> 7 9bjbjUU &7|7|ZgDl&&&&8J,v4 ? A A A A A A $! #e e &Lz ? ?
_Fd 4 0 $$ &&On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment
February 2001
Slightly edited, references added
To Correspondent:
Received a garbled request regarding the Howard Johnson motor []. Here is some information.
Johnson did produce a permanent magnet rotary motor that turned itself, without holding the magnet. I clamped the magnet on my kitchen table, and the device rotated for over an hour. Since its bearings were very crude (old lazy Susan for a turntable), that was sufficient. He showed this device to only three persons. There was a break-in at his lab, and guess what was taken: the only working model he had.
His real problem over the years has been hand-cutting of magnets and magnet assemblies. The effect he is using has to have very great precision to obtain, and then one has to do it multiple times, because the variation in the magnets themselves is more than an order of magnitude greater than the precision required.
And he is not using simple magnetic repulsion and attraction; for that effect, everyone knows that a closed circle yields a closed line integral of the force which integrates to zero; in short, a conservative field. Johnson seeks to evoke the exchange force [] [] by sudden spin flipping, which momentarily (when evoked) fires and has a thousand times or more strength (for a moment) than the magnetic field. Even macroscopically, this force in close tolerances can reach up to 100 times the magnetic field force, momentarily. Check out the exchange force, e.g., in Feynman's three volumes of physics [].
Johnson is a very fine person, very religious, and he has also been fairly ill. He's getting well along in years, and I do hope he will get the precision machining he requires, to complete his project before he passes on.
His reason for using different kinds of magnets cut into pieces and making assemblies is that in some of these he is able to evoke the exchange force very sharply, in the direction desired (controlled by the exact assembly of different magnetic materials interacting with each other). He has also had his project effectively sabotaged on more occasions than one.
For those interested in Johnson's approach, be aware that you must first have a schema that will or can produce a nonconservative magnetic field, when the force as a line integral is integrated around the entire closed path to a real nonzero value. Otherwise, if one is just thinking poles and repulsion and attraction, forget it.
There are over 200 effects in magnetic materials; it is not a simple subject at all []. About half of those effects are well-understood. Some of the others are fairly well understood, some a little understood, and some not understood at all.
Also, multivalued potentials arise naturally in the magnetic theory itself []. If a multivalued potential can occur in a rotary system so that it affects the line integral, then one has an integration to a non-zero and self-rotation is indicated. Eerily, magnetics scientists and theorists think this capability is a great nuisance, and they "twist" the magnetic theory itself in all sorts of ways to try to eliminate those multi-valued potentials.
Nonetheless, when not arbitrarily manipulated, the theory does predict and permit permanent magnet motors that self-rotate []. There is no problem with the source of the excess energy; any dipole (including a permanent magnet dipole) has a scalar potential between its ends, and the Whittaker [] decomposition in 1903 of that potential shows very clearly that it is a set of bidirectional longitudinal EM phase conjugate wavepairs.
But let's look a little further at a "phase conjugate wavepair" than Whittaker did or his modern interpreters have done.
The phase conjugate actually exists in the imaginary plane, prior to its observation. After observation (interaction with charged matterin this case, interaction with magnetic charge which one may just think of as "pole"), one has shifted the wave from the imaginary plane (in 4-space, from the time-domain) into real 3-space, and inverted its direction. We thus observe it as an outgoing real EM wave, as Whittaker noted, and since it is observed as antiphased in 3-space from its twin in the wavepair, that leads to the ubiquitous but erroneous interpretation of that decomposition as being bidirectional EM wavepairs in 3-space.
Actually, this is just one example of an enormous error in modern physics: the substitution of the effect (the observed wave, after interaction with an observablee.g., charged masshas occurred) for the cause (the wave-as-it-exists-in-spacetime, before the interaction and coming in to the charged mass to interact with it). If we correct that ubiquitous error of misinterpreting the causal wave, which is actually incoming prior to parity reversal by the observation process, the "input" or causal wave before interaction turns out to be that incoming phase conjugate wave in the complex plane. It is incoming if we do not go ahead and shift it into 3-space, by assuming that the interaction with the magnetic charge has occurred and observation has been accomplished.
