The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


NOTE ADDED later, 23 Mar 03: 

There is a substantial probability that a version of the heat amplifier effect we will discuss  below, was in fact the fundamental "puzzling" mechanism that resulted in the catastrophic failure of the recent shuttle disaster, once penetration to the aluminum skin  was achieved in the damaged sections of the tiles, etc.  This conclusion follows a tip by Marcia Stockton to look at a Washington Post article by Kathy Sawyer, pointing out the uncovered anomalous, nearly explosive ignition and burning of the aluminum substructure of the shuttle.  In those damaged points, once the fierce heat and ablation actually touched the exposed aluminum skin, then the ablation process added aluminum particles to the available energy absorption and emission processes.  Then one had both insulating particles and conducting particles in the immediate ablation heat stream, leading to self-resonance of both types of particles and the immediate appearance of the heat amplification effect that is well-known for insulating particles in the IR (and conducting particles in the UV) in the phenomenon of negative resonance absorption by the media.  This means that, once sufficient induced particle self-resonance was present, substantial local energy amplification in both the UV and IR regions was occurring.  The difference frequency between these two effects, in the visual band, should also show amplified flashes or flashing or severe extra emission of intense light, etc.

It appears that the shuttle accident investigators have stumbled onto fierce burning -- even explosive burning -- of the aluminum substructure once the initial damage allowed the heating and ablation process to get to the aluminum substructure underneath the insulating tiles.  That nearly explosive burning of the aluminum would be guaranteed by --- and strongly implies --- the emergence of the heat amplifier effect (i.e., negative resonance absorption of the medium), where the heat energy increases by more than an order of magnitude (and perhaps even more).  Easy gains of 18 I very simple experiments are already shown experimentally in the nonlinear optics literature.

Two references bearing on the investigator's examination in this matter would be:

(1)     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 Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.

(2)     Kathy Sawyer, "Aluminum's role in shuttle loss probed," Washington Post, 3/23/2003.

It is highly recommended that the Shuttle investigation team consider negative resonance absorption of the medium, the heat amplifier effect, and the related discussion below.

Tom Bearden, 3/23/03


23 Mar 03

To a Correspondent (slightly edited):

Good luck on your search to extract energy from the usually nondivergent Heaviside energy flow (one form of the so-called "dark" energy).  The huge nondivergent Heaviside energy flow component was discovered by Heaviside in the 1880s, and is in addition to the energy flow component entering the circuit, as discovered independently and simultaneously by Poynting.  Unable to explain the source of such a huge energy flow from every source charge and dipolarity, and why it usually does not interact with anything to an observable extent, Lorentz circa the 1890s just arbitrarily excluded that worrisome giant Heaviside energy flow component, reasoning that it "had no physical significance" because it was nondiverged and did not do anything.  That is true in a sufficiently linear case or linear situation, but it is not necessarily true in a highly nonlinear situation with high energy density  in the involved nonlinear EM fields and potentials.  Ablation conditions in spaceship reentry into the atmosphere is one such highly nonlinear area, particularly if damage occurs and the insulation (such as provided by the Shuttle tiles) is penetrated and the heating reaches the aluminum skin.

Remember that normal Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics erroneously assumes a flat spacetime, which if true would mean that its local energy density could not change.  So all EM fields, potentials, and waves would actually be non-existent. Even special relativity assumes a flat spacetime in a rotated frame.  These models therefore are already known to be useful approximations only; e.g., Sachs has specifically pointed out that an unchanging flat spacetime would prohibit any EM wave or field from occurring, a priori.

