From PESWiki

posted by Leslie R. Pastor

In a recent discussion with Tom Bearden, (he asked me to change his paper), upon realizing that he had made a mistake in his use of words. This paper is therefore a correction on a previous work called: Isotropic Permanent Magnets.

Hi Les,

On your website http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Isotropic_Permanent_Magnets , the title should be "LRP:Anisotropic Permanent Magnets.

And down a ways, change "It’s just that they are called "isotropic permanent magnets". to read "It's just that they are called "anisotropic permanent magnets".

I typed the exact opposite of what I was talking about!

Check the rest to make sure we are talking about ANISOTROPIC permanent magnets. The industry sometimes uses that term instead of the one I prefer, which is "asymmetric" permanent magnets.

A little later, I typed "The remaining problem is that, once in self-powering operation, the manufactured anisotropic permanent magnets must not denature with self-powering use in asymmetrical systems, i.e., they must not lose their anisotropy with use. Some of these anisotropic permanent magnets available are already stated to presently have shown no inclination to denature."

That yellow-highlighted word in "they must not lose their isotropy with use." should be "they must not lose their anisotropy with use."

At a fast reading, I think those are the typo errors.

Sorry!

Cheers, Tom

Tom Bearden in a recent email:

"Finally did some searching on asymmetric magnets – i.e., permanent magnets with asymmetric fields instead of mirror-symmetric. I thought we would have to physically make our own from scratch, to have them. Not true; they are already available much more than I expected.

It's just that they are called "anisotropic permanent magnets". Lots of physics work is presently going on, on these magnets and their materials, both theoretical and experimental. Even better, one can now buy such magnets of various types and strengths off the shelf from some of the standard (leading) magnet suppliers. Including with various kinds of strengths and made of different magnet material types. Or one can even have them made to specification and order, by several suppliers (particularly those connected with magnet manufacturers and developers in China etc.).

Just Google search on the subject three words (in the title of this E-mail).

Hey, this means that the original notion of a little "self-powering totally permanent motor" toy demonstrator is not dead after all, and its achievement just got loads easier. This of course is the general type of motor or motor/generator referred to by the Steorn group in Ireland, which openly challenged the entire world Scientific Community with a full-page ad in The Economist, costing over $100 thousand. The Steorn group also selected a "jury of 12" highly selected scientists worldwide, from several thousand applicants, to come in and test the Steorn motors themselves, with the provision they must then sign a notarized statement as to the actual results of their tests. We are still waiting to see what happens on that one.

The remaining problem is that, once in self-powering operation, the manufactured anisotropic permanent magnets must not denature with self-powering use in asymmetrical systems, i.e., they must not lose their isotropy with use. Some of these anisotropic permanent magnets available are already stated to presently have shown no inclination to denature.

Remember, the EE model presently taught in all EE departments in all universities is arbitrarily symmetrized (artificially by Lorentz in 1892). This was done to (1) stop Nikola Tesla, who gave us the rotating magnetic field that made modern generators possible anyway, and who was also hell-bent on providing free energy systems taking their energy directly from the active medium, and also to (2) forever prevent our electrical engineers from thinking, designing, building, and deploying such asymmetric Maxwellian electrical power systems, since they would be taught and know only symmetrical electrical power systems which self-enforce COP<1.0.

Here are some Tesla quotes to show where he was headed:

Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic.? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time].

"We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium..." [Nikola Tesla,1897, during an address commemorating his installation of generators at Niagara Falls.].

"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].

So the Morgan financial empire and the other great cartels of the time simply had full and rigorous scientific investigations by their own paid-top-level scientists, of Maxwell’s equations etc. and particularly of Galois’ group theory and symmetry theory. It was immediately apparent to Morgan’s scientists that, since Morgan and crew needed that consumption of fuel to provide their meter charge and enormous financial rip-off, the standard electrical engineering theory – even taken as Heaviside’s 1880’s sharp curtailment of Maxwell’s 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns – had to be symmetrized in order to discard all COP>1.0 asymmetric Maxwell systems which could take excess energy from the active medium and use it to power loads. In short, to guarantee "energy from fuel consumption" as the "standard practice", they had to arbitrarily discard "energy from the active medium" EFTV systems.

Hence to suppress Tesla’s remarkable insight for all time, they either paid or prevailed on H. A. Lorentz in 1892 to borrow earlier work from Lorenz (without the "t") and use it to symmetrize the Heaviside equations. In short, this would control what scientists and engineers are taught and think, and thereby control what they do and build in actual practice.

H. A. Lorentz is known to have taken credit for lots of things done by others (such as taking and using this symmetrization from Lorenz’s previous work. [E.g., see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. This article discusses roots and history of gauge invariance, verifies that Lorenz (without the "t" first symmetrically regauged Maxwell's equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the "t") as being first. H.A. Lorentz received "original credit" for many things done by others earlier. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got or took credit for it.]

And that symmetrization of the Heaviside equations beautifully discarded all those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that could have given us free electrical energy from the vacuum.

