|Subject: RE: Very interesting
idea based on Bohren's experiment Please forward to Dr. Bearden
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:44:44 -0500
Will take just a few moments to add something for Tim, since he is on a good track and is a serious researcher. Please send it along to him with my complements.
The laser, e.g., is used (IR case) only as the source of the input energy in the experiment. Any source of IR energy will do the same thing. The laser is just exact and convenient, to show the details of the experiment and process very easily.
In physics, the present "definitions" of both field and potential a priori assume a STATIC unit point coulomb of charge. So in a stream of input IR energy, a unit static charge placed at a point to measure the intensity of the flow, does diverge a certain amount of energy, and that diverged amount has become known corruptedly as "the field" (it's actually an indication of "field's point intensity of its flow set", as a very good electrodynamicist already knows.
If, however, the collecting charge is not static, but has a tuned particle resonance at the IR frequency range of the energy being fed to it, it will experimentally diverge some 18 times as much energy from the same energy flow input, regardless of whether it is a laser furnishing the input or some other IR energy source doing it.
So any means of producing the IR input energy is sufficient -- even simple heating (which of course would not be as "tuned" and efficient as the laser input).
The point is, by using a self-resonant charge, we have directly altered the actual definitions of field intensity and potential intensity that we are using. We are NOT using the standard static unit point charge assumed in the standard definition and in standard calculations.
We point out frequently that from any potential V, as much energy W as desired can be collected on static charges q, if we have enough charges, by the simple equation W = Vq. That's because "joules of EM energy" do not occur like ears of corn stacked in a corn crib (the mechanical view forced on electricians way back there). Instead, the energy joules occur in flowing streams of EM energy. Whittaker's 1903 paper shows also that even a "static" potential V is actually comprised of internal EM longitudinal waves in motion, or in other words simple voltage is comprised of internal energy flows.
So any so-called "static" potential (as from an electret, a charged capacitor, or a permanent magnet's magnetostatic scalar potential) is comprised of a steady and continuous set of energy flows. When these energy flows are calculated, one realizes very quickly that whatever energy cost one paid to make the dipole is rapidly exceeded by the output of the energy flows that then continuously flow from the dipole, forever if the dipole is not destroyed. That of course is the long vexing problem of the source charge (a charge ensemble is a special dipolarity when its associated virtual charges of opposite sign -- due to its polarization of the vacuum -- are considered). We published the solution to the century-old problem, in 2000 and subsequently.
Hence a permanent magnet, or any dipolarity, furnishes a "static potential" between its two poles or opposite charges. That dipolarity is identically a continuous set of free energy flows, extracted directly from the vacuum by the proven (since 1957) asymmetry of opposite charges (the "pole" is just a loose name for magnetic charge, and dipole just means "opposite charges with a bit of separation distance).
So the entire business of ideal "free energy" can be summed up very simply:
Simply put, transfer the potential energy by simple free regauging to the receiving circuit half, from a static potential source.
Switch away the potential source, without any dissipation of its dipolarity having occurred.
Complete the now overpotentialized receiving external circuit portion, so that it dissipates the freely collected energy in a load to do useful free work.
And only pay for switching costs.
There are of course many variations, but that is the most basic way to state it. In short, get away from the standard "power" kick, quit thinking of "powering" things, and transfer energy itself as pure energy transfer, without change of form of the energy or work dissipation. Then once one has freely overpotentialized the "static" circuit, let the circuit come to life and become dynamic, and dissipate the free excess potential energy collected, WITHOUT using any of it to do work on the original source of potentialization to destroy the original dipolar source of potential.
Electrical engineers are brainwashed thoroughly to think in terms of "power" -- the rate of doing work. They illogically speak of "drawing power" (power is rigorously developed in the dissipating component, not drawn from the source at all). Etc. They have been thoroughly trained to never, never, never separate the functions of pure potentialization and potential energy dissipation as work. Their use of the standard closed current loop circuit and no restraint on electron relaxation or current flow is what destroys what are already electrical systems taking EM energy freely from the active vacuum.
Sadly, most electrical engineering departments, professors, and engineers still are unaware that their own electrodynamics model --- which admits all EM fields, EM potentials, and joules of EM energy freely come from their associated source charges -- assumes that the charges freely create (out of nothing at all) those same fields, potentials, and their energy.
The source charge problem has been rather thoroughly scrubbed out of prevailing textbooks, although one can find it if one determinedly looks. It's been known for a century -- and unsolved until 2000 when we published the solution, applying physics already proven since 1957.