| Subject: RE: Re: MEG concept.
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 13:48:47 -0500
Daniel,
Glad you're looking at
the MEG.
It isn't just a
regular transformer. Of course a "one-reservoir of energy" transformer,
where one pays to input all the energy in the reservoir, will not
produce COP>1.0. The transformer will inevitably have at least some
losses, so one will get out less energy than one inputs. A good
transformer may have, e.g., an efficiency of 90%, as you are aware. A
top-notch transformer might achieve 95%.
On the other hand, for
the MEG, one must get out of the electrical engineering text and
Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics and check out papers in the
Aharonov-Bohm effect, later generalized to the Berry Phase (Michael
Berry has a very nice website where you can download lots of good
papers), and then further generalized to geometric phase. There are
more than 20,000 papers in the hard physics literature on those areas of
geometric phase, but it is not in electrical engineering. Nonetheless,
it is solid physics, now well known and applied for several decades.
Or just check in
Feynman's three volumes of physics for the Aharonov-Bohm effect (he
spells Aharonov as "Aharanov", at least in the older editions). When
one localizes the B-field flux in a local area (such as inside a good
toroidal coil), then all the B-field flux is held inside the coils
themselves, and none spills into the space outside the coils. In short,
one confines ALL the magnetic field flux one uses in a normal
transformer (and one pays for) inside the toroid. When that is done,
the outside spacetime is still curved general relativistically. So the
curvature of spacetime itself produces an extra field-free (curl-free)
A-potential in that space outside the coil. That is a SECOND energy
reservoir, and one does not have to pay for it. It's provided freely by
nature (by the environment, i.e., the curved spacetime). That is the
original Aharonov-Bohm effect, now completely proven and accepted. But
no one thought to use it for power before.
So we found a
transformer core material that does the same thing a good toroidal coil
does. The core material localizes all the B-field flux inside the core
material itself, and that gives us the same energy available in the core
alone, that a normal excellent transformer could have in total. That is
the FIRST energy reservoir in the MEG from which one can extract
energy.
Simultaneously, the
Aharonov-Bohm effect results in a FREE, SECOND energy reservoir outside
the core, again in the form of a curl-free (field-free) A-potential in
that outside space.
Using d for the
partial differentiation symbol because of this E-mail medium: As is in
all the text-books, dA/dt = - E, where the magnitude of the E-field
depends on the time rate of
change of the A-potential, NOT just on the
magnitude of that
A-potential. Voila! By shaping the leading edge and trailing edge of
the nearly rectangular input pulses we use to input to the primary coil
around the core, we can determine the magnitude of the produced E-fields
in space surrounding the core. That's in addition to the NORMAL
transformer functioning, using the B-flux inside the core material (now
an H-flux because it's in physical material).
So from the core flux,
we can have the performance of a normal transformer with an efficiency
of, say, 90%. So from the FIRST energy reservoir (the core flux
energy), we can take off 90% of the energy into the secondary and output
from it, just like a normal transformer.
However, from the
SECOND energy reservoir, we also simultaneously get an input E-field
reaction directly from the surrounding space and into that secondary
coil. In short, if we carefully time and phase everything by adroit
switching, we can get more energy into that output coil from the E-field
in surrounding space, than we get into it from the H-flux inside the
core.
In short, we have
taken advantage of nature's kindness, where nature freely formed an
EXTRA energy reservoir for us and made it available if we wished to use
it. We collected some of that EXTRA energy gratefully in the secondary,
in addition to the energy collected in quite normal fashion from the
FIRST energy reservoir.
So the total output
energy is that 90% of the energy in the first reservoir, plus more than
that from the second energy reservoir which we make fairly large.
You are aware that,
from any given E-field, one can collect as much emf as one has charge to
intercept it -- that is the simple equation F = Eq. So we adjust the
output coil so that it has a substantial surface charge --- more q.
This means that, from that impinging E-field from the SECOND energy
reservoir in space outside the core, we can collect just as much energy
as we wish, subject only to the limitations of the amount of surface
charge we arrange in the secondary. Let us say that we get twice as
much energy in that output coil from the EXTRA, FREE external E-field
reaction as we get from the internal H-flux and its reactions. Then,
using the 90% efficiency for the "normal transformer collection from the
first reservoir only), we have (0.9 + 1.8) as much output energy in the
secondary as we have available in the normal H-flux in the primary
coil. That means we have 2.7 times as much output energy as is
available in the input coil.
