Let us imagine a burning candle. We see, in our mind's eye, a candle which may be a paraffin wax (a solid hydrocarbon), beeswax, or tallow cylinder containing a wick down the center with a flame on top. The flame is maintained by the oxidation (combustion) of vaporized candle material produced from the heat of the burning vapors acting on the candle material. We note that the candle is producing combustion products, heat, and light. Let's ignore the combustion products, even though they are considered to be air pollutants. It's the light and heat that interests us.
Light and heat are both electromagnetic (EM) radiation; the light in this case comprising most of the visible EM spectrum and the heat most of the infrared EM spectrum. How the flame produces EM radiation lies outside the scope of Electrical Engineering, so we need to study physics and chemistry to understand the process in detail. As will become evident in the end, we have no interest in how the flame produces EM energy. The light is measured in candle power while the heat is measured in BTU per hour. Both can also be computed using the Poynting EM energy flow vector. John H. Poynting (1852 - 1914) developed Poynting's Vector defining electromagnetic energy flow in 1884. Poynting's Vector is arbitrary in that the curl of a vector field could be added to it without changing the amount of energy that is diverted into the EM circuit.
Oliver Heaviside (1850 - 1925) developed a competing theory independently in 1891. Oliver Heaviside discovered that an EM energy flow consists of two components one of which has zero curl (and is identical to Poynting's Vector) while the other component is "curled." Since the "curled" component does not normally have any effect upon the EM "circuit" it has been omitted from the Electrical Engineering mathematical model. Moreover, Oliver Heaviside hid his notes on the "curled" EM flow because he could not explain where this additional energy came from and lacking such an explanation he knew that he would be subject to a "voodoo attack" if he published his notes. The additional energy would be seen as a violation of the conservation of energy law. When Heaviside's notes were discovered (after his death) Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the Heaviside "curled" EM energy flow because even he could not have withstood a "voodoo attack", even if that's what he had wanted. The Heaviside "curled" EM energy flow continues to be discarded to the present day. Now, the question is: just how big is the Heaviside "curled" EM energy flow? Would you believe that it is about 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) times the Poynting EM energy flow? Such a large flow of EM energy would probably cause gravitational effects which Heaviside also mentioned in his notes. This is especially interesting since it opens up the possibility of negative energy producing negative (anti) gravitational effects. To answer the question of how such a huge EM energy flow could remain undiscovered we need to realize that the mathematical model used does not include any of the physics developed in the last 144 years. Physicists today use many different mathematical models each applying to a particular situation, but Electrical Engineers stick to their single, flawed, mathematical model.
We seemly wandered far from our candle. If we take our candle and use it as the heat source in a Bohren Experiment we could increase the heat output from the candle by several times. In the " Bohren Experiment" the particle "operates" with a COP of 18. With a candle the effective COP will be lower because the spectrum of the heat from the candle is much broader than the spectrum of the heat energy from the laser that Dr. Bohren used in his experiments. People working in non-linear optics and the Bohren Experiment in particular can't explain where the excess energy comes from either, but rather than admit that there is inexplicable excess energy, they refer to the negative resonance absorption of the medium (NRAM) as an explanation even though the expression negative resonance absorption of the medium is nonsensical. Thomas Bearden and Kenneth Moore explain how the Heaviside energy provides the source of the excess energy at this URL (search for "absorption").
So, the reason we wandered away from our candle was to draw neigh to a laser diode. Thus, in developing the Free Heat ™ unit we propose using a laser diode rather than a candle flame. With a laser diode as a heat source it should be possible to achieve a COP of 10 in production. Development of the Free Heat ™ units will require using stages with each stage providing a COP of 10. So if an overall COP of 1,000 is desired three stages would be required. Hopefully we can add up to 6 or more stages. Exactly how the stages are arranged will be determined during the Research and Development process. Let's look at some possibilities.
