| Subject: RE: Very interesting
idea based on Bohren's experiment Please forward to Dr. Bearden Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:44:44 -0500
Marcia,
Will take just a few
moments to add something for Tim, since he is on a good track and is a
serious researcher. Please send it along to him with my complements.
The laser, e.g., is used
(IR case) only as the source of the input energy in the experiment.
Any source of IR energy will do the same thing. The laser is just
exact and convenient, to show the details of the experiment and
process very easily.
In physics, the present
"definitions" of both field and potential a priori assume a
STATIC unit point coulomb of charge. So in a stream of input IR
energy, a unit static charge placed at a point to measure the
intensity of the flow, does diverge a certain amount of energy, and
that diverged amount has become known corruptedly as "the field" (it's
actually an indication of "field's point intensity of its flow set",
as a very good electrodynamicist already knows.
If, however, the
collecting charge is not static, but has a tuned particle
resonance at the IR frequency range of the energy being fed to it, it
will experimentally diverge some 18 times as much energy from the
same energy flow input, regardless of whether it is a laser
furnishing the input or some other IR energy source doing it.
So any means of producing
the IR input energy is sufficient -- even simple heating (which of
course would not be as "tuned" and efficient as the laser input).
The point is, by using a
self-resonant charge, we have directly altered the actual definitions
of field intensity and potential intensity that we are using. We are
NOT using the standard static unit point charge assumed in the
standard definition and in standard calculations.
We point out frequently
that from any potential V, as much energy W as desired can be
collected on static charges q, if we have enough charges, by the
simple equation W = Vq. That's because "joules of EM energy" do not
occur like ears of corn stacked in a corn crib (the mechanical view
forced on electricians way back there). Instead, the energy joules
occur in flowing streams of EM energy. Whittaker's 1903 paper shows
also that even a "static" potential V is actually comprised of
internal EM longitudinal waves in motion, or in other words simple
voltage is comprised of internal energy flows.
So any so-called "static"
potential (as from an electret, a charged capacitor, or a permanent
magnet's magnetostatic scalar potential) is comprised of a steady and
continuous set of energy flows. When these energy flows are
calculated, one realizes very quickly that whatever energy cost one
paid to make the dipole is rapidly exceeded by the output of the
energy flows that then continuously flow from the dipole, forever if
the dipole is not destroyed. That of course is the long vexing problem
of the source charge (a charge ensemble is a special dipolarity when
its associated virtual charges of opposite sign -- due to its
polarization of the vacuum -- are considered). We published the
solution to the century-old problem, in 2000 and subsequently.
Hence a permanent magnet,
or any dipolarity, furnishes a "static potential" between its two
poles or opposite charges. That dipolarity is identically a
continuous set of free energy flows, extracted directly from the
vacuum by the proven (since 1957) asymmetry of opposite charges (the
"pole" is just a loose name for magnetic charge, and dipole just means
"opposite charges with a bit of separation distance).
So the entire business of
ideal "free energy" can be summed up very simply:
Simply put, transfer the
potential energy by simple free regauging to the receiving circuit
half, from a static potential source.
Switch away the potential
source, without any dissipation of its dipolarity having occurred.
Complete the now
overpotentialized receiving external circuit portion, so that it
dissipates the freely collected energy in a load to do useful free
work.
And only pay for switching
costs.
There are of course many
variations, but that is the most basic way to state it. In short, get
away from the standard "power" kick, quit thinking of "powering"
things, and transfer energy itself as pure energy transfer, without
change of form of the energy or work dissipation. Then once one has
freely overpotentialized the "static" circuit, let the circuit come to
life and become dynamic, and dissipate the free excess potential
energy collected, WITHOUT using any of it to do work on the original
source of potentialization to destroy the original dipolar source of
potential.
Electrical engineers are
brainwashed thoroughly to think in terms of "power" -- the rate of
doing work. They illogically speak of "drawing power" (power is
rigorously developed in the dissipating component, not drawn from the
source at all). Etc. They have been thoroughly trained to never,
never, never separate the functions of pure potentialization and
potential energy dissipation as work. Their use of the standard
closed current loop circuit and no restraint on electron relaxation or
current flow is what destroys what are already electrical systems
taking EM energy freely from the active vacuum.
Sadly, most electrical
engineering departments, professors, and engineers still are unaware
that their own electrodynamics model --- which admits all EM fields,
EM potentials, and joules of EM energy freely come from their
associated source charges -- assumes that the charges freely create
(out of nothing at all) those same fields, potentials, and their
energy.
The source charge problem
has been rather thoroughly scrubbed out of prevailing textbooks,
although one can find it if one determinedly looks. It's been known
for a century -- and unsolved until 2000 when we published the
solution, applying physics already proven since 1957.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|