|
Dear Professor H*****,
Yes, I know John
Hutchison, though not really well, having met him several times at
various conferences etc., and once having been involved in trying to
get a project going around his work (effort was aborted). Also am aware
of some of the folks who gravitated (pun intended) to him. Unfortunately
none of them are of sufficient scientific horsepower, in my opinion, to
get at the real physics mechanisms that Hutchison evokes. It isn't
simply zero-point energy.
John is the last
of the true free-spirited hippies! Beautiful guy, but that is his
ansatz. But he is a tinkerer par excellence. He assembles this stuff,
blasts away sharply, gets anomalous levitations and real anomalous
materials effects, etc. (Note that in sufficiently curved spacetime one
can get magnetic monopoles also, and so depositing of monopoles in
materials also gives very strange fractures, liftings, etc. intermingled
with the gravitational effects as well).
Presently none of
those associates understands what really is happening., since they are
not sufficiently well-versed scientists.
As best I
understand the processes, two things are necessary for antigravity the
way that John Hutchison gets it to happen. (1) one must make persistent
Dirac Sea holes, which before they interact with matter are truly
negative energy, negative mass electrons --- NOT positrons. We "see" or
observe them as positrons because we first interact them with matter to
observe them. In matter interaction, the hole eats an electron, which
leaves behind an excess lattice positive charge. Hence it is accounted
as the "lattice positron" considered and dealt with in semiconductors.
That is NOT a Dirac sea hole.
A positive mass,
positive energy source charge outputs positive energy extracted from the
vacuum (see the source charge solution), so its associated EM fields and
potentials are positive energy fields and potentials. Positrons make
positive gravity, NOT antigravity, and they also have positive mass.
Positive EM energy density change in spacetime makes a little positive
gravity. No big thing there.
But a negative
energy, negative mass source "Dirac hole" in 4-space, persisting awhile
before interaction with mass, also serves as a source "negative energy"
charge. It outputs negative energy continuously (see my source charge
solution), thus producing associated negative energy EM fields and
potentials. Those produce negative gravity (antigravity), a priori.
Still nothing too big, but now a step in the right direction.
Now comes the
good part. After Maxwell died of stomach cancer in 1879, two scientists
independently and simultaneously discovered the "flow of EM energy
through space". Before then, that concept did not concretely appear in
physics. The two men, of course, were Poynting and Heaviside.
Poynting never
considered anything but the divergent component of the energy flow,
which gets diverged into the conductors of the external circuit of the
generator to power up the Drude electrons. Thus Poynting got the
direction of flow wrong of the EM energy in space surrounding the
conductors of the external circuit connected to the power supply, since
he assumed that energy flow to be at right angles to the conductors.
That is merely the diverged component of the energy flow in
space outside the wires.
Heaviside also
considered the remaining component of the flow that is nondivergent,
because it is in curl form and the divergence of the curl is zero (in
flat spacetime). (Note that the divergence of the curl is not
necessarily zero in a CURVED spacetime!). Heaviside also corrected
Poynting on the direction of flow of the total energy flow in space
outside the conductors, which is almost parallel to the conductors.
A startled
Heaviside also realized that the remaining energy flow --- after the
Poynting component is diverged into the wires to power up the electrons
-- is still so great that almost no change in direction exists in it and
the original total flow. In other words, the nondivergent Heaviside flow
is enormously greater in magnitude than the puerile diverged Poynting
flow component. Quoting Heaviside:
“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… . Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. Their departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the wire.” —Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.
I did a
back-of-the-envelope gut estimate (would certainly welcome a better
calculation) and the Heaviside component is some trillion to 10
trillion times as large in magnitude as is the Poynting component, for
the simple circuit I looked at.
What this means
is that every generator and battery (and other dipole and dipolar
power source) already pours out enormously more EM energy than the
energy one inputs mechanically to the shaft of the generator, or the
chemical energy expended in a battery, etc. In the 1880s, one had
no inkling of what could possibly be the source of that enormous
energy flow. There was no relativity either special or general, no
quantum physics, no modern particle physics to speak of, etc. The
electron was not even discovered. So to keep from being called an
idiot and perpetual motion nut not accepting conservation of energy,
Heaviside wrote very cautiously about it, but he did write about it in
clear terms, though in terms of angles the various flow components
make with respect to a reference direction.
