From: "Tom Bearden"
<soliton@bellsouth.net> To: "JeanLouis Naudin" <Jnaudin509@aol.com> Subject: Information Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:36:27 0600
Dear JeanLouis:
Some fellows in your discussion groups raised the question of my use
of
energy flow (Poynting diverged component versus Heaviside nondiverged
component) but made an error in their questioning. The
correction is
important for the free energy researcher, for it reveals a gigantic
source
of free energy around every little EM circuit, once we pay a little to
get
the circuit in operation. In other words, scientists should have
harnessed
more of that already enormous energy flow right under their noses
around
every circuit anyway, and should have given us free, cheap, clean
electrical
power.
To understand EM energy flow around EM circuits, I strongly suggest
one put
aside the textbooks' interpretations until one checks the original
applicable papers of Heaviside and of Poynting, who independently and
essentially simultaneously discovered the flow of energy through space
in
the 1880s. The concept of the flow of energy through space was
not present
in physics until then. Also note that Maxwell was already dead,
having
passed on from stomach cancer in 1879. Several of my papers
(e.g., Dark
Matter or Dark Energy?, published in Journal of New Energy) give the
appropriate references one should check.
First, there is an enormous energy flow (trillions of times greater
than
what you input to the shaft of a generator, and than the chemical
energy in
a battery) pouring out of the terminals of every generator or battery.
The
enormity of this energy flow is easily shown, and measurements can be
made
of actual collection of energy from it by intercepting charges placed
in it.
Particularly see John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn.,
McGrawHill,
New York, 1992, Figure 1260, a and b, p. 578. Kraus shows
a good drawing
of the huge energy flow filling all space around the two conductors of
a
transmission line, with almost all of that energy flow not intercepted
by
the circuit at all and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it,
but
just "wasted."
Kraus also shows the "equidivergence" contours in this
energy flow, with
measurements of the energy flow that can be collected by (diverged
around) a
unit point static charge placed at any point on each contour. So
yes, that
vast energy flow filling all space surrounding the circuit is real, it
is
known, but it has been arbitrarily discarded from accountability in
energy
measurements in circuits because no one has been able to explain the
source
of it before. We explain it in "Giant Negentropy from the
Common Dipole",
published in Journal of New Energy.
Note that, at any point in one of Kraus' contours, if you place 100
unit
point static coulombs of intercepting charge at that same point
instead of
the unit point static charge that is "standard", you
will diverge
continuously around that charge some 100 times as much energy flow as
the
magnitude shown by Kraus. In short, then you multiply the value
of energy
interception at each point on that contour by 100. Since we are
describing a
steady state condition, this means that now we are collecting 100
times as
much energy "statically" (actually "continuously and
steadily) at each point
in the divergence zone around the charge.
You can do that sort of thing at each and every point in space
surrounding
the circuit, out to an almost infinite radius. None of that vast
energy
flow that is in that surrounding space is hitting the circuit and
entering
it. Also, you really can collect energy from that wasted but
enormous
energy flow.
Only a tiny, tiny portion of that surrounding external energy flow
moves
right along the surface of the conductors, strikes the surface charges
in
the circuit conductors and components, and is thereby diverged
into the
conductors to power up (potentialize) the Drude electrons and the
circuit.
That tiny "diverged" portion of the energy flow that enters
the circuit is
the Poynting component, not the losses. The respondent thus got
it exactly
reversed. Here is Poynting's own words:
"This paper describes a hypothesis as to the connexion between
current in
conductors and the transfer of electric and magnetic inductions in the
surrounding field. The hypothesis is suggested by the mode of
transfer of
energy in the electromagnetic field, resulting from Maxwell's
equations
investigated in a former paper ("Phil. Trans.," vol. 175,
pp. 343361,
1884). It was there shown that according to Maxwell's
electromagnetic
theory the energy which is dissipated in the circuit is transferred
through
the medium, always moving perpendicularly to the plane containing the
lines
of electric and magnetic intensity, and that it comes into the
conductor
from the surrounding insulator, not flowing along the wire."
[J.H.
Poynting, "On the connexion between electric current and the
electric and
magnetic inductions in the surrounding field," Proc. Roy. Soc.
Lond., Vol.
38, 198485, p. 168].
So your respondent was in error when he spoke of that little
"dip" in the
flow as what was "wasted" and the "losses".
He got it exactly reversed.
Here is the straightforward way to deal with it. Simply separate
the entire
energy flow vector into two vector components: a very large component
vector
parallel to the conductor and a very small vertical component vector
pointing vertically into the wire from outside. The combination
(the sum
vector) is the entire energy flow that is almost parallel to the
wires but
not quite (see quote from Heaviside). The parallel flow
component vector is
the Heaviside energy flow that completely misses the conductors and
roars
off into space and is lost. The tiny vertical flow component is
the
Poynting energy flow component that enters the circuit and powers it
by
potentializing the Drude electrons, and then being dissipated by the
excited
electrons in the circuit's loads and losses. This small vertical
component
is the tiny energy flow portion that Poynting assumed from the outset,
and
he never even considered the enormous parallel component.
