| Subject: RE: Mandelshtam paper Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:53:01 -0500 Dear
Ashley, The
paper is: Mandelstam,
L. I.; and N. D. Papaleksi. (1934)
"On the parametric excitation of electric
oscillations," Zhurnal Teknicheskoy Fiziki, 4(1), 1934, p.
5-29. Translation
UCRL-Trans-10231, Univ. Calif., Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
Livermore, CA, Feb. 1968.
Abstract:
An approximate theory is given for the excitation of oscillations in
an electric oscillatory system without explicit sources of electric or
magnetic forces, with the aid of periodic variations in the system's
parameters. The theory is
based on general Poincaré methods developed earlier for finding
periodic solutions of differential equations.
Detailed discussion is given of special cases of such
excitation, with sinusoidal variation of self-inductance and
capacitance in an oscillatory system having one degree of freedom, and
also with self-inductance variation in a regenerated system.
Attempts to generate oscillations by a mechanical variation of
parameters in systems with and without regeneration are described.
These experiments confirm the possibility of such excitation,
in accordance with the theory. There
are a whole series of related papers in the Russian and French
scientific literature. According to these papers, the Russians did
succeed in producing self-oscillating, self-powering systems.
Once one understands that any dipole (and hence any dipolar
circuit) is a broken symmetry in the vacuum virtual photon flux, it
follows that the dipolarity (of the source dipole formed in the
generator, battery, or other power supply) -- once formed -- extracts
energy from the vacuum, transduces it to observable EM energy, and
outpours that EM energy from the terminals and along the conductors of
the external circuit or system attached to the power supply. Energy
from the vacuum powers and always has powered every electrical circuit
we have ever built. But
the closed-current-loop circuit ubiquitously used in power systems
self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging.
Hence it kills its own source dipole faster than it can power
the loads, dissipating exactly half the energy it collects from that
available gushing flow from the terminals to scatter the charges in
the dipole and destroy the dipole.
The other half of the intercepted/collected energy is
dissipated in the external circuit to power the losses and the load;
hence less than half is used to power the load.
Thus less of the collected energy is dissipated in the load to
power it, than is dissipated in the source dipole to destroy it and
shut off the flow of free energy from the vacuum. This
broken symmetry of opposite charges -- and hence of the common dipole
-- was strongly predicted by Lee and Yang circa 1956.
It was experimentally proven in early 1957, and so
revolutionary was the result of proven broken symmetry in physics that
the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang at the end
of the same year, 1957. Sadly,
even though that has been
in particle physics for more than 40 years, it hasn't made it into
power engineering and electrical engineering yet.
No electrical engineering department of any university in the
Western world teaches what really powers an EM circuit or an
electrical power system, and frankly they do not even know, even
though it's over in particle physics and proven.
All the energy used by the circuit comes from the vacuum, via
the broken symmetry of the source dipole.
One does not have to keep reproving that; its basis is already
well proven in particle physics.
I continue to be aghast that the National Academy of Sciences
and National Science Foundation will not force the change of
electrical engineering and electrical power engineering to incorporate
what has long been proven scientifically, including with the award of
a Nobel Prize. Indeed,
unless it eludes me, I see nothing of any great interest in the energy
research field on either of their sites.
I did purchase their review of the $20+ billion spent on energy
research by the DoE, and was not very impressed with respect to
anything new. It was,
however, impressive on increasing the efficiency of standard
COP<1.0 systems. The
nation (either in the NSF or NAS, or in DOE) does not appear to be
interested in where all the electrical energy actually comes from, and
has no ongoing funded program in changing the circuitry and systems so
that the dipole is either not self-destroyed by the system or is
destroyed slower than the load is powered.
We need a crash national program in "energy from the
vacuum", well-funded, and with the strong backing and approval of
the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.
That is not going to happen, it appears.
We also need the NAS and NSF to lean firmly on all those
universities and fund the rapid change of the stale, 137-year-old
Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory.
If they did nothing else but force the development and
experimentation with systems violating the Lorentz symmetrical
regauging condition arbitrarily applied to the theory since the 1880s,
that would do the trick. It
would seem they do not have the perspicacity to even see that, or else
do not intend to change the very comfortable "status quo".
