Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:16 PM
Well, I can try, but as you know my insight is more conceptual than mathematical. I'm also struggling fiercely, along with a close colleague, to develop an understanding of (and working models of) inverted circuits --- circuits which dramatically reduce the electron carrier currents (which only function to "carry" the Poynting energy flow component that was diverged from space outside the conductors into the conductors), while using the Heaviside nondiverged component that is tracking everywhere through the circuit and neglected (it was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz circa 1890s) --- to still dissipate the same amount of energy in the circuit losses and loads and power the loads normally. This is just backwards to normal circuit theory, and when done correctly it simply removes almost all the back emf in the circuit, which means things like COP>1.0 and self-powering are possible. We are also working hard on the thermodynamics of that now, and I must say that the forefront of thermodynamics research does indeed rigorously allow this kind of thing. I hope to be publishing three papers on that shortly, or at least submitting them. In other words, the circuit is used as a sort of "inverted wave guide" for piloting the otherwise nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component through the byways of the circuit, and tricking part of that huge but neglected energy flow to be diverted and dissipated in the loads and losses as is the usual energy flow that would otherwise be riding on the carrier electron currents. The loads do not care how the energy flow gets to them, so long as it gets dissipated in them. They could care less whether the electrons bring it or it flows in there right through space.
Note the dichotomy to normal circuit notions and electrical engineering. Energy translation alone has nothing at all to do with power or work. Power is the rate of doing work in an actual component or location where the form of the energy is being changed. So power is the rate at which energy is changed in form (such as being dissipated in a loss or a load), not the rate at which energy flow crosses a reference plane. Electrical engineers use grotesque language when they speak of "drawing power from a battery", "furnishing power to the circuit", etc. rigorously those statements are non sequiturs, but such terminology has become established. The notion of the inverted circuit is just a great improvement on the notion of superconductivity: As in SC, one moves the energy flow without loss through the circuit except in the EXTERNAL circuit's losses and loads. Or put another way, one uses pure energy flow through the immediate local space, sort of right along the conductors without diverging into them, and with much reduced carrier current (just enough to establish the exact track and ratios) to still get the energy dissipated in those places it needs to be to make the circuit work and power the loads.
The advantage is that one eliminates almost all the emf this way. My colleague has a couple circuits working this way now, though they are still a little tricky, and so we are working very hard on this thing as you might imagine. We plan to put it in a book about a year from now, and some of it will go on my colleague's website and mine as well. I've largely kept it out of the AIAS because some very powerful folks out there do not wish this done or developed in the general knowledge, and some of the AIAS folks don't believe in energy from the vacuum at all (including not believing in broken symmetry of opposite charges, apparently). The circuit functions are also tricky. E.g., one winds up using the scalar potential in its coulomb gauge and as an "instantaneous" scalar potential in a near field type functioning. In short, the scalar potential becomes something very similar to Bohm's quantum potential --- which five nations have highly weaponized (the most powerful weapons on earth are in fact quantum potential weapons). We also keep the weapons aspect out of the AIAS, because that is not their interest.
As you can see, I try to keep this kind of thing out of the AIAS in general, and out of general discussion, so that the AIAS can work more on advanced electrodynamics and unified field theory.
The normal energy from the vacuum approach can be discussed because it's just based on accepting the quantum field theory picture of an "isolated charge" as being clustered around with virtual charges of opposite sign. In other words, the source charge becomes a special kind of dipolarity (actually, in QFT as you know the bare charge in the middle is infinite, and so is the clustering virtual opposite charge, but the difference as seen by the external observer is finite, and is the textbook value of the "observed charge"). Anyway, once we accept that the isolated source charge is actually a dipolarity, the broken symmetry of opposite charges applies (for which Lee and Yang got the Nobel Prize in 1957, after Wu et al. experimentally proved their prediction). This asymmetry rigorously means that the "source charge" continuously absorbs virtual energy from its exchange with the active vacuum, coherently integrates that subquantal energy into quantum-sized energy bunches (possibly because of its particle spin), and then re-emits the integrated quanta of energy as real observable photons emitted in all directions at the speed of light, establishing and continuously replenishing its associated EM fields and potentials, that are expand outward across the universe at light speed from the moment of creation of the charge.
This solves the long-unsolved classical EM problem of the source charge and its associated EM fields and potentials. Classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory does not model the active vacuum, hence does not model the vacuum exchange with the source charge, hence assumes the charge has no energy input at all. In short, the standard MH model and electrical engineering assume that every EM field and potential (and its energy) is freely created right out of nothing at all. It is experimentally confirmed (easily) that there is no OBSERVABLE EM energy input to the source charge, and that there is a continuous OBSERVABLE output of EM energy from it. So either it totally falsifies the conservation of energy law, or one needs to change the standard electrical engineering model to allow that vacuum interaction.
In my book I conceptually consider not just the system but the "supersystem" consisting of (1) the system and its normal dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics. All three parts of the supersystem interact with each other. In the supersystem view, then, one does have a source of the EM energy that is input to the source charge, and it is consistent with quantum field theory's polarized vacuum view of the charge, and is consistent with the proven broken symmetry of opposite charges.
