Phases of Research and Development and Some Problems



Phases of Research and Development and Some Problems

T. E. Bearden

10 Feb 2007

Copyright 2007

Research is conveniently divided into a whole series of activities known as “phases of R & D”. On anything really new, these phases have to be faced and completed one after the other.

One has to work through:

1) Basic research, where you are exploring phenomenology, parts and constructions, etc. And where you are seeing what results you get each time you vary anything at all. After you have enough phenomenology to begin to see what can be done in this “area” (and keep a very good lab notebook! You will need it!), then one passes into

2) Exploratory research, where you have chosen certain of the experimental phenomenologies to narrow things down, and are now intensely studying the variation of parameters etc. in each selected avenue of approach for those specific phenomenologies. Once one or more of these show direct promise and direct results, you then select that one area or those very few areas, for subsequent development work. So then with those areas you pass into

3) Engineering development. Here you are starting to do some engineering of that main area chosen or of those two or three main phenomenology areas explored and chosen. Now you are beginning to experiment with very early possible “prototypes” of a particular construction, coil winding, etc. When one of those early possible prototypes now shows good results, you then pass to

4) Advanced development of the prototype or prototypes found to have good results. This is the first time you actually make a legitimate “prototype” system (lab bench system demonstrator). And then for each such prototype, you’ve got to fully explore the “prototype system design” you’ve selected based on the results along that line. After running into possible final problems and resolving them, then you are ready to pass into

5) Prototype system design. Now you are actually building one or more real working prototype systems in the chosen approach(es), to then really wring it (or them) out, explore any further remaining phenomenology, etc. This prototype system design and testing (and adjustment) will result in a prototype system or prototype systems. Also, you will have to have solved a whole variety of associated problems, such as

a) The exact measurement and test equipment required for final and full measurement and testing. This is very expensive, but unless you have the appropriate and required test equipment, including any required special test equipment, you will likely fail.

b) The measurement and test procedures that you have validated really do have to give you honest and rigorous measurements, allowing system understanding, and so you will have to have also developed

c) A reasonable “mathematical model” to adequately describe the system and its operation, since you will need it to ease the testing and phenomenology burden and requirements. The model has to have been “fitted” to all the required and available phenomenology, sufficiently accurately that it yields reasonable system simulation.

6) Those are the requirements to get a true “lab demonstrator system”. When this stage has been completed, you have achieved lab demonstrators. So then you pass into

7) Production engineering, where you design the production, parts listing and ordering, production line testing and procedures, etc. With completion of this final R&D stage, you are then ready to pass out of Research and Development and into

8) Full production and marketing. All the hard work has paid off now, by allowing you to design and produce real, production-line commercial systems.

Now you know why we’ve been at the MEG for so many years. Without a funded substantial team with various required skills and experts, one substitutes an incredible amount of lab work on the bench, by one’s own small group of colleagues, as best one can.

Also, there are severe additional problems in energy-from-the-vacuum (EFTV) systems research that are not present in ordinary research and development. E.g., there is no accepted and well-fitted mathematical model for EFTV systems, their functions, etc. – nor are there any available mathematical models already developed and tested, allowing initial “narrowed design” of actual systems. Further, since the first requirement of an overunity system is that it must violate the sad old electrical engineering (which specifically excludes energy-from-the-vacuum systems after Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations in 1892, then much of one’s electrical engineering training is useless and in fact this standard dogma and training is part of what delays the project or even makes it impossible, unless one learns how to properly violate that sad old 1880s EE model.

The best way to find areas allowing violation of that old EE model is to search modern physics for EM effects and areas that are already known to violate it. And, since we are interested in tapping the active vacuum energy, choose areas already known to affect and change the vacuum itself.

As can be seen, you are into an area that is not covered at all by the electrical engineering experience of all our electrical engineering departments, professors, textbooks, and engineers. Bits and pieces of the required eventual EFTV model are there, but they are scattered all over many areas of modern physics. They indeed are available, but it is a formidable job to find those pieces, recognize them, and then painfully fit them together. I’ve personally been working on that specific problem for more than 35 years, and I’m still not anywhere near finished!