| Number of Lasers
of 0.1 Watts each |
Number of Stages
of COP = 10 each |
Heat Output
Watts |
Heat Output
BTU per Hour |
| 10,000 | 0 | 1,000 | 3414 | |
| 1,000 | 1 | 1,000 | 3414 | |
| 100 | 2 | 1,000 | 3414 | |
| 10 | 3 | 1,000 | 3414 | |
| 1 | 4 | 1,000 | 3414 |
| Number of Lasers
of 0.1 Watts each |
Number of Stages
of COP = 10 each |
Heat Output
Watts |
Heat Output
BTU per Hour |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.4 | |
| 1 | 2 | 10 | 34.1 | |
| 1 | 3 | 100 | 341.4 | |
| 1 | 4 | 1,000 | 3,414.0 | |
| 1 | 5 | 10,000 | 34,140.0 | |
| 1 | 6 | 100,000 | 341,400.0 | |
| 1 | 7 | 1,000,000 | 3,414,000.0 |
Now, we still haven't answered the question that neither Heaviside nor Lorentz could answer namely: "Where did the huge additional energy flow come from?" Today, it looks quite certain that the energy comes from the active vacuum (or identically curved spacetime). In 1957 Lee and Yang hypothesized (experimental proof by Wu et al.) that an electric or magnetic dipole constituted a break in the Charge, Parity, Time (CPT) symmetry. That was such a tremendous discovery that the Nobel committee awarded the Nobel prize in Physics to Lee and Yang that same year (a very rare event in Nobel land). Why is this such a development? Physics has a lot of different symmetries. Each of symmetry "enforces" a conservation law. The CPT symmetry enforces the conservation of energy law. So, if you can break the CPT symmetry you can break the conservation of energy law--BINGO. How hard is it to produce an electric or magnetic dipole? Simple, just separate two opposite charges by some finite distance and you've got an electric or magnetic dipole. Examples, a single cell battery or a bar magnet. We were taught that the charges at the terminals of a battery were a static charge and the electric fields were static fields. We were never taught to think about the implications of the fact that the electric (and magnetic) field reached out from the battery (magnet) to the edge of the universe. We should have asked: "How did the field get to the edge of the universe?" We now know that the answer is that the field was carried, wherever it went, by photons (which travel at the speed of light, because they are light). So, an electric or magnetic dipole must continually emit photons--hardly what we think of when we think of a static charge. But, the field is static in the sense that if you measure the field over time it remains constant even though the field is effectively moving at the speed of light. It is like a static waterfall even though the water molecules are constantly falling from top to bottom the waterfall seems not to be changing. Actually a truly static waterfall would be an ice fall (frozen waterfall). So it is with the electric (or magnetic) field, but there is no way for the photons to be frozen in place. So, if the field is constantly being replenished by the battery or magnet where does all the energy come from? This has been described as the most difficult problem in electrodynamics. Until Lee and Yang discovered that an electric or magnetic dipole produced a broken CPT symmetry, there was no answer to that problem.
In 2000 Bearden showed that effectively a single electric or magnetic charge also broke the CPT symmetry. In the Bohren Experiment the charged particles oscillate in synchronism with the incoming EM energy. There are questions about the Bohren Experiment which need to be answered. Does the EM energy emitted by the charged particle have the same wavelength as the incident energy? Is the direction of propagation of the emitted EM energy along the same line as the incident energy? The answers to these questions have a direct bearing upon the development process. But, regardless of the answers these questions a development path must exist to any size of Free Heat ™ unit desired. The development can be eased by the development of a mathematical model of the Bohren Experiment whether based upon an updated Electrical Engineering mathematical model or created from scratch, the model must explain all phenomena observed in the Bohren Experiment.
The purpose of this introduction was two fold. First, to explain how the Free Heat ™ units work (or could work). Second, to move you from the "impossible" side of the Ford Paradox at least to "maybe it could work" if not all the way to "of course it will work" side. If you have not yet moved all the way to the "of course" side, we invite you to look up the references and then google your way towards total acceptance. It will take a lot of money and work bring The Heaviside Plan ™ to full implementation. We invite you to contact us with your constructive comments (positive or negative) and would welcome your help in this epic undertaking.
