| Subject: RE: RE: MEG Device,
Some Questions Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:18:03 -0600
Dear Marc,
Thanks for the kind
words.
Just now my time is
very limited, and I have already written about as much on the MEG as
anyone really needs --- IF they can learn to think beyond standard U(1)
classical EM theory, which is what your friend has learned. His model
is very incomplete and 137 years old --- Maxwell's seminal paper was
published in 1865, before the discovery of the atom, the nucleus, the
electron, etc. There are much better and more modern forms of
electrodynamics that have been discovered and are used in particle
physics. We cite many AIAS papers, e.g., in a particularly good form of
more modern electrodynamics, the model using O(3) group symmetry.
The current in a
circuit is only concerned with the energy that is being dissipated from
the circuit. It has nothing at all to do with the energy that enters
the circuit or that is available around the circuit but does not enter
it and is not used. If your friend wishes to understand that statement,
he will need to read the papers from the citations I give in several of
my papers (some on my website) for both Heaviside's energy flow theory
and Poynting's energy flow theory. He will only have studied the
Poynting version. In short, in this emerging field as in any other,
there is no substitution for reading the literature --- not the standard
electrical engineering textbooks, which is merely more U(1)
electrodynamics.
Enough has already
been published on the MEG for a dedicated experimenter to replicate at
least a version of it. We have explained the Aharonov-Bohm effect
applied in the unit (an effect which does not even exist in standard EE,
but was covered in your sophomore physics text; e.g., in the excellent
texts by Feynman). The AB effect performed by the core material thus
withdraws all the B-field flux energy from the permanent magnet into the
local core, withdrawing it from the surrounding space. Yet the
surrounding space is still curved (curved spacetime is erroneously
ignored in U(1) electrodynamics), so it still is filled with extra
energy density. As is well-known, when the B-field is localized in the
AB manner, then the surrounding space outside the B-localization is
still filled with energy, but now it is filled with curl-free
A-potential. The curl-free A-potential might even be regarded as a
linearly flowing longitudinal current of EM energy. All that is already
in the literature.
Now regard the
A-potential energy we have around the unit. This is a steady stream of
EM energy. Further, the normal B-field, if out there, would have fallen
off in magnitude inversely as the square of the distance. Now the
energy (in the uncurled A form) falls off in magnitude only as the
square of the distance.
Anyway you look at
that, I have all the magnetic field energy I would have had from the
magnet, still located there in that flux path in the core. Didn't lose
a bit of it. In addition, I have even more magnetic energy now in the
surrounding space, because the potential does not decay away in
magnitude with distance nearly so fast as would have the B-field.
So I have pulled in
lots of extra energy from the curved spacetime itself -- something which
does not exist in electrical engineering since their model does not even
include curved spacetime in the first place.
Let me speak very
plainly. If one wishes to do brain surgery, one cannot apply
bone-splinting models! The standard electrical engineering model -- in
its entirety, all the way through the Ph.D. -- clearly prohibits COP>1.0
EM systems. It also clearly assumes that ubiquitous closed current loop
circuit.
Your friends question
about "supplying current" in a closed circuit reveals his lack of seeing
the basic picture. To a closed path, you yourself add energy, not
current. The amount of current that then flows depends on the
overpotentialization of the electrons in that circuit by the potential
energy (the voltage, which is so much joules of potential energy added
to each collecting coulomb of charge) and the impedance (simplest case,
the resistance) in the circuit itself.
So one can get all the
current one wishes in a given impedance (or resistance) circuit, merely
by adding enough potential energy. The current then is automatic,
limited by the emf (or in a magnetic circuit, the mmf) and the
overpotentialization (the intensity of the dipolarity).
Even so, in an
electrical circuit if the source dipole you use to furnish the
overpotentialization is itself in the path of all the ground return
current, it is simple to show that the circuit will then kill the source
dipole faster than you power the load, regardless of how much energy you
add to the circuit (catch in the external circuit). So that circuit is
doomed to COP<1.0.
In a magnetic circuit,
there is one great advantage. Return of the magnetic flux back through
the source dipole (in this case, the permanent magnet) does not destroy
the dipolarity (the source dipole). That is because the poles (magnetic
charges) are fixed firmly in position by the materials themselves.
Hence they resist "moving" and destroying the dipole. In the electrical
circuit, the charges separated between the terminals are actually in a
conductive medium, hence will easily move and allow the dipolarity to be
destroyed by current forced back through the back emf. In the magnetic
circuit, flux back through the back mmf does not destroy the dipole of a
permanent magnet.
Now we are free to
switch the flux in the core flux path as in a normal transformer. So in
the output section of the transformer, we are free to arrive at a normal
transformer's output by flux switching alone --- say, 95% efficiency.
That alone does not give us enough output to provide COP>1.0.
However, any input to
the input section of the transformer section (the MEG itself is not a
transformer, though it has a transformer section) also perturbs the
surrounding curl-free A-potential. That makes an E-field perturbation,
by the simple and well-known equation E = - dA/dt. By controlling the
rise and decay time of the pulses used to perturb the input coil of the
transformer section, we can have a 95% transformer output and also add
to it a purely electrical interaction in that secondary coil from the dA/dt
interaction. By experimentation and some tricky timing, etc., we add
the extra electrical energy to the secondary. So the ELECTRICAL output
of the secondary goes way over COP>1.0, when both energy components are
added up properly.
The current in the
secondary circuit takes care of itself. Given a certain impedance and a
certain emf created by the combination of the two interactions in the
secondary, the current is given by standard formulas in U(1) electrical
engineering. After all, the secondary circuit is operated in entirely
normal fashion, right out of the old EE textbook, once the two
interactions have occurred. And that circuit does destroy the source
dipolarity of the secondary coil by ramming the return current back
through the coil, and so we have to continue the input of our
perturbation energy in the
primary coil.
There you have it in a
nutshell. Every individual effect we are applying, already exists in
physics. There is nothing to prove, except that union of the multiple
effects and their proper timing for addition rather than interference.
Further, we can hang
on separate "interceptor/collector closed current loop circuits" as
"separate antenna circuits" out there in the perturbed A-potential
space, and collect and use additional EM energy in additional loads. We
call that the "outrigger" concept. Again, every concept and mechanism
we are using is already in physics, and long since proven. No part of
it has to be individually proven. Only the successful assembly of the
whole has to be demonstrated.
Hope that helps your
doubting friend. I urge him to go and read the actual cited papers.
His EE knowledge is commendable, but it alone will never produce
COP>1.0, and it alone will not even allow him to understand the physics
of the process. For that, he has to turn to the actual physics papers
we cite.
We took the MEG to a
foreign country for that very sort of reason. There we found materials
scientists who already knew the non-Abelian electrodynamics of particle
physics, and they had no difficulty whatsoever in immediately grasping
the scheme of operation of the MEG that provides the COP>1.0. That is
why the National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of
Science of that country is the laboratory doing the final development
work.
As an interesting
aside, their comment on the U(1) and electrical engineering taught in
our own universities was enlightening. They simply smiled and pointed
out that they had already been teaching the higher group symmetry
electrodynamics in their universities for more than a dozen years,
because the other stuff was just too archaic and incomplete.
Hope that helps.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|