LEGEND:
_text_ = underlined text
*text* = bold text
\text\ = italic text (I use "\" instead of "/" because of fractions and
also because Bearden uses lots of
"choice/selection" expressions)
_\text\_ = underlined and italic text
x^2 = x squared, or x superscript 2
x_2 = x index 2, or x subscript 2
@ = filled black dot (like scalar product) in original text
Phi = Greek letter Phi for the Scalar Electrostatic Potential field
Del = Greek letter Nabla (upside down triangle)
Delta = Greek letter Delta (triangle)
== = Identity symbol (3 parallel bars)
[8] = Bibliographical reference. Also equation number at some places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY*
(C) 1993 T. E. Bearden
A.D.A.S.
P.O. Box 1472
Huntsville, AL 35807
_*Foreword*_
This paper contains the real secret of tapping the vacuum
energy very simply, using almost any source of potential (battery,
electrostatic generator a la Swiss electrostatic device (the Testatika),
elevated wire w[ith]/250 V/m in the earth/ionosphere potential, etc).
The objective is for the moderately technical reader to understand
how to build and understand not only a single device, but also
hundreds of different kinds of them. While it is quite simple, the
"magic principle" contained in this paper only took me some 30 years
to discover.
The precise definitions necessary to understand the free
energy rationale are included. Also included are some very simple
pseudo equations for the process. Do not underestimate these simple
pseudo equations -- they tell the tale that's needed.
Also, there has been little or no time to "dress up" the paper.
It's simply written down very informally, to get the necessary points
across.
Nearly everything \fundamental\ that we've been taught about EM
energy is wrong or incomplete. Even the \definition of energy\ in
physics is wrong! Let me summarize a few of the things that are wrong
with the classical electromagnetics (CEM) model as follows:
CEM is still utilizing a model based on a material ether.
Although the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed the material ether
assumption in 1887, the classical EM model has never been corrected.
It also contains no definition of charge, and no definition of potential.
In many cases, algorithms to calculate a magnitude are boldfacedly and
erroneously advanced as "definitions." CEM still prescribes the force
fields as the causes of all EM phenomena; it has been known since 1959
that forces are effects and not causes, that EM force fields exist only
in and on the charged particles of mass in the physical system, and that
the potentials are the primary causes of EM phenomena. The lack of
definitive definitions of mass and force in mechanics is carried over
into EM theory; there is no adequate definition of EM force or of EM
mass. The magnitude of the electrical charge on an electron is not
quantized. Instead, it is discretized, being a function of the
magnitude of the virtual photon flux (VPF) exchange between the vacuum
and the charged particle. When the charged particle is placed in a
potential that differs from ambient, then the magnitude of the VPF
-- and hence the magnitude of the electric charge on the electron --
is altered. The CEM assumption of an "empty vacuum" is totally
falsified by modern quantum mechanics. The CEM notion that EM force
fields and force field waves exist in vacuum is totally false. Only
potentials and potential gradients exist in the vacuum. EM waves in
vacuum are not force field waves as CEM prescribes; instead, they are
oscillations of potentials and potential gradients. Potentials have a
bidirectional EM wave-pair structure, where the bidirectional wave
pairs are phase-locked in a harmonic series. In each wave pair,
photons and antiphotons are continually coupling (into spin-2
gravitons) and decoupling. This is where gravitation and
electromagnetics are unified. The CEM notion that singular EM forces
exist in either matter or the vacuum is false; Newton's third law
requires that all forces exist in oppositive pairs. Not a single one
of the equations universally taught as "Maxwell's equations" ever
appeared in any book or paper by James Clerk Maxwell; instead, they
are Oliver Heaviside's equations. Maxwell's actual theory was written
in quaternions, which is a complete system of mathematics. The
Heaviside/Gibbs vector version
(1) has a lower topology,
(2) is not a complete system of mathematics, and
(3) actually captured only a subset of Maxwell's actual theory.
Tensor theory does not recapture that which was lost.
There are even more errors in CEM, but these should suffice
to make the point: \Classical electromagnetics theory is seriously
flawed, with archaic foundations, riddled with errors, and it should
be completely redone\. Until this revamping of CEM is accomplished,
the present model solidly blocks free energy, antigravity, a unified
physical field theory, and a unified theory of mind and matter
interaction.
A second paper this year will detail the exact long-term
causative mechanism for cancer and leukemia, and the exact mechanism
for essentially 100% cure of terminal tumors in laboratory animals,
demonstrated by the Priore team in France in the late 1960s and
early 1970s. The same mechanism can be used to cure AIDS.
Throughout the world, humankind is suffering. In the poor
populations of the world, early death is the norm, as is frequent
famine. One third of the human race goes to bed hungry each night.
Protein starvation of children is common. One third of the human
race is infected with worms. Many other diseases ravage the
far-flung poor peoples of the world. They have little or no
industries. They have no abundant electrical power. They have
little education, and little modern knowledge. They have little
or no medical treatment. In short, they are born without hope;
live in misery, filth, disease, and poverty, and die without dignity.
Meanwhile, the factories, cities, and enclaves of the
"developed and developing" worlds belch forth fumes, toxic and
hazardous wastes, and pollutants. They also spew forth weaponry
which for one reason or another is used to arm the poorer nations,
for use in destroying themselves and their impoverished neighbors.
Warfare, terror, banditry, despotism, and all the four horsemen of
the Apocalypse are truly loosed in the earth.
We simply must do better than that. And we \can\ do better
than that! But to do better, we've got to make the basics available
to impoverished nations, cheaply and easily. Primary among their
needs are energy and medical treatment. Given those, populations
can be stabilized, people educated, development begun, and the
living standard drastically elevated.
So that is the immediate goal. In this paper, I am freely
giving away what required me an arduous 30 years of my life to
discover. Shortly we will also detail the new methodology for a
new therapeutic science, hopefully to cure the diseases that ravage
humanity.
God willing, this paper will trigger a thousand, or even
ten thousand, scientists and engineers to develop overunity energy
devices. If so, shortly we can rid our biosphere of noxious
automobile and factory exhausts, radioactive nuclear wastes, and
massive oil spills. We can remove many of the hydrocarbon combustion
pollutants from the air, stop acid rain and the destruction of our
forests, and stop the steady rise of carbon monoxide in our air. If
that truly tends toward a "Greenhouse" effect, then we can halt that
effect as well.
The Creator has always given us bountiful free electrical
energy, everywhere, easily and readily for the simple taking. It has
only been our own blindness and folly that have prevented us from
seeing and using this free energy bounty.
So here is the final secret of abundant, free electrical energy.
Please use the knowledge well and see that its benefits also accrue to
those impoverished ones who need it so desperately. Remember the
adage, "Inasmuch as you have done it to these little ones..."
\This is for those little ones. You are our brothers and
sisters. We want you to live. And we want you to have a better
quality of life, not just bare existence. We care.\
Tom Bearden
February 9, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY
(C) T. E. Bearden 1993
_*Some Definitions_*
_*The Quantum Mechanical Vacuum:*_ First we need some definitions.
We start by assuming the \quantum mechanical vacuum\ [1] Empty
"spacetime" is filled with an incredibly intense flux of virtual
particles. It is a plenum, not an emptiness. We shall be interested
only in the fantastic flux of \virtual photons\, for we are
discussing electromagnetics.
_*Energy and Potential:*_ _\Energy\_ is any ordering, either static
or dynamic, in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. _\EM energy\_ is
any ordering, either static or dynamic, in the virtual photon flux
(VPF) of vacuum. That is, for a particular kind of "field" energy,
we simply choose the so-called quantum particle of that field, and
consider only that kind of virtual particle flux.
_\Potential\_ is any ordering, either static or dynamic, in
the virtual particle flux of vacuum. Hey! That's exactly the same
definition as energy. Quite correct. Energy and potential are
identically the same. Neither is presently defined correctly in
physics.
Energy is normally defined as "Energy _\is\_ the capacity to
do work." That's totally false. Energy has the capacity to do work,
because work is correctly defined as the dissipation (disordering;
scattering) of energy (order). The scattering of energy is work.
It is not energy! I.e., \energy is not definable as its own
scattering!\
Look at it this way: A man \has\ the capacity to catch fish.
That is true, but it is not a definition, since a definition must in
some sense be an \identity\. You cannot say that a man \is\ the
capacity to catch fish! That may be a submitted definition, all
right, but it is false. Similarly, energy \has\ the capacity to do
work; that is one of its attributes. But energy \IS\ the ordering
in the VPF (we are referring from now on primarily only to EM).
_*Scalar and Vector Potentials:*_ The _\scalar potential\_ is any
static (with respect to the external observer) ordering in the VPF
of vacuum. The _\vector potential\_ is any dynamic (with respect
to the external observer) ordering in the VPF of vacuum. We shall
be interested in the electrostatic scalar potential. So it is a
static ordering -- a stationary _\template\_ -- in the VPF of vacuum,
much as a whirlpool is a stationary ordering (template, form) in
the rushing flow of a river.
