publications in Foundations of Physics,
Physica Scripta, Optik, etc.
The rest of the paper gets into the mathematical and empirical details of constructing the demonstration device.
Received on Mon Jul 5 17:39:18 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 05 2004 - 17:39:18 EDT