|Subject: RE: Degenerate
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 22:17:25 -0500
We have not built the actual circuit, so cannot advise on "best way" to build it.
It's based on exact reasoning and good physics. (1) to simply change the potential (and potential energy) requires no work be done. That's absolutely covered by the gauge freedom principle that every electrodynamicist already uses. This means you can freely change the potential energy of a system, at will, for nothing (ideal case). In the real world, you may have to pay for a little switching, but you DO NOT have to input the energy for the change! Energy is a flow, and from a flow of energy you can catch as much energy as you have intercepting buckets (charges) to catch it with, and on.
(2). The thing that prevents a normal circuit from letting you do much of that "free regauging" (freely changing the potential energy of the system) is the very short "relaxation" time of the electron gas. It gets potentialized very quickly, but also the electrons then respond with movement as current. The MOMENT the electrons are significantly moving, then the circuit is already starting to use half of whatever energy it collected to destroy the flow of energy to the circuit and into and out of the load. From that point on, you just have a normal circuit, which kills its energy source faster than it powers its load. It self-enforces COP<1.0 if all the spent electrons in the external circuit are forcibly rammed back through the source dipole in the generator or battery.
So obviously, that latter fact -- the very quick "forcible ramming of the spent electrons from the ground return line back through the source dipole (against its back emf) -- is what must be violated if one is to achieve COP>1.0. Else regardless of how much potential you hit the circuit with (and how much free potential energy it catches from it), it will destroy itself faster than it powers the load. Since you have to input at least as much energy to restore that source dipole as was expended to destroy it, you will always have to expend more energy to remake the dipole than you get out in the load. Rigorously, that is a "symmetrically self-regauging" circuit which physically enforces COP<1.0.
Well, suppose we get a special material where the electrons take (comparatively) a very long time to move. Instead of moving in 10exp(-16) seconds or so, it takes them 10exp(-3) seconds to get started really moving. NOW you have time to switch that potential on there, and potentialize all those momentarily "frozen" electrons (no current to speak of is flowing, so absolutely no work is being done by the circuit). You can then just switch off the "potentializing" source, which furnished pure voltage only. NO CURRENT WAS DRAWN, except whatever you are having to pay for switching. Just make that very efficient.
So you have really done what the electrodynamicists have all assumed is possible in theory (every EM text includes it), but they normally never build --- or even try to build --- an actual circuit that will do it! That seems rather stupid after using that regauging assumption for more than 100 years, and not doing it in circuits.
It costs NOTHING AT ALL to simply flow energy, regardless of how fierce the energy flow. "Work" is the time-rate of CHANGE OF THE FORM of energy; it is not the time rate of flow of the energy. A hundred quadrillion joules per second of energy flow that is not changing, has absolutely no power whatsoever. All the electrical engineers have long totally abused the notion of "power", speaking of "drawing power" from a source --- which is totally ridiculous or, more politely, a total non sequitur. That's physics, not Tom Bearden.
Anyway, the objective is to deliver the energy flow to the collecting circuit as purely energy flow, with no change of form of energy (no dissipation), which means NO ELECTRON CURRENT FLOW. There is no requirement at all in physics that current must flow in order for energy to flow. That again is a non sequitur mistakenly believed by, say, half the EEs. It's totally false. Various professors in journals have remarked on how much difficulty they have in convincing students that the EM ENERGY FLOWS IN SPACE OUTSIDE THE CONDUCTORS OF THE EXTERNAL CIRCUIT, NOT AS THE CURRENT IN THE CIRCUIT. Many very experienced electrodynamicists and professors have remarked on this problem.
So all this circuit is doing, or intended to do, is EXACTLY WHAT EVERY TEXTBOOK ALREADY TEACHES IS IN THEORY POSSIBLE, but then the profs never try to build a circuit to actually do it!
Anyway, the objective is to potentialize the external circuit, including potentialize all the surface charges in its conductors, without any current (or at least with only negligible current) being forced through the back emf of the source dipole in the generator or battery. With the conductors having a very long electron gas relaxation time, that can be done very straightforward. It just requires the MATERIALS problem to be solved, and to use that kind of material. I really would like to see a sharp young doctoral candidate perform his doctoral thesis on this very subject. It's quite rigorous, and it can be done.
