|
23 Mar 03
To
a Correspondent (slightly edited):
Good luck on your search to extract energy from the usually nondivergent
Heaviside energy flow (one form of the so-called "dark" energy).
Remember that normal Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics erroneously assumes
a flat spacetime, which if true would mean that its local energy density
could not change. So all EM fields, potentials, and waves would actually
be non-existent. Even special relativity assumes a flat spacetime in a
rotated frame. These models therefore are already known to be useful
approximations only; e.g., Sachs has specifically pointed out that an
unchanging flat spacetime would prohibit any EM wave or field from
occurring, a priori.
The trick appears to be to produce local curvatures of spacetime that
self-form and are specifically suited to the specific Heaviside flow. One
does not have to use velocity; ST curvature varies as the local energy
density , and therefore as the local field intensity or potential
intensity; hence manipulating different ST energy densities (changing
local potential and field intensities) constitutes manipulating local ST
curvatures and their dynamics. Unfortunately circuit analysis has not
gone into that to any great depth, so far as I can uncover. But using and
manipulating deliberately induced local ST curvatures and their dynamics
seems to be the fundamental process for recovery of energy from the
Heaviside component. That component
does not necessarily have
zero divergence in a ST curvature zone! So in such a zone, some energy
can indeed be diverged from it, and utilized to power one's circuit or
other electrical device.
The Bohren experiment (and many related experiments) uses "negative
resonance absorption of the medium" to unwittingly apply that principle,
and thus outputs some 18 times as much energy as one oneself has to input
and pay for. Early on, reviewers and referees forced that tortuous term,
to prevent saying "excess energy emission of the medium". Its process is
fairly simple though deceptive. The "field" and the "potential" in
electrodynamics really are the "field's
local intensity at a point, as
determined by a unit point static
charge", and "the potential's local
intensity at a point, as determined by a unit point
static charge." We don't
calculate the field or potential itself at all, but only its local point
field intensity with respect to some
assumed criterion --- such as the divergence of energy from the field or
potential by a unit point static charge.
All that is assumed
in the very definition of E, B, D, H,
ø,
A, etc.
We
also point out the Whittaker decompositions of any EM field or potential.
Hence all EM fields and potentials are to be regarded as sets of
bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs with differential function
dynamics impressed on them.
Now if one changes something in
that basic definition set of assumptions of the fields and potentials, one
need not have the same result for their experimentally measured magnitudes
(local intensities) at all. We strongly accent that
the very definition of the magnitude of the potential intensity and the
field intensity are the outputs of an agreed-upon experimental system with
fixed parameters. Those
parameters are subject to deliberate change and manipulation, just as are
other parameters conventionally changed. The negative resonance absorption effect is accomplished by using particles that go in particle resonance -- i.e., particles of such size and constituency as to resonate or self-oscillate to the frequency of the incoming field or potential energy. E.g., one uses conducting particles with particle resonance at UV frequency, and insulating particles with particle resonance at IR frequency. The forced self-oscillation of the particle then has it sweeping out a much greater geometric reaction cross section (interception) perpendicular to the energy streams comprising the incoming field or potential. So the resonating particle absorbs (and then reradiates) 18 times as much EM energy as we conventionally calculate by static particle field interception and by Poynting energy flow assumptions (since Poynting theory assumes the field intensities are determined by static unit point charges). In other words, the resonating particle absorbs and outputs 18 times as much usable energy as we ourselves have to pay to input. Poynting energy flow mistakenly would have us believe that such is impossible, since it arbitrarily excludes the very process (self-resonant charge interception) we are invoking. Since we are intercepting energy flow not usually capable of being intercepted by the static charge, we are intercepting that energy flow outside the Poynting flow --- hence we are intercepting part of the huge Heaviside energy flow component. For the actual experiment and its results, see Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.
We have pointed out that reference and its
results and implications many times in the past.
I've long wondered why no one develops a great little "heat amplifier"
based on just such resonant insulating particles, and patents and markets
it. I guess it's because most scientists and engineers think that the
"value of the field or potential calculated by standard handbooks" is
inviolable and absolute. It isn't;
it's entirely relative to how one approaches intercepting and collecting
(diverging energy from) it! Such a statement, though
absolutely true, is considered supreme scientific heresy (you know, dirty
old perpetual motion -- which, by the way, is
required by Newton's first
law!) that hardly anyone would dare suggest such a "preposterous" and
useful thing, even in the face of experiments that already prove the
feasibility.
The control of science is rigorously exercised in two ways: (1) control
the funds of the researchers and what research it is designated to be
spent for, and (2) retain the current dogma by viciously attacking any
substantial and innovative deviation from it, and by destroying the
innovating scientist (career, income, ability to publish, employability,
etc.). Big Science has a black history in that respect, and it continues
today in its same old dogmatic, controlling way long documented by
historians of science. The fact that so many scientific innovations have
been accomplished in spite of such control and suppression efforts is a
tribute to the indomitable spirit and perseverance of the innovating
scientific researchers themselves.
Anyway, hopefully those remarks give you at least some of the keys you
need in considering how to usefully intercept and extract some of that
Heaviside energy flow component in circuits and devices, and thereby
produce legitimate COP>1.0 systems.
The beauty of using the heat amplification (infrared COP = 18) is that
it's already experimentally proven and published in the hard physics
literature, and the excess free energy output is just a great deal more
ordinary heat. In other words, close-looping such a system for
self-powering is eased considerably. One can indeed develop a
"self-powering heat-amplifier" system along such lines. "Self-powering"
is a term that is used, though it really means that all the input energy
is freely input by the active environment, such as a windmill. By
definition, self-powering systems (such as the common solar cell) have COP
= infinity.
I
never personally had the funds or opportunity to mount such an effort, and
will not in the future, so I have no hesitation in pointing this out and
urging that it be experimentally researched. Anyone who wishes is free to
do it and develop it and market it at will. I really don't care who does
the overunity EM power systems, so long as they get completed, produced,
and placed on the world market to (1) help alleviate human misery and
depression because of unaffordable energy, and (2) help clean up the
biosphere.
Hope this helps you in your program.
Best wishes,
Tom B. |