Subject: RE: ChipCenter: The Web's Definitive
Electronics Resource Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:10:49 -0500 I
appreciate the information, and had not seen the
website.
Our
group is indeed familiar with the problem he ran into; and he is correct
that this can yield lots of surge power, enough to make solid state
components die.
The
mechanism producing the huge surges is the time-differentiation of the
Aharonov-Bohm effect -- an effect well-documented in physics but not
present in classical EM theory.
It also can produce more power than one inputs, and permissibly
since during the time derivative's existence, the system is an open
system freely receiving excess energy from the active vacuum's suddenly
and violently altered ambient potential.
From any potential, the amount of energy one can collect is
limited only by the amount of intercepting/collecting charge.
This is easy to see for the scalar potential, phi, by the
well-known and very simple equation W = [phi]q, where W is the energy
diverged and collected from the potential having intensity [phi], by
intercepting charges q.
Note
that a non sequitur exists in the minds of most conventionally trained
engineers. They have never
been taught to calculate the "magnitude" of the scalar
potential at all, and no textbook contains a prescription for doing
that. Instead, we all were
taught to calculate the "amount that is deviated from the
potential, by an assumed unit point charge placed at each point in space
occupied by the potential".
In the texts, that is very sloppily called the "magnitude of
the potential" which is totally false.
That is how much energy a unit point static charge at a single
point will diverge FROM that potential (which is not a scalar entity at
all, but a set of bidirectional EM longitudinal waves flowing steadily
from the source charge(s) establishing that potential).
At best, that is an indication of the intensity of the potential
at each point in space it occupies.
Also,
changing the potential alone is free, even in conventional classical EM
theory, and particularly in gauge field theory where gauge freedom is an
axiom. This means
that, underlying both classical and quantum field theory, one is free to
change the potential energy of an EM system at will, for free, by
changing JUST the voltage. In
real life, one must pay for a little switching work, but that can be
made very small these days.
So
the ORDINARY theory already states that one is free to increase the
energy of an EM system at any time, simply by changing the voltage.
If one is not hung-up on the prevailing mindset, one then
realizes that one is also free to "dump that free energy" into
a load and power the load, again having to pay for a little switching
costs.
The
conventional theorists cannot have it both ways.
Either the gauge freedom axiom is false, which destroys gauge
field theory (our most modern and advanced theory) or one is free to add
energy to the system at will. And
then one is also free SEPARATELY to discharge that energy in the load. In short, either the conventional theorist must give up or totally alter gauge field theory --- which would have profound impact all across physics --- or overunity electrical power systems are possible and permitted by the laws of nature. Note
that the gauge freedom axiom DOES NOT advance the mechanism(s) by which
the excess energy appears in the system at our will (when we exercise
our right to use the axiom). Here
again we have a bit of a quandary.
Either gauge freedom destroys the entire notion of energy
conservation, or there must be a mechanism (or many mechanisms) and a
source (or several sources) for that "sudden regauging receipt of
excess and free energy into the system".
And
so there is and are.
Present
U(1) electrodynamics -- particularly as used in electrical system
analysis -- makes two
totally invalid assumptions: (1) that the local spacetime is flat, and
(2) that the local vacuum is either inert or the system is in net
equilibrium with it.
General
relativity tells us that, whenever the energy density of local 3-space
is altered, a curvature of spacetime has been created.
So just to have a potential on a circuit, or oscillating EM
energy in an EM wave in space, is to prove conclusively that the local
spacetime is curved by that change of energy density.
So that falsifies the assumption, which means that it must be
relegated to an "approximation" rather than a "law".
These
days, particle physics has long since rigorously established -- both
theoretically and experimentally -- the active vacuum and its violent
interaction with every charge and every dipole.
One does not have to prove that; it's already long since proven.
However, the second assumption in classical electrodynamics is
thus false, since physics assures us that every charge and every dipole
in our circuits is eternally in violent energy exchange with that active
local vacuum.
So
Lorentz selected only a single, very carefully crafted way of changing
the potentials of a Maxwellian system.
He deliberately chose the only way to change them and PREVENT THE
SYSTEM FROM BEING ABLE TO USE ANY OF THE EXCESS EM ENERGY THAT COULD BE
PRODUCE BY THIS REGAUGING. That
is why it is "symmetrical" regauging.
When symmetry exists, a conservation law exists.
So he applied a "system conservation" process which
does freely change the potential energy of the system, but also
"locks all the excess energy up" in altered stress inside the
system itself. He
eliminated any net force (which would have been a relief of that stress
energy) to use that free energy and perform work with it, freely for us.
In
short, the standard Lorentz symmetrical regauging (and further reduction
and simplification of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations) arbitrarily
discarded all those permissible Maxwellian systems that are
asymmetrically regauged so that they (1) receive the free regauging
energy, and (2) also retain a new net force (a means of dissipating that
energy).
So
the new equations were for a system in self-enforcing equilibrium in its
constant energetic exchange with the local curvature of spacetime and
with the local active vacuum exchange.
Hence
he deliberately and arbitrarily selected only that subset of Maxwellian
systems which obey classical equilibrium thermodynamics.
Such systems can never exhibit COP>1.0, since they can never
receive and use any excess free energy from their active environment.
By
analogy, Lorentz took the set of "Maxwellian windmills" and
eliminated all those windmills that have
a free wind. So he
left a crippled model for only those windmills that one will either have
to (1) crank around oneself, or (2) expend energy to provide a wind to
power the windmill.
But
every text today still teaches (particularly to the electrical engineers
who design and build all our electrical power systems) to design and
build only those systems that are symmetrically self-regauging (that is
what the closed current loop circuit does).
By
analogy, they build fine windmills, but only those which have a feedback
from the turning of the shaft to the blades, so that once the power
starts, the windmill also begins rotating its blades so there is no
usable angle of attack, stopping the windmill.
It
can easily be shown that the conventional closed current loop back
through the primary source dipole, uses precisely half the
"intercepted and collected" energy in the circuit to destroy
that dipole (kill that wind for the windmill).
The other half is used to power the external circuit's load and
losses. Hence more of the
collected power is used to destroy the free wind (furnished by the
dipole once made; see my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the Common
Dipole," on my website www.cheniere.org.).
So the silly circuit sits there and destroys the "free
energy wind" faster than it powers its load.
Then we have to pop in more energy ourselves, to remake the
source dipole in the generator!
And
this is what our universities continue to teach our power engineers to
do, and be proud of it!
Anyway,
thanks for the cue to the website, where at least one person back in his
university days did notice what happens in a circuit when that assumed
Lorentz symmetry is sharply broken.
Very
best wishes,
Tom
Bearden |