As an aside, to Morgan & crew’s consternation, Heaviside himself discovered the mind-boggling huge curled EM energy flow component that accompanies every much feebler Poynting energy flow component. So this meant that every source (generator, battery, etc.) actually pours out more than a trillion times as much energy flow as the energy cranked into the generator shaft or the chemical energy consumed by the battery. That would not do, so again Lorentz in 1900 did the dirty work, originating the peculiar notion of integrating the entire energy flow vector (containing both the diverged tiny Poynting energy flow component and the stupendous nondiverged Heaviside curled energy flow component) around a closed surface arbitrarily assumed surrounding any volume element of interest. Arguing that "the Heaviside component did not interact with anything, so therefore had no physical significance", Lorentz used this neat little trick and clever statement to justify arbitrarily discarding that huge Heaviside energy flow component, unaccounted but still present in all EM systems today. Jackson at least points out that the Poynting component is not "the' energy flow component, but again uses Lorentz’s neat dodge that the Heaviside component "has no physical significance". Quoting Jackson:

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice …" [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237].

So with these two steps, Lorentz assured that all our EEs down to this day do not even understand where the energy flow actually comes from (it isn’t from our input of mechanical energy to crank the shaft of the generator!) or how much actually pours out of the generator terminals (nominally at least a trillion times as much as is contained in the feeble diverged and accounted Poynting EM energy flow).

Since then, our EEs have all been taught that horribly mutilated Heaviside-Lorentz subset of Maxwell’s theory, have not been even told of the huge Heaviside curled EM energy flow component, and have been lied to and told that the silly Heaviside-Lorentz curtailment is "Maxwell’s theory". We long told everyone where to go and find Maxwell’s actual theory – 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns, not the silly four vector equations of Heaviside as further symmetrized by Lorentz. Fortunately, Vlad of ZPE took that Maxwell theory paper and made pdfs of its pages, and hung it on the ZPE website in Russia, so anyone who wishes can freely download it.

Meanwhile, on my own website I hung a paper, "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model", for anyone to freely download. It lists 13 of the major falsities being included and taught in the old EE model, as pointed out by eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman, the great John Wheeler, Henry Margenau, Bunge, and many others. So the interested young doctoral candidates and postdocs can find out exactly what is wrong with that old model, and what needs correcting so badly. The paper is available at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc .

This paper also received a generally favorable review from the National Science Foundation; see the NSF letter at .

Meanwhile, quantum field theory itself assures us that we really cannot consider an "isolated charge" in the classical sense, but we must always account for its ongoing seething interaction with the virtual state vacuum. Quoting Aitchison:

"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.].

Indeed, in quantum field theory all forces are in fact due to the interaction of the virtual particles with the observable particle on which the observable force is evidenced. Again quoting Aitchison:

"Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta..." [Ibid., p. 372].

Davies beautifully expresses the ongoing vacuum interaction as follows:

"What might appear to be empty space is, therefore, a seething ferment of virtual particles. A vacuum is not inert and featureless, but alive with throbbing energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an electron must always be viewed against this background of frenetic activity. When an electron moves through space, it is actually swimming in a sea of ghost particles of all varieties – virtual leptons, quarks, and messengers, entangled in a complex mêlée. The presence of the electron will distort this irreducible vacuum activity, and the distortion in turn reacts back on the electron. Even at rest, an electron is not at rest: it is being continually assaulted by all manner of other particles from the vacuum." [Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 105].

Our own scientists and engineers, however, are generally "hung up" on the sad old equilibrium thermodynamics, with its infamous second law (which when logically analyzed turns out to be an oxymoron implicitly assuming its own contradiction has previously occurred but has not been accounted. Even Maxwell (also a thermodynamicist of note) was aware that the individual elements of a macrosystem are always continually violating that sad old second "half-law". Quoting Maxwell:

"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 for the seething virtual state vacuum, the overall ensemble is disordered! However, during the moment it individually exists, an individual virtual particle is "totally ordered". Hence the source dipole, in serially absorbing individual virtual photons from the vacuum, is actually absorbing perfectly ordered virtual bits of energy. It thus additively integrates these ordered individual bits to the next quantum level, whereupon the excitation abruptly discharges by emission of a real, observable photon – a quantum. The process iterates, hence the source dipole and its broken symmetry form a true Maxwell’s demon and also a true Feynman ratchet.

Every observable joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum via this process. Also, note that a single "isolated" classical charge is in fact part of a dipolar ensemble, when its polarization of its surrounding vacuum is considered. Indeed, a single "isolated classical charge" actually consists of two infinite charges each having infinite energy, in the modern physics theory. E.g., quoting Nobelist Weinberg:

"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].

So from modern theory alone, the "isolated classical charge' can sustain a finite emission of real, observable EM energy for any finite time – that is simply due to the nature of infinity itself.

I’m hoping that in the future that some fresh young doctoral candidates and postdocs desiring to work in the general "energy from the vacuum" area will wish to do some lab experimentation in this anisotropic permanent magnet area, and that thus we can do a little something toward developing the "little toy demonstrator".

Our original thought was to have several such little toy demonstrators working, and then try to arrange to have one delivered to Jeb Bush (who is also an environmentalist) so he can play with it and examine it, and then show it to his little brother George Bush, to prove that it’s possible to have self-rotating and self-powering EM systems, in contradiction to everything being taught in the sad old electrical engineering model at all our universities."

See also

- Leslie R. Pastor - index of articles
- Directory:Tom Bearden
- PESWiki home page