Now suppose our input
efficiency (any switching circuit wastes some) is only 50% (we can
actually do quite a bit better, but let's be very conservative). So we
have to input and pay for twice as much energy as we get available in
that input primary coil. This means that, in terms of "available energy
W in the input coil), our input energy we pay for is 2W. The total
output energy we get in the secondary is (2.7 W). The COP, defined as
COP = (useful output)/(total paid input by the operator) is 2.7W divided
by 2W, which is equal to COP = 1.35. As we stated, we can then adjust
the second reservoir's energy easily, increase efficiency of switching,
etc. A reasonable COP to shoot for is about COP = 5.0. By very
special measures (not discussed yet; we still have to file additional
patents) we can drive that to COP = 10.0 or so.
Note that none of this
violates conservation of energy, and none of it violates the second law
of thermodynamics. The overall efficiency Eff is still Eff < 100%,
because some of the energy available in the first energy reservoir is
wasted, and so is some of the energy in the second reservoir wasted. So
the total input of available energy to the entire system is greater than
the output of the system, even when COP = 10.0. It's just that MUCH of
that input energy is freely furnished by nature, from the free second
energy reservoir. This is analogous to a conventional heat pump, except
instead of extracting some "heat" from the external environment we trick
the external environment into furnishing us a completely free uncurled
A-potential energy reservoir, in space outside the core. Then we trick
that free, second energy reservoir into turning its energy into E-field
energy, for ease of collection and use.
The decisive signature
is the deviation of the normal 90 degrees or so phase difference between
output voltage and output current. We can produce a "supertransformer"
where that phase difference may be as small as two degrees. So in
another way, in that case we have produced almost a totally ELECTRICAL
transformer. Or said another way, the ELECTRICAL functioning of the MEG
then becomes much more important than its MAGNETIC performance, as the
primary energy-output reaction mechanism.
Hope this helps. It
really cannot be explained any simpler than that. If you wish a very
strong theoretical explanation of the MEG's fundamental mechanism of
operation, then check the following two papers:
M. W.
Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden
et al., "Explanation of the
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics,"
Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94.
M. W.
Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(4), 2001, p.
387-393.
Another
good reference is: M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The
Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics,"
Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.
Abstract: "The most general form of the vector potential is deduced
in curved spacetime using general relativity. It is shown that the
longitudinal and timelike components of the vector potential exist in
general and are richly structured. Electromagnetic energy from the
vacuum is given by the quaternion valued canonical energy-momentum. It
is argued that a dipole intercepts such energy and uses it for the
generation of electromotive force. Whittaker's U(1)
decomposition of the scalar potential applied to the potential between
the poles of a dipole, shows that the dipole continuously receives
electromagnetic energy from the complex plane and emits it in real
space. The known broken 3-symmetry of the dipole results in a relaxation
from 3-flow symmetry to 4-flow symmetry. Considered with its clustering
virtual charges of opposite sign, an isolated charge becomes a set of
composite dipoles, each having a potential between its poles that, in
U(1) electrodynamics, is composed of the Whittaker
structure and dynamics. Thus the source charge continuously emits energy
in all directions in 3-space while obeying 4-space energy conservation.
This resolves the long vexing problem of the association of the
“source”
charge and its fields and potentials. In initiating 4-flow symmetry
while breaking 3-flow symmetry, the charge, as a set of dipoles,
initiates a reordering of a fraction of the surrounding vacuum energy,
with the reordering spreading in all directions at the speed of light
and involving canonical determinism between time currents and spacial
energy currents. This constitutes a giant, spreading negentropy which
continues as long as the dipole (or charge) is intact. Some implications
of this previously unsuspected giant negentropy are pointed out for the
Poynting energy flow theory, and as to how electrical circuits and loads
are powered."
Giant negative entropy
lies hidden in electrical engineering and the Maxwell-Heaviside
electrodynamics, but it has been ignored for more than a century. All
the energy in every EM circuit or EM device comes directly from the
local vacuum, via the source charges, and NOT from cranking the shaft of
a generator, etc. Even in staid old classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory
and electrical engineering, every EM field and EM potential and joule of
EM energy is modeled as coming from the associated source charges.
However, in assuming an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime (both long
since falsified completely in particle physics), those classical models
are terribly deficient, and are only approximations good for situations
with not much ST curvature and where one rather inanely uses half the
energy collected in the system to destroy the source dipolarity in the
external power source (which is what the standard closed loop circuit is
designed to do).