In the absence of an approved EFTV model and proven EFTV systems, we are also up against another formidable barrier: There is a howling “professional skeptic” community whose self-appointed job is to attack all such projects like a pack of savage cur dogs, bleating about “dirty old perpetual motion machines”, “crackpots”, “perpetual motion nuts”, etc. They usually know very little physics, and are particularly dogmatic in defending the present models as being somehow “perfect”. This ignorant set of critiques so violently attacks the persons even mentioning an EFTV system, that the entire organized scientific community just keeps “hands off” and will not fund or even allow research in this area by sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists.

So, in addition, one has to try to educate the scientific community as to the invalidity of the “cur dog pack” (which is totally dogmatic and not educable on anything!). One has to point out that Newton’s first law of motion is in fact already the “law of perpetual motion”. Simply place an object into motion in deep space in a straight line, and it will remain in that straight line condition of steady motion indefinitely (perpetually), until and unless an external force is introduced to forcibly change its state of perpetual motion. If there were no perpetual motion, then an organized and ordered macroworld would be impossible, because there would be no stability in any state of motion.

Further, our sophomore solid state physics students at our major universities perform and test legitimate perpetual motion systems every year. Simply initiate a superconducting current in a closed superconducting loop, and it will last forever unless you do something to interrupt it. Its total life expectancy is essentially forever; the best estimate on its inverse exponential decay to half value is some 10exp23 years. That is many, many orders of magnitude longer than the presently accepted age of the universe, which is only about 1.3x10exp10 years. One can even purchase one’s own experimental kit to perform such perpetual motion experiments from several supply houses; e.g., from Colorado Superconductor.

In his three volumes of sophomore physics, in 1964 Nobelist Feynman simply and eloquently states the perpetual nature of such a persistent superconducting current as follows:

“First, there is no electrical resistance. There’s no resistance because all the electrons are collectively in the same state. ... A current once started, just keeps on going forever.” [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Third Printing 1966, p. 21-08].

That superconducting current in its closed loop actually decreases on a decaying exponential path, which does not reach zero until an infinite time has elapsed. But physicists can calculate its half-value decay time, which is given as 10exp23 years in standard solid state physics textbooks. [E.g., see Charles Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York, 1996, p. 359-360; p. 359.].

The point is that perpetual motion is a fact of nature, well-established and well-known, including experimentally. And that has nothing at all to do with legitimate COP>1.0 working systems taking their necessary input energy from the seething active vacuum. The entire notion of a continuously working machine is that it has a continuous input of energy from an external source, and thus can continually do work unless something breaks down. In short, a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system can continue to steadily perform work, while steadily receiving the necessary input energy to cover its internal losses and powering its load(s).

Also, the same ardent professional skeptics who so strongly shout “dirty old perpetual motion machine” do not even understand that, in accepting the standard EE model, they are unwittingly accepting that model’s assumption that all EM energy is freely created (by the associated source charge or source dipole) out of nothing at all. But they never mention the “source charge problem”, wherein a charge or dipole just sits there and continuously pours out real, observable photons – real, observable, usable EM energy. And yet no known instrument can detect any observable energy input to that source charge or dipole. Hence, since the scientists never solved the source charge problem, all mention of it has just been swept out of all the EE textbooks and curricula.

But it is occasionally mentioned in special physics books and papers. E.g., quoting Sen:

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii].

And quoting Kosyakov:

"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. P. Kosyakov, “Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].

Knowledge of such unsolved foundations problems in our various EM models led Bunge to morosely remark:

“…it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state." [Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176].

The professional skeptical community also seems totally unaware of what modern physics – and particularly modern quantum field theory – has discovered regarding the interaction of vacuum and charge. 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.].

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

So in accepting charges and forces in EM systems, unwittingly the professional skeptic has already accepted the continuous interaction of every charge and its associated seething vacuum. Else he has to discard quantum field theory and most of modern physics.

The professional skeptic also does not recognize that a single “classical charge” such as one electron, already involves two infinite but opposite charges with a finite difference, but with both opposing charges having infinite energy. 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.].

We further note that any “isolated charge” actually polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with the opposite charge – so it involves a dipolar ensemble. Further, each of the two “bare charges” is infinite, and has infinite energy. Hence any charge can indeed sustain a finite rate of flow of real EM energy, for any finite amount of time, without decreasing the two infinite charges and two infinite energies. That is simply the mathematical capability of something that has infinite energy!

