930 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
930 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
|
|||
|
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
|
|||
|
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
|
|||
|
PO BOX 1031
|
|||
|
Mesquite, TX 75150
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
|
|||
|
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
|
|||
|
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
March 1, 1992
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SWEET4A.ASC
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Guy Resh.
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
BACKGROUND FOR PURSUING SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETICS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
T. E. Bearden
|
|||
|
February 1992
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This informal paper is augmented and adapted from a letter to a
|
|||
|
young senior in EE, who was planning to pursue his doctorate, and
|
|||
|
asked for advice in understanding the scalar electromagnetics
|
|||
|
area and choosing either physics or EE as a major. The reply
|
|||
|
back to the student enclosed several formal background papers.
|
|||
|
[1][2] This paper is a sort of "executive summary" of scalar EM.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To Correspondent
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Delighted to see you are interested in the material and the
|
|||
|
approach; I will try to give you some quick answers to your main
|
|||
|
questions.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Best is to simply start with my latest book, Gravitobiology, from
|
|||
|
the Tesla Book Co., POB 12183, Chula Vista, CA 91912, phone (619)
|
|||
|
426-8213.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Two Kinds of Electromagnetics
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Specifically, you must understand that there are two kinds of EM.
|
|||
|
One is flawed and in the normal textbooks, and you will study it
|
|||
|
in your education process. The other kind is not in your
|
|||
|
textbooks at all, but it is in some good technical papers, if you
|
|||
|
know what they are, what to read, and how to put them together.
|
|||
|
By the time you get your doctorate, hopefully scalar
|
|||
|
electromagnetics will be in fashion at most of the leading
|
|||
|
universities.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For the second, unknown kind of EM, you should read the two
|
|||
|
Whittaker papers bound in as Annexes to the Gravitobiology book.
|
|||
|
[3][4] They give you the basic theory you need, for the internal
|
|||
|
EM and for scalar EM potential interferometry. Study them until
|
|||
|
the material is coming out of your ears in your sleep.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Internal EM Structure of the Scalar Potential
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Briefly, Whittaker shows you that a scalar EM potential is
|
|||
|
comprised of bidirectional EM wave pairs, where the pairs are
|
|||
|
harmonics and phase-locked together. In each coupled
|
|||
|
wave/antiwave pair, a true forward-time EM wave is coupled to a
|
|||
|
time-reversal of itself __ its phase conjugate replica antiwave.
|
|||
|
The two waves are spatially in phase, but temporally they are 180
|
|||
|
degrees out of phase. That combined energy thus stresses the
|
|||
|
"time dimension', and in fact alters the local rate of flow of
|
|||
|
time itself. Please note how fundamental that statement is.
|
|||
|
Everything may be said to exist in time, or "move along in time,"
|
|||
|
or to "be in linear motion along the time axis." When you stress
|
|||
|
and alter the rate of flow of time, you also affect all those
|
|||
|
time-present things such as inertia of an object, mass of the
|
|||
|
object, its angular momentum, clock rates, etc. You directly
|
|||
|
engineer local general relativity, and you electromagnetically
|
|||
|
curve local spacetime.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Time Reversal and the Time-Reversed EM Wave
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You must understand time-reversal and the time-reversed EM wave
|
|||
|
[5] itself, including the theory of the phase conjugate mirror
|
|||
|
and of the pumped phase conjugate mirror (from nonlinear optics.)