In other words, you
can indeed make an "electromagnetic wind" at will, or use those free EM
winds that already ceaselessly pour from every source charge in the
universe. One can indeed make an EM circuit or system analogous to a
windmill turning in a wind. If the environment can be tricked or urged
into furnishing us with a free energy flow, then the only thing
necessary to extract energy from it is to work out how to do it and NOT
destroy the ability of the windmill blades to extract energy from the
wind. In electrical circuits, it is standard to use the closed current
loop circuit, which fiendishly destroys the source dipolarity (and its
asymmetry of opposite charges) faster than it powers the load. In short,
the standard circuit ruthlessly enforces COP<1.0. That is also what
Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging does to the basic
Maxwell-Heaviside equations. The basic equations do indeed prescribe
systems that exhibit COP>1.0. The symmetrically regauged equations
select and retain only that subset of the M-H theory that consists of
COP<1.0 systems or at best COP = 1.0 resistance-free (superconducting)
circuits.
Even by conventional
EM theory and by electrical engineering, the Poynting theory tells one
that simply laying a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so that
the E-field of the capacitor is at right angles to the H-field of the
magnet, will optimize EXH, which is optimizing a continuous, steady
outpouring of EM energy. But the conventional theory totally ignores
any input energy, because the input energy from the vacuum is in virtual
photon form. The broken symmetry of any dipole or dipolarity guarantees
that the dipolarity freely absorbs virtual photon energy from the
vacuum, and outputs real, observable EM energy (real observable
photons), thereby establishing and continuously replenishing the
steady-state (static) EM fields and potentials associated with that
dipole. The "isolated charge", once its surrounding cluster of virtual
charges of opposite sign is considered, is a fundamental dipolarity and
therefore does extract otherwise unusable EM energy from the vacuum and
output usable, real, observable EM energy. Nature has been most kind,
and has given us incredible numbers of freely gushing EM energy
producers called "source charges". That the problem of the source
charge and its output of observable energy --- without any input of
OBSERVABLE energy input --- continues to be ignored and suppressed from
electrical engineering and classical M-H theory, is an intellectual
crime, since the basis for all that has been solidly proven in particle
physics since 1957.
However, the
conventional EM model used by electrical power engineers --- in not
modeling the input energy to the source charges from the vacuum or from
curved spacetime --- is guilty of a heinous assumption: It assumes that
every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is
and has been freely created by nothing at all, by the associated source
charges.
Its artificial and
erroneous restriction of the vacuum to an inert space, and the
restriction of spacetime to a flat spacetime, is why electrical
engineering alone cannot and does not explain the operation of the MEG.
Far better systems of electrodynamics have long been developed in
particle physics. Using one of the higher group symmetry
electrodynamics --- such as in Sachs' unified field theory or in O(3)
electrodynamics founded by Evans and Vigier --- one can indeed model
all the required energy reservoirs and inputs.
The world will have a
breathtaking new electrical power system theory and technology whenever
the electrical engineering departments will simply travel across their
university campuses to the physics departments and discover broken
symmetry of opposite charges and its implications, proven in 1957 and
part of the reason a Nobel Prize was so quickly awarded to Lee and Yang
in the very same year (1957). Meanwhile, in the nearly half century
since that discovery and proof, the information has not migrated across
the university campus and caused any change at all in the staid
electrical engineering departments, or in the electrical engineering
textbooks. Considering the state of suffering in the poor populations
of the Earth, very much due to the lack of cheap, clean electrical
energy, such a half century of benign scientific neglect would seem
inexcusable. In my view, science cannot and must not divorce itself
from ethics and from the human species. When it does, and when it
deliberately continues to suppress an extended electrical power system
technology that could revolutionize the energy resources of the planet,
and help clean up the biosphere, then science itself is guilty of highly
unethical standards and conduct. There is just too great a human need
for such power systems --- and as you can see in my new book, such
systems have long been built by inventors and suppressed, sometimes
quite ruthlessly.
The argument goes well
beyond our little group and the MEG, and it involves the welfare (or
lack thereof) of all humankind. There are at least 8 or 10 other
inventors right now who have legitimate COP>1.0 electrical systems. Yet
so far as I can establish, there is no single well-funded project in
COP>1.0 vacuum-powered electrical power systems, in the entire
scientific community, from the National Academy of Sciences on down.
And after nearly a half century since the discovery and proof of broken
symmetry, that is a very sad commentary on the U.S. scientific community
as a whole.
As another example of
well-known COP>1.0 EM effects, just check out "resonance absorption of
the medium", for a widely used phenomenon whereby one gets about 18
times as much energy (in the IR or UV) out of a medium as one pays to
input to it. A very good little article on that effect is
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. In nonlinear optics departments, it
is done at universities many times every year.
Best wishes in your
research, and we wish you good results!
Tom Bearden
|