Hence they maintain the same system where no electrical
engineering student is taught what really powers an EM circuit.
And EM systems far from equilibrium with the vacuum exchange
and with local curved spacetime, are very firmly discarded -- the
conventional classical electrodynamics after Lorentz regauging assumes
a flat local spacetime (falsified by general relativity now for nearly
a century) and no net interaction with the local active vacuum
(falsified in particle physics for nearly a half century). That's
how sad the energy science situation is, in our nation and in our
scientific community. As
Max Planck said, "An
important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul
becomes Paul. What does
happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing
generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."
[Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.] It
appears that we shall have to wait until the present leaders of the
scientific community -- who strongly oppose the proven energy from the
vacuum -- die off and reduce the adamant opposition.
However, with this war now ongoing, if it escalates to the
point where oil supplies etc. from the MidEast and elsewhere are
disrupted, then we shall be in an energy crisis that will curl one's
hair. Notice that some
fellow recently shot a hole (with a common rifle) in the Alaskan
pipeline, which is some 800 miles long.
Were terrorists to shoot a hole every few miles, that would be
hundreds of holes, and fixing that thing would be an enormously
difficult task. That's
just one example of what could be in store if escalation occurs. But
one must keep one's sense of humor. I've taken quite a pounding for
pointing out that generators and batteries do not power their external
circuits, and the proof is already in particle physics.
But it is quite true. All
the coal and oil and natural gas every burned; all the hydrodams ever
built to turn the shaft of generators, all the windmill generators,
etc. have never used any of their available internal energy gained
from all that, to power their external circuits!
They only used it to make the source dipole, which the
conventional closed-current loop circuit then destroys faster than it
power the load! It
is just as sad that the environmental community -- desiring cleaner
energy and restoring the biosphere -- is not aware of the most direct
and permanent way to do it. Their
scientific advice comes from those same institutions that are
defending the problem. So
those who could get this done, are part of the problem rather than
part of the solution. Well,
it takes at least as much energy -- as was expended as work on the
dipole to destroy it -- to restore the dipole again, for a 100%
efficient "dipole-making" generator or battery.
So that means that, using the conventional circuits, one always
will have to input more energy to the shaft of the generator -- to
continuously restore the dipole that the circuit itself is designed to
continuously destroy -- than we get out in the load.
That guarantees a COP<1.0. Hence
the sheer inanity (I use that term for something perpetuated and
defended even nearly a half century after being proved to be the
problem) of continuing to develop and build the same old planet- and
biosphere-polluting power systems we have always built, and use the
same gas-burning cars we have long used, and teach and defend the same
old tired electrical engineering we have always taught.
It doesn't have to be that way at all, but changing it will
"sidetrack" much of the established scientific community and
much of the multi-trillion dollar present power industries worldwide.
Electrical energy is free from the vacuum (actually comes from
the time domain, and by "using" or converting a little time
into lots of energy). Just
make a dipole and then do not destroy it, but capture some of the free
energy it pours out forever thereafter, and dissipate the collected
energy to power the load, without using half of it to destroy the
source dipole. Isn't
it strange that electrical engineers are not taught to calculate the
electric field nor the potential, but only what is diverted from the
field and the potential by an assumed unit point static charge?
Nary a textbook in the U.S. shows any calculation of the actual
field itself (prior to interaction) or the potential itself.
Never has. Doesn't
now. And it's a sad
commentary that this is not made crystal clear to the young grad
students. It isn't. At
least 50 real devices achieving COP>1.0 have
been suppressed, by several nations, over the decades, starting from
Tesla, to Moray, Kron, and many others.
An overunity circuit was actually placed in the first Minuteman
ICBM, then rapidly changed so that it did not exhibit COP>1.0, to
prevent burning out the following electronic stages. I
think the paper was translated for NASA, which means it is a
government-produced paper probably carried in the NTIS system.
Unfortunately I do not have the NTIS number. Hope
that helps. Tom
Bearden Subject:
Mandelshtam paper |