Now you've finished potentializing the external circuit, AS AN OPEN DIPOLAR CIRCUIT, with the electrons "momentarily frozen", so to speak. So you switch away the voltage source, leaving the voltage on that open dipolar circuit, and switch in a connection across the "source" end with, say, a diode in it so that current can only run one direction. Well, half the collected energy in the external circuit will now be dissipated to shove those spent electrons back up against that back emf, through the diode. The other half will be spent in the external load and losses. Regardless, you paid only a small "switching" cost for the initial collection of energy in the circuit. If you put in more free energy than you paid for switching, you're down home free with COP>1.0.
A better idea is also to use a Tesla single wire circuit. Take two caps on the ends of the "special material" conductor section. Apply the potential across the extreme outside ends of the caps --- with the special material between the caps. That puts a potential from "end to end" across the caps, from outside on one end to outside on the other. Now switch away, leaving that static charge. You want to deliberately choose capacitors that will indeed take a good "static charge" in this fashion; not all of them perform alike. Anyway, as the conductor in the middle starts to "relax" its Drude gas, Voila! Current flows from one cap to the other. You can switch and alternate, so that you get a nice AC signal going back and forth. In each case, you apply pure voltage (paying only for a little switching, never for changing the form of the energy). Then as the electron gas relaxes later in the middle, the current flows to equalize the potentials on each end. With a resistor or lamp there in the middle as a load, you now have a working model COP>1.0 Tesla single wire circuit.
We can prove that Tesla did indeed know exactly how to shuttle the "free potential only, without current" around in his circuits at will. We also know that even a tensor analysis will not show it, but a quaternion analysis will show it. One of the leading electrodynamicists, Terry Barrett (who was also one of the pioneers of ultrawideband radar) proved it by analyzing some of Tesla's actual patented circuits in quaternion electrodynamics. Voila! There was indeed that very "potential shuttling". Terry was so impressed that he extended and improved the method, and obtained two patents on its use in the communications field. So it works. It is a doable.
That's about all I can tell you, since we were never able to actually experiment with the circuit because we could not obtain the materials. Of course, there may be other materials (rather than the Fe-doped Al) that will work also.
The point is this: To do COP>1.0 circuit research, you have to have a clear notion of some mechanism that, if you can evoke and get working in the circuit, will violate that silly closed current loop circuit operation, for that is the operation that self-enforces (physically) COP<1.0.
Hope this helps; you'll have to take it from there. Good luck!
P.S. One thing you might note about Paul Bauman's Methernitha device, is that the contrarotating disks were excellent "high voltage" devices. Also, with contrarotation, the large amount of charge in one was moving equal and opposite to the large amount of charge in the other. Also, notice that the actual energy collected on each rotating disk is simply W = Vq, where q is the total amount of charge, V is the voltage (potential), and W is the collected energy.
Now notice that these disks can be charged electrostatically or nearly so. That's all the "slow relaxation time" circuit does; it charges purely electrostatically, which is a pure change of potential requiring no work and absolutely no cost (for a perfect process). In the real world, it costs a little switching energy.
So Bauman was in fact approximating the same schema in this slow relaxation circuit. Once he had LOTS of EM energy on one rotating disk moving in one direction, and LOTS of EM energy on the other disk moving in the other direction, check out the old right hand rule (conventional positive charge flow assumed) or left hand rule (electron flow assumed). He in fact had two very powerful magnetic fields, equal and opposite. Now that's an interesting thing! That's absolutely a Lorenz/Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which produces a STRESS POTENTIAL with no net field between the disks. A stress potential is also a local curvature of spacetime, and the addition of free regauging energy, though in symmetrical fashion. However, the very fact that these changes are on contrarotating disks allows one lots of leeway in methods to destroy the symmetry, thus allowing that energy to be used to power loads. A strong stress potential is an appreciable curvature of local spacetime, and so real power can be produced. The possibilities from that point on are intriguing. One can extract that energy magnetically (because of the rotations and thus the strong magnetic aspects in both directions), or electrically, or both. By clever switching, one can also use the Russian parametric oscillator work from the 1930s to great advantage. By combining magnetic amplifier theory and parametric oscillator theory, many possibilities emerge. Also, one can look into regeneration, particularly by use of modern feedforward and feedback loops simultaneously. For a good research team with adequate funding, that THINKS, it should be fairly straightforward to produce a COP>1.0 system along the lines of Bauman's approach, WHEN AND IF the available COP>1.0 system mechanisms are considered, and appropriate circuitry is added to implement one or more of the several mechanisms available.
