|Subject: RE: COMPOSITE
MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER APPLIED ELECTRIC FIELD
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:18:31 -0600
Much appreciated, and very interesting.
I'm certain that the required materials and switching entities exist or can be made, that will allow potentializing a circuit without any significant current flow, then switching the external source of potential away and completing the potentialized circuit as now a separate, external closed circuit already potentialized, with the external circuit then subsequently changing its state automatically to the high conductivity state. That of course will then allow dissipation of the collected potential energy in the loads and losses of the externalized circuit, without any detriment at all to the disconnected external power supply. In short, one can achieve transfer of energy and potentialization (change of an external parameter) without change of form of the energy, so it is achievable "freely" without cost to the operator. That is just "asymmetrical regauging", and it comes under the gauge freedom principle whereby the potential and potential energy of any EM system can be freely changed at will, without cost.
There is no conservation of work law in nature, and in nature there is no conservation of work and energy law either. Only the energy is conserved, regardless of its changes in form, etc. Rigorously (and note that thermodynamics erroneously defines "work") work is the changing of the FORM of energy, not the changing of the MAGNITUDE of the energy while retaining its same form. Thermodynamics teaches that simply changing the magnitude of the energy in an external parameter (such as an EM potential or field) is work, which is absolutely false. Reason is, that little mistake in thermodynamics actually excludes gauge freedom, and that is false and already proven to be false. Gauge freedom and the ability to change the magnitude of some of the electrical external parameters (such as potential and field) freely and without any work or cost, is already guaranteed, in sharp disagreement with present conventional thermodynamics.
I hope some enterprising young researcher does pursue this area of "automatic change of state" of certain materials and switching constructions, to make such a circuit/system that outputs more work than the energy the OPERATOR inputs (the environment inputs the rest), have it verified and replicated, and publish it in a leading journal such as Physical Review or Foundations of Physics. It is a doable.
Here's an example of inappropriate accounting by thermodynamics.
Possibly the simplest way conventionally used to write the First Law of thermodynamics is
Q = (delta E) + W 
where Q is the input (heat) energy, and (delta E) is actually change of an external parameter E (such as potential phi), and W is the work done on the external environment. Note that equation  equates energy on the left to work on the right (the two terms on the right), an equation which in one form or another is used widely in physics but is actually incorrect as written. The reason is that, when the FORM of energy is changed, work is indeed done, but one also still has the same amount of energy remaining afterwards, but just in different form a priori.
So in a system where we input energy Q in different form from the change in external parameter (use potential as an example), and the system has some internal losses also, we will have
Q = (delta Es) + W(1-2)sys + (delta Ee) + W(env) 
where (delta Es) is the change remaining in the energy of the system external parameter --- in this case, the potential phi and therefore the potential energy (phi)q of the system --- W(1-2)sys is the work done in changing the form of Q into the same form as Es, (delta Ee) is the change in energy of an external parameter of the external environment, and W(env) is the work done upon the environment if the dissipated energy had to be changed in form.
Note that we could break it down one step further, since in an electrical circuit W(env) is actually two work terms, one done in the circuit losses and the other done in the load. Only the load's portion is USEFUL work to the operator, for his purposes.
Note that the W terms are not to be accounted in the energy balance summation. Change of form of energy is not energy. So as can be seen, in energy accounting terms Q = (delta Es) + (delta Ee), and the Work terms merely are accounting where and for what some change in form of energy was required.
This is the correct way that energy balance equations should be written and the work occurring everywhere also separately accounted (including where and to what it occurred). Presently it is not accounted that way at all in thermodynamics and much of physics. But if one is ever to understand free energy obtained from the vacuum, one must account that way so that one knows exactly where the energy went, and where it was changed in form, and where it was not changed in form.
