Subject: RE: Degenerate
Semiconductor Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 22:17:25 -0500
Dear Adrian,
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!
Tom Bearden
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.
TEB
Dear
Tom,
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.
Regards..
Adrian.. |