Building an overunity EFTV system is not done by just having an idea, running down to Radio Shack and getting a few parts, and then whipping them together where they work instantly, successfully with perhaps only a tiny bit of needed adjustment.

If it were that easy, then all those sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists that our better universities produce each year would have developed EFTV electrical power systems and given them to the world a long time ago! They didn’t. But they would, if the scientific hierarchy would encourage them to work in the EFTV area and would fund them to do so. Instead, usually the scientific community discourages or even forbids them to do so, and will indeed pull a fellowship and boot the would-be offending researcher right out of the university, ruining his or her career.

The universities apply great pressure on their professors to bring in extra funding to the university. Since EFTV research is not funded, the university administration also severely frowns on any attempt to introduce such research. Instead, they wish those resources committed to projects that do attract conventional and established funding, a goodly part of which goes to University overhead. Often the university administration insists on it!

We hope this helps the reader in envisioning what the EFTV task really is, and how formidable a task it is to wind up with an engineerable, designable, producible system! And how truly difficult it is for the legitimate EFTV inventor to ever finish a system and get it into production and marketing. In the century since Tesla was suppressed, not a single one of the approximately 100 EFTV inventors has succeeded in completing his task and getting systems out there on the market.

E.g., one must realize the incredible technical problem facing the EFTV inventor. Does the would-be inventor understand what an “active vacuum” is? Modern physics will reveal it with sufficient study, and will also give several theories of it that have experiments supporting them. Okay, suppose one reads up on those several theories and understands them. Then comes the real stickler!

Now how does one apply that new knowledge to electrical engineering on the bench? The sad old EE model and all its concepts were born and solidified long before modern physics was even born! The language and concepts of that old 1880s/1890s electrical engineering have nothing at all to do with extracting and using EM energy from the active vacuum, because the EE model assumes a priori that the vacuum is inert and has no energy in it at all. It assumes the same thing for spacetime: that spacetime is always flat and has no energy or interaction at all.

So eventually, all those fellows so importantly mouthing electrical engineering – as if EE had the secret of EFTV COP>1.0 electrical power systems already enfolded in it – will fail, after they have assumed they already know everything and after they have usually helped stop several struggling but legitimate overunity inventors and systems. The so-called overunity field – which is struggling but is not yet even a recognized field – is overburdened with such self-appointed experts who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Most electrical engineers and inventors – and even many physicists – also have not the foggiest notion of the rigorous definition of work. Work is rigorously the change of form of some energy. E.g., after the performance of 100 joules of work by converting an initial 100 joules of energy in form A to 100 joules of energy in form B, one still has 100 joules of energy remaining, but now just in a different form, form B. That’s the meaning of the conservation of energy law: you can change the form of energy, but you cannot create it or destroy it.

Let’s pursue that a bit further. I often pose the following question, “Suppose I input 100 joules of energy to a system initially in equilibrium, and it is a loss-free (100% efficient) system. What are the maximum joules of work that the system can do with the 100 joules of input energy it received?”

Even most thermodynamics teachers will immediately respond: “Being 100% efficient, that system can perform 100 joules of work with an initial 100 joules of input energy.”

And that is the wrong answer.

Specifically, that answer assumed that the system loses all further control of the energy (in form B) once the input energy’s form is changed from A to B. That is not necessarily true in nature or in one’s system. In the theoretically perfect (100% efficient) system being discussed, it is not true.

To see this, let us suppose our perfect (100% efficient) system is comprised of two 100% efficient subsystems. One subsystem takes 100 joules of energy input in form A, and converts it to output 100 joules of energy in the form B, thereby doing 100 joules of work. The second subsystem takes that 100 joules of energy input in form B, and reconverts it to 100 joules of energy in the form A, thereby doing another 100 joules of work.

So in one “cycle” of the energy from form A to form B and back to form A, the system itself performs 200 joules of work using only that initially input 100 joules of energy in form A.

And the system still has its 100 joules of energy, in form A, ready to go through the same cycle again. And again, and again, without cessation.