The trick appears to be to produce local curvatures of spacetime that self-form and are specifically suited to the specific Heaviside flow.  One does not have to use velocity; ST curvature varies as the local energy density , and therefore as the local field intensity or potential intensity; hence manipulating different ST energy densities (changing local potential and field intensities) constitutes manipulating local  ST curvatures and their dynamics.  Unfortunately circuit analysis has not gone into that to any great depth, so far as I can uncover. But using and manipulating deliberately induced local ST curvatures and their dynamics seems to be the fundamental process for recovery of energy from the Heaviside component.  That component does not necessarily have zero divergence in a ST curvature zone!  So in such a zone, some energy can indeed be diverged from it, and utilized to power one's circuit or other electrical device.

The Bohren experiment (and many related experiments) uses "negative resonance absorption of the medium" to unwittingly apply that principle, and thus outputs some 18 times as much energy as one oneself has to input and pay for.  Early on, reviewers and referees  forced that tortuous term upon the researchers, to prevent saying "excess energy emission of the medium".  Its process is fairly simple though deceptive.  We explain:

The "field" and the "potential" in electrodynamics really are the "field's local intensity at a point, as determined by a unit point static charge", and "the potential's local intensity at a point, as determined by a unit point static charge."  We don't calculate the field or potential itself at all, but only its local point field intensity with respect to some assumed criterion --- such as the divergence of energy from the field or potential by a unit point static charge.

All that is assumed in the very definition of E, B, D, H, ø, A, etc.

We also point out the Whittaker 1903 and 1904 decompositions of any EM field or potential.  Hence all EM fields and potentials are to be regarded as sets of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs with differential function dynamics impressed upon them.

If physical conditions change something in that basic definition set of assumptions of the fields and potentials, one need not have the same result for their experimentally measured magnitudes (local intensities) at all.  We strongly accent that the very definition of the magnitude of the potential intensity and the field intensity are the outputs of an agreed-upon experimental system with fixed parameters.  Those parameters are subject to deliberate change and manipulation by changing physical phenomena, just as are other parameters whose changes are conventionally considered.

The negative resonance absorption effect -- which really means the "excess virtual EM energy absorption from the seething vacuum and consequent excess observable EM energy emission effect" -- is accomplished by using particles that go in particle resonance -- i.e., particles of such size and constituency as to resonate or self-oscillate to the frequency of the incoming field or potential energy.  The insulating particles have essentially pinned charges, while the conducting particles have much freer charges, that readily move on the conducting particle.  Hence the conducting particles respond and resonate at a higher frequency --- the UV zone, while the insulating particles respond and resonate at a lower frequency, the IR. 

E.g., in the Bohren experiment, one uses conducting particles with particle resonance at UV frequency, and insulating particles with particle resonance at IR frequency.  The forced self-oscillation of the particle then has the particle sweeping out a much greater geometric reaction cross section (interception) perpendicular to the energy streams comprising the incoming field or potential.  So the resonating particle absorbs (and then reradiates) 18 times as much EM energy as we conventionally calculate by static particle field interception and by Poynting energy flow assumptions (since the Poynting theory already assumes the field intensities in EXH are determined by static unit point charges). In other words, the resonating particle absorbs and outputs 18 times as much usable energy as we ourselves have to pay to input, or as we "think" the situation itself inputs, as in the case of a shuttle insulation ablation area with damage allowing involvement of the aluminum substructure metal surface.  Poynting energy flow mistakenly would have us believe that such extra energy interception and emission is impossible, since it arbitrarily excludes the very process (self-resonant charge interception) we have invoking. In short, more energy than the Poynting theory allows, is perfectly permissible --- both as to absorption and emission.  Since we are intercepting energy flow not usually capable of being intercepted by the static charge, we are intercepting that energy flow outside the Poynting flow --- hence we are intercepting a very small part of the huge Heaviside energy flow component.  Put another way, the excess local spacetime curvature caused by the increased energy density, allows some of the usually nondiverged Heaviside energy flow to be diverged after all.  For the actual experiment and its results, see 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.  We have pointed out that reference and its results and implications many times in the past.