The problem was that, if one estimated the magnitude of the sum vector
energy flow or the Heaviside parallel component, the startling
amount of
energy pouring out of the terminals was so vast that it staggered the
imagination. In the 1880s, if you tried to state that a
"one watt nominal
circuit" actually was pouring out trillions of joules per second,
almost all
of which missed the circuit entirely and roared off into space and was
lost,
you would have been tarred and feathered and drummed out of science as
a
total lunatic. Heaviside had not the slightest notion of what
could
possibly be furnishing such a mindstaggering energy flow! So
Heaviside 
who did include that NONDIVERGED vast component in his theory (while
Poynting completely omitted it), was extremely cautious and spoke only
of
the "angle" of the energy flow and the "angles" of
the components. Here are
his exact words:
"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of
the wire,
very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... .
Prof.
Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the
transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight
departure
from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think,
only arise
from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of
the
electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current.
The
lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire.
The departure
from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken
of
them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I
recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure.
It causes
the convergence of energy into the wire." Oliver Heaviside,
Electrical
Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.
As you can see, that slight "dip" is due to the vertical
convergence of the
Poynting energy component into the wire, and that is of course known
in
electrodynamics and appears in the texts.
Now when you measure energy in circuits, you actually measure energy
dissipation. All the energy that is dissipated from or in a
circuit, must
have entered the circuit in the first place. So if you measure
all the
energy that a circuit dissipates, that is equal to all the energy that
actually entered the circuit via the Poynting component. In short, we
always
"measure" Poynting's entering energy component as it is
exiting, in the many
places and components where it exits, etc.
We are NEVER measuring the remaining vast energy flow component, which
Heaviside exposed and which the Kraus diagram illustrates very well.
And there the matter rested until Lorentz (the greatest electrical
scientist
of his day) entered the picture. Lorentz understood both
components, but he
also had not the foggiest notion of where on earth such an enormous
energy
flow could be coming from. He also would have been attacked and
destroyed
if he had actually advocated that huge "Heaviside"
nondiverged component.
Unable to solve the vexing problem, Lorentz simply got rid of it.
He
reasoned that Heaviside's vast parallel component was "physically
insignificant" (Lorentz's term) since it did not interact with
the circuit
and did not power anything, and therefore it could just be
arbitrarily
discarded from all accountability.
So Lorentz simply integrated the entire energy flow vector around an
assumed
closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest.
Voila! The
Heaviside nondiverged component of the energy flow vector passes
straight
through, positive (let us say) going into the surface and thus
negative
coming out of it. Hence the Lorentz closed surface integration
procedure
discards the enormous Heaviside nondiverged component. It does
not
eliminate the actual huge energy flow, but just arbitrarily discards
any
further accountability of it. On the other hand, the Lorentz
procedure does
retain the DIVERGED component, so it retains Poynting's component.
Electrodynamicists have just continued that very practice to this day,
and
have never resolved the "Heaviside component" problem.
They do not usually
bring it out as clearly as has Kraus, but even Kraus does not point
out the
startling fact that this proves that the shaft input to a generator
cannot
possibly be producing all that energy flow. Electrodynamicists
continue to
avoid the Heaviside flow component problem, because their model
eliminates
the vacuum interaction with the source dipole formed in the generator.
Energy extracted from the vacuum by the broken 3symmetry of that
source
dipole is what pours out both the Heaviside and Poynting energy flow
components, as I discuss in my paper, "Dark Matter or Dark
Energy?" in
Journal of New Energy.
\
However, this integration procedure has caused the great confusion
that some
electrodynamicists and particularly many engineers are unaware that
there is
a dramatic difference between the entire EM "energy flow"
per se that is
connected with the circuit, and the Poynting energy flow component
that is
connected with the circuit. About half think those are one and
the same
thing, including authors of some of the textbooks.
Anyway, my paper, "Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole",
just published in
Journal of New Energy, points out the rigorous and surprising solution
of
the HeavisideLorentz problem, and gives the precise source and of the
enormous size of that discarded but still present nondiverged EM
energy flow
around every EM circuit.
In an AIAS group paper, Anastasovski, P. K; Bearden, T. E; Ciubotariu,
C;
Coffey, W. T.; Crowell, L. B; Evans, G. J; Evans, M. W; Flower, R;
Jeffers,
S; Labounsky, A; Lehnert, B; Meszaros, M; Molnar, P. R; Vigier, J P;
Roy, S.
"Classical electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition:
Extracting energy
from the vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p.513517, I
gave several
ways of possibly extracting (diverging into the circuit and using)
more of
that Heaviside energy flow. The simplest and proven way (COP =
18) is the
Bohren experiment which simply places the intercepting "unit
point charge"
into resonance. Thus the Bohren resonating charge sweeps out a
greater
geometrical reaction cross section area in the impinging energy flow,
and
collects more of the otherwise "missing a static charge"
energy flow
adjacent to a static collecting charge.
If  after it has passed the circuit  you retroreflect the
Heaviside
energy flow component back across the same circuit, you will get an
additional Poynting collection by the surface charges, and get more
energy.
If you iterate this retroreflection, you get an overunity process, IF
you do
not use the common closed current loop circuit which uses half of the
collected energy to destroy the dipole faster that one can power
the load.
Instead, one might adapt Tesla's "one wire circuit" between
two widely
separated capacitors connected by a long conductor. The best
way, of
course, is Letokhov's "negative absorption of the medium"
which is excess
emission from optically active, highly scattering media.
In the Physica Scripta you may also be interested in some of the more
than a
dozen ways suggested for extracting energy from the vacuum.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