As an example, let's take that equation  of Q = (delta Es) + W(1-2)sys + (delta Ee) + W(env), where Q was of different form that (delta Es). Now suppose that we choose Q in the same form as (delta Es). In that case, there is no work needed to change the form of Q into the form of (delta Es), and we have
Q = (delta Es) + (delta Ee) + W(env) 
Where the W(1-2)sys term is now zero. The exact same energy balance is present, but --- with the exception of perhaps some small switching costs in the real world --- there is no OPERATOR COST for potentizing the system now. In short, we have freely and asymmetrically regauged the system, and some of that regauged potential energy resulting in the system was dissipated in the loads and loads as a change (delta Ee) in the potential energy of the external environment, and work W(env) was done on the environment by changing the form of the system potential energy dissipated (e.g., organized potential energy (phi)q of the system was changed to disorganized heat energy in the environment, and W(env) is numerically equal in magnitude to (delta Ee).
That is the case we wish to achieve, by using the special "switching material" to automatically change its own state from low or non conducting to high conducting, after we have freely or nearly freely potentialized the system (freely collected excess energy in it).
There is no conservation of work law in nature! Every joule of the original energy in the universe has been performing joule after joule of work since then, as it interacted and its form was changed time and time again. There is only a conservation of energy law, and its statement simply says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So when one "dissipates" some energy in doing work, one has the energy to begin with, and the work (equal in magnitude) done in changing the form of the energy as it is dissipated to the environment, and one also will still have just as much energy remaining in the change of energy in the environment. Not one joule of energy is ever lost; one just loses control of it and calls that "entropy". One does not lose the energy itself, regardless of how much work has been performed. And if one retains or regains control of the energy after dissipating it in doing work (changing its form), one can still do further work with the energy that has already done work! Thermodynamics also ignores this potentiality, which can be demonstrated, e.g., by controlled retroreflection of energy already radiated as heat from a resistor. In other words, what is entropy today need not be entropy tomorrow, if a "recovery of control" method is invented in the interim. It is perfectly possible to use total randomness such as Brownian motion, to provide DC electrical voltage and work; simply see Alexey Nikulov, "Quantum Power Source", which is attached for your perusal.
The Leyton hierarchies of symmetry also require such "negative entropy from the consumption of entropy at a lower level". Leyton's derivation of that effect or law is in Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer, Berlin, 2001.
For accurate accounting, all energy and work (change of form of energy) terms should be given and accounted in the equation of accountability, but for the energy balance no work term at all should be included in the summation, and neither is there any requirement that the summation of the energy on one side is equal to the summation of energy and work on the other. In fact, any equation meeting that condition has not properly accounted all the energy, the work, or both. The most ubiquitous error is in simply giving a work term that actually consists of an energy change in magnitude and also its change in form.
Thermodynamics seriously "blew it" when it assumed that "Energy transfer produced by a change in external parameters is called work." [quoting Ralph Baierlein, Thermal Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2000 (paperback), p. 2 --- which, by the way, is an excellent book, far clearer than most.] That totally excludes gauge freedom, so is patently false.
After reading the latest correspondence to Kenneth about your ideas for using some of the new semi plastic materials that act as conductors and also insulators. I thought you might be interested in the following information regarding two electrical switching phenomena in a silver filled epoxy. The original technical support package is not available from the NASA Tech briefs web site (NPO-14992). You can however contact the researcher directly. I was initially interested in this material for spin or charge density wave applications.
Current-voltage characteristics of the electrically conductive silver-filled epoxy Ablefilm ECF-563 preform switches to a high-resistive state under low bias voltage. The observed phenomena is argued to be an intrinsic property of electrically conducting composite materials caused by strong localized centers that introduce space charge.
Electrically conductive silver-filled epoxy preform, ECF-563 Ablefilm , is used in an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) power amplifier circuitry as shorting pads for very small (0.055 in. diameter) cross-sectional circuit elements. The circuit functions under a pulse condition in which multiple pin diodes switch to on/off positions. The UHF power amplifier developed some intermittent behavior which was traced to switching in the epoxies under the pin diodes. This paper describes a set of tests which were performed on ECF-563 preform samples for the purpose of understanding the switching phenomena and to propose a relevant transport model. We observed intermittent switching to a high-resistive state in silver-filled epoxy preform Ablefilm ECF-563 under an applied voltage. For a 0.003-in. thick sample of ECF-563 sandwiched between two gold contacts, a threshold voltage of 0.4-1.9 V exists for switching to a high-resistive state. This observation raises a concern regarding the use of ECF-563 in hybrid microelectronics.
