This discussion becomes relevant, for instance, in describing the operation of the rotating magnet generator, the so called N-machine or Space Power Generator (SPG). Most of the important work in this field has been done by Bruce DePalma and Parmahamsa Tewari. The following is a brief summary. The rotation of the magnet sets up two force fields that act at right angles to each other. These two force fields are the radially distributed inertial frame of space (centrifugal force) and the intersecting axially distributed magnetic field of the rotating magnet. The area of magnetized, polarized, inertial space appears to open up a region through which new energy can enter the system. When careful measurements are taken of current flows in the generator and in the external circuit, evidence suggests that electric charges are appearing at the periphery of the generator and disappearing at the center of the generator that do not actually pass through the generator. This experimental finding may explain why this configuration of electric generator experiences less mechanical drag than standard generator designs for each unit of electrical output produced. While energy is probably not being created or destroyed in the universal context, it is apparently appearing and disappearing from the machine during operation in the local space. This extra energy can be used to produce useful work in external circuits. Tewari has shown that twice as much hydrogen can be generated from an electrolysis cell run from the output of a SPG than if the cell is run directly. It is impossible to rationalize the behavior of this style of electric generator with the ideas of simple conversion and local conservationas they are postulated in the “First Law of Thermodynamics.”
In a standard generator, if all losses are ignored for the moment, conventional theory says if 550 Ft-Lbs of work are applied to the input shaft in one second, 746 Watts will be delivered at the output. If I blindly believe that the generator simply has the mysterious ability to convertthe mechanical energy into electrical energy, I don’t ask the following questions: what is the mechanism of this conversion?, where does the torque go?, and where does the electrical energy come from? The apparent observation that the generated current produces a motoring effect that opposes the input torque should not be interpreted as a vindication of the conservation rule, but as an admission that this is an inefficient way to generate electricity. The Space Power Generator experiences far less drag per unit of electrical output than a standard generator.
This opens up a much larger discussion about the validity of the conversion idea all together. Are there actual and universal equivalents between the various forms of heat, mechanical work, and electricity? At this point, all we know for sure are the various measurements that have been taken from the devices that demonstrate these energy translations. For instance, in 1845, James Joule found that if he placed a small paddle wheel in a bucket of water, he had to apply 772.5 foot-pounds of mechanical work to spin the paddle wheel to raise the temperature of one pound of water, one degree Fahrenheit. This has led to very careful calculations that now set this “universal conversion” between mechanical work and heat at 778.26 FT-Lbs = 1 BTU. For paddle wheels in water, this is no doubt true. But what happens if paddle wheels are not used? Is there another method that does not use paddle wheels in water to convertmechanical work to heat that does the job better, with less expenditure of work for the same heat gained? The answer is yes. In fact, there are numerous patents on record to accomplish this. One uses rotating parallel disks, not unlike the design of Tesla’s turbine, to heat water with less than half the mechanical expenditure.
Once again, we have entered a new scientific era where the exact equivalence between mechanical work as foot-pounds, electrical work as watt-hours, and heat work as BTU’s is not known! A wide variety of physical experiments have demonstrated a broad range of differing energy translation effects. The intellectual edifice of Clausius’ conversion idea is crumbling, and no one should allow their thinking to be constrained by it any longer. The results of physical experiments have all but disproved it. The “First Law of Thermodynamics” should be seen only as an outmoded, intellectual MODEL that is not supported by all of the experimental data. Likewise, the idea of “over-unity” should be abandoned by those working on “free energy” systems as it is an intellectual contradiction based both on the belief in conversion and the ability to circumvent it. “Over-unity” is an oxymoron that should be removed from the vocabulary of the alternative science community.
This brings me back to the other problem presented earlier, namely, the nature of heat itself. Is heat, as Hermann von Helmholtz suggests, simply the random motion of molecular matter, or is it something completely different, whose presence causes molecular matter to exhibit random motion? This is a very long and involved exploration that has already been handled masterfully by Rudolf Steiner in March of 1920 and published as his Warmth Course. I will summarize some of these ideas briefly.
The ancient’s believed that there were four “elements” that all physical reality was composed of. These were Earth, Water, Air and Fire. In modern language, we can restate this as follows. There are four “states” that all matter appears as. These are solid, liquid, gas and heat. From an etheric science point of view, heat is the fourth state of matter and the transition state between matter and ether. Here is why. The only difference between the appearance of ice, water, or steam, for example, is its temperature or internal heat condition. Heat is absolutely fundamental in all considerations regarding matter because a change in heat is the only element required to bring about a change of state from solid to liquid or from liquid to gas. In solid matter, the “atoms” are very close together and they bind each other in a way that allows them to hold their shape without being in a container. Heat can be added to the solid and its temperature will rise, correspondingly, until the melting point is reached. At this point, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the solid melts into a liquid. Once all of the material is liquified, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In liquid matter, the “atoms” are less close together and they bind each other in a way that allows the liquid to take the shape of whatever open topped container it is put in. As more heat is added to the liquid, the “atoms” move farther apart until the boiling point is reached. At this point, once again, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the liquid boils into a gas. Once all of the material is gaseous, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In gaseous matter, the “atoms” are so far apart that they will hold no shape at all and can only be contained by a complete enclosure. As more heat is added to the gas, the “atoms” become so dispersed that eventually, all that is left is the heat. The relationships between heat, temperature, matter and state are quite complex and cannot easily be reduced to simple explanations. Steiner’s explorations of these relationships go into great detail, forming a seamless line of logic, backed up by a great deal of experimental data. Anyone interested in the nature of heat should study Rudolf Steiner’s Warmth Course.
- That Which Is Eternal In Us Must Be Awakened