So the rigorous interpretation of the Whittaker 1903 decomposition is that the potential between the poles of a magnetic dipole is comprised of a harmonic set of incoming longitudinal EM waves in the time domain. We can easily experimentally prove that no waves are coming into the magnet from 3-space, because none can be detected by our instruments. It is also a fact (if we do not push the analogy too far) that the charge spins 720 degrees. It spins 360 degrees in the complex domain (i.e., the time domain) and then flips into 3-space and spins another 360 degrees [The spin is not a "flat" spin like a disk, but rather like a 3-d circulation]. At any rate, the charge absorbs the incoming Whittaker phase conjugate half-set energy while spinning in the time (complex) domain, and then re-emits its excitation energy in 3-space when it rotates there.
This is the solution, by the way, to what has been called by Sen [] and others the most formidable problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics: the problem of the association of the fields and potentials and their energy, with the source charge (or the source dipole). I solved that problem and published it []. Normal electrodynamics, by failing to make the correction to the misinterpretation of the phase conjugate wave, but placing it in 3-space (where it is assumed that the wave has been observed and is an effect a priori), could not resolve it. The conventional interpretation just assumed two effect waves, instead of a cause and effect pair of waves. In that case, the continuous emission of EM energy by a source charge or dipole, in all directions in 3-space, has no possible solution because it has become a gross violation of the conservation of energy law.
So instead of solving the problem, all our present electrodynamics texts (including graduate level) implicitly assume that the source charge (or source dipole) just sits there and creates all that energy it continuously pours out to form its fields and potentials.
Either we solve the problem of the source charge and source dipole, or else we must completely abandon the conservation of energy law. We have indicated how to resolve the issue and save the conservation of energy law.
One can easily show that a permanent magnet or any other dipole does continuously pour out energy. Do a gedanken experiment. Take a radial line away from an origin point in the lab, and set instruments at, say, every light second distance, out to a light year away. Now suddenly form that dipole (or source charge) at the origin. One second later, the first instrument reads the presence (arrival) of a field. But it stays at that level from then on. Two seconds after dipole formation, the second instrument reads, and stays at that level from then on. Etc. Wait one year, and a volume of space a light year in radius has been filled with EM energy, and that energy is still ongoing.
Any charge also is just a set of continually occurring dipoles, when the virtual charges of opposite sign that are clustered around it in the vacuum [] are considered. Take one of those virtual charges while it exists, and take a differential piece of the observable "isolated" charge at the center of the clustering. Those two form a dipole, and the same remarks as above apply. So the "isolated charge" is just a set of such composite dipoles, each with one end momentary and the other end continuing through coupling with many successive virtual charges. Each composite dipole while it exists has a scalar potential between its ends, and that scalar potential involves our reinterpretation of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of it.
Any charge or dipole thus continuously receives enormous unusable energy from the vacuum, and pours it out continuously in all directions as usable EM energy, so long as the charge or dipole remains intact. [] Original charges and dipoles have been pouring out energy that way for some 15 billion years or so.
A good text [] will in fact show an indication of the enormous EM energy flowing in space around every circuit or transmission line. Kraus shows numbered contours in the energy flow through the space surrounding a standard transmission line. By definition, if we place a unit point charge at a point in space on one of those contours, the contour number represents the power in watts per square meter that will be intercepted and collected at that single point, by that unit point static charge. If we place a charge of 100 unit point static charges at that same point, we will collect 100 times as much energy on that charge as we did on the unit charge before. These contours presented by Kraus are all on energy flow lines where the energy flow misses the entire circuit, and is just wasted.
For your very best professor, challenge him to try to calculate the total EM energy that can be collected by intercepting/collecting charges in space around a simple little battery-powered circuit consisting of two lines from the battery to a pure resistor. Or try to find it in any paper or text anywhere [].
Poynting [] never even considered the vast energy flow component that misses the circuit entirely and is wasted, but assumed only that small component of the energy flow that actually gets intercepted and enters the circuit.
Heaviside [] discovered that missing huge component shown by Kraus [], but was very cautious. In a simple nominal case [], there is about 10 trillion times as much energy flow missing the circuit altogether, but pouring out of the terminals, as actually strikes the surface charges of the conductors and gets diverged into the wires to power the circuit.
The problem in the 1880s was, where on Earth could such an enormous energy flow possibly be coming from? Remember, scientists had not discovered the atom and electron yet, and "space" was considered to be filled with a thin material fluid. Time was considered to flow immutably, and there was no such concept as "energy flow in the time domain". Nor had Whittaker yet performed his mathematical decomposition of the scalar potential [], nor had he yet initiated superpotential theory []. Anyone could estimate or calculate how much energy was input to the shaft of a generator, and no one was going to believe that trillions of times as much energy as that input would and did emerge from the terminals of the generator and fill all space around the connected external circuit.