In the 1990s
that followed, the greatest electrical physicist was Lorentz. He
understood both men's work, but even the great Lorentz did not dare
champion something so violently against all the notions of science of
the day as was Heaviside's inexplicably huge nondiverged EM energy
flow component. Lorentz reasoned that the huge Heaviside component
"had no physical significance," because it did nothing. Even the
great Lorentz would have been professionally destroyed had he
suggested that a generator outputs a trillion times more EM energy
than one inputs mechanically to it! So, unable to solve the problem,
he eliminated the problem itself. He simply assumed a closed surface
around any volume element of interest, and proceeded to integrate the
entire energy vector around that closed surface. That little trick
neatly eliminates the nondiverged Heaviside component, while retaining
the diverged Poynting component.
And all the
engineers today still use Lorentz's neat little integration trick, and
thereby arbitrarily discard a trillion or so times as much EM energy
as they account for. The students today are rarely if ever taught
this background, or anything about the Heaviside extra, enormous
energy flow that normally doesn't interact with anything. (Good thing
it doesn't ordinarily interact because the spacetime is sufficiently
flat; else to possess a few flashlight batteries in New York City
would be to fry the entire city).
The same "no
physical significance" conundrum is still used to justify that Lorentz
integration trick, etc. E.g., quoting Jackson (a superb
electrodynamist, and one of my heroes), Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd
Edn., 1975, p. 237:
"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the
extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an
added term can, however, have no physical consequences."
That of
course is not quite true. The Heaviside component is such a curl of a
vector field, and it is enormously greater in magnitude than the
Poynting component. Thus if accounted, it dramatically changes our
assumption in classical EM that curved spacetime can be neglected. It
changes the physics assumption that one doesn't get very much ST
curvature from the usual EM fields and potentials. One does get
significant ST curvature when the huge Heaviside energy flow is
accounted, for it makes the change in EM density of ST due to EM
changes far greater than we have been taught (a trillion times or so
greater).
As an
example, I nominated the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component
the source of the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral
galaxies together. But that is positive gravity, because we are
referring to positive mass, positive energy source charges when we
speak of positive gravity.
The Bohren
experiment, I believe, also clearly proves the existence of the
Heaviside component and shows that energy can be extracted from it if
we work at it a bit. That is a separate discussion, but it comes out
(I think!).
Now in
thermodynamics, sharp gradients are known to violate thermodynamics
and that is recognized (e.g., Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern
Thermodynamics, p. 459). But as Kondepudi and Prigogine point out,
not much is known about strong gradients, either experimentally or
theoretically.
What is not
known is why sharp gradients produce departure from
the laws of thermodynamics as those laws are presently formulated and
interpreted. (The present second law is on its way to being destroyed,
e.g., and is in fact falsified by every charge, EM field, EM
potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe. Some very good
scientists are now beginning to nail the coffin lid shut on the
present second law. The first law has also a flaw as presently stated
and formulated, that actually would exclude gauge freedom. I will be
pointing out those flaws in a couple of papers I'm working on.).
Well, a
sharp gradient momentarily makes excess Dirac sea holes in the local
vacuum (remember when they admit in particle physics that adding
energy can lift electrons from the Dirac Sea!), and now the holes
persist a bit because of the sharp gradient. They are also 4-spatial,
not 3-spatial because they have not been observed (have not yet
interacted). For really sharp and really powerful gradients, a
tremendous surplus of persistent Dirac sea 4-holes is produced (at the
OUTPUT of the process or device). I got that idea while finishing my
MS in Nuclear Engineering at Ga. Tech in 1972.
Years later,
working with Floyd Sweet on his Vacuum Triode Amplifier (I named it
that and the name stuck), we had a beautiful chance to put that notion
to the test. The VTA exhibited a COP = 1,500,000 and it could be
"pushed" to even higher gain (COP). It was a case similar to the
Bohren experiment, but involving far greater magnitude fields and thus
far greater magnitude Heaviside components. Sweet had a proprietary
process by which he triggered the barium nucleus in a barium ferrite
permanent magnet into sustained self-oscillation (that is now known in
some magnetic materials, but studied in mostly thin films). But since
the nuclear EM fields are so powerful, and their neglected
Heaviside energy flow components are thus incredibly
powerful, now one really involves some significant curvature of
spacetime!
The sharp
and very strong gradients also produced Dirac sea holes, because the
device's output (500 watts) was mostly cold energy (converging energy,
not diverging energy). Shorting the output leads of the VTA would
result in instant icing of those leads, NOT heating and melting. By
back of the envelope gut estimates, I estimated that if the unit were
"pushed" to double its output, the curvature ought to be sufficient to
produce enough antigravity to significantly reduce the weight of the
VTA on the bench. At 1500 watts, I estimated, the unit would hover
with the local negative gravity field and the local earth gravity
fields being equal and opposite. Push it more, and it would levitate.