What hath God wrought?
These are just some of the benefits of implementing The Heaviside Plan ™.
Updated: April 30, A.D. 2009
Unfortunately the scientific method has been abandoned at times and the scientists who falsified a hypothesis, theory or law are attacked (and on occasion destroyed). We call these "voodoo attacks" because the opposing scientist effectively sticks pins in the scientist who performs an experiment that falsifies the hypothesis, theory or law rather than admitting the hypothesis, theory or law has been falsified. We call the resulting science voodoo science.
It is a sad commentary that must admit that all too often accepted science is actually voodoo science, but from the beginning of Modern Science that has been the case. Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) (generally simply called Galileo) was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. He is frequently referred to as the founder of experimental physics, the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of science", and "the Father of Modern Science." He made astronomical observations demonstrating the validity of the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the Earth revolves around the Sun). Galileo was subject of a voodoo attack from the Roman Catholic Church which maintained that the Earth was fixed and the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was not until 31 October 1992 that the Church officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary.
Note 2: Paul Dirac published Principles of Quantum Mechanics in 1930. Towards the end of Principles of Quantum Mechanics Dirac discusses the relativistic theory of the electron (the Dirac wave equation) which combined aspects of special relativity with Quantum Mechanics. The Dirac wave equation has four (4) roots which defined four particles--two negatively charged particles which are called electrons and two positively charged particles which Dirac named positrons. Two of the particles had positive mass-energy and the other two had negative mass-energy. It was the negative mass-energy particles that attracted a voodoo attack. The attackers prevailed and negative mass-energy was removed from physics by majority vote in 1934. Is that the way we're supposed to do science? BTW, Nikola Tesla discovered negative energy about the time of Dirac's birth--he called it Radiant Energy.
Removing negative mass-energy had very widespread effects upon physics including the necessary invention of more than 30 sub-atomic particles most of which are not observable. With negative mass-energy electrons and positrons, however, the entire universe can be explained with just the four sub-atomic particles that the Dirac wave equation defines. We can think of these particles as four different particles or one particle that comes in four "flavors." In any event, the particle or particles are roots of the Dirac wave equation. Thomas Bearden went into this and other physics problems in on his website here: correspondence/050208.htm. Tom refers to two articles by D. L. Hotson that the late Dr. Eugene Mallove published in Infinite Energy. The two very important articles by D. L. Hotson are "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part I," Infinite Energy, Issue 43, 2002, pp. 1-20 and "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part II," Infinite Energy, Issue 44, 2002, pp. 1-24. See Negative EnergyI and Negative EnergyII. The articles show not only how the universe could be built with just four particles (or one particle in four flavors) defined by the Dirac wave equation, but also how almost all of the problems that the current physics model, the so-called Standard Model (SM), cannot answer are answered by the Dirac wave equation just as he wrote it. The articles state that all physics is quantum mechanics and that all mass is a wave. Time and again we find scientists saying, in effect, "These are the theories on which I base my facts." This is what the Churchmen told Galileo. Discounting measured data because it disagrees with a theory is the antithesis of science.
Those that stand on the "impossible" side of the Ford Paradox will tell us that: "if is possible to extract energy from the active vacuum, somewhere in the universe a natural process must extract energy from the active vacuum." Well, there is. The satellite of the planet Jupiter named Io may be just such an example. Io is connected to Jupiter by a "flux tube" of electrons conservatively estimated to be 5 million amps at 400,000 volts or more than 50 times the combined generating capacity of all the nations of Earth. Yet this immense power still accounts for less than 1% of the power dissipated by Io! This power is literally ripping Io apart, making it the most volcanically active object known. And whenever Io, Jupiter, and the Sun form a right triangle, Io emits an immense burst of radio synchrotron energy with a power greater than 5000 times the combined generating power of all the nations of Earth.