_*The Scalar Potential Has An Internal Structure*_
_*The Structure of the Scalar Potential:*_ According to rigorous
proofs by Whittaker [2] and Ziolkowski, [3] any scalar potential can
be mathematically decomposed into a \harmonic series of bidirectional
wave pairs\. Figure 1 shows this Whittaker/Ziolkowski (WZ) structure.
In each pair, the forward-time wave is going in one direction, and
its phase conjugate (time-reversed) replica wave is going in the
other. According to the so-called \distortion correction theorem\
[4] of nonlinear phase conjugate optics, this PCR wave must precisely
superpose spatially with its partner wave in the pair. The two waves
are \in-phase spatially\, but 180 degrees \out of phase in time\.
The wave is made of \photons\, and the antiwave (PCR wave) is made of
\antiphotons\. It follows that, as wave and antiwave pass through
each other, the photons and antiphotons are coupling and uncoupling
with each other, because the antiphoton is a PCR photon, and PCR's
precisely superpose spatially with their partner. A photon or
antiphoton has wave characteristics, because it has a frequency; if
the wave aspects are perfectly ordered and perfectly correlated, then
so are the photon's particle aspects.
_*A Potential Is An Ordering Across the Universe:*_ So we have
-- astoundingly -- perfect VPF inner ordering infolded in the
electrostatic scalar potential! We also have perfect wave/antiwave
ordering infolded in there. When you collect a simple set of charges
on a small ball or in a region, the scalar EM potential from that set
of charges reaches across the universe. In it you have an infinite
harmonic series of phase-locked time-forward EM waves going out
from the charges to all distant points of the entire universe. And
you have an infinite harmonic series of phase-locked time-reversed
EM waves coming from all points of the universe, back to the
"collected charges" source.
_*A Potential Is A River of Energy:*_ The point is, you have
established a \mighty, hidden, 2-way river of energy\ between that
collection of charges and every other point in the universe. There
is infinite energy in each of those infolded waves and antiwaves.
But in a localized region, the \energy density\ in each wave is finite.
Since in finite circuits the potential interacts with a localized set
of mass, we shall be concerned with the \local energy density\
(joules/coulomb) \of the potential\.
But forget the conventional myth of visualizing the potential
as pushing a unit charge in from infinity "against the force field"
-- there \isn't\ any force field in the vacuum, as is well-known in
quantum mechanics. Also, Newton's third law requires all forces to
occur in pairs -- each pair consisting of a force and its 3rd law
reaction force. From that viewpoint alone, there is no such thing
as an EM forcefield or force field wave in the vacuum. There are
just \gradients of the vacuum potential\ present in the vacuum. In
the vacuum, an EM wave is actually a wave of the phase locked
gradients of the electrostatic scalar potential and of the
magnetostatic scalar potential. And each such gradient wave is
simultaneously accompanied by its phase conjugate gradient wave,
because of Newton's third law.
\Newton's third law requires forces to occur in pairs of equal
but antiparallel forces\.
Both wave and antiwave co-exist simultaneously in the vacuum
EM wave. [5] Therefore it's a stress potential wave, not a force
field wave. It's more like an electromagnetic sound wave, [6] and
so it is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave. In the EM
vacuum wave's interaction with matter (the so-called "photon"
interaction), the wave normally half interacts with the electron
shells of the atom, giving translation forces, while the anti-wave
half interacts with the atomic nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd law
reaction (recoil) forces (waves). The EM wave in vacuum is an
\electrogravitational wave\.
_*Energy Is Internally Infinite and Unlimited:*_ A static potential
-- which is identically excess \energy\ -- is internally dynamic and
infinite. Energy is internally infinite and unlimited! But it has a
finite \energy density\ in a local region of spacetime. Since energy
interacts with matter locally, we shall be concerned with the \local
energy density\ (joules per coulomb).
_*A Principle of Great Importance:*_ The only way you can have a
"chunk" or finite amount of energy to dissipate in a circuit as work
is to first have a potential's local energy density interact with a
local finite mass collector. The normal interacting mass collector
is the free electrons (the free electron gas) in the circuit. You
can have, e.g., (joules/coulomb x coulomb); (joules/gram x grams);
(joules/m^3 x m^3); etc.
_*Voltage, Force, Potential Gradients, Loads, and Work:*_ Now let's
look at circuitry aspects. Conventionally they are a mess.
_\Voltage\_ is "essentially" defined as the "drop in potential." In
other words, it's the dissipation (disordering) of a "finite amount"
of potential gradient. But the only way you can get a "finite
amount" of infinite energy/potential gradient is by first interacting
the potential gradient's internal, finite, excess energy density with
a finite "collector" mass. E.g., (joules/coulomb available for
collection) x (coulombs collecting) = excess joules collected on the
interacting coulombs, available for dissipation.
So \voltage\ is really the dissipation of a finite collection
of excess EM energy/potential gradient. The \dissipation\ of
potential or of its gradient is not potential! You cannot logically
define either potential or energy as is own dissipation!
We presently use the notion of "voltage" in two completely
contradictory ways in electrical physics. Here's how we got the
confusion: We take a potential gradient (which has a local energy
density), and we "collect" it across some charged masses in a locality
-- usually the free electrons in the free electron gas in our
circuitry. That is, we express the finite energy density of the
potential gradient (before collection onto charges) in the local
region in terms of \energy per coulomb\. The potential gradient
actually is a change to the ambient potential, and so it contains
an \excess\ energy density (the magnitude may be either positive or
negative). We then collect this potential (actually this potential
density) on a certain number of coulombs, which places tiny little
gradients of potential across (coupled to) each free electron. The
local excess energy density of the potential gradient multiplied by
the amount of collecting mass gives the amount of excess energy
collected (on the interacting charges/coulombs). On each collecting
particle, that little gradient, together with the coupling particle,
constitutes a tiny force. F is not just \equal to\ ma (non-
relativistic case); instead, F == (ma), where (mass x acceleration)
is considered as a unitary, inseparable thing. So that little
\potentialized electron\ (that little \EM force\) moves itself around
the circuit. In the load (scatterer), the little potentialized
electron (the little force) is subjected to jerks and accelerations,
thus radiating energy (shucking its gradient). Since this is done in
all directions in the scatterer (load), that gets rid of the gradient,
reducing the "little force" (potentialized electron) to zero because
the little potential gradient is lost due to radiation.
_*Collecting And Dissipating Energy*_
_*Energy Dissipation and Collection:*_ Without further ado, we
consider the scalar potential's local energy density in terms of
\joules per coulomb\. That is, in a specific glob of charges (i.e.,
in finite circuits), the amount of energy collected from a potential
gradient onto the finite number of charges receiving/collecting it,
is equal to the number of joules of energy per coulomb that is in
the potential gradient, times the number of coulombs collecting
(receiving) the potential gradient. The current is the activated
(potentialized) coulombs per second that dissipate their potential
gradients during that second. The current multiplied by the \time
the current flows\ gives the activated coulombs that dissipated
their activation (potentialization) during that flow time.
\Dissipating, activated coulombs\ multiplied by the \excess energy
collected per activated coulomb\ gives the energy dissipated (the work
or scattering done) in the load.
We define _\collection\_ as the connection of a potential
gradient (a source) to the charged masses in a circuit element (the
element is called the _\collector)\_, which for a finite delay time
does not allow its potentialized free electrons to move as current.
In the collector, during this delay time these trapped electrons are
"activated" by potential gradients being coupled to them.
Technically, that delay time in the collector is known as
_\relaxation time\_, [7] in the case of the free electron gas [8]
(in a wire or in a circuit element). A collector then is a circuit
element that has a usable, finite relaxation time. During that
relaxation time, the trapped electrons are potentialized without
movement as current; each collecting/receiving free electron gets a
little gradient across it, but no current yet flows. In other words,
during this finite relaxation time (collection time), we extract
potential from the source, but no current. Thus we extract energy
(potential), but no power (which is voltage x amperage). During the
relaxation time, we extract from the source only a flow of VPF, which
is continually replaced in the source by the vacuum's violent VPF
exchange with the source's bipolarity charges. We do not extract
power from the battery/source during relaxation time, but we extract
free energy density. That free energy density, coupling with a
finite quantity of electrons, gives us a collected finite amount
of energy. With that background, let's start again, and go through
this in a useful "free energy" manner.
_*The Electron Gas.*_ We refer to the conventional model of the free
electron gas in a wire. [9] Although the electrons in this gas
actually move by quantum mechanical laws and not by classical laws,
we shall simply be dealing with the "on the average" case. So we
will speak of the electrons and their movement in a classical sense,
rather than a quantum mechanical sense, as this will suffice very
well for our purposes.
When one connects a circuit to a source of potential gradient
(say, to a battery), the first thing that happens nearly instantly
is that the potential gradient races onto the coupling wire and heads
down it at almost the speed of light. As it goes onto the wire, this
gradient "couples" to the free electrons in the free electron gas.
However, inside the wire, these electrons can hardly move down the
wire at all; they can only "slip" once in a while, yielding a "drift"
velocity of a fraction of a cm/sec. [10] On the surface, things are
just a little bit different. Most of the "current" in a wire, as is
well-known, moves along the surface, giving us the "skin" effect.
[For that reason, many cables are stranded of finer wires, to provide
more skin surface per cm^3 of copper, and hence more current-carrying
capability per cm^3 of copper.]
So, initially, little gradients of potential appear on and
across each free electron, with a single little Del Phi on each
electron, and coupled to it. The couplet of [Del Phi @ m_e], where
m_e is the mass of the electron, constitutes a small Delta E_e.
[This is rigorous; the conventional EM notion that an E field exists
in the vacuum is absurd, and it is well-known in QM that no observable
force field exists in the vacuum. As Feynman pointed out, only the
potential for the force field exists in the vacuum, [11] not the force
field as such. Or as Lindsay and Margenau pointed out in their
Foundations of Physics, one does not have an observable force except
when observable mass is present.[12]]. We have stated it even
stronger: Not only is F = ma, but F == ma (non-relativistic case).[13]
Since no observable mass exists in vacuum, then no observable F exists
there either.
_*Force, Coupled Gradients, and Electron Translation*_
_*Electrons Coupled to a Potential Gradient Move Themselves.*_ The
point is, when activated by a "coupled potential gradient," the
activated electron \moves itself\ until it loses its activation (its
coupled potential gradient).
Let me say that again, in a little more detail. Forget the
standard notion that a force field such as the E-field causes
electrons to move. Also forget the notion that the E-field is given
by E = -Del Phi. In foundations of physics, those equations are
known to be incorrect for the vacuum. EM force fields are known (in
QM foundations theory) to be \effects\, existing only in and on the
charged particles, and not existing separately at all, [14] or in the
vacuum at all. [15] Instead of E = -Del Phi, in the vacuum the
correct equation would be something like this: P_E = -Del Phi. In
this case, we have correctly stated that the potential gradient P_E
provides the potential for producing an antiparallel E-field in and
on a coupling/collecting charged mass, and the magnitude and
direction of that potential gradient will be given by -Del Phi, if
and only if a charged mass particle is first introduced so that it
couples to P_E.
At any rate, the activated/potentialized electron moves
itself. The reason is that it constitutes a force. Force == (mass x
acceleration) (non relativistic case). So the
potentialized/activated electron is continuously accelerating.
However, it is prevented from easily moving down the wire directly.
To begin to do that, it essentially has to first move to the outer
skin of the copper conductor.
_*The Collector:*_ We now consider a circuit element that we called
a _\collector\_. (It could be a special coil made of special
material, a capacitor with doped plates rather than simple conducting
plates, or any one of a number of things). The objective is for the
collector to be made of special material so that it has a free
electron gas whose electrons are momentarily not free to move as
current (they continue to move violently around microscopically, but
essentially with zero _\net\_ macroscopic translation) for a finite
delay (relaxation) time, while they are settling themselves upon the
surface and preparing to move as current. Let's call the electrons
NNTE (no net translation electrons) during that finite delay
(relaxation time). During that "no-current" delay time, the NNTE
electrons become potentialized/activated by the potential gradient
impressed across the collector. So at the end of the NNT time, the
NNTE electrons are potentialized, and each is of the form
[Del Phi @ m_e].
_*The Secret of Free Energy*_
_*Two Circuits/Two Cycles:*_ We are going to use two circuits and
two cycles, as shown in Figure 2:
(1) We shall connect a \collector\ to a primary source of
potential (to a battery) during the short time that current does not
yet flow, but potential does. (In other words, during the relaxation
time of the collector, we allow the VPF to flow onto the NNTE
electrons of the collector and potentialize (activate) them, but do
not yet allow the electrons themselves to flow as current, but only
to move transversely in the wiring and collector.) This is
_*cycle one*_ of a 2-cycle process: This is collection of a specific
amount of current-free potential gradient -- power-free energy -- off
the potential-source (the battery) onto a collector. During the
collection cycle/time, \current does not and must not flow\ (we are
discussing the ideal case). We are freely "charging up" the collector
as a \secondary battery/source\.
(2) At the end of the collection (potentialization/activation)
time/cycle in circuit one, the potentialized collector (the charged
secondary source) is sharply switched away from its connection to
the primary potential source (the battery), and at the same time it
is instantly switched into a separate closed circuit with the load.
This is important: In _*cycle two*_, the potentialized collector (with
its finite amount of excess trapped EM energy) and the load are
connected in a \completely separate circuit\, and one that is closed,
with no connection at all to the original source of potential (in
this case, to the battery). Specifically, this "load and
potentialized collector" circuit is completely separate from the
primary source; during cycle two the primary source (the battery) is
not connected to anything.
In other words, all we've taken from the primary source (the
battery) is \current-free, force-field-free potential gradient\. So
to speak, we've taken a "chunk of potential gradient" from the source,
nothing else. You simply multiply the potential gradient's local
energy density (the so-called "voltage", which is really excess joules
per coulomb) by the number of coulombs of charge that is "activated"
(that "collects" this voltage or excess joules/coulomb) in the
collector. Specifically, we have not taken any \power\ from the
battery itself, and so \we have not done any internal work inside the
battery upon its internal resistance\, by a "closed circuit electron
flow" back into the battery. We have not permitted such a flow.
Instead, \we are using the activated collector as a temporary,
secondary battery\. We will utilize this secondary battery in a
conventional manner to power the load, \which will also kill the
secondary battery\ (dissipate its trapped EM energy). But that will
\not\ affect the primary source. The primary source is never used to
directly power the load. It is only used as an infinite source of
potential gradient (i.e., as an infinite source of \energy density\).
_*The Standard Power Extraction Circuit*_
_*The Conventional Circuit:*_ We digress momentarily: In the
standard electrical method, the potential source (which is a
bipolarity) is connected across the load. This connects both the
external load and the internal resistance of the battery itself in
series, as the "total circuit load." Electrons then pour through
the external load circuit and through the internal battery
resistance, from the "electron rich" polarity of the source to its
"electron poor" opposite polarity. The scattering of energy in the
internal battery resistance is actually doing work to upset the
chemistry that is maintaining the battery's charge separation (the
bipolarity). In this manner, the source's separation of charges
(which is the "gate" furnishing the potential/energy gradient) is
being destroyed as the current flows, and this in turn destroys the
source of the potential gradient.
In other words, normally we, engineers, are trained to \kill
the bipolarity\, which kills the potential source itself! Incredible
as it may be, we, engineers and scientists, have been trained to
utilize the free "trapped EM energy" furnished by nature through the
source, to destroy the source of the energy/potential, \with the same
vigor as they power the external load!\ In fact, our teachers simply
have never learned any other way to do it except this deliberately
"self-destructive" manner!
_*A Waterwheel Analogy*_
Imagine, if you will, a waterwheel that powers a mill, with a
sluice gate upstream in a river, that diverts some river water into
the sluice carrying water to the wheel when the sluice gate is opened
into the river. The diverted water flows down to the waterwheel,
turning it, and the spent water is fed back into the river below the
mill site. Now what fool would connect a pulley onto the waterwheel,
with a rope running from the pulley to the sluice gate, so that when
the wheel rotated, part of the rotational power also was utilized to
close the sluice gate and shut off the water, stopping the waterwheel?
If one did so, when the sluice gate was opened, the waterwheel would
rotate only until the sluice gate was closed, shutting off the water.
Then one would laboriously have to pay to reopen the sluice gate again,
then again, then again. No self-respecting "waterwheel engineer"
would do such an unthinkable, insane thing. But that's exactly what
we engineers, electrical physicists, and scientists have been trained
to do! We have no \energy\ engineers or \energy\ scientists at all;
instead, we have all been \power\ engineers and \power\ scientists.
We have all been _\energy source killers!\_ In this paper, we shall
try to do better, and rectify "one of the most remarkable and
inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been
recorded in history," as Tesla called the conventional
electromagnetics. [16] By being \energy\ engineers, we shall only
have to pay for our energy source \once\, and then we shall draw as
much energy from it as we wish.
_*External Load Power Is Free; Only The Power In The Source Costs*_
Here's the magic secret of free electrical power: _\The
power in the external load is absolutely free, and it always has been
free.\_[17] _\In any load circuit, the only power you have to pay
for, and have ever had to pay for, is the power you incorrectly use
to kill your own primary source.\_ The only power that "costs" more
effort/dollars is the power erroneously utilized inside the source to
"close the gate" and kill the primary source. Your electric power
company doesn't pay for any of the collected energy on your load
circuits that is dissipated to power your house. Instead, the power
company charges you for its own ignorance. It charges you for its
insane use of its own freely extracted electrical energy to
continually kill the bipolarity in each of its generators, thus
continually killing the free electrical source of that generator's
energy. [18]
_\In any electric circuit, we can continue to indefinitely
power the external load indirectly from a source, so long as we are
not so naive as to use any of the free energy we extract from the
primary source to dissipate back inside the primary source itself and
shut it off!\_
And we can easily and freely multiply electrical potential.
As an example, given a single good source of potential, a hundred
radial wires can be connected to the source. The same potential will
now appear at each of the ends of the hundred wires.
A switcher/collector unit can then operate from each radial line's
end, and power external loads, without "loading" the original primary
source. This "cascading" can be continued indefinitely. A single
power plant, e.g., can power the entire electrical grid of the
United States. And a single automobile battery can power a large,
agile, electric automobile at highway speeds, with sports car
acceleration, with unlimited range, without "refueling," and with
no noxious chemical exhaust.
_*Obvious Impacts*_
Environmentalists should immediately see that the chemical
pollution of the biosphere by mechanista and processes to obtain
energy can be dramatically reduced, to almost negligible levels.
\There need be no huge oil tanker spills, for there need be no huge
oil tankers\. There need be no worrisome radioactive wastes from
nuclear power plants, or abandoned hazardous nuclear plants when
their life is finished, because \there need be no nuclear power
plants\. There need be no noxious exhausts from jet airplanes (which
are really what is diminishing the ozone layer and punching holes in
it), automobiles, trucks, buses, innumerable coal-fired and oil-fired
power plants, etc.
_*The Electronic Smog Problem*_
In fairness we point out that, as the usage of free
electrical energy mushrooms, we will be dramatically increasing the
low-level EM signal density of the environment, and that too is
biologically detrimental. Although beyond the scope of this paper,
that cumulative biological damage mechanism has also been uncovered
by this author. A formal paper is presently in preparation for
presentation in March 1993 at the annual meeting and conference of
the Alabama Academy of Science. [19] The paper will also present an
entirely new definition of cancer, give its exact long-term
cumulative mechanism, and give an exact, scientifically proven
mechanism for eliminating cancer, leukemia, and other debilitating
diseases such as AIDS. For our purposes here, we simply state that
we understand the EM "electronic smog" biological damage mechanism,
and how to go about developing a total counter for it. Eventually,
we would see a small "counter unit" added to each power unit,
alleviating the "electronic smog" problem and preventing biological
damage.
_*Only Dissipate Energy From a Collector, Not the Source*_
_*Completion of the Collection Cycle:*_ But to return to the
completion of our collection cycle (cycle one). \During collection,
we have not extracted power from the source. That is vital\. We
have not moved the gate through which our source is furnishing free
energy. We have not diminished our primary source. From our
previous definitions of potential, we have indeed extracted \trapped
energy\ from the primary source, because we placed its "local energy
density" across a certain finite collector/mass, instead of extracting
\power\ (dissipating energy inside the source or battery to spoil its
chemistry and deplete its charge separation).
_*All Energy Is Free*_
Here's the incredible truth. The entire universe is filled
with mind boggling free energy everywhere, in the simplest of things.
Simply scrape your feet on the carpet, and you will collect perhaps
2,000 "volts" on your body. At that time, hidden EM energy is
flowing from every point in the universe to your body, and from your
body back to every point in the universe. We know that all
macroscopic matter is filled with stupendous amounts of electrical
charge. So an incredible river of energy -- a great flux -- is
driving every single thing, from the smallest to the largest.
Opening a gate to extract trapped EM energy is simple. Just collect
a bit of charge, or scrape your feet hard, or comb your hair briskly.
\All we have to do is not be stupid and close the gate once we've got
it opened!\
God has been most kind. We have nothing but free energy
everywhere. All energy is furnished to us freely! \It's our own
blindness that has made us into energy source killers\. All we have
to do is open our eyes to the truth of nature's incredible energy
bounty. We must just freely collect that bountiful fruit from
Nature's tree, instead of chopping down the tree and killing it.
_*Dissipating The Collected Energy*_
_*The Work Cycle:*_ We focus again on cycle two. Shortly after the
now-potentialized collector is connected to the load at the beginning
of cycle 2 (the \power\ cycle, or \energy dissipation cycle\, or
\work\ cycle), the potential gradient across the potentialized
collector is connected (transferred) across the free electrons in the
load circuit. We assume that the material of the collector and the
switching time have been designed so that, shortly after switching to
the loading/work cycle, the activated/potentialized free electrons in
the electron gas in the collector reach the skin of the collector,
and are free to move as current.
So just after the beginning of cycle two, each of the free
electrons in the load circuit now is potentialized and free to move
down the wiring. Each potentialized (activated) electron has its
own little individual potential gradient across it and coupled to it,
due to the overall potential gradient from the collector. Remember,
prior to coupling to charges, this potential gradient moves through
the circuit at light speed. An EM potential gradient coupled to a
charged mass constitutes an _\EM force field\_ (excess trapped EM
energy per coulomb, times the number of collecting coulombs). Now
each little free electron with its potential gradient forms a little
E-field (force/charge), and that little E-field (force/charge) is
free to move. That's all it takes to move (accelerate) the little
activated electron's mass through the load (the scatterer). We
strongly stress that the \potentialized/activated electron moves
itself\. It doesn't care whether or not the external battery is
attached or not. It is its own little motorboat, with its own little
engine driving it.
As the little potentialized electrons reach the load (the
scatterer), they bang and clang around in there erratically. That is,
the "scatterer" (load) causes spurious accelerations ("scatterings")
of these self-driven electrons. As is well-known, when a charge is
accelerated, it radiates photons. What actually happens is that
these little "jerked around" electrons shuck off their little
potential gradients in the load (in the scatterer, or the
"jerker-arounder") by emitting/radiating photons in all directions.
Hence the heat that is produced in the load; the heat is just these
scattered photons. The theory of calorimetry already states that
all the excess energy (on the potentialized electrons) will be
dissipated as this heat (scattered EM energy).
When all the potentialized electrons have radiated away
their potential gradients in the load (scatterer), they are no
longer potentialized. The free electron gas is again "quiescent"
and no longer potentialized/activated (again, we are talking about
"on the average" from a classical viewpoint).
_*Repetition and Review*_
_*Notice What We've Done:*_ We took some trapped EM energy density
(a chunk of potential gradient, a "voltage" before current flows)
from the source, by switching that potential gradient (energy
density, which is joules per coulomb) onto a collector (containing
a certain number of coulombs of trapped charges) where the potential
gradient activates/potentializes/couples-to these temporarily non
translating electrons. So the finite collector collected a finite
amount of excess energy [joules/coulomb x collecting (trapped)
coulombs] on its now-excited (activated) free electrons. Then,
before any current has yet flowed from the source, we switched that
potentialized collector (with its temporarily restrained but
potentialized electrons; with their finite amount of excess trapped
EM energy) away from the source and directly across the load.
Shortly thereafter, the relaxation time in the collector expires.
The potentialized electrons in the collector are freed to move in
the external load circuit, consisting of the collector and the load,
and so they do so. The scattering "shock collisions" due to the
erratic electron accelerations in the load shake off the little
potential gradients on the conduction electrons, emitting photons
in all directions, which we call "heat." In shaking off the photons,
the electrons lose their little potential gradients, hence lose their
activation (excess EM energy).
Rigorously, we have extracted some energy in trapped form,
and allowed it to dissipate in the load, "powering the load" for a
finite discharge/dissipation time and doing work. [20] \Contrary
to the conventional electrical power engineering, we have also done
this without doing any work inside the source to diminish its ability
to furnish potential gradient.\
_*What Is Energy In An Electric Circuit?*_
_*Energy in an Electric Circuit:*_ Here's the principle loud and
clear. _\Energy\_ in an electric circuit involves only the
potentialization and depotentialization of the electron carriers in
that circuit. [21] It involves only the potential gradient (the
joules per coulomb) collected by the circuit to potentialize its
electrons, and the number of coulombs of electrons that are
potentialized during the collection phase. Electric circuits simply
utilize electrons as carriers of "potential gradients," from the
source to the load, where these gradients and the activated
electrons constitute excess trapped EM energy. In the
"shocking/scattering" occurring in the load, the jerking
(acceleration) of the electrons causes these activated
(trapped-energy-carrying) electrons to shuck off their potential
gradients by emitting them as scattered photons (heat).
If one is thoughtless enough to allow the primary potential
source to remain in the circuit during the "work" phase, then one
is using the potentialized electrons to also go back into the
primary source and scatter energy from its internal resistance
(internal load), \thereby disorganizing the organization that was
producing the source potential and energy in the first place\. If
one does that, then all the while one is getting some work
(scattering of energy) in the load, one is also steadily getting
some work done inside the primary source to steadily destroy it!
Literally, one is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
_*Continued Operations:*_ But back to our circuit. After we
complete one full collection/discharge cycle, we wish to continue
producing work in the external load. So we simply switch the
collector back away from the load and onto the primary source,
collect some more current-free potential, and again independently
switch the collector with its repotentialized free electrons back
across the load. We can repeat this two-cycle process to
potentialize the external load and power it as long as we wish,
from a battery or other source of potential, and never take any
power at all from the primary battery. We do not need to drain
the battery or source at all, in order to power a load, unless
we attempt to power it directly. Powering the external load is
_\always\_ free!
Nature has been most kind, and we have been most ignorant.
You can have all the \trapped electrical energy\ you wish, from any
source of potential, for \free\. You can power all the external
loads you wish, for free, by using a collector as a secondary source,
and simply shuttling potential between the primary source and the
collector. [22] But you cannot have power for free from (in) the
potential source. If you allow current flow in your collection
cycle, you are depleting the separated charges inside the battery
that are furnishing the source potential.
_*The Coal-Fired Locomotive*_
_*Rigorous Analogy of a Coal-Fired Locomotive.*_ Now here's an exact
analogy, to assist in understanding. Imagine a coal-fired train, and
a fireman shoveling coal. He has an external load/scatterer of
energy (the fire in the firebox under the boiler). He has a primary
source of potential/energy (the coal car). No fireman in his right
mind would ignite the coal in the chute of the coal bin, to try and
get some heat energy into the firebox! [That is, he would not
attempt to extract \power\ from the source. Yet that's exactly what
all we engineers are trained to do at present.] Instead, the fireman
takes out (collects) a finite amount (a shovelful) of coal (trapped
energy). Coal \per se\ (the potential gradient) has a certain energy
density per unit volume (trapped joules per unit volume of coal) and
the shovel (collector) has a certain volume. Accordingly, the
shovelful of coal contains a certain amount of trapped joules of
energy. In the fireman's shovel (the collector), \the energy
remains in totally trapped form, as coal not afire and without its
trapped energy being dissipated as work\. [He doesn't act like a
fool and ignite the coal in the shovel either!] He then throws that
shovel of coal (collected trapped energy) onto the fire (scatterer),
completely separately from the coal bin/source. He continues to
repeat his shoveling cycle, and each shovelful of coal added to the
fire dissipates additional energy, powering the load.
_*The Free Energy Principle*_
_*All potential gradient (trapped excess energy density) is free for
the taking.*_ [23] The potential is due to the violent VPF exchange
between the vacuum and the separated bipolar charges furnishing the
source potential gradient. The energy of the entire universe is
flowing through that source potential. You can have as much of
this internal VPF flux energy (potential) as you wish, as often as
you wish, so long as you don't demand \current\ (which is power, or
the rate at which the energy is being freed and dissipated). It's
really simple. You can have all the \trapped\ energy you wish, from
any source. You cannot connect to the source and start to dissipate
the energy as power, however, without starting to close the "gate"
from which your free trapped energy is coming.
In other words, here's the iron rule: _*\If you draw current,
you kill the bipolarity gate furnishing the potential gradient
(source of energy density). In that case, you kill the source.
If you do not draw current, you do not kill the bipolarity gate and
you do not shut down the source. In that case, you can continue to
"use" it and extract trapped EM energy from it forever.\*_
_*Definitions Again*_
_*Definitions:*_ I'll put down some simple equations, that may help
to explain it more exactly. First we repeat some definitions.
_\Energy\_ is any ordering imposed upon the virtual particle
flux of vacuum. _\EM energy\_ is any ordering imposed upon the
virtual photon flux of vacuum. _\Static energy\_ is an ordering
(a template) which is stationary with respect to the external
observer. _\Dynamic energy\_ is an ordering (a template) which is
not stationary with respect to the external observer.
_\Potential:\_ Any ordering imposed upon the virtual
particle flux of vacuum. _\Scalar potential\_ is an ordering
(template) that is not moving with respect to the external observer.
_\Vector potential\_ is an ordering (template) that is moving with
respect to the external observer.
The _\scalar EM potential\_ is any static (with respect to
the external observer) ordering imposed upon the virtual photon
flux of vacuum. Etc.
Note again that energy and potential have exactly the same
definition. Potential is in fact _\trapped energy\_. Scalar EM
potential is \static EM energy\ (to the external observer) or
\trapped\ (collected) EM energy. In other words, if one takes off a
differential of potential onto a fixed number of coulombs, one takes
off a certain magnitude of trapped EM energy. In other words, one
takes out a shovelful of coal from the coal car.
_*Importance of Separation of Charges*_
_*We Must Not Dispel the Separation of Charges In Our Source:*_ The
difference in our coal-fired train analogy and our electrical circuit
is that, in the coal train, the coal in the coal car is not
automatically and continually replenished. Also, the coal in the
coal car has already been collected by the mass of the coal car, so
it is not infinite. In the electrical circuit, the potential
gradient in the primary source is continually replenished,
automatically, and it is infinite (though it has a finite energy
density). The reason is simple. EM potential (in the normal sense)
is actually a virtual photon flux exchange between the vacuum (the
entire vacuum, all over the universe) and a charged particle or
collection of charged particles. [24] Thus the potential (gradient)
is a powerful energy flux, pumped by the vacuum and the entire
universe, that continues automatically, so long as we do not allow
the collected charges in our bipolarity source to be dissipated.
In terms of a battery, we achieved separation of charges inside the
battery by chemical action, and \we paid for that initially\. Once
separated, the charges essentially stay separated (because of the
chemistry) unless we foolishly do something to dissipate them,
such as upsetting the chemistry, so they are no longer separated
positive from negative. So if we don't do anything to these
separated charges, they continue to be driven by their fierce
exchange of virtual photon flux with the vacuum/universe. If we
then simply extract some of that flux exchange, without moving
the charges, we are directly "gating" trapped EM energy from the
vacuum//charged particle VPF exchange. [25]
_*The Potential Is Infinite And So Is Its Energy Content*_
_*You Can't Dip The Ocean Dry With a Spoon:*_ Let's say that
another way. The charged particles in our potential source are
in a constant, seething, equilibrium exchange of trapped EM energy
with the entire universe. That energy exchange is so enormous that,
if we gate some of it out to collect on some other "temporarily
frozen" charges and potentialize/activate them, the vacuum flux
doesn't even miss it. It's like dipping a spoonful of water out of
the restless ocean. The hole is instantly filled, and the water
replenished. We can dip with that spoon as much as we wish, and
the ocean will never run dry, but will simply continue to furnish
us water, spoonful by spoonful.
The same is true in our electric circuits. We can have all
the potential (trapped EM energy density) we wish, for free, from
a single source, so long as we do not allow work to be done inside
the source to close off our "gate" and kill our primary source.
_*The Twisted Concept of Voltage*_
_*Before We Develop Some Pseudo-Equations:*_ In the equations we
wish to develop, we have one problem, due to the lack of insight of
conventional electrical physicists. That is, they have insisted
upon "measuring" and expressing both the infinite potential
(non-dissipated) and a certain quantity of potential (dissipated)
in _\volts\_. So they say "a potential of so many volts." That's
nonsense, and totally erroneous. Rigorously, a voltage is a drop
or a dissipation of so much (a finite amount of) \collected\ excess
potential/energy. You "measure" the voltage in a voltmeter by
impressing a potential gradient upon the electron gas in the
circuitry, wherein you collect or get in your voltmeter so much
[(joules/coulomb) x coulombs]. A tiny current (coulombs/second)
from this internal collection then flows for a finite time through
the resistance of the voltmeter. So you dissipate (joules/coulomb)
x (coulombs/second) x (seconds), which gives a certain amount of
energy dissipated as work in moving the needle of the voltmeter.
The voltmeter is calibrated so that it effectively indicates the
\collected energy per coulomb\ that was dissipated, and it calls
that entity _\voltage\_. It involves a finite amount of energy that
has already been dissipated as work, and it's a measure of the local
energy density of the potential in terms of joules/coulomb. It is
\not\ a measure of the potential proper. It's after the fact; the
extracted (collected) potential gradient it actually refers to
existed in the past, before the work (dissipation of the collected
trapped energy) was done. To refer to the potential \before\ its
dissipation as "voltage" is precisely the same as confusing the
future with the past. A "potential (difference) of so many volts"
is actually a statement that "a potential difference of so much
energy per coulomb" could be dissipated in a load, if it were
connected to the load so that a finite amount of energy was
collected, and this finite load-collection was allowed to dissipate
as power (volts/coulomb x coulomb/sec) for a finite time, yielding
work. It's even worse, but it would take a textbook to straighten
out this one error in EM theory.
So we'll leave it at that, and we'll adapt the notion of
potential the way it is corrupted in electrical circuit theory.
There it's used not really as energy, but rather as \excess energy
per coulomb of potentialized charge\. I apologize for that
difficulty, which is not of my own making, but I must use the
conventional notion if we are to greatly clarify the pseudo
equations.
_*The Equations of Free Energy*_
_*The Pseudo-Equations:*_ Let us use the following subscripts and
letter convention, and develop the nomenclature needed:
T = trapped d = dissipated or dissipating
m = translated (moving) K = energy
V = volts = potential drop (potential dissipated)
= previously collected potential radiated away as
heat in a load, doing work on the load in the
process. Unfortunately, we shall also have to
speak of a potential gradient that is not being
dissipated, so we shall have to speak of "trapped
volts" which is erroneous, but complies with the
common usage.
Phi = electrostatic scalar potential. Coul = coulombs
i = amperes = Dissipating potentialized coulombs per second
flowing, so amps are something translating,
always. Amps are excited coulombs, per
second, that are dissipating their excitation.
With superconductivity excluded, you only have
amps when you have a potential drop across a
load. So we will speak of amps as
"dissipating," meaning that potentialized
electrons are traveling through a load,
dissipating their activation (gradients) in
the load by radiating scattered photons (heat).
n = number of electrons in a coulomb
= 6.3 x 10^18 electrons/coulomb
Here are the pseudo equations (superconductivity is excluded):
amp_m = coul_d/sec = n electrons_m/sec = n electrons_d/sec [1]
Delta Phi = V_T (as conventionally referred to). It would [2]
be volts if all of it were dissipated, but it is
not yet dissipated, so it is sort of "trapped
volts". _\Erroneous\_, but the common use. So
we will speak (somewhat distastefully) of
"trapped volts" and "dissipated volts."
V_d x amp_d x sec = watts x sec = power x time = work = K_d [3]
V_d x coul_d/sec x sec = (work) = K_d [4]
In the switching, we switch K_T to K_d so
K_T ==> K_d [5]
But V_T x coul_T = K_T [6]
Or
[V_T] = [K_T] / [coul_T] = trapped energy/trapped coulomb [7]
[K_T] = [V_T] x [coul_T] [8]
= amount of trapped energy, each cycle
So that's what we were getting at. The amount of trapped
energy you can transfer (in other words, how much coal you get in one
shovelful) depends upon the number of trapped electrons you have in
the trapped free electron gas in the collector, and the potential
gradient you apply to those trapped coulombs to potentialize them.
_*Relaxation Time and Semiconductors*_
_*Relaxation Time:_* The time it takes for the free electrons in
a conductor (or material) to reach the skin of the wire after
potential is applied, is, of course, called the _\relaxation time\_.
During that time, the free electrons in the gas are "trapped"
insofar as producing current (dissipation of the potential) is
concerned. However, immediately after the relaxation time ends,
current begins and dissipation of the trapped energy begins.
In copper, the relaxation time is incredibly rapid. It's
about 1.5 x 10^-19 sec. However, in quartz it is about 10 days! So
as you can see, we need to get somewhere in between these two values,
and so we will have to "mix" or "dope" materials. We must get a
sufficiently long relaxation time so that we can switch and collect
comfortably in cycle one, then switch into cycle two for dispersion
of the freely collected energy in the collector. However, the
relaxation time we get must also be short enough to allow quick
discharge in the load, as soon as we switch the primary source away
from the collector. Actually, we need a \degenerate semiconductor
material\ instead of plain copper.
_*Degenerate Semiconductor Material:*_ A _\semiconductor material\_
is intermediate between a good conductor and an insulator. It's a
nonlinear material, and doped. A _\degenerate semiconductor
material\_ is one which has all its conduction bands filled with
electrons, and so it thinks it is a conductor. That is, a
degenerate semiconductor is essentially a doped conductor, so to
speak. As you can see, we can increase the relaxation time in
our "conductors" connected to the source by making them of
\degenerate semiconductor material\. What we're talking about is
"doping" the copper in the wire, and in the collector, so that we
can have plenty of time to collect, and switch, and discharge, and
switch, and collect, etc.
Now in a doped conductor (degenerate semiconductor), we
can tailor the relaxation time by tailoring the doping. We must
dope the copper before we make the wire. Why would we wish to do
that? We want to overcome the single problem that so far has
defeated almost all the "overunity" researchers and inventors.
WHEN YOU CONNECT TO A SOURCE, YOU CAN ONLY EXTRACT
CURRENT-FREE POTENTIAL -- FREE "TRAPPED EM ENERGY" -- DURING THE
ELECTRON RELAXATION TIME IN THE CONNECTING CONDUCTORS AND
SUCCEEDING CIRCUIT COMPONENTS. AFTER THAT, YOU'RE STEADILY
EXTRACTING POWER, AND THE ENERGY EXTRACTED FROM THE SOURCE IS
BEING PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN THE RESISTANCE/LOADING OF THE
CIRCUIT, AND PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN THE INTERNAL RESISTANCE OF
THE SOURCE. IN THE LATTER DISSIPATION, YOU'RE ALSO DISSIPATING
YOUR SOURCE BY DOING WORK ON IT INTERNALLY TO KILL IT.
_*Good Copper Wire: Bane of Overunity Inventors:*_ Many destitute
inventors, tinkering and fiddling with overunity devices, finally
get something (a circuit or device) that does yield more work out
than they had to input. At that point, they usually conclude that
it's simply the specific circuit configuration and its conventional
functioning that produces the overunity work. However, usually as
soon as this configuration is more carefully built with very good
materials, boom! It isn't overunity anymore. The inventors and
their assistants then desperately bang and clang away, getting more
frustrated as the years pass. The investors get mad, sue for fraud,
or get in all sorts of squabbles. The scientists who tested it and
found it wanting, pooh-pooh the whole thing as a scam and a fraud,
or just a seriously mistaken inventor. Scratch one more "overunity"
device.
Most of these inventors got their successful effect (and
possibly erratically) when they were struggling with inferior,
usually old, usually corroded materials. Actually, the \more\
inferior, the better. The more contaminated/doped, the better!
The moment you wire up your circuit with \good copper wire\
connected between the battery or primary source and any kind of load
including the distributed circuitry loading itself, you can forget
about overunity. You will lose it in the copper, after the first
1.5 x 10^-19 second!
Think of a really good conductor such as copper as an
essentially _\linear\_ material. Linear means energy conservative.
Overunity can only be done with a highly nonlinear effect. So your
"conductors" have to be made of nonlinear materials. In fact, they
have to be made of _\degenerate semiconductor material\_. For the
type of circuitry we are talking about, the copper has to be doped
and then made into "doped copper" wiring. You also have to utilize
the primary battery only to potentialize a collector (secondary
battery/source), and then use this secondary battery source to
conventionally power the load \while also killing itself\.
_*The Wiring And the Collector Must Be of Degenerate Semiconductor
(DSC) Material.*_ [26] A good materials scientist/engineer, together
with a decent electrodynamicist, can readily design and tailor some
doped copper wiring so that the material in the wiring is a
degenerate semiconductor material, with a target (desired)
relaxation time. That's what you should use to make the wiring to
connect up your source to the collector with, and that type of
material is also what you use in your collector. You can use either
a coil or a capacitor as the collector, but its "conductive" material
has to be degenerate semiconductor material -- in short, it must be
doped to have the proper relaxation time. From the collector to
the load, however, obviously you want to use a good conductor
material. Ordinary copper will do nicely there.
Once you do that, you're in business. When making the DSC
material, simply tailor the relaxation time to something which is
easily switched. For example, take one millisecond. With a relaxation
time of that long, switching is easy. In fact, one could even use
good mechanical switching. Or easily use inexpensive ordinary solid
state switching, without having to go all the way to nanosecond
switching.
Then, in the collector, you calculate the number of "trapped
coulombs" you have. Take the "trapped voltage" (current-free
potential's energy density per coulomb) you extract from the source
during the electron relaxation time after the collector is connected.
Multiply the number of trapped coulombs in the collector by the
trapped voltage during collection, and you have the amount of energy
in joules that you extract FOR FREE, without paying for it, from the
source \during every collection cycle\.
_*Sources, Collectors, and Power*_
_*Tapping Vacuum Energy.*_ You're getting the excess electrical
energy directly from the vacuum, as we briefly pointed out above.
The vacuum will freely replenish all the "trapped voltage" you
extract from the primary source during the electron relaxation
time. It won't replenish a single bit of "dissipated voltage"
(power) you extract from the source.
Note that the same considerations apply in the collector.
It's got to have a somewhat longer electron relaxation time. Its
electrons stay "unrelaxed" during the collection cycle, and allow
for some additional switching time to connect to the load. The
"trapped voltage" across the collector multiplied by the number of
trapped coulombs in it, gives the number of joules of FREE EM ENERGY
you extract and get into and onto the collector (the shovel). In
other words, that's your "shovelful of coal." You then throw the
"shovelful" onto the fire/load -- you simply disconnect the
collector from the primary source and connect it across the external
load. The collector (secondary battery) now powers the load and its
own internal resistance, "killing" itself while furnishing the
energy for powering the external load as well.
_*The Source Can Be Almost Anything:_* You can use as a source a
simple elevated wire, to "tap" potential from the 200-300 volts/meter
between earth and ionosphere. Here again, you need to utilize
calibrated, doped wire.
Finally, you must adjust the repetition switching in
accordance with the discharge time through the load. In other words,
you have a serial process as follows:
(1) extract trapped energy (potential) from the source onto the
collector, Delta t1.
(2) Switch the collector off the source, onto the load, during
time Delta t2.
(3) Wait while the collected energy in the collector discharges
through the load, during time Delta t3.
(4) Switch the collector back off the load and onto the potential
source, during time Delta t4. That completes one cycle.
The serial timing simply is [Delta t1 + Delta t2 + Delta t3 + Delta t4].
If you balance all the doping and the materials design, and
correlate the switching, you can get all the free energy you wish.
_\Properly utilized, a single car battery can be used to power an
electric automobile indefinitely. Or even to power a battleship\_.
In the real world, of course, you will inevitably have a tiny bit of
loss as you go, because there's a finite (though high) resistance
between the two poles of your battery. Handling that is a piece of
cake. Simply run a separate little collection circuit to collect a
little bit of trapped EM energy from the slowly leaking source, and
ever so often feed the collected energy back into the battery as
power, to "re-separate" the charges (charge the battery) and replace
the small amount of the primary source's potential gradient that has
been lost. The battery, load, and "trickle charger" then become a
closed-circuit free-energy source that will last for years and years.
_*Limited Only By One's Imagination:*_ Of course you can see many
variants; this is just the "master key." You can have multiple
collectors, collecting trapped energy simultaneously or in sequence
off a single source, and pooling their collected energy to more
powerfully power the load. You can utilize a very high "voltage",
such as in the Swiss electrostatic overunity device, to increase the
energy collected per coulomb in each switching (in each shovelful) in
accord with equation [8]. For a battery, you can set a separate
little collector/load device to trickle-charge the battery,
overcoming the small normal "leakage current" that does occur in
batteries and in real circuits and devices. The opportunities are
endless. You can put in a unit to take mostly only power-free
energy from the "power line" feeding your business or home, reducing
your utility bill by -- say -- 90%. Or you can simply build a small
home power unit to do the whole job, for only a few hundred dollars.
\This simple secret can be used to power the world, cheaply and cleanly,
and to clean up the biosphere\.
_*Conclusion*_
Well, there you have it. I've given you the benefit of what
required most of my adult life to discover. The definitions advanced
in this paper are rigorous. It took years of sweat and tears to come
up with them. They're simple, but they will change your entire
understanding of electromagnetics, power, and energy once you grasp
them. Please read them, and ponder them, several times. One or two
readings will not be sufficient to fully grasp what is said here.
Also, hopefully, by this time, the reader is beginning to
experience the same emotions as I experienced when I finally
discovered how simple it all really was. First one wants to \laugh\
for about two hours at how truly ignorant we've all been. Then one
wants to \cry\ for about two hours for the same reason. This could
all have been done a century ago, \if we had ever really understood
electromagnetics\.
We've had this electromagnetics around for over 100 years
-- Maxwell's book was published in 1873. We got it wrong, starting
right with Maxwell and his use of the material ether, which was
almost universally assumed at the time. Still, by using quaternions,
Maxwell succeeded in packing a great deal more in the model than even
he himself recognized. When the vector aspects interacted to form a
zero resultant \translationally\, those active interactants were
still in there and still fighting and interacting. The scalar
component of the quaternion remained, and infolded those struggling
vectors and functions of them inside itself. In short, it captured
the case where the electromagnetic energies are involved in
translation actions which nullify each other translationally
(electromagnetically). However, the energies are still in there
in the continuing interactants inside the zero vector resultant.
As such, they are trapped EM energy. And it is the trapped EM energy
inside a mass -- not the mass per se -- which is responsible for
gravitation. In other words, \Maxwell's theory already correctly
captured the unification of the gravitational field and the
electromagnetic field in 1873\.
Then Heaviside et al forced Maxwell's theory into a vector
framework, throwing out the scalar component, and discarding the
unification of gravitation and electromagnetics along with it.
Serious errors were made and still exist in many of the fundamental
definitions; in fact, many of them aren't definitions at all. Nearly
every engineer and physicist can readily calculate potentials -- all,
of course, on the "dissipation" side where the potentials are
actually the amount of potential that was collected upon a collector
and then dissipated. I could find hardly a single physicist who
really knew what a scalar potential was prior to a finite amount
being collected and dissipated as voltage. Yet 99% of them firmly
believed they understood the potential.
So now you have the results of this researcher's long and
arduous quest for the golden fleece. Please go forward with it, to
make this a better and cleaner world for everyone.
Just remember that the control and use of energy is personal
power. The control and use of absolute energy is the control and
use of absolute personal power. In the old adage, power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Please use it wisely.
_*NOTES AND REFERENCES*_
1. For a good discussion of the modern quantum mechanical view of
the vacuum, see I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's plenty: the vacuum in
modern field theory," _Contemporary Physics_, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391.
See also T. D. Lee, _Particle Physics and Introduction to Field
Theory_, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York, 1981 -- particularly
Chapter 16, "Vacuum as the source of asymmetry." See Timothy Boyer,
"The classical vacuum," _Scientific American_, Aug. 1985, p. 70;
Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum really Empty?",
_American Scientist_, Mar.-Apr. 1980, p. 154; Jack S. Greenberg and
Walter Greiner, "Search for the sparking of the vacuum," /Physics
Today/, Aug. 1982, p. 24-32; Richard E. Prange and Peter Strance,
"The superconducting vacuum," _American Journal of Physics_, 52(1),
Jan. 1984, p. 19-21; R. Jackiw and J.R. Schrieffer, "The decay of the
vacuum," _Nuclear Physics B_, Vol. 190, 1981, p. 944. See Paul
Davies, _Superforce_, Simon and Schuster, 1984 for a layman's
overview of modern physics, including the modern view of the vacuum.
2. E. T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of
mathematical physics," _Mathematische Annalen_, Vol. 57, 1903,
p. 333-355. Since the scalar potential actually consists totally
of a set of hidden bidirectional EM waves, then \scalar
interferometry\ is possible, and not just an oxymoron as it would
seem without considering the inner wave structure of the scalar
potential. Two scalar potentials (each of which is a multi-biwave
set) can interfere; it is just a special kind of multiple wave
interferometry between their internal wave compositions. This is
a major point of profound impact on physics. Whittaker in fact
showed that \all classical EM\ could be replaced by such scalar EM
potential interferometry. See E. T. Whittaker, "On an expression
of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar
potential functions," _Proceedings of the London Mathematical
Society, Series 2_, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. Further, scalar
interferometry has been proven; today it is called the Aharonov-Bohm
Effect. See Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of
Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory," _Physical Review,
Second Series_, 115(3), Aug. 1, 1959, p. 458-491. For confirmation
and discussion, see Bertram Schwarzschild, "Currents in normal-metal
rings exhibit Aharonov-Bohm Effect," _Physics Today_, 39(1),
Jan. 1986, p. 17-20. For an extensive discussion of the Aharonov-
Bohm effect and an extensive list of references, see S. Olariu and
I. Iovitzu Popescu, "The quantum effects of electromagnetic fluxes,"
_Reviews of Modern Physics_, 57(2), April 1985. Modern scientists
have generally been unaware of the inner wave structure of the
interfering potentials and have utilized only quantum mechanical
theory for the interference. Consequently, they have been able to
experimentally establish the AB effect for only a few thousand
Angstroms distance. With the Whittaker formulation, the AB effect
becomes distant-independent, because the necessary potentials can
be fabricated as laser-like beams, simply by assembling the proper
Whittaker multibeam set. Also, Ignatovich pointed out that the
Schroedinger potential can also be decomposed into just such an
internal bidirectional EM wave set. See V.K. Ignatovich, "The
remarkable capabilities of recursive relations," _American Journal
of Physics_, 57(10), Oct. 1989, p. 873-878.
3. See Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave
Equation With Complex Source Locations," _Journal of Mathematical
Physics_, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 861; "Localized Transmission of Wave
Energy," _Proc. SPIE, Vol. 1061, Microwave and Particle Beam Sources
and Directed Energy Concepts_, 1989, p. 396-397; "Localized
Transmission of Electromagnetic Energy," _Physical Review A_,
Vol. 39, p. 2005; "Localized Wave Transmission Physics and
Engineering," _Physical Review A_, 1992, (in Press); "Localized
wave transmission physics and engineering," _Proc. SPIE Conference on
Intense Microwave and Particle Beams II_, Los Angeles, CA, vol. 1407,
Jan. 1991, p. 375-386. See Richard W.Ziolkowski, Amr M. Shaarawi,
and Ioannis M. Besieris, _Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.)_, Vol. 6,
1989, p. 255-258; R.W. Ziolkowski, and D.K. Lewis, D.K.,
"Verification of the Localized Wave Transmission Effect," _Journal
of Applied Physics_, Vol. 68, 1990, p.6083; Richard W. Ziolkowski,
Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "Localized Wave
Representations of Acoustics and Electromagnetic Radiation,"
_Proceedings of the IEEE_, 79(10), Oct. 1991, p. 1371-1378;
I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional
travelling plane wave representation of exact solutions of the
scalar wave equation," _Journal of Mathematical Physics_, 30(6),
1989, p. 806; A.M. Shaarawi, I.M. Besieris, and R.W. Ziolkowski,
"A novel approach to the synthesis of nondispersive wave packet
solutions to the Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equations," _Journal
of Mathematical Physics_, 31(10), 1990, p. 2511; "A nondispersive
wave packet representation of photons and the wave-particle duality
of light," UCRL-101694, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, CA, 1989; "Diffraction of a classical wave packet in a
two slit interference experiment," UCRL-100756, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 1989; "Localized energy pulse
trains launched from an open, semi-infinite, circular waveguide,"
_Journal of Applied Physics_, 65(2), 1989, p. 805; R.W. Ziolkowski,
D.K.Lewis and B.D.Cook, "Experimental verification of the localized
wave transmission effect," _Physical Review Letters_, 62(2), 1989,
p. 147; R.W. Ziolkowski and D.K. Lewis, "Verification of the
localized wave transmission effect," _Journal of Applied Physics_,
68(12), 1990, p. 6083; M.K. Tippett and R.W. Ziolkowski,
"A bidirectional wave transformation of the cold plasma equations,"
_Journal of Mathematical Physics_, 32(2) 1991, p. 488;
A.M. Vengsarkar, I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski,
"Localized energy pulses in optical fiber waveguides: Closed-form
approximate solutions," _Journal of the Optical Society of
America A_, 1991.
4. For a precise statement of the distortion correction theorem,
see Amnon Yariv, _Optical Electronics_, 3rd Ed., Holt, Rihehart and
Winston, New York, 1985, p. 500-501.
5. Both wave and antiwave co-exist in the vacuum simultaneously,
forming a stress wave. The entity that is stressed is the rate of
flow of time. In the common interaction with matter, the time-forward
half of the stress wave normally interacts with the electron shells of
the atom, giving electron translations forces. The time-reversed or
anti-wave half interacts with the nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd
law reaction (recoil) forces. The so-called "EM wave" in vacuum is
a \gravitational\ wave. It is a wave of oscillation of the rate of
flow of time. It is rather like a sound wave in air, as Tesla
pointed out, and it is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse "string"
wave.
6. As pointed out by Nikola Tesla. Tesla was correct, and all
the textbooks with their transverse "string" waves are in error.
\There are no strings in the vacuum!\
7. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, _Introduction to
Electromagnetic Fields_, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 113.
8. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, ibid., p. 100-101.
See also Raymond A. Serway, _Physics For Scientists And Engineers,
With Modern Physics_, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA,
3rd Ed., Updated Version, 1992, p. 752-755.
9. Sommerfield's theory of metallic conduction was based on
Drude's concept that the outer valence electrons of a conductor,
which do not form crystal bonds, are free to migrate through the
crystalline lattice structure, and so to form an electron gas. At
room temperature, by quantum mechanical considerations, these free
electrons are moving randomly, but at an average velocity on the
order of 10^6 meters per sec. E.g., see Martin A. Plonus, _Applied
Electromagnetics_, McGraw Hill, New York, 1978, p. 54-58, 62-3, 376-7.
If you wish to know just how much power exchange is driving the
collisions of the electron gas in a copper wire, here is an
illustration. In one cubic centimeter of copper wire, the power
exchange in and out of the electron gas is some 4 billion billion
watts. That's the equivalent of 4 billion large electric power
plants, each of 1,000 megawatt capacity. And one cubic centimeter
of copper is a lump about the size of the end of our little finger.
10. E. g., see Raymond A. Serway, ibid., p. 743-744 for a
discussion and calculation of the electron drift velocity in copper.
11. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
_The Feynman Lectures on Physics_, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. 1,
1963, p. 2-4. In the classical EM theory launched by Maxwell and
later modified by Heaviside et al, this problem did not exist for
the original theoretical formulation. In that formulation by Maxwell,
and continued by Heaviside, a material ether is assumed for the model.
The Michelson-Morley experiments of 1887 destroyed the notion of
the material ether, but the classical electromagnetics model has
never been corrected to rectify its very serious foundations flaw
in this respect.
12. Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, _Foundations of
Physics_, Dover Publications, New York, 1963, p. 283-287. Note on
p. 283 that a "field of force" at any point is actually defined only
for the case when a unit mass is present at that point. In spite of
this, most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the
notion that the EM field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit
that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve
the product of charge and field. E.g., see J.D. Jackson,
_Classical Electrodynamics_, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1975, p. 249. Note that holding such a concept is tantamount to
holding on to the material ether, and assuming that the vacuum
itself is "measurable" or "observable."
13. The formula F = ma is simply an algorithm for calculating
the magnitude of the force. It states that "the magnitude of the
force is equal to the magnitude of mass that is accelerating,
multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration." No such "equals"
formula is a definition; it is only a calculational algorithm.
14. This falsifies one of the assumptions in the common notion
of the scalar potential; that its gradient in vacuum is a force
field. Let us falsify another part of the conventional concept of
the potential. Take the notion of forcibly pushing in "against the
field" of a trapped charge, a unit charge from infinity. At any
point you stop, the work n you have done on the unit charge is
equal to the value of the potential, so it is said. Actually,
you pushed in a one-coulomb collector, and have collected and
dissipated as work n joules of energy on that one coulomb.
In other words, the energy density of the potential there, if
collected and dissipated on a collector, is n, where n is joules
per coulomb (NOT joules!). To prove it: suppose we go out on 10,000
radials from that point, and push in from infinity 10,000 unit charges
from infinity. Then, the total work done "against the potential
gradient ("field", in common language) is now 10,000 n. This makes n
o sense at all from the conventional view (which carefully refrains
from multiple collectors!). It makes good sense from our view of
the potential as having infinite energy but a finite energy density.
In that case, the more collectors, the more energy collected, for
dispersal as work.
15. For a discussion, see Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, 1959.
16. Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless," _Electrical Experimenter_,
May 1919, p. 87.
17. The power in the load is always the time rate of dissipation
of energy that has just been freely collected by the load for
dissipation.
18. One can foresee a day in the not too distant future when any
power company continuing to do such an unthinkable thing will have
a class action suit brought against it by its customers!
19. T. E. Bearden, "Mechanism for Long-Term Cumulative Biological
Effects of EM Fields and Radiation," March 1993 (in preparation).
20. Precisely analogous to a heat pump's operation - which as is
well-known can readily be "over unity" in its efficiency. The
maximum efficiency of the heat pump is about 8.22. E.g., see David
Halliday and Robert Resnick, _Fundamentals of Physics_, 3rd Edition
Extended, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988, Volume 1, p. 510-519.
Good heat pumps normally have about 4.0 efficiency.
21. External power in an electric circuit refers to the
dissipation rate (in the circuit's external load) of the potential
gradients on the activated/potentialized electrons. Internal power
refers to the dissipation rate in the circuit's bipolarity source.
22. We call strong attention to T.W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear
Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," _Annales de la Fondation
Louis de Broglie_, 16(1), No. 1, 1991, p. 23-41. In this important
paper, Barrett shows that a higher topology EM, such as quaternion
EM, allows many things to be accomplished with circuitry that are
not apparent to a conventional vector or tensor analysis of that
circuitry. He also shows the Nikola Tesla's circuits accomplished
this higher topological functioning.
23. It is easy to test this. Connect several different wires
to a single source of potential gradient. With respect to ground,
the end of each one of those wires has the same potential gradient
as does the original source with respect to ground. If you connect
10 wires to a single "100-volt" potential gradient source, you will
have ten 100-volt potential gradients appear. You can use each of
these ten potential gradients as a primary source. From each of
these new primary sources, you can branch ten more, and now have a
hundred potential gradient sources. You can treat each of these
hundred new sources now as a primary source. To each one, you can
add a switcher, collector, and external load, and drive all 100
loads. Or instead, you can put ten switcher/collector/external
load circuits with each of the hundred new primary sources, and
power all 1,000 external loads. Energy/potential is free from any
source, so long as you do not demand power from the same source.
24. Per Whittaker and Ziolkowski, this VPF exchange -- from
consideration of its wave aspects -- consists of a harmonic series
of bidirectional waves.
25. We are easily permitted to have free energy and violate the
"local energy conservation law for a closed system." This is
because the system is not closed, and so instead we must apply
local energy conservation for an \open\ system with a hidden source.
In any given time interval, the energy taken (scattered) from the
system as external work cannot exceed the sum of the unscattered
trapped energy that was in the system initially and the unscattered
energy that flowed into the system during that time interval.
26. You can actually do away with the separate collector, and
utilize the doped copper DSC material itself as the collector.
However, you will not be able to collect nearly so much energy in
each collection cycle, for dissipating in the load in the subsequent
work cycle.