|
|||
|
Yariv [6] Chapter 16 and Pepper [7][8] are key to that
|
|||
|
understanding. Study these references also until the material is
|
|||
|
coming out of your ears in your sleep.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Also study Sachs' overview of time reversal in physics. [9] Here
|
|||
|
you will find that time-reversal still isn't well understood at
|
|||
|
all, but Sachs does a marvelous job in presenting what is known
|
|||
|
and used. You should also realize that a time-reversed (TR) wave
|
|||
|
is seen by the observer in his own "forward time." Hence he sees
|
|||
|
the wave spatially reversed. In short, he sees the same thing as
|
|||
|
he would see if a movie __ of the wave expressed as a forward
|
|||
|
time wave __ were simply reversed. So the TR wave ever-converges
|
|||
|
on its course, rather than diverges. Convergence is the time-
|
|||
|
reversal of divergence. Apply similar TR processes to other
|
|||
|
characteristics of a normal wave, by letting the movie film run
|
|||
|
backward in your mind. Notice particularly what happens to the
|
|||
|
forward-time entropy of scattered waves __ it becomes negentropy
|
|||
|
when you time-reverse the scattered waves. You can recover
|
|||
|
"order" or "energy" even after it's been scattered in performing
|
|||
|
work, by phase conjugate reflection. And then you can use it
|
|||
|
again. Remember, every system is driven, with continual input
|
|||
|
and output of energy. We are not violating the conservation of
|
|||
|
energy of a closed system, because we are not talking about a
|
|||
|
closed system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Destroy the Mystique of Entropy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Remove in your mind the neo-religious mystique built up around
|
|||
|
the entropy concept. The two serious postulations (assumptions)
|
|||
|
of entropy are (1) every component is a forward-time critter,
|
|||
|
with no time-reversed critters allowed, and (2) random variable
|
|||
|
statistics is assumed a priori. With the Whittaker decomposition
|
|||
|
of the scalar potential into a surprising and perfectly ordered
|
|||
|
set of harmonic biwave pairs, you have blown away the random
|
|||
|
variable statistics assumption. By phase conjugate mirror
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
production of time-reversed EM waves, you have blown away the
|
|||
|
forward-time assumption. So entropy isn't what it used to be,
|
|||
|
and the second law of thermodynamics is not a mystical,
|
|||
|
irrevocable law of nature at all. To believe that it is, is
|
|||
|
dogma, not science. Entropy can be transformed directly into
|
|||
|
negentropy, and negentropy can even be amplified. Specifically,
|
|||
|
the pumped phase conjugate mirror does exactly that.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Statistical Gravitons and Coupled Photons
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Then consider the Whittaker EM biwave structure of the potential
|
|||
|
again, from the particle viewpoint. The wave is made of photons,
|
|||
|
and the antiwave is made of antiphotons. Since the wave and
|
|||
|
antiwave in each set are perfectly correlated, so must be the
|
|||
|
photons/antiphotons. The waves are passing through each other,
|
|||
|
so to speak, in the time dimension only. They are perfectly
|
|||
|
coordinated spatially. Thus so are the photon/antiphoton pairs.
|
|||
|
That is, the photons and antiphotons are continually coupling and
|
|||
|
decoupling, in each wave/antiwave pair. Since all the
|
|||
|
wave/antiwave sets are phase-locked, then one has the unusual
|
|||
|
feature that this potential in the local spacetime has formed a
|
|||
|
spacetime lattice, perfectly organized both spatially and
|
|||
|
temporally. Further, when a photon and antiphoton are coupled,
|
|||
|
the resulting system has helicity-2. This spin-2 entity is a
|
|||
|
graviton. However, it is not a hard particle, because it is
|
|||
|
continually forming and unforming. Hence it is a statistical
|
|||
|
graviton. Occasionally, more than two photons couple;
|
|||
|
occasionally the coupling opportunity is missed. We are
|
|||
|
interested in the average coupling's spin value; that may be
|
|||
|
either integral or fractional. What is happening in the
|
|||
|
Whittaker spacetime lattice __ with respect to the photon
|
|||
|
coupling and decoupling __ is that energy is oscillating back and
|
|||
|
forth between expression as EM energy/order (photons decoupled)
|
|||
|
and expression as gravitational energy/order (photons coupled).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The statistical graviton process is not confined to helicity-2
|
|||
|
gravitons, since the spin-2 value just represents the average
|
|||
|
coupling. Spin-2 statistical gravitons represent or produce a
|
|||
|
flat local spacetime, since the lattice has no surplus or
|
|||
|
shortage of either photons or antiphotons. Indeed, we may regard
|
|||
|
the coupled photons and antiphotons as a special sort of "Dirac
|
|||
|
sea," similar to the Dirac sea of negative energy electrons.
|
|||
|
Depending upon the helicity, the spacetime may have an excess of
|
|||
|
deficiency of photons, in which case it is said to be curved.