So I
convinced Sweet to do the experiment (he built a new output section to
get it done). He did the experiment there in California, with me here
on the phone in Alabama. He increased the output in 100 watt stages,
from 0 to1,000 watts. The unit smoothly reduced its weight on the lab
bench by 90% at 1,000 watts output. A beautiful curve resulted, which
when projected would have crossed the zero weight axis at about 1250
watts. So my crude estimate wasn't too bad for initial work!
(Sweet later
confirmed to me that his curiosity got the better of him, and he did
add more load and "push" the unit after we hung up. He stated he
placed the unit on a tether, levitated it, canted it and flew it around
the room. He was lucky his magnets did not explode from the excess
monopoles deposited in them. He did explode several magnets in later
"pushing" for more power, and they go off like real hand grenades.
Disconcerting when one's lab is in a bedroom, and not in facilities
with explosive containment abilities.
Thereafter
an assassination attempt was made on Sweet's life, and he was
threatened repeatedly, on the phone at night, by mysterious folks
accosting him in the shopping center, etc. The assassination attempt
was with a silenced rifle from about 300 yards. Being aged, he
stumbled as he was coming up the front steps, and fell forward
sprawling. Just as his head moved forward, the bullet cracked right
by his ear, and there is no mistaking that sound. Thereafter Sweet
was so frightened he would never again perform the experiment, nor
would he go to the scientific community leaders with it as I urged him
to do. He mortally feared for his life, and with good reason. Sweet
later died and took the secret of activating his magnets with him. I
know 90% of it, but not the critical remaining 10%. What I know or
surmise, I put in my book.
I did
write a crude paper back then, placing Sweet's name first since he
was the inventor of the VTA, not me. The paper is:
Whew!
Now back to the Hutchison experiments. Basically John blasts away,
often with two coils at once, and creates gradients that are (1)
very sharp and (2) very strong momentarily. So he creates (when he
gets everything adjusted just right) some persistent Dirac sea
holes, which produce negative energy EM fields and potentials, and
also produce negative energy Heaviside components. These latter
components are what produce the significant antigravity, levitation,
etc. when these phenomena occur (usually not controlled, but just
willy-nilly). John has learned over the years how to increase the
probability of getting the results, without understanding just what
is doing it. He's doing (in my opinion) another version of the
Sweet mechanics for producing antigravity fields that react back on
objects in those fields, to produce antigravity effects. It's
getting the sufficiently sharp and sufficiently powerful gradients
(discharges) that provide one key to getting those persistent Dirac
sea holes whose negative energy fields and potentials --- and whose
negative energy Heaviside energy flow components --- make the
antigravity effects.
As a
note, Heaviside was a recluse, particularly in the latter years of
his life, living alone in a little garret apartment. Years after
his death, some of his notes were found in a little storage hole
beneath some loose boards in the floor. See
H. J. Josephs, “The Heaviside papers found at
Paignton in 1957,” The Institution of Electrical Engineers Monograph
No. 319, Jan. 1959, p. 70-76.
In those notes, Heaviside had realized
the gravitational significance of his long neglected component, and
had worked out a theory of gravity effects based on it!
Professor Laithwaite (now deceased) felt
that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy
combines with the (ExH) electromagnetic energy flux,
could shake the foundations of physics. Extracting from
Laithwaite:
"Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S=(E'H)+G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S=(ExH). Taking p to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu-ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.” Laithwaite played with this Heaviside component with respect to anomalous effects in gyroscopes. For a Laithwaite paper, see
Ironically Laithwaite was an up and
coming Professor, because of his significant work in gyros etc. Thus
he was a "rising star", so to speak, and so recognized. He was
invited to give an address to the Royal Soc. of London, a great
honor. For his lecture, he brought in a large, heavy gyro which,
when not running, he could only lift with both hands with real
effort. So he demonstrated this, and then plugged the cord in and
ran the gyro up to speed, then unplugged the cord with the gyro
running at speed. Then he readily lifted the running gyro with one
hand, to show that something very novel was going on here. He
remarked that Newton might be in trouble -- which was a shocking
"no-no" at the Royal Soc. Lond. Thereafter, his career was
curtailed, etc. though he continued to be a professor, etc. He
later filed a patent with a colleague, see
Unfortunately Professor Laithwaite died before his American patent was issued.
Anyway, hopefully that gives some
insight into Hutchinson's work, and (at least in my opinion and in
my own understanding) some inkling of the probable physics
underlying those anomalous antigravity effects.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Slightly edited |