Subject: RE: VS: Editorial on
ZPE in Aviation Week & Space Technology Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:47:05 -0500 (two letters combined) Jan,
Thanks very much for your kind comments, and for your interest in seeing the energy crisis solved. It just is not possible to have any
kind of meaningful dialog in such media. Understand, AW&ST does a good job in
things like aerospace, etc. But to my knowledge, they have never had a
single article pointing out the foundations assumptions in Maxwell-Heaviside
classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering. Really cannot blame AW&ST! They turn
to the scientific community, and the scientists assure them that everything
is already known in that model.
But I still have not found a single
textbook which does list the foundations assumptions, and does then point out
which ones have been falsified by particle physics since the 1865 paper
of James Clerk Maxwell.
Heck, they appear not to realize that
no such thing as a force field exists in space, even though the EE and CEM
model assumes such. (That, of course, assumes a material ether). They do not
recognize that Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion, and that
experiments with persistent superconducting currents initiated in
shorted superconductor circuits will circulate indefinitely. Statistically,
the estimate of the half-life of the current is 10exp23 years -- an
incredible period of time nearly unimaginably greater than the entire life of the
universe to date.
One can buy a little kit for a few
hundred dollars, and do one's own perpetual motion experiment at will.
And the Second Law of thermodynamics
as written applies only to equilibrium systems (which is the condition of
maximum entropy). Anytime the system is taken into disequilibrium, it
automatically reduces its entropy, which is a negative entropy operation,
permissibly violating the equilibrium Second Law because equilibrium no longer applies.
The
real problem is the seriously flawed nature of the present electrical
power engineering model (i.e., classical Maxwell-Heaviside
electrodynamics, as also symmetrically regauged by Lorentz. This model
still assumes the material ether (falsified in 1887), an inert vacuum
(falsified at least since 1930), and a flat spacetime (falsified since
1915-16). It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of
EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created by the
associated source charges, from nothing at all – in total violation of
the conservation of energy law. By symmetrizing the equations (just to
make them easier to solve), Lorentz also inadvertently discarded all
permissible COP>1.0 Maxwell-Heaviside systems.
Then,
to compound things to an astonishing degree, the ubiquitous use of the
closed current loop circuit, with the “external dipolar potential
energy source” wired into the circuit as a back emf load, physically
self-enforces Lorentz regauging! It makes the back emf equal to the
forward emf, and – with the same total current in each one – that
takes half of all the potential energy flow collected in the external
circuit and uses it only to destroy the source dipolarity of the
“external source”, thereby destroying its free extraction and emission
of energy from the vacuum.
Further, flow of EM energy through space was formulated after
Maxwell’s death. It was formulated independently and essentially
simultaneously by John Poynting and Oliver Heaviside, completely
independently. Poynting never considered anything but the energy flow
component that gets diverged into the conductors, to power up the
electrons. Any component NOT being so diverged, was completely ignored
by Poynting, and – as is well-known to good electrodynamicists – the
Poynting energy flow is not “the” energy flow along that path through
a square perpendicular unit plane at a point.
Heaviside also discovered and allowed for the nondiverged component of
energy flow, flowing outside the wire in addition to Poynting’s
diverged energy flow. The nondiverged component is in curled field
form, hence its divergence (in a flat spacetime) is zero.
Consequently, as Lorentz remarked, it “has no physical significance”
because (usually) it doesn’t interact with anything or do anything.
However, that assumption is only true in a flat spacetime. If the
local spacetime is curved a bit, then the vector divergence of the
curl is not accurate, because that is for flat spacetime. So in curved
spacetime, some of the long-neglected Heaviside component does get
diverged and “caught” by the intercepting charges. In that case, the
very definitions of “field intensity” (e.g., E = F/q) and potential
intensity (e.g., phi = energy/q) are violated, since the usual
definition assumes a flat spacetime and static intercepting charged
mass. Violating either assumption (by having nonnegligible ST
curvature or nonnegligible dynamic charged mass intercepting),
violates the present electrodynamics. As an example, having the charge
on small particles that self-resonate at UV or IR, and feeding in
energy at that appropriate frequency to set the receiving charged
particles into resonance, produces what is blandly referred to as
“negative resonance absorption” of the (resonant particles) medium. In
that case, the medium absorbs and re-radiates some 18 times as much EM
energy as the Poynting calculation calculates was input.
In
short, that branch of optics already outputs more energy than is
“calculated” to be input. The energy was indeed input, but not as
Poynting’s diverged component. It was input as Heaviside’s neglected
curled and usually nondivergent component.
Researchers in the field of nonresonance absorption carefully do not
usually address the thermodynamics of the situation, but speak only of
increased reaction cross section of the resonant charge. They normally
never speak of the “efficiency” thermodynamically or the COP. The
efficiency is certainly less than 100% (the Heaviside energy flow
component alone is perhaps a trillion times the magnitude of the
recognized Poynting component). But the COP is 18. It’s like a very
inefficient heat pump model, where one pays to input the “Poynting”
component, and the environment freely inputs the extra Heaviside
component. In that case, if the environmentally input component is
sufficiently large, COP>1.0 will result.
Very
best wishes,
Tom
Bearden
|