|
|||
|
Also, it can thus serve as a source or a sink, depending upon
|
|||
|
whether the hidden photon sea has a surplus or a deficiency.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Graviton Helicity and Spacetime Curvature
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that we are often using the term "photons" to mean either
|
|||
|
photons or antiphotons.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If in the statistical graviton we increase the photon coupling to
|
|||
|
__ say __ 2.1 photons average, then this provides gravitons of
|
|||
|
spin 2.1. In this case the local spacetime is curved, since it
|
|||
|
has an excess EM energy density, as compared to normal ambient
|
|||
|
vacuum. It has an excess of photons, so to speak, and can thus
|
|||
|
serve as a photon source (an EM energy source). If the averaged
|
|||
|
coupling is 1.9, say, then the local spacetime is curved in the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
opposite direction. In that case, the vacuum is deficient in
|
|||
|
photons, and can act as a sink for EM energy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An Asymmetrical Vacuum Violates Local Conservation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In a locally curved spacetime, then, one may have either an
|
|||
|
energy source or an energy sink, depending upon how one makes or
|
|||
|
engineers this local vacuum/spacetime. In a curved local
|
|||
|
spacetime, the local vacuum/spacetime interacts directly with a
|
|||
|
system placed there, and it can be designed to produce either
|
|||
|
extra energy in the system or absorb energy from the system. A
|
|||
|
curved local spacetime is a locally asymmetrical spacetime. With
|
|||
|
this violation of symmetry, most of the conservation laws can be
|
|||
|
broken locally. One can readily have magnetic monopoles also, in
|
|||
|
such a locally curved system. [10] These violated laws include
|
|||
|
conservation of energy, electrical charge, magnetic charge,
|
|||
|
momentum, etc. The vacuum itself becomes an engine, to perform
|
|||
|
work upon the system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Using the Inner Hidden EM Order of Entropy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
With the pumped phase conjugate mirror concept, you can decompose
|
|||
|
negentropic EM scattering stress energy (even heat) into ordered
|
|||
|
bidirectional sets of Whittaker waves, use these Whittaker waves
|
|||
|
as pump waves inputting to a phase conjugate mirror(PCM),
|
|||
|
"tickle" the PCM with a very small "signal" wave input, and get
|
|||
|
out all of the entropic pump energy back in perfect order, as a
|
|||
|
powerfully amplified time-reversed phase conjugate replica (PCR)
|
|||
|
of the little signal wave.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you look in that fashion at Tesla's magnifying transmitter
|
|||
|
that he built on Long Island, you will see that he really is
|
|||
|
treating the earth itself as a pumped phase conjugate mirror, and
|
|||
|
he is using his transmitter to provide a stimulus wave into the
|
|||
|
earth. When things are done right (there's also one or two more
|
|||
|
requirements), when so stimulated the scalar EM potential
|
|||
|
represented by the heat and pressure energy of the earth's
|
|||
|
interior will partially organize itself internally as sets of
|
|||
|
Whittaker pump waves. The combination of these Whittaker
|
|||
|
bidirectional EM waves and the highly nonlinear material of the
|
|||
|
earth then become a pumped phase conjugate mirror (PPCM).
|
|||
|
Tesla's transmitter is furnishing the "stimulus" wave to cause
|
|||
|
internal Whittaker bidirectional self-ordering to occur (actually
|
|||
|
through nonlinear harmonic and subharmonic resonance).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now suppose the earth has been "stimulated" in this fashion, and
|
|||
|
has become a PPCM earth. By standard, orthodox, nonlinear optics
|
|||
|
theory, proved by thousands of experiments and papers in the
|
|||
|
literature, you can then input a small "signal wave" from a
|
|||
|
distant transmitter anywhere on earth, at the distant locality,
|
|||
|
and there you will receive back from the PPCM earth an amplified
|
|||
|
phase conjugate replica (PCR) wave, with far more energy in it
|
|||
|
than you put in, in your signal wave. So you can use Tesla's
|
|||
|
approach to directly organize the enormous heat and pressure
|
|||
|
energy of the earth, forming them (considered as a scalar
|
|||
|
potential) into a giant "standing Whittaker pump wave" in the
|
|||
|
earth, and tap that Whittaker wave anywhere else in the world
|
|||
|
that you transmit in another little signal wave. In late April
|
|||
|
to early May of 1985, Frank Golden detected and measured the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Soviets doing precisely that, on 27 pairs of EM pump wave
|
|||
|
frequencies, 12 kilohertz apart. [11] Almost incredible
|
|||
|
electrical power was being extracted from the earth, to power
|
|||
|
enormous Soviet directed energy weapons as part of the May Day
|
|||
|
celebrations for the 40th anniversary of the end of World War II
|
|||
|
against the Nazis.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Pumped Phase Conjugation as a Negentropic Process
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In other words, you can defeat entropy disordering by this pumped
|
|||
|
PCM means. You do it by turning positive (scattering) (entropic)
|
|||
|
energy of the pump waves into negative (gathering) (negentropic)
|
|||
|
energy of the amplified PCR wave. Note that almost all of what
|
|||
|
you were taught about entropy assumes that all components of the
|
|||
|
entropic system are time-forward components, and that none of
|
|||
|
them are time-reversed components. It would be nice if the