The entire point is that one must have specific ASYMMETRICAL regauging mechanisms in mind, and one must develop the circuitry to implement one or more of such non-Lorentzian regauging. Just as one can use two asymmetrical regaugings to produce a symmetrical regauging (that is the Lorenz/Lorentz method), one can also use two stress potentials to produce an honest to goodness normal potential that has a net field. That way, one gets some extra free energy into the system in a form that is not locked up in a single stress potential. That means that one has a net force field, so that field gives an emf that can then be used to forcibly translate electrons through an external load, dissipating the excess energy in that load and doing some "free work". The simplest way is to just connect one side of the external load to a "real earth ground", and just discharge the excess potential from the other end, through that load and into the ground.
There is no conservation of work law in physics! From a single joule of energy, one can do as many joules of work as one wishes, so long as he can hold on to the energy and not lose it (have it escape from the system) after each change of form. To change the form of one joule of energy, the "changing physical component" gets one joule of work done on it. But there is still a joule of energy remaining, just in a different form. That's what conservation of energy means; energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Every joule of energy in the universe was present not long after the big bang or whatever other scheme for appearance of the universe one favors. And since then, say some 14 billion years ago, every joule of energy has been doing joule after joule of work, by just continually changing its form in its reactions with mass etc. If one does not just let that joule escape after a given change of form, but holds it in the new form and then causes it to change form yet again, another joule of work can be done --- and one STILL has a joule of energy remaining after that.
The gamma bursters, x-ray bursters, etc. seem to be using processes that do that. So do at least three or four free energy researchers.
So the real trick is to envision processes which allow a change of form of energy (work) to be done, but also allow one to hang on to some of that resulting energy in altered form. Overunity comes about when you actually get more than one joule of work out for each joule of energy that you yourself pay for inputting. All the rest of the work is done either by repetitious use of the different forms of your input energy resulting after each change but held in the system and not escaping, or else tricking the active environment to continue to send energy into the system for free.
All voltage (potential) added to a system --- WITHOUT CURRENT FLOWING -- is indeed a permissible and genuine free change of the potential energy of the system --- a free asymmetrical regauging, which means you do get a net field so that some real work can be done with that excess energy that enters the system. But that alone does not do any work for you. It's up to you to add the mechanism (and the circuitry) to do that. The laws of physics --- specifically, the gauge freedom principle in quantum field theory -- guarantees that the energy can be added for free -- and even in the real world, for just paying a little switching energy. The freedom to change the potential without cost to you is already implicitly assumed and applied by every electrodynamicist and every textbook.
So why do not our electrical engineering departments focus intensely on that? It's inexplicable, particularly when it's already inherent in their own texts, and is well-known in quantum field theory.
I hope this email finds you well...
I have been doing a lot of digging around regarding your Free Energy Collector theory and degenerate semi conductor material.
I had a few questions, and Ideas that I was hoping you could offer some feedback.
q1. Am I to understand correctly that the DSC (Degenerate semi-conductor) connects both terminals of power source to the pulse switch?
q2. The pulse switch, could be either an oscillating valve, a mechanical switch or a transistor. Pulse time must be faster than the relaxation time of the DSC.
q3. Am I correct in understanding that Voltage will travel across the surface of conductor faster in a vacuum environment as opposed to an atmosphere?
q4. Is it possible that this is the method Dr. T. Henry Moray used in his Radiant Energy collector?
1. His power source was the Radio Active element
2. His vacuum tube/pellet arrangement acted as the DSC, in which using a vacuum he increased the speed of the voltage, as opposed to slowing down the current as per your proposal.
I am trying my hardest to get my hands on some the DSC you recommended (98%Al, 2%Fe). And I have some good connections who are working on it. Should I be successful I will get double the quantity made up and send half to you in an effort to say thanks for all your help. So if you have any thoughts on the size/quantity that would be required for some basic tests please let me know. I was planning to just get a small 100mm x 10mm rod made up, which can then be cut to size.
I am also of the opinion, the size of the DSC in the circuit may also be relevant in so as to be harmonically compatible with the pulse timing.
Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
I am also looking for a copy of Dr Morays draft-patent, if you have any ideas where I might be able to locate it.