Heaviside, though brilliant, was self-taught and never attended university [], so he was very cautious and did not wish to be accused of being a "perpetual motion nut", which would have destroyed him. There were only about three dozen electrodynamicists at the time on the entire planet earth. So Heaviside spoke of the "angle" of the tiny amount of energy flow entering the circuit and powering it, and the "angle" of the enormous energy flow that remained and did not enter the circuit at all. But it is crystal clear that he knew the enormity of the extra energy flow that missed the circuit and was not utilized at all.
There was no such thing in the 1880s as a theory of the active vacuum. Special and general relativity and quantum mechanics were not even conceived yet, much less born.
The greatest electrical scientist of the day was H.A. Lorentz. He understood Heaviside's work, but had exactly the same problem with any reasonable source for the startlingly large nondiverged energy flow around a circuit. In no way could he account for this enormous energy flow emerging from the terminals of a battery or generator. And even the great Lorentz could not afford to just advance this openly, lest he also be labeled a "perpetual motion kook" and scientifically destroyed. So unable to solve the problem, he simply found a way to discard it and avoid it entirely. He reasoned that the "Heaviside" extra component of flow that missed the circuit "had no physical significance" (his words) since it powered nothing at all.
So Lorentz [] integrated the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface assumed around any little volume element of interest. As can be seen, this zeroes any nondivergent vector, and the "enormous Heaviside extra vector" component is nondivergent since it hits nothing at all []. The Poynting vector component, however, is diverged a priori, since Poynting started with that precise assumption. Hence the Poynting vector emerges, and the Heaviside "dark unaccounted energy flow" vector disappears from accountability [].
Electrodynamicists [] still use that Lorentz trick to get rid of that embarrassing wasted energy flow, as do electrical engineers.
As can be seen, Heaviside's and Lorentz's "dark energy flow" problem is essentially the same beast as the missing beast that has been responsible for the "problem of the source charge or dipole and its associated fields and potentials and all that energy in them". Now we have it. And we also have the mechanism for simple, easy extraction of enormous EM energy from the vacuum, at will, anytime, and anywhere in the universe. And cheaply.
We do not have an energy crisis. We have an energy flow accounting, intercepting, and using crisis because our energy scientists are still using an EM energy flow model that has been mutilated for more than a century. Classical electrodynamics does indeed need the kind of vigorous rework that was strongly recommended by Bunge [] as follows: "...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
Further, our solution to the problem of the source charge and the source dipole ties in directly with particle physics, where in the 1950s broken symmetry [] was discovered (then we did have quantum mechanics and a theory of the active vacuum, fairly well along). In particle physics it is well-known that any dipole is a broken 3-symmetry in its fierce energetic EM exchange with the active vacuum. By the very definition of broken symmetry, this means that some of that "disintegrated" (virtual) energy continuously absorbed from the vacuum by the charge or dipole, is not re-radiated back in disintegrated (virtual) form. Instead, it is integrated (by the spin of the charge) and, when the charge enters 3-space in its spin cycle, re-emitted as observable, real EM energy in all directions.
So our solution to what has been called the biggest problem in electrodynamics is consistent with everything known so far. And it also saves the conservation of energy law.
Note also that in 4-space theory the 4th axis is modeled as -ict, so the i reveals the imaginary plane connection, the c reveals the compaction of the dimension itself, and t is the only variable. Hence any EM energy flow along that axis is a flow in and within t, the only variable [].
This directly affects and changes the electrical engineer's interpretation of "reactive power" as being a real wave after observed in 3-space. Yes, that wave does exist after interaction with charges. But prior to that interaction, the real hidden "reactive power" is in fact a wave in the time domain (complex plane, 4th axis). We might thus adopt the term "pre-reactive power", to differentiate it from the present interpretation (after observation, as being an effect rather than a cause) by electrical engineers.
The solution to the charge and dipole problem also is of direct importance to free energy researchers. There is no such thing as COP>1.0 in a system in equilibrium with its active vacuum environment []. Classical EM does not even model the vacuum exchange with the system, much less a broken 3-symmetry in that system []. Maxwell's original equations [] and Heaviside's severe curtailment [] of them, still included two kinds of Maxwellian systems: (1) those in equilibrium with the active vacuum (unknown at the time), and (2) those far from equilibrium with the active vacuum.
But the Maxwell-Heaviside theory is awkward; variables are unseparated, and closed solution is very difficult and nigh impossible []. This means heavy use of numerical methods was required, a terrible thing in those early days without computers. So here again Lorentz stepped in, and "symmetrized" the Maxwell-Heaviside equations by changing them once again. By imposing symmetrical regauging, Lorentz selected only that half-set of the Maxwell-Heaviside theory that represented systems in equilibrium with the active vacuum. The alteration of the potentials just so that the two extra forces appearing were equal and opposite, meant that a "genie" or "demon" had also been assumedto insure this very presence of just those exact two equal and opposite forces from direct alteration of the potential energy of the systemto enforce that equilibrium with the vacuum. All the rest of the Maxwell-Heaviside systemsspecifically, those far from equilibrium with the vacuumwere thus arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz.
Electrodynamicists have continued to use that "symmetrized" subset of the Maxwell-Heaviside theory, because the resulting equations allow the variables to be separated and closed analytical solutions to be obtained. Further, most of the electrodynamicists still are inclined to the view that such "symmetrical regauging" does not change the fundamental theoretical model or what is being modeled. That of course is erroneous.
In short, the electrodynamicists themselves almost universally continue to discardmore than a century laterall those permitted Maxwellian systems that are open systems freely receiving and using energy from the active vacuum.
It can easily be shown that the standard closed current loop circuit rigorously enforces symmetry during the excitation discharge of the excited circuit. The initial excitation (potentialization) is of course a violation of the Lorentz condition. We point out that the vacuum, having an energy density, is just an enormous scalar potential. Any EM potential we make, is a change to that vacuum potential, or a change to an intermediate potential that is such a change. So with potentials, we deal with the active vacuum and its energy, whether we realize it or not. And when we change the local energy density of the vacuum/spacetime, we invoke general relativity and spacetime curvature whether we realize it or not.
The real reason for usually unsuccessful unification of electrodynamics and general relativity is the failure to correct the many flawed assumptions in electrodynamics. General relativity also needs a little extension. For example of a good unified theory and one that is engineerable, one should refer to Sachs' [] unified field theory and particularly to the Evans' [] union of O(3) electrodynamics with Sachs' theory, as a very important subset of Sachs' theory .
Other interesting things resulting from the solution to the source charge problem are: (1) propagation of EM energy through 3-space is quite different than what we presently assume in physics. Specifically, there is no such thing. Instead, there is the propagation from the time domain to successive differential points or regions in space. More on that sometime in the future. (2) All EM energy appearing anywhere in 3-space, has entered there from the time-domain. (3) EM energy flow and currents in the time domain are more fundamental than EM energy flow and currents in 3-space. A priori, anything in 3-space is or has been or is assumed to have been observed (interacted) and therefore an effect. All observation is spatial, as is well-known in quantum mechanics. (4) Not only was the problem of the source charge resolved at long last, but also a new and more primary symmetry of energy flow in 4-space was uncovered [], between the time-domain and 3-space. This new energy flow symmetry is the first principle of free energy and extracting EM energy from the active vacuum.
Fundamentally, when 3-symmetry in EM energy flow is broken, 4-symmetry must then prevail, since conservation of energy requires conservation in 4-space (but not in 3-space per se!) The imposition of EM energy flow conservation in 3-space is an extra requirement. When we inflict the latter additional condition by the way we construct our electrical power systems, then we doom ourselves from ever being able to power systems from the active vacuum alone. Instead, we have assumed the additional burden of putting in all that EM energy for the loads and losses, ourselves. That is why we are raping and destroying the biosphere, the air in our cities, the water in our rivers and lakes and oceans, etc. Our energy engineers and scientists simply will not build electrical power systems that capitalize upon the dipole's broken 3-symmetry in the fierce vacuum energy exchange.
But once we make just a little dipole, nature is most kind. That dipole breaks some of the "additional condition of 3-symmetry" requirement. Hence via the reinterpreted and corrected Whittaker 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential (change in vacuum potential) between the poles of the dipole, we have seen the El Dorado of the free energy researcher's dream: Nature pours in free EM energy to that source dipole from the time-axis, as reactive or "pre-reactive" electrical power. The dipole charges absorb it in the time domain, rotate into 3-space, and re-emit their excitation energy as real 3-space EM energy flow in all directions. The source dipoleif we do not kill it in our circuit designswill continue to emit that EM energy indefinitely. Further, it emits an enormous, unaccounted "dark energy" flow. For more than a century, we have not paid any attention to catching more of this available dark energyand efficiently using it to power loads and self-power the generators simultaneouslywithout using half of what we catch to destroy the source dipole.
Anyway, I just wanted to pass along this information, as it isI believeof fundamental interest to serious free energy researchers.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
References and Comments
. Howard R. Johnson, "Permanent Magnet Motor," U.S. Patent No. 4,151,431, Apr. 24, 1979; "Magnetic Propulsion System," U.S. Patent No. 5,402,021. Mar. 28, 1995; "Magnetic Force Generating Method and Apparatus," U.S. Patent No. 4,877,983, Oct. 31, 1989. A rigorous test of one of Johnson's magnetic gates is given in Kenneth D. Moore, "Testing of a Johnson Magnetic Gate," Explore, 9(6), 2000, p. 70-75. The gate exhibited net propulsive force through the gate.
. The exchange force is not really a magnetic force, but an electrostatic phenomenon due to quantum mechanics principles. Exchange was independently discovered by Dirac and by Heisenberg. Electrons with parallel spins are kept apart by the Pauli exclusion principle, which reduces their Coulomb (electrostatic) repulsion. The difference in energy between parallel and antiparallel conditions of two electrons is the exchange energy. When "spin flipping" of electrons can be induced to occur en masse in materials, substantial macroscopic exchange force can be momentarily produced. Johnson, e.g., found that by making assemblies of different magnetic materials cut in different geometrical shapes, assemblies which he called "spin units" or "spin flipping" units could be made whichat a certain point of exposure to the magnetic field from another magnet in motion with respect to itwould suddenly undergo very large spin flipping, so that a momentarily substantial force of repulsion would exist between the two magnets. By seeking to control precisely where this occurred between rotor and stator, and also control its direction, this sudden "free" force could be used to produce excess free propulsion momentarily. With sufficient "firings" of stator spin units upon rotor magnets, the symmetry of the line integral around the loop was broken, and so net propulsive force upon the rotor would exist. In short, this magnetic motor could be made to self-rotate, since it was now an open system far from equilibrium in its force-field environment. Note that, technically, the extra "symmetry breaking" force is not really a magnetic field force, but is at root level an exchange force of quantum mechanical and electrostatic nature.
. A good readable reference is Daniel C. Mattis, The Theory of Magnetism, Harper & Row, New York, 1965. See also Harry E. Burke, Handbook of Magnetic Phenomena, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986, particularly for spin-spin attraction, spin-spin coupling, spin-spin splitting, spin waves, and spin wave resonance. Also, particularly see B. D. Cullity, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1972.
. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. II, Chapter 37. Here Feynman covers magnetic materials including exchange forces, spins, and spin effects in readable terms. For a very nice introduction to spin magnetic quantum number and the Pauli exclusion principle (which has implications almost as far-reaching as the Schrodinger equation), see Chapter 42: Atomic Physics, in Raymond A. Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Third Edition, Updated Version, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 1990, p. 1212-1245.
. E.g., Robert C. O'Handley, Modern Magnetic Materials: Principles and Applications, Wiley, New York, 2000 gives an extensive coverage of modern magnetic materials effects and their theory. See also A. S. Borovik-Romanov and S. K. Sinha, Eds., Spin Waves and Magnetic Excitations, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988; M. G. Cottam, Ed., Linear and Nonlinear Spin Waves in Magnetic Films and Superlattices, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994; A. G. Gurevich and G. A. Melkov, Magnetization Oscillations and Waves, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1996; V. S. L'vov, Wave Turbulence Under Parametric Excitation: Applications to Magnets, Springer Series in Nonlinear Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. See also E. Schlomann, "Generation of spin waves in nonuniform magnetic fields, 1. Conversion of electromagnetic power into spin-wave power and vice versa," J. Appl. Phys., 35(1), 1964, p. 159; "2. Calculation of the coupling length," J. Appl. Phys. 35(1), 1964, p. 167; "3. Magnetoelastic interaction," J. Appl. Phys. 35(8), 1964, p. 2382.
. E.g., see Z. Badics, "Transient eddy current field of current forced three-dimensional conductors," IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 28(2), Mar. 1992, p. 1232-1234. P. Hammond and T. D. Ssiboukis, "Dual finite-element calculations for static electric and magnetic fields," IEE Proc. A, 130(3), Oct. 1995, p. 105-111; P. R. Kotiuga, "On making cuts for magnetic scalar potentials in multiply connected regions," J. App. Phys., 61(8), 1987, p. 3916-3918; J. N. Murrell and S. Carter, "Approximate single-valued representations of multivalued potential surfaces," J. Phys.Chem., 88(21), Oct. 11, 1984, p. 4887-4891; Z. Ren, "New technique for solving three-dimensional multiply connected eddy-current problems," IEE Proc., 137A(3), May 1990, p. 135-140; A. J. C. Varandas and A. T. Aaronin, "Towards a double many-body expansion method for multivalued potential energy surfaces: The H3, FH2, and NO2 systems," Molecular Physics, 85(3),
June 1995, p. 1881-1887; J. Penman and J. R. Fraser, "Complementary and dual energy finite element principles in magnetostatics," IEEE Trans. Magnetics, 18(2), 1982, p. 1520-1523.
. Prior to their Lorentz symmetrical regauging, the Maxwell-Heaviside EM theory does permit electrical and magnetic systems far from equilibrium in their active vacuum environment. So one must utilize some mechanism that constitutes a broken symmetry in the magnetic exchange between the system and the active vacuum, and that will remove the Lorentz condition a priori. The multivalued magnetic potential is one such means of breaking the symmetry; another is evoking the exchange force. Self-oscillation in magnetic materials is another, and so on.
. HYPERLINK "http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf" E. T. Whittaker, On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
. D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii. Quoting: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."
. T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Also on DoE open website HYPERLINK http://www.ott.doe.gov/papersbooks.html http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/papersbooks.html, and on www.cheniere.org.
. Such clustering is a standard feature of quantum electrodynamics.
. We emphasize that this is totally consistent with the particle physics discovery of the broken symmetry of a charge or of a dipole, in the 1950s.
. E.g., John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992. Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578 shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling all space around the conductors, with almost all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just "wasted."
. My own crude back-of-the-envelope calculation for a nominal very simple circuit yielded a ratio of nondiverged (Heaviside) energy flow to diverged (Poynting) energy flow of approximately 1013. We would welcome a rigorous exposition of an equation or formula for making the calculation.
. Poynting, J. H., On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 175, 1885, p. 343-361. The loss of electrical energy called dielectric loss, caused by the generation of heat through internal frictional effects when the molecules are distorted by the field, is also neglected. See D. S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, 1964, p. 51+.
. Heaviside, Oliver, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94. Quoting: 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.
. Kraus, ibid.
. I.e., the one in my own crude calculation mentioned above.
. Whittaker, 1903, ibid.
. HYPERLINK "http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/whit1904.pdf" E. T. Whittaker, On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. The paper was published in 1904 and orally delivered in 1903.
. He was later awarded an honorary doctorate degree. A good biography of Oliver Heaviside is Paul Nahin, Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude, IEEE Press, New York, 1987.
. E.g., for reference, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen ber Theoretische Physik an der Universitt Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the energy flow associated with a circuitspecifically, the small Poynting component striking the surface charges and being diverged into the circuit to power itand then treats that tiny component as the "entire" Poynting energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the vast Heaviside energy transport component which does not strike the circuit at all, and is just wasted. Note that this cited example was published in a book, but Lorentz actually originated the method in the 1880s. I am still seeking the original reference where Lorentz first published his method of eliminating the nondiverged (Heaviside) component of the energy flow.
. Electrodynamicists still use the same reasoning, that any nondivergent energy flow vector can be added at will to the Poynting energy flow vector. For example, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 237. Quoting: "...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences." As is well-known, the curl of a vector has zero divergence.
. This is totally improper, since energy flow in space represents an energy change in space, and that is a curvature of spacetime and therefore has gravitational implications, among other things. Since there is something like 10 trillion unaccounted joules of flowing EM energy created in space and wasted, for every interaction of field and charge producing one joule of collected and accounted energy (by the way we are taught to account things), it can be seen that this enormous "unaccounted" or "dark" EM energy flow has significant gravity consequences. We have formally nominated this long-neglected but vast EM energy, obviously out there in and around the interactions in the spiral arms of the spiral galaxies, as the "dark energy" source of the extra gravity that is known to be there and holding the spiral arms together. See T. E. Bearden, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.
. For a more modern reference, see Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky and Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1962, third printing 1969. Lorentz's cylindrical surface integration of the Poynting vector is shown on p. 181.
. Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176.
. C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413 reports the discovery that the weak interaction violates parity (spatial reflection). Also see T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood, New York, 1981, p. 184.
. For formal papers pointing out time-like EM energy flows, see M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "On Whittaker's F and G Fluxes, Part III: The Existence Physical Longitudinal and Timelike Photons," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Winter 1999, p. 68-71; "Representation of the Vacuum Electromagnetic Field in Terms of Longitudinal and Time-Like Potentials: Canonical Quantization," ibid., p. 82-88; "On Whittaker's Analysis of the Electromagnetic Entity, Part IV: Longitudinal Magnetic Flux and Time-Like Potential Without Vector Potential and Without Electric and Magnetic Fields," ibid., p. 72-75; "On Extending Whittaker's Theory, Part VI: Photons Without Fields and Vector Potentials," ibid., p. 79-81.
. Classical thermodynamics is the thermodynamics of systems in equilibrium with their active environment. Hence it rigorously applies to all EM systems that are in equilibrium with their active vacuum environment. For those systems, we ourselves must input all their energy. We will also lose some of that input energy through the inefficiency of the system, and so we will never get as many joules of work out in the load as the joules of energy we input. On the other hand, any systemincluding a Maxwellian systemthat is far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with an active environment (in this case, the active vacuum) is permitted to do five "magic" power system functions. It can (1) re-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more work than the energy input by the operator (the active vacuum inputs the excess output energy), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the active vacuum), and (5) exhibit negentropy.
. We strongly note that no mass system can be in equilibrium in the first place unless its exchange with the vacuum is accounted. E.g., see T. D. Lee, ibid., p. 380-381. Lee shows how there is no symmetry of matter alone, but only of matter and vacuum. So to see an electrical power system sitting placidly on the ground and running and providing power to the powerline, proves that the system is in violent energy exchange with its active environment. It also means that, in merely assuming gauge freedom and free change of the potentials of the system at will to get the equilibrium represented by the Lorentz condition, electrodynamicists have inadvertently assumed broken symmetry twice, free change of the potential energy in the system twice, and a mechanism in the system itself which rigorously enforces the Lorentz condition when the system dissipates or discharges its free excitation (regauging) energy. Since these "free changes" of potential that are assumed in the Lorentz regauging are themselves changes to the ambient vacuum potential and the energy density and energy dynamics of the local vacuum. Hence curvature of spacetime is involved, violating the classical EM assumption that EM energy moves in a flat spacetime. In short, the potential energy appearing in the system to excite it (regauge it), comes from the active vacuum directly. Yet no explanation appears in classical electrodynamics of all this, because these facts have been learned in science well after the "fixing" of the classical electrodynamics theory a century or more ago.
. James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1873, Third Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, unabridged, Dover Publications, New York, 1954. Maxwell's quaternion equations are given in Vol. II, Chapter IX.
. The standard "Maxwell equations" in the conventional textbook are actually Heaviside's equations. Conventionally we have for them a set of four equations in four unknowns. In potential theory, we have two vector equations where the potentials are the major factor, and the variables are not separable.
. For a good illustration of how the Lorentz condition is applied to separate variables (and inadvertently discard all Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium with their active environment), see John D. Jackson, ibid., p. 219-221; 811-812.
. Mendel Sachs, General Relativity and Matter, Reidel, 1982; "Relativistic Implications in Electromagnetic Field Theory," in T. W. Barrett and D. M. Grimes, eds., Advanced Electromagnetism, World Scientific, 1995, p. 541-559.
. M. W. Evans, "O(3) Electrodynamics," a review of 250 pages in M.W. Evans (ed.), Contemporary Optics and Electrodynamics, Wiley, New York, 2001 (in press); "The Link Between the Sachs and O(3) Theories of Electrodynamics," ibid.
. HYPERLINK "http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/GiantNegentropy.pdf" Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," ibid.
U4
5
'(
*1 Zb
""##E$F$%&b'c'''0+5+ ,!,/,0,l,r,--M-N-----..&0'0Z0[0_0e000117788889999*=6
j0JU5>*`UVd8
AB$a$$a$^^878=> ##&&''**$,%,--q.r.11333447799":#:;;==@@rAsABBDDFFJJLLyMzM*=+=9==@>A>[>^>r?v???AAAAAA B!BzB{BBB CCgEhElEEEEFF*F+FnGoG)J0JJJQQQQsT{TUUV(VW
WWW["[^^^^L`S```bbwgxgggggghhh%i&ibiik'kkkkklllmammmn>*5>*6
j0JU_zMMPNP$R%RiVjVYY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`wg%ikoJssxnnn6oCo}oooo p'pst*v+v-v.vmvnvovvvvvwwYwwww*xFxxxxxyyyLyMyhyiyyyBzCzZzjzy{z{9|;||||"}~-~>~?~T~e~~܁݁ށ+,ƾƶ6CJOJQJ>*CJOJQJCJOJQJj0JCJOJQJUH*jU60JjU jU
j0JU>*Hs*vvwhyyBzy{|>~݁+E/KaÝǡx,?CEFHIBC/0Zń^wc-KLabqQVӑtx?CÝĝƠʠǡȡA>*0JjU jU
j0JU6X/015895>*60J jUjU789x$&P/ =!"#$%`DyKyKdhttp://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdfDyK(http://www.ott.doe.gov/papersbooks.htmlyKPhttp://www.ott.doe.gov/papersbooks.htmlDyKyKdhttp://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/whit1904.pdfDyKyKnhttp://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/GiantNegentropy.pdf
i4@4NormalCJ_HmH sH tH BB Heading 2$<@&56OJQJ<@< Heading 3$<@&OJQJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font6*@6Endnote ReferenceH*,+@,Endnote Text:!:Style1$xa$OJQJtH u4Z"4
Plain TextCJOJQJ(O1(endnote refe(OB(Normal12x2R2
Footnote TextCJ8&@a8Footnote ReferenceH*(U@q( Hyperlink>*B*>B@> Body TextxCJOJQJtH u4'
E b## (/()M))&,Z,-3455*9@:>gAAB*BnCMMQ9T
.Y#qm##Z#t#$^%)+z/00248>? ABBCfDiD9UVd8
AB78=>""##&&$(%())q*r*--//003355"6#67799<<r=s=>>@@BBFFHHyIzIMLNL$N%NiRjRUUZZZZZZZZZZZZ\wc%egkJoo*rrshuuBvywx>z}}+~E~/KaÙǝ7:(000000@0@0
@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0
*=n,9UZ\^_3zMs9VXY[]`8W\!C{w##q$C*D^DiDXXXXZZZZZZZZZ_lhlllmm
nnnnnn-rrH~C07:r****s===9>*MMM$NZZZZZZZZZddee|h~hJllmmJoo-rrrNsmtstvvxvx?yyy{{}}.~D~H~C"+2jtxz;=
˘͘ʜ̜ڝ07:3333333333333333333333333333333Tom Bearden|C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.asdTom Bearden|C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.asdTom BeardenC:\Cheniere Website Project\Articles and writeups gathered\On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.docTom BeardenC:\Cheniere Website Project\Articles and writeups gathered\On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.docTom BeardenC:\Cheniere Website Project\Articles and writeups gathered\On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.docTom BeardenC:\Cheniere Website Project\Articles and writeups gathered\On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.docTom BeardenC:\Cheniere Website Project\Articles and writeups gathered\On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.docAnthony CraddockC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of On the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environment.asdAnthony Craddock4C:\Cheniere Website\correspondence\Johnson Motor.docAnthony Craddock2C:\windows\TEMP\FrontPageTempDir\Johnson Motor.docJq hh^h`o(.JqZZZZZ:@9@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3&:Arial?5 :Courier New"1hRf4Rf"
J&!0[2SOn the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active EnvironmentTom BeardenAnthony Craddock
Oh+'0( DP
lx
TOn the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active Environmentn tTom Beardenom NormalrAnthony Craddocktor3thMicrosoft Word 9.0r@H'@ v@0"
J
՜.+,D՜.+,@hp
CTECw&[ TOn the Johnson Motor and Systems Far from Equilibrium With their Active EnvironmentTitle 8@_PID_HLINKSA\<9 7http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/GiantNegentropy.pdf\2http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/whit1904.pdf")(http://www.ott.doe.gov/papersbooks.htmlB2http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`acdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~Root Entry F_FData
b1Tablej$WordDocument&SummaryInformation(}DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool_F_F
FMicrosoft Word Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q