| Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:51:16
-0600
Frank,
Some
answers below, inserted after the questions.
Glad to be of (hopefully) some assistance.
Can't
help on the papers; only have my own file copy.
But just go to a good scientific library, and they will have
the Poynting and Heaviside papers, etc.
Or if you're a real bear for punishment, often the collected
papers of Heaviside and sometimes of Poynting wind up being for sale
(the volume, etc.) on the web, at used book stores.
I bought the collected papers of T.D. Lee that way, after
painfully running them down, volume by volume. Best
wishes, Tom
Bearden
ANS:
The patent has not formally been issued; we were formally contacted by
the Patent Office and informed it had been accepted and will be issued
shortly. So we do not yet
have the formal number. Should
have, hopefully, by the end of the year.
ANS.
Easy. First, we must
think rigorously, since electrical engineers unfortunately distort the
word "power" to speak of "drawing power from the
source", which is a total non sequitur.
Rigorously, work is the change of form of energy.
Power is the rate of doing work.
Also, the power is developed right there on the entity that is
causing the change of form of the energy.
So power is rigorously the time-rate of changing the form of
the energy. (We never get
rid of the energy or consume it, but merely change its form).
Any flow of energy that is changed at some rate, thus results
in work being done at some certain rate upon the "diverger"
or "collector" doing the changing of the energy form, etc.
If the flow of energy has no change whatsoever forced in it, it
develops absolutely zero power. An
energy flow of 10 billion joules per second, has absolutely zero power
if there is no change to it. However,
if we divert aside from that flow, and out of it, say, a thousand
joules per second, then we have an energy flow of 1 kilowatt.
We still have most of that 10 billion joules per second
flowing, but the huge nondiverged component develops absolutely zero
power. To speak of
"watts per square meter" thus ALWAYS refers to the changed
or diverted or diverged energy rate per square meter.
It does NOT refer to the energy flow rate per se per square
meter! That
insidious little "integrate the energy flow vector (which of
itself has zero power) around a closed surface, will separate that
total energy flow vector into two vector components: (1)
a component which remains unchanged from entering the
closed surface from one side, passing through the interior volume
unchanged, and exiting the other side.
That component is, say, positive going in, and is equal but
negative going out, so it is said to "cancel".
The electrical engineer thus discards it.
That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The energy flow is STILL THERE, just not diverged, not changed,
hence does no work and develops no "power" on anything.
Heaviside accounted for that component, as well as the diverged
component. Poynting did
not. (2)
(2) A component which is diverged or changed inside the
volume, once it enters, and thus exits the volume some other
direction, rate, etc. That
DIVERGENCE FROM the energy flow, is what did some work in that volume
by changing its form (e.g., its direction).
Hence it also had some power (rate at which the work was
performed on "that which diverged or changed it".
The "power" in watts per meter squared, is how much
energy per second per square meter is being DIVERGED FROM that flow,
etc. It is NOT the energy
flow per se. Lorentz'
trick (the very little trick of integrating the entire energy flow
vector around a closed surface, to arbitrarily discard the nondiverged
component that develops no power and retain only the diverged
component developing some power, is still used by every electrical
engineer to discard that Heaviside component that is nondiverged. Poynting
never even considered anything but the DIVERTED component, which IS
NOT the energy flow per se, but the diverged
or collected or diverted
energy flow. That is the
part that will enter the circuit, diverted by the surface charges and
their fields. We measure
what gets dissipated in or from the circuit, so what we measure being
dissipated from the
circuit must first have entered
the circuit. In short, we will measure the Poynting component. Nothing
wrong with that, so long as we realize that we did not measure in that
external circuit anywhere near all the EM energy pouring out of the
terminals of the power source. I
suggest you go directly to the original papers by Heaviside and
Poynting. You will find
that Poynting even got the direction wrong by 90 degrees and was
corrected by Heaviside. Here
is a direct quote from 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.] Now
examine the Bohren experiment: 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
texts "define" -- totally erroneously!!! -- the field and
potential as what is diverted or
diverged from the field or potential by an assumed unit
point charge, and erroneously call that entity the "magnitude of
the field or potential" itself!.
It isn't. At best
it is an indication of the point intensity of the internal energy
flows comprising the field or potential.
The intensity of the flow of a river at a point (measured by
diverging some of the flow around a unit standard static point rock)
is certainly not the "magnitude of the river". The
part of the field or potential (i.e., the flows comprising it) that misses
interception by the unit point static charge, is not accounted at all,
for that component does not enter into the "point
intensity". Bohren
simply placed the intercepting charge into resonance, thereby
violating the "static charge' assumption in the standard
definition of "magnitude of the field" and "magnitude
of the potential". Such
a resonating charge oscillates well beyond the "static
intercepting position of the charge", and sweeps out a greater
geometrical interception cross section for the energy flows comprising
the field. So it
"intercepts" part of this formerly nondiverged energy flow
in the field that normally misses the static charge.
The Bohren experiment thus catches more energy than we have
"defined" or "calculated" for an assumed unit
point static charge, and it thus outputs 18 times as much energy as
the incorrect Poynting method calculates was input. In short, it
succinctly proves the existence of that extra Heaviside nondiverged
component that Lorentz taught everyone to just ignore.
The Bohren experiment also decisively proves the
extra energy is there, and
it can also be collected. ANS:
You have to understand the difference between the "field"
(1) as you were taught it (always the effect
of the massless spatial field's interaction with that assumed unit
point charge, and thus the "field point intensity" rather
than the "magnitude of the field", and (2) the field as it
exists prior to the interaction (the causal field in massfree space). Electrical
engineering substitutes the effect for the cause.
Ubiquitously. A
gross non sequitur. That
was natural at the beginning of electrodynamics, when everyone
believed in a material ether. In
that case, there was thought to be not a single spatial point in the
entire universe where mass and charge were absent!
Now we know that is false.
But they never changed the erroneous equations and
"definitions"! All
they did was sorta announce one day, "Well, there is no material
ether so we are not using one", and did not change a single
equation, all of which assumed and still assume that material ether
everywhere in space. I.e.,
they all still define the "magnitude of the field" prior to
any interaction at all, as the "intensity of the field's internal
energy flows" as measured by an assumed unit point static charge
interacting with the field. Here
they call what is diverged from
the interacting field, as the field. Wrong. The
field part (the E and H part) of the Poynting theory is thus "hookered"
by substitution of the effect (the diverged energy) for the cause (the
entire flow of energy comprising the field prior to any divergence at
all.) It's a real mess
that ought to be strongly cleaned up. That
error, I believe, is what has hidden the "dark energy"
responsible for the excess gravity that holds the arms of the spiral
galaxies together. ANS:
Unfortunately I do not have copies of those posted there.
Any good technical or large university technical library will
have Heaviside's papers (volumes of the collected papers) and
Poynting's papers. I
don't know anywhere they can be obtained off the web, though these
days it would not surprise me! Even
if your library doesn't have them, the library can get them for you
via interlibrary loan, so you can copy them. Etc. ANS:
Not to worry! I
really appreciate seeing a person digging in to check out the
references and really understand what we are saying.
That is the hope of the future.
My purpose, being an old dog and long in the tooth these days,
is to pass on what was so difficult to come by, so that the younger
fellows do not have to spend 20 or 30 years of their lives finding it
out. They should just
start from where I am, and go much further, and also do a much better
job of it! Kind
Regards. Sent:
Saturday, July 07, 2001 5:00 AM Subject:
Fwd: RE: MEG PATENT DETAILS Date:
Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:27:15 -0500 Frank,
I don't think the 18 months applies to us under some kind of
grandfather clause they apparently have. However, we have
received the first action from the patent office, recognizing about
half of our claims, and questioning the other half, and we have
submitted a very strong but respectful reply and rebuttal of the
examiner's reasons for tentative rejection of the others.
Understand, one usually is dealing with a B.S. level electrical
engineer patent examiner, perhaps M.S. at best, and so it takes some
doing to break things down to where he is coming from. But our
patent attorneys are very pleased with our response, and believe we
will probably get all claims recognized. So the next action will
probably occur in about three months or so, and we will have a
very good picture of the situation at that time. The most
important claims are now recognized, but three of the others are
needed also, so we are pursuing it vigorously.
My forthcoming book (early 2002) should deliver some bombshells to the
overunity community, particularly to those so confident that they
already "know" how it works, without ever having seen an
overunity circuit in operation. For the first time anywhere, we
will reveal several kinds of phenomenology connected with overunity
systems that simply do not appear in the textbook or normal electrical
circuits, nor in the literature either except in extremely rare parts
of physics. We will also reveal what is specifically involved in
close-looping an overunity system, the peculiar new phenomena that
arise, and how to solve it. My intention is to release all these
young fellows and young grad students on how overunity works, as soon
as our patent applications are secured. By late Spring 2002,
that should no longer be a problem, and the book hopefully will turn
the serious ones loose for going and developing their own types of
systems.
One cannot just use standard circuit analysis on an overunity system,
no matter how advanced. Instead, one must analyze the
supersystem, which consists of three components: (1) the physical
electromagnetic system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum
and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their
dynamics. As a point, ordinary EM and circuit theory assumes
away both the other two parts of the supersystem, assuming a flat
spacetime and an inert vacuum. We have stated in our solution to
the source charge problem that all EM energy comes from the time
domain, and reinterpretation of Whittaker 1903 and Mandl and Shaw,
Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 5 strongly supports that position.
Any overunity system is in disequilibrium with its active environment
(the other two components of the supersystem) and must be analyzed as
such.
The disequilibrium state is a priori an excited state. Standard
thermodynamics cannot even compute the entropy of systems far from
equilibrium in an active environment. Yet half the
"overunity community" still has this old stuff solidly in
their head. The first thing that has to be done is to violate
classical equilibrium thermodynamics! That is permissible, since
the profound discovery of broken symmetry in physics in 1957, and T.D.
Lee was awarded the Nobel Prize. Yet when have you heard of any
electrical engineer examining in detail the broken symmetries in any
dipolar circuit or system? That is the point. Our
engineers are still applying a 137-year-old theory to design and build
generators and electrical power systems, and the organized scientific
community is defending that stuff as if it were the final word.
A very great amount of physics has been discovered since then, much of
which severely impacts electrodynamics, but the power industry and the
universities seem to keep the two things separate, as if a giant ocean
were between them. Nature does not stick just to U(1) group
symmetry electrodynamics. Particle physics long ago had to go to
non-Abelian EM, because the other stuff doesn't hack it in their
discipline. So what is really needed are some quite dramatic
changes to the electrical engineering curricula and to the mindset.
If they would turn those young grad students and post docs loose and
fund them, and not castigate them when they deliver doctoral theses in
the overunity area and reject the thesis, the entire energy crisis
would be solved completely and forever in three years flat.
Meanwhile, we are trying to insure that they never put this genie back
in the bottle again, and we intend to give those young fellows just
about everything we've worked out so painfully over the last 30 years.
Then they can start from there and not have to rediscover the wheels.
Cheers,
Tom Bearden Sent:
Friday, July 06, 2001 10:43 AM To:
Tom Bearden Subject:
Fwd: MEG PATENT DETAILS
Subject:
MEG PATENT DETAILS Date:
Sat, 7 Jul 2001 00:10:52 +1000 Dear
Tom,
I have been following your theories for a number of years and while I
cannot claim to fully understand everything that has been published,
your theories and work towards the free energy is most inspiring
indeed. My congratulations to you for the many years of hard dedicated
work you have put in.
I have been particularly interested in your MEG device as I myself am
an electronics engineer. I have constructed several prototypes but
have failed to reach over-unity myself. I think my failures are mainly
due to testing methods or inaccuracies as well as using the correct
materials for replication of the MEG. However I have not lost faith or
interest, infact my failures only seem to cause more determination.
My main question here is how long do you think your original patent
application will take to be approved and whether we will soon be able
to at least view your original MEG patent application soon. As I
understand , there now appears to be a new 18 month patent application
period whereby the patent office will publish patent applications
after 18months. If this is correct could you please advise me on when
this time will expire so that I can be on the look-out for more clues
on replicating your MEG designs.
thanking you
Frank |