Additional switching to a high-current-carrying state was also observed in the same material under higher applied voltage. These phenomena appear not to involve damage to the material (although they can be accompanied by some incidental damage). Understanding of the switching mechanisms will enable reliability enhancement of hybrid circuits and application of these materials to control detrimental effects of ESD and electrical surges.
We have searched the literature on switching instability and intermittent behavior of materials to identify the contributing transport mechanism. The models and their features are briefly introduced.
A thin layer of an insulator sandwiched between metal electrodes frequently possesses special electrical switching properties that at first can be dismissed as dielectric breakdown. The phenomena of "forming" (a reproducible change in electrical conductivity induced by a high electric field) is different from arcing or destructive dielectric breakdown phenomena.
There are numerous articles in the literature on the phenomena of switching in metal-insulator-metal (MIM) junctions (with thin insulators). This subject was considered mostly during the 60s and 70s and is covered in review articles [2,3]. "Forming" governs the behavior of as-manufactured MIM junctions exhibiting switching, which do not require electrical pretreatment ("electroforming"). The current-voltage characteristics of these MIM junctions exhibit S-type or N-type nonlinearity with negative differential resistance (NDR) behavior. The most popular theory, explaining the above mentioned phenomena, is carbonaceous filamentation and its rupture indicative of S-type instability. There is no simplified theory that can describe N-type instability. Although some physical evidence for the filament formation has been reported in the literature, e.g., via chemical vapor decoration , a comprehensive microscopic theory governing both S-type and N-type phenomena in MIM junctions is desired. Both instabilities have been observed in a variety of MIM junctions and composites of metal particles in an insulator background; metals vary over a wide range (Ag, Al, Au, Pt, Si, Nb, Be, Mg, Cu, Zn, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, In, Zr, Sn, Pb, Bi, W) and insulators vary from polymers (styrene, acetylene, analine) to oxides (SiOx, AlOx, NbOx, TiOx, CrOx, VOx, TaOx, CuOx, MgO) and others (AlNx,..). Common among all these systems is metal entities separated by a thin dielectric film. The insulator film is undoubtedly far from an ideal pure dielectric. One can easily envision the presence of defects, traps, and localized centers in the dielectric. Polymers contain dangling bonds, broken chains, free radicals, spin and charge defects, dopants, etc. Oxides fabricated via fast and cheap industrial processes possess a well-exhibited space charge  and are far from single crystalline oxides used in some of the MIM junction studies mentioned previously. In a typical system, electrons can transfer from one metal entity to another through a variety of mechanisms. These mechanisms involve inelastic interaction of electrons with the defects present in the dielectric material and, therefore, lead to excess heating, runaway phenomena, and dielectric breakdown.
A microscopic picture of the conduction mechanism in thin disordered materials is developed in . The authors emphasize the role played by deep localized trap centers in capturing transit-free carriers and the importance of boundary conditions in determining carrier injection and ejection.
To understand switching to a high-current-carrying state, one needs to distinguish between this reproducible switching phenomena and a destructive mechanism that may finally lead to dielectric breakdown, arcing, and carbonization.
A microscopic picture of switching to a high-current-carrying state can be envisioned with the injection of free carriers from metal particles and their free flight through the thin dielectric material in between. Deep localized traps can capture mobile carriers, but this will have a minimum effect if the time of flight through the dielectric is much less than the time required by mobile charges to equilibrate with trap centers .
We argue that switching to a high-resistive state is an intrinsic property of a particulate composite where metal particles are embedded in an insulating matrix with a concentration close to the percolation threshold. We further claim that strongly localized defects in the insulator, surrounding the individual metal particles, form space charges that generate high electric fields in a direction opposing the current and inhibit charge flow. Injection and ejection of charge between the contact pads and the bulk of the epoxy are due to the presence of defects in the matrix layer on the ECF-563 epoxy preform surfaces.