I've long wondered why no one develops a great little "heat amplifier" based on just such resonant insulating particles, and patents and markets it.  I guess it's because most scientists and engineers think that the "value of the field or potential calculated by standard handbooks" is inviolable and absolute. It isn't; it's entirely relative to how one approaches intercepting and collecting (diverging energy from) the energy flows comprising the field or the potential!  In that approach, there are parameters just as elsewhere.   Deliberately changing the parameters changes the permissible results.   Such a statement that measurement itself is relative, though absolutely true, is considered supreme scientific heresy (you know, dirty old perpetual motion -- which, by the way, is required by Newton's first law for anything set in motion or at rest (zero motion), unless and until an external force intervenes by Newton's second law!).  Hardly anyone today dares suggest such a "preposterous" and useful thing as "free heat amplification", even in the face of experiments that already prove the basic effect, the feasibility of such a system, and the overunity results.

The control of science is rigorously exercised in two ways: (1) control the funds of the researchers and what research it is designated to be spent for, and (2) retain the current dogma by viciously attacking any substantial and innovative deviation from it, and by destroying the innovating scientist (career, income, ability to publish, employability, etc.).  Big Science has a black history in that respect, and it continues today in its same old dogmatic, controlling way long documented by historians of science.  The fact that so many scientific innovations have been accomplished in spite of such control and suppression efforts is a tribute to the indomitable spirit and perseverance of the innovating scientific researchers themselves.

Anyway, hopefully those remarks give you at least some of the keys you need in considering how to usefully intercept and extract some of that Heaviside energy flow component in circuits and devices, and thereby produce legitimate COP>1.0 systems.  The Heaviside energy flow component has continued to be ignored, since once it is known, one faces the fact that every generator and battery outputs far more (orders of magnitude greater) EM energy than we pay to input to it, and it always has.  Another related problem is the continued ignoring of the fact that all EM fields and potentials and their observable EM energy are considered to come from their associated source charges, without any observable EM energy input.  The basis for solving this long-vexing source-charge problem has been in particle physics since 1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, and yet the proven broken symmetry of the source charge (considered with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign) has not migrated across the university campus from the physics department to  the electrical engineering department in the nearly half century since broken symmetry was discovered and proven.  Once one understands that all EM energy in a device, material, or circuit comes from the local vacuum via the broken symmetry of the source charges and dipolarities, then one recognizes how the Heaviside component can easily exist without violation of energy conservation.  Nature does not necessarily conserve observable EM energy, but only total EM energy --- including between the unobservable virtual EM energy in the local vacuum and the observable EM energy in the macroscopic world.  That was established by the asymmetry of opposite charges, part of why Lee and Yang were almost immediately awarded the Nobel Prize for initiating such a revolution in physics.  Sadly, it has never made it to electrical engineering.  Hence the inability for our scientists to comprehend the heat amplification phenomena that can emerge in damaged areas of shuttle insulation, etc.

For COP>1.0 EM systems, the beauty of using the heat amplification (infrared COP = 18) is that it's already experimentally proven and published in the hard physics literature, and the excess free energy output is just a great deal more ordinary heat.  In other words, close-looping such a system for self-powering is eased considerably.  One can indeed develop a "self-powering heat-amplifier" system along such lines.  "Self-powering" is a term that is used, though it really means that all the input energy is freely input by the active environment, such as a windmill.  By definition, self-powering systems (such as the common solar cell) have COP = infinity.

I never personally had the funds or opportunity to mount such an effort, and will not in the future, so I have no hesitation in pointing this out and urging that it be experimentally researched.  Anyone who wishes is free to do it and develop it and market it at will.   I really don't care who does the COP>1.0  EM power systems, so long as they get completed, produced, and placed on the world market to (1) help alleviate human misery and depression because of unaffordable energy, and (2)  help clean up the biosphere.

And also to enable the shuttle accident investigating team and its scientists to comprehend the heat amplification problem due to the experimentally proven negative resonance absorption of the medium.

Hope this helps you in your program.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden