Subject: RE: Positive energy,
negative energy and classical EM Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:17:56 -0600
Dear Dominique,
Thanks for the kind
words, and keep thinking! During all my university courses, no
professor made me aware that the foundations of physics (and
electrodynamics) have some serious problems, and that there exists a
literature on it. One just had to discover that oneself, much later.
The EM theory taught
to electrical engineers does have many flaws. Many excellent scientists
(such as Feynman and Wheeler) have pointed out some of these flaws.
Slowly there are some corrections being made, and of course better EM
models have long been developed for particle physics. These models seem
now to be entering a new time of interest and development, as scientists
such as Barrett are doing with SU(2) and Evans is doing with O(3).
These are non-Abelian electrodynamics, which are higher group symmetry
EM models. In these models, many electrodynamic things are permitted
that are not permitted in the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz model used in
electrical engineering.
The reason a
transformer is not a COP>1.0 system is because the field generated from
the secondary by pumping the secondary circuit's total current back up
through the secondary's back emf, back-couples to the primary and forces
the same back emf and energy dissipation in the primary. In theory, if
that back-field coupling from secondary to primary were eliminated or
reduced, the transformer itself would perform at COP>1.0. The MEG does
that in one manner; there are other methods also. E.g., if one builds a
true negative resistor and uses it plus a diode in series, to "shunt"
some of the return current to the secondary back to the high side
without passing through the secondary, this reduces the back-coupling
and can enable COP>1.0. Years ago I filed a patent on that, but let it
lapse. But a differential negative resistor will not do it. It
requires a true negative resistor. The old point contact transistor,
e.g., was capable of being adjusted and built so as to produce true
negative resistance. But making them was always rather an art than a
science, and that type of transistor is not well understood even today.
We really should be experimenting with it and re-developing it,
optimizing its negative resistance capability to enable COP>1.0 EM
circuits.
We hope to see some
major changes in the way they teach the EM model to students in
universities.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|