|
NOTE ADDED later, 23 Mar 03:
There is a
substantial probability that a version of the heat amplifier effect we
will discuss below, was in fact the fundamental "puzzling" mechanism that
resulted in the catastrophic failure of the recent shuttle disaster, once
penetration to the aluminum skin was achieved in the damaged sections of
the tiles, etc. This conclusion follows a tip by Marcia Stockton to look
at a Washington Post
article by Kathy Sawyer, pointing out the uncovered anomalous, nearly
explosive ignition and burning of the aluminum substructure of the
shuttle. In those damaged points, once the fierce heat and ablation
actually touched the exposed aluminum skin, then the ablation process
added aluminum particles to the available energy absorption and emission
processes. Then one had both insulating particles and conducting
particles in the immediate ablation heat stream, leading to self-resonance
of both types of particles and the immediate appearance of the heat
amplification effect that is well-known for insulating particles in the IR
(and conducting particles in the UV) in the phenomenon of negative
resonance absorption by the media. This means that, once sufficient
induced particle self-resonance was present, substantial local energy
amplification in both the UV and IR regions was occurring. The difference
frequency between these two effects, in the visual band, should also show
amplified flashes or flashing or severe extra emission of intense light,
etc.
It appears that
the shuttle accident investigators have stumbled onto fierce burning --
even explosive burning -- of the aluminum substructure once the initial
damage allowed the heating and ablation process to get to the aluminum
substructure underneath the insulating tiles. That nearly explosive
burning of the aluminum would be guaranteed by --- and strongly implies
--- the emergence of the heat amplifier effect (i.e., negative resonance
absorption of the medium), where the heat energy increases by more than an
order of magnitude (and perhaps even more). Easy gains of 18 I very
simple experiments are already shown experimentally in the nonlinear
optics literature.
Two references
bearing on the investigator's examination in this matter would be:
(1)
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. Under nonlinear
conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light
incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one
class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies
are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a
particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},”
Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr.
1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.
(2)
Kathy Sawyer, "Aluminum's role in shuttle loss probed,"
Washington Post, 3/23/2003.
It is highly recommended that the Shuttle
investigation team consider negative resonance absorption of the medium,
the heat amplifier effect, and the related discussion below.
Tom Bearden, 3/23/03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). The
huge nondivergent Heaviside energy flow component was discovered by
Heaviside in the 1880s, and is in addition to the energy flow component
entering the circuit, as discovered independently and simultaneously by
Poynting. Unable to explain the source of such a huge energy flow from
every source charge and dipolarity, and why it usually does not interact
with anything to an observable extent, Lorentz circa the 1890s just
arbitrarily excluded that worrisome giant Heaviside energy flow component,
reasoning that it "had no physical significance" because it was
nondiverged and did not do anything. That is true in a sufficiently
linear case or linear situation, but it is not necessarily true in a
highly nonlinear situation with high energy density in the involved
nonlinear EM fields and potentials. Ablation conditions in spaceship
reentry into the atmosphere is one such highly nonlinear area,
particularly if damage occurs and the insulation (such as provided by the
Shuttle tiles) is penetrated and the heating reaches the aluminum skin.
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
upon the researchers, to prevent saying "excess energy emission of the
medium". Its process is fairly simple though deceptive.
We explain:
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
1903 and 1904 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 upon them.
If
physical conditions change
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 by changing physical
phenomena, just as are other parameters whose changes are conventionally
considered.
The
negative resonance absorption effect
-- which really means the "excess virtual EM
energy absorption from the seething vacuum and consequent excess
observable EM energy emission 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.
The insulating particles have essentially pinned charges, while the
conducting particles have much freer charges, that readily move on the
conducting particle. Hence the conducting particles respond and resonate
at a higher frequency --- the UV zone, while the insulating particles
respond and resonate at a lower frequency, the IR.
E.g.,
in the Bohren experiment, 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 the particle 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 the Poynting
theory already assumes the field intensities in EXH 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, or as we
"think" the situation itself inputs, as in the case of a shuttle
insulation ablation area with damage allowing involvement of the aluminum
substructure metal surface. Poynting energy flow mistakenly would have us
believe that such extra energy interception and emission is impossible,
since it arbitrarily excludes the very process (self-resonant charge
interception) we have invoking. In short, more energy than the Poynting
theory allows, is perfectly permissible --- both as to absorption and
emission. 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 a very small
part of the huge Heaviside energy flow component. Put another way, the
excess local spacetime curvature caused by the increased energy density,
allows some of the usually nondiverged Heaviside energy flow to be
diverged after all. 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) the energy
flows comprising the field or the potential!
In that approach, there are parameters just
as elsewhere. Deliberately changing the parameters changes the
permissible results. Such a statement that measurement itself is
relative, 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
for anything set in motion or at rest (zero motion), unless and until an
external force intervenes by Newton's second law!). Hardly anyone today
dares suggest such a "preposterous" and useful thing as "free heat
amplification", even in the face of experiments that already prove the
basic effect, the feasibility of such a system, and the overunity results.
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 Heaviside energy flow component has continued to be ignored, since
once it is known, one faces the fact that every generator and battery
outputs far more (orders of magnitude greater) EM energy than we pay to
input to it, and it always has. Another related problem is the continued
ignoring of the fact that all EM fields and potentials and their
observable EM energy are considered to come from their associated source
charges, without any observable EM energy input. The basis for solving
this long-vexing source-charge problem has been in particle physics since
1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, and yet the
proven broken symmetry of the source charge (considered with its
clustering virtual charges of opposite sign) has not migrated across the
university campus from the physics department to the electrical
engineering department in the nearly half century since broken symmetry
was discovered and proven. Once one understands that all EM energy in a
device, material, or circuit comes from the local vacuum via the broken
symmetry of the source charges and dipolarities, then one recognizes how
the Heaviside component can easily exist without violation of energy
conservation. Nature does not necessarily conserve observable EM energy,
but only total EM energy --- including between the unobservable virtual EM
energy in the local vacuum and the observable EM energy in the macroscopic
world. That was established by the asymmetry of opposite charges, part of
why Lee and Yang were almost immediately awarded the Nobel Prize for
initiating such a revolution in physics. Sadly, it has never made it to
electrical engineering. Hence the inability for our scientists to
comprehend the heat amplification phenomena that can emerge in damaged
areas of shuttle insulation, etc.
For COP>1.0 EM 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
COP>1.0 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.
And
also to enable the shuttle accident investigating team and its scientists
to comprehend the heat amplification problem due to the experimentally
proven negative resonance absorption of the medium.
Hope this helps you in your program.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden |