|Subject: RE: something I'm not
"getting" re the Soviet portion
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:52:14 -0600
It's not a matter of me "convincing" anyone of anything. That is why we cite hard references for everything we do in the field of energy. One is free to read the references and make up one's own mind.
You wished "proof", when you are immersed and surrounded in it and have been so for all your living moments! Every charge in the universe and every dipole in the universe already continuously pours out real EM energy in the form of observable photons emitted at light speed in all directions. Yet there is no OBSERVABLE energy input to the source charges or dipoles. Hence the "normal" electrical engineering and classical Maxwell-Heaviside EM models, in assuming all EM fields and potentials are created by their associated charges without any energy input at all, already assume that all EM fields, all EM potentials, and every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created out of nothing at all -- by those same source charges.
Since there is no OBSERVABLE STATE energy input to the charge, then we either have to totally surrender the entire conservation of energy law as totally falsified by every charge in the universe, or else we have to examine the VIRTUAL STATE energy input to that charge. Hey, that's particle physics; the silly old classical EM model assumes an inert vacuum (falsified since at least 1930)and a flat spacetime (falsified since 1916). The silly thing also assumes the old material luminiferous ether pervading all space, more than a century after that type of "ether" was experimentally falsified.
Have you examined the model you were taught for such monstrosities and assumptions? Have you read the literature dealing with such matters?
Why do you not simply look at the normal EM model you were taught and have in your head, to see what its modeling assumptions are? How many of your professors ever even mentioned that there were ASSUMPTIONS in the basic model? How much foundations literature -- where such things are discussed, often by eminent scientists such as Feynman and Wheeler -- have you actually read and studied? Cite me a single EE textbook (or software or computer textbook for that matter) that points out the assumptions implicit in the standard M-H classical model and electrical engineering model that it uses. I have not found a single one that even discusses such, much less listing the assumptions; I would be happy to find one that does. Probably Feynman's three volumes of sophomore physics comes closest.
Anyway, it only takes a single white crow to prove that not all crows are black. And we have an enormous number of "white crows" for negative entropy and output of more EM energy than the operator pays to input, simply for every charge and dipole in the universe.
Further, you might also check into negative resonance absorption of the medium. There a medium made of resonant particles being fed EM energy at their resonant frequency, so that the particles are in resonance and "sweep out" a greater geometrical reaction cross section, so output some 18 times as much energy as the operator inputs. Such experiments are done routinely in optics, at many universities every year. Yet in that field, the scientists carefully refrain from any mention of the THERMODYNAMICS of the situation. They almost never speak of "excess energy emission". Instead, they speak of the "increase in the reaction cross section" of the resonant charge, as compared to the same charge in static condition (absolutely true).
Now here's an assignment for you. Look up the rigorous definition of the electric field E. Hey, that is not even the electric field in space! Instead, it is the RESULT or EFFECT of the interaction of the electric field as it exists in mass-free space, upon a unit static point charge. In short, it is what is "scattered from" the incident "E field in space", not the E-field at all. Hence it is more rigorously referred to as the "electric field intensity" rather than the "electric field" which it is not at all. Even then, it is the INDICATION of the "electric field intensity", as determined by the field's reaction with a unit point static charge.
The entire "negative resonance absorption of the medium" automatically yields 18 times as much energy as one calculates was input, using the "static charge's reaction cross section" estimate of the field intensity.
From any small scalar potential phi (or just voltage V for short), one can "collect" any amount of energy W desired, if one has enough "collecting charges q". That's the simple little equation of W = Vq, known in every elementary text. Now here's the question: Take a little electret, which has a permanent little scalar potential (voltage) V across it. There's a voltage or scalar potential then in the space surrounding that little electret. Imagine you have one coulomb of charge q in that space. On that charge q there will appear a certain amount of joules of EM energy, by W = Vq. Now suppose you have 1,000 times as much charge q available outside that little electret and in its potential V. Now you will collect 1,000 times the number of joules of energy that you collected the first time. And so on.
From whence comes all that energy you are collecting? Where did you "input it"? What is its "source"?
Now you get the picture. A voltage (potential) is actually a set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wave energy flows (Whittaker decomposition in 1903, well known in superpotential theory). So any little "static" source of potential just sits there and continuously pours out EM energy in all directions. That's why "scalar" potential will in fact flow down a powerline. Set it in the middle, and it will flow in both directions simultaneously. It is composed of a host of internal things that are vectorial and do flow through space. Isn't it odd that you were taught that a "scalar" entity will nevertheless "flow" as a vectorial entity? Heck, if it were purely scalar and one set it onto a transmission line, it would just sit there inertly like an old scalar boot. It doesn't.
Anyway, have a go at foundations literature (simply check my references) if you are seriously interested in this area.
Boy, I want to believe in your stuff. But I can't/won't make up my mind unless/until I can see one of these thingies run for myself.* My biggest doubt is rooted in what you might think is an odd place: If the Soviets had this stuff in the '80s, how come they went all to pieces in the '90s? So far as I can tell their economy's a wreck, from a combo of cleaning up Chernobyl and trying to close the nuclear-weapons gap. What's the reason they didn't use some of this energy pool to "save themselves"? (I've read a good chunk of your site, but if you've set out your theory on that, it's in a piece I haven't reached yet. =) * tho I don't know how I can decide it's bunk by that process ... I know about the a patent, but as a software person I don't have much faith in the USPTO's judgment anymore ... yours are more books I'll have to buy if I ever see some spare money again =) Hoping you soon have something to convince me - frankly I can't see how you have time to write the amount you do AND build something =) -