By assumption this is a gedanken experiment, so one can assume perfection. Hence in the gedanken experiment the overall system never loses control of the energy. Therefore the recycling of the energy can continue, over and over, indefinitely.

This system also shows that one does not have to “eject” or “dissipate” energy from the system, in order to perform work. And it shows that there is no binding “conservation of work” law. To do work, you merely have to have some energy which can be changed in form. You can recycle the energy from one form to another, as you wish or develop the technology to do.

So that silly system will just sit there and continually cycle, and in every cycle it will produce 200 joules of energy, without one ever again having to input any additional energy input other than the original 100 joules in form A. No laws of nature are violated, the conservation of energy law is not violated, and nonequilibrium thermodynamics is not violated either. The silly old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics is indeed violated.

Even Maxwell, e.g., knew that the smaller parts of every macrosystem can indeed violate the old second law of thermodynamics! 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)].

Even if we only have 90% efficiency, that same cycling system will directly produce and exhibit COP>1.0.

Today, it has even been proven theoretically that a system can continuously exhibit or produce negative entropy. [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.].

In electrodynamics, the concept of “dissipation” of energy just means “loss of control of that energy by the controlling system”. In thermodynamics, all that “entropy” originally meant was “dissipation or loss of potential energy” of the system. And all that “negative entropy” really meant was “gain of potential energy (ordering).”

To produce negative entropy, simply connect a source of static voltage V to an external circuit whose charges q are temporarily pinned so current cannot flow. That circuit has just collected and stored additional potential energy W, given by W = Vq. And that is a negative entropy operation.

Now switch away the static source, which has not been depleted at all since no current was drawn from it. Recomplete the external circuit (as with a diode and resistor in series, with the diode oriented so as to allow a complete current loop). As the pinned charges come unpinned, current in that potentialized circuit will flow, developing some power and work in the resistor as a load.

That is a legitimate COP>1.0 system, since it has produced free work in the load, with only a little bit of “switching work” required to be paid by the operator. With efficient switching, the system COP>1.0. And the system deliberately uses a negative entropy operation, followed by a positive entropy operation.

Also, most EEs have little thermodynamics, and then only the sad old flawed equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second “law”. The second law is actually an oxymoron, implicitly assuming its own contradiction has first occurred, but is unaccounted! In short, if you start with a system in equilibrium (state of maximum entropy), it can in theory never do any work at all as an overall system, because the second law says entropy can only remain the same or increase. For that system, being already at the condition of maximum entropy, the old second “half law” thus implicitly assumes that its contradiction (the addition of potential energy to the system from outside) has first occurred, to move the system away from equilibrium and to a lesser entropy state. In short, it assumes that a negative entropy operation has been imposed upon the system. If we are to say that a system that “dissipates” energy from it, is producing positive entropy, then we must say that a system that “receives” energy into it – from any source – is undergoing a negative entropy operation.

Common potentialization is a negative entropy operation, totally contradicting the second law itself which says that the system cannot undergo a reduction of its entropy, and so it says that this reduction of the system entropy cannot happen. Indeed, it assumes that when a system decays (dissipates potential energy) until it reaches its maximum entropy state (equilibrium conditions), it can never leave that equilibrium condition! That is falsified every time you increase the voltage of a circuit or system. “Potentializing the EM system” itself is work-free, and it moves the system out of equilibrium by adding additional potential energy to it. And in EM systems, that’s how easy it is to violate the hoary old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics!

When the flawed old second law is extended and corrected to include its own implicit assumption, then one can readily violate the old second “half-law at will,” in a number of ways. A good book on the much more modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics will even list several ways already known and recognized as allowing violation of the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. [E.g., see 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 old second law are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in the MEG) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and layered crystalline structures to invoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect). These known, recognized mechanisms allow macroscopic and significant violations of the Second Law that are directly usable in real systems and circuits].

Any good nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system violates the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics already – an example is a static EM field, which is actually a continuous and steady flow of real EM energy – a flow of real observable and usable photons. Quoting Van Flandern on the static field being comprised of internal parts in continuous motion:

“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.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

E.g., here’s how to make a real “free energy flow” EFTV system in two minutes and for 10 dollars. Simply lay a charged capacitor or an electret on a permanent magnet, so the E-field is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. Then just apply the standard little equation of Poynting energy flow S, which is S = E X H.