But if correct, what this "solution to the source charge problem" means is that every joule of observable EM energy in the universe is and has been extracted from the seething vacuum via the source charge's asymmetry, and that our notion of "static" fields has to be changed. The "static" field is actually a set of energy flows, with dynamics impressed, and it is a "static envelope" with internal moving parts continuously being replaced in place, like a perfect waterfall (Van Flandern's analogy). It is NOT a "frozen waterfall", but an "unfrozen" waterfall. Perfectly dynamic, not really "static" at heart.
So I think there is a perfectly good physics basis for extracting EM energy from the vacuum, and I think every circuit is already powered by energy from the vacuum, since all its field energy and potential energy comes from there.
If one tracks the mechanical energy input to a generator shaft, what one finds is that the mechanical energy is transduced into magnetic field energy inside the generator once the rotor rotates. Then all that magnetic field energy is dissipated totally on the internal charges of the generator, between its terminals, thus forcing the positive (lattice positron) charges in one direction and the negative charges (the electrons) in the other, forming the dipole And that is all that cranking the generator does: it forms the source dipole in the generator. By its asymmetry in its vacuum exchange, that source dipole --- once formed -- must extract observable EM energy from the vacuum, pouring it out of the terminals in all directions, filling space around the conductors of the external circuit attached to the generator terminals. A tiny bit of that enormous energy flow is diverged into the conductors to potentialize the Drude electrons and "power the circuit". The rest of that energy flow in space around the conductors is just wasted. This latter component is in different form, as shown by Heaviside, but was never even considered by Poynting.
Faced with the startling fact that every generator pours out far more energy than is input mechanically into the shaft, Heaviside spoke very guardedly about his huge nondiverged component in terms of directions, etc. Otherwise, he would have been destroyed as a perpetual motion nut.
Lorentz understood both Heaviside's work and Poynting's work, but even the great Lorentz would have been destroyed had he advocated a vastly greater outflow of energy from the generator terminals than is input to its shaft. That was before most of particle physics, before the electron's discovery, before special and general relativity, and before quantum mechanics. Everything was still a fluid flow theory, and the material ether was still the rule of the day.
So unable to solve the problem, Lorentz disposed of it neatly. He stated that the huge nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component "had no physical significance" since it did nothing. He originated the notion of integrating the entire energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around every volume element of interest. That immediately discarded the nondiverged energy flow component (Heaviside's component) while retaining Poynting's component which enters the circuit, potentializes the electrons, then is dissipated from the circuit in its loads and losses. So it agrees with usual measurements.
But the Heaviside component is real. It is just dropped from all accountability. I've nominated it as the source of the excess gravity holding the spiral arms of the galaxies together. And, using a Dirac Sea 4-hole (a negative energy electron in 4-space before its interaction with mass -- its observation --- and thus conversion to a lattice 3-positron) as a source charge, one produces negative energy EM fields and potentials by the broken symmetry of the charge. Hence the unaccounted huge Heaviside component of energy flow from such unobserved Dirac Sea holes as source charges, in addition to their Poynting negative energy fields and potentials, is what --- I think --- probably accounts for the strange antigravity that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
This entire area, of course, needs much better theoretical and experimental attention than I am personally capable of bringing to bear. Myron has already done some of that better theoretical work, to my eternal gratitude and relief.
I put most everything I know and have learned in 30 years, into that book, except for the inverted circuits which my colleague and I are still learning (we hope to publish that work in about a year from now). I greatly admire your ability and scientific dedication and attitude, and would be very pleased if you would accept the book with my compliments. Hopefully you will find something in it that will eventually prove of use to you. As a tired old dog, I'm trying to pass the baton to much more vigorous and more scientifically capable players who can get it done. Most anyone these days can see that, if we do not get a clean, cheap electrical energy solution, then the world is going to spawn war after war over energy alone, and we are going to strangle the biosphere in its increasing pollution.
Anyway, we'll certainly get the book sent to you (Tony will graciously arrange it, and Jace will get it out there). I am very fortunate in that a team of very hard working folks (Tony, Jace, Marcia, and Michael) saw to it that this book got put together, produced, and published. So by their hard work and efforts we got it out there finally, and we got the information out there for the younger fellows, which is my real objective.
With your permission, instead of openly joining the discussion group, I would rather just include you personally in more private discussions and informative E-mail copies from time to time. I really don't have the physical ability wherewithal or the time anymore to engage in lots of discussions with groups, etc. I'm still fighting hypoxia from the heart attack and debilitated aerobic system, just now off a year on antibiotics for the mycoplasma (BW kind), and trying to recover my health to some extent if possible. But I don't have much physical endurance at all, and thus am on a much more limited schedule than I formerly could maintain.
But we'll certainly try to keep you informed if you wish it, and would be pleased to do so!
Very best wishes,
Note: Slightly Edited