The standard Poynting energy flow theory in every electrical engineering text already tells you that from that silly device there is a free and steady Poynting flow S of real EM energy.

Further, so long as you leave that little device intact and unmolested, it will sit there and freely pour out real, usable, EM energy flow S from now till the end of time.

So the EFTV systems problem is not a problem of evoking a continuous gusher of free EM energy from the vacuum! That is very easy to do, and every charge and dipole in the universe already does it, continually and steadily and freely. Just assemble some charge or a dipole, then leave it alone – and that part of the problem is already solved.

The real problem is then how to asymmetrically intercept and collect some of the free energy flow, without symmetrically using half of it to destroy the source dipolarity. Since the EE is trained to think, design, and build only symmetrical Maxwellian systems, he simply cannot do it because he refuses to violate that totally arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition!

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513 -517.

Every observable joule of EM field energy in the universe is and has been extracted from the vacuum by the appropriate source charges and dipoles, in that fashion, via the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges. As Nobelist Lee states, in a broken symmetry “something virtual has become observable.” In short, any and every charge and dipole is already a proven broken symmetry (the charge is part of a dipole, when its polarized vacuum is considered) of opposite charges. And so every charge and dipole already continually absorbs virtual photons from the seething virtual state vacuum, coherently integrates the absorbed virtual energy to quantum (observable) level, and then abruptly decays, spitting out a real, observable photon. The process continually iterates, so that the charge or dipole continually radiates and emits real, usable EM energy – real observable photons – freely and continuously.

Again, there is no problem at all in obtaining an essentially “ever-lasting” flow of real, usable, observable EM energy extracted from the seething vacuum! The problem is how to intercept and tap some of that energy flow properly.

The problem is how to violate the EE model and teaching, and learn how to build and use some of those asymmetrical Maxwellian “intercept and collection systems” that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded in 1892.

Anyway, hopefully the reader can see the struggle that any would-be free energy inventor is in for, when he tries to understand and apply the actual physics underlying an “energy from the vacuum” effect or system.

It simply is not in the electrical engineering textbooks at all! Further, the theory of vacuum engineering itself is also not yet organized and established in physics as a single comprehensive area! We have made an initial start in our paper, “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B,” which is available at . But there is still a great deal of work in the area left to be done.

Finally, there is the problem of negative energy EM fields and potentials, which we have not discussed in this write-up. For the peculiar working and use of negative energy EM and negative energy currents in circuits and systems, see the several end paragraphs on it that are in our paper, "Negative Impedance: What It is and How It Works," available at . The same paper discusses precisely when and how the conservation of energy law is violated in a general relativistic situation when the Killing vector symmetry does not hold. [For further discussion of negative energy and its use, see John Bedini and Tom Bearden, Free Energy Generation: Circuits and Schematics, Cheniere Press, second edition, 2006].

When all that is gathered together in a single discipline with an experimentally-fitted mathematical model and theory, then we shall have a new science and a new technology of energy-from-the-vacuum systems.

We are hoping that the sharp young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists who take an interest in this area, will eventually get it developed and finished. That is our real hope for solving the world “energy” crisis by taking us off “energy from fuel”, thus nullifying the “fuel” problem.

Einstein exhorted us to continually review our fundamental assumptions with the following statement:

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." [Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii.]

As Max Planck pointed out:

“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

We are hopeful that the young scientists and engineers coming on, at our leading universities and other research agencies, will eventually get this area developed and applied.

If they are able to get this done, then they shall have provided cheap clean energy to the struggling peoples of the world, replacing the “energy from fuel” crisis with an “energy from the vacuum” fuel-free solution. That will enable dramatic improved national economies of the struggling nations and impoverished peoples of the Earth, leading to much better opportunities and great improvement in their quality of life. It will also be cheap, clean, fuel-free energy from the vacuum, leading to a remarkable reduction in the present harmful chemical emissions and nuclear wastes, which so poison our biosphere, kill off species, and slowly but steadily increase global warming.

If that happens, then – to borrow a phrase from Teilhard de Chardin:

“… for the second time in the history of the world man will have discovered fire.”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download