|
|||
|
leading thermodynamics experts would do some real hard work with
|
|||
|
Whittaker potentials, internal EM biwave structures of scalar
|
|||
|
potentials, PCMs, pumped PCMs, and time-reversed waves in
|
|||
|
general, not just at optical frequencies, and not just with
|
|||
|
obscure electro-optical devices.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Time Reversal and Correction of Disorder
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Be sure you understand Yariv's statement of the distortion
|
|||
|
correction theorem. [12] The principle is awkwardly named, but
|
|||
|
it contains the gist of engineerable negentropy. Read it and say
|
|||
|
it over and over, until your mind grasps its fantastic
|
|||
|
implications. You can easily make a wave that will restore
|
|||
|
former order after the scattering of that order. Realize also
|
|||
|
that the time-reversed wave is a general solution to the wave
|
|||
|
equation. Any kind of wave __ EM, sound, mechanical, whatever __
|
|||
|
can be phase-conjugated/time-reversed in this manner. In his New
|
|||
|
York lab, Tesla apparently did it first, with mechanical
|
|||
|
vibration waves, before the turn of the century. [13] His later
|
|||
|
telegeodynamics [14] actually envisioned the use of time-
|
|||
|
reversed, laser-like mechanical waves that traveled through the
|
|||
|
earth's crust to a distant point. He also understood the use of
|
|||
|
two such beams from separated separate transmitters, so that the
|
|||
|
beams met and crossed at that distant point, to reproduce __ by
|
|||
|
scalar interferometry __ the mechanical effects desired at that
|
|||
|
point. Whittaker's 1904 paper will show you that interference of
|
|||
|
two such scalar potentials will indeed produce ordinary force
|
|||
|
fields in the interference zone. You can fairly readily produce
|
|||
|
force fields at a distance. By calculation of the form of
|
|||
|
potential needed, you can even produce them in the geometric
|
|||
|
patterns and directions you wish. Ball lightning, e.g., is one
|
|||
|
of nature's ways of using distance-independent scalar
|
|||
|
interferometry to produce such stabilized geometrical forms of EM
|
|||
|
energy. Try finding any other laboratory-testable explanation of
|
|||
|
ball lightning in the physics and electrical engineering
|
|||
|
curricula!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Whittaker and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You must also understand what the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is.
|
|||
|
Read carefully the cited AB 1959 paper. [15] You must also
|
|||
|
comprehend the fact that Whittaker's work in 1903 and 1904 had
|
|||
|
already anticipated the AB effect, and drastically extended it
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 5
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
engineerably and in a distance-independent manner, into the
|
|||
|
macroscopic world, far beyond the several thousand angstroms to
|
|||
|
which it has now been laboriously proven by modern physicists.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A Basic Knowledge of Atomic Nuclei
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You need to know a little something about atomic nuclei,
|
|||
|
isotopes, isomers, etc. A variety of introductory nuclear
|
|||
|
physics or nuclear engineering books have the necessary material
|
|||
|
in a few chapters.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vacuum Is a Plenum, Not an Emptiness
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You need to also understand what the vacuum is. My own later
|
|||
|
work will give you an overall grasp of that, and for deeper
|
|||
|
understanding you can check cited references that appeal to you.
|
|||
|
[16][17][18][19][20] I warn you that we've all been so
|
|||
|
conditioned to think of the vacuum as "nothing" and an
|
|||
|
"emptiness," that it takes some doing to overcome that deep-set,
|
|||
|
unconscious bias in one's own thinking.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Major Physics Disciplines Are Inconsistent
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You need to be aware that there are serious conflicts and
|
|||
|
inconsistences existing between general relativity,
|
|||
|
electromagnetics, and quantum mechanics. [21] Physics is not
|
|||
|
unified, and it is not even consistent. No one, for example,
|
|||
|
even knows what a photon really is. [22] It is not just a
|
|||
|
localized particle, that much is sure; it's more like a delta
|
|||
|
appearing in the calculated constant of each frequency term in an
|
|||
|
infinite Fourier expansion series. In fact we've got four major
|
|||
|
photon models, all different, and we just plug in whichever model
|
|||
|
has been found to give the right answers for a particular
|
|||
|
application. [23] As another example, the field concept is known
|
|||
|
to be fundamentally in error, but it is so useful that it
|
|||
|
continues to be widely utilized. [24]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Force Fields Versus Potentials
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The conflict between QM and EM is particularly poignant in
|
|||
|
regards to what causes electromagnetic phenomena in the first
|
|||
|
place. [25] In classical EM theory the forcefields are
|
|||
|
considered the primary causes, and the potentials are just sort
|
|||
|
of mathematical conveniences. In quantum mechanics, however, you
|
|||
|
have exactly the contrary view. There, the potentials are the
|
|||
|
primary causes, and the force fields are secondary effects,
|
|||
|
created in the charged particle system itself by the interference
|
|||
|
there of the potentials. Vacuum is pure potential, nothing else.
|
|||
|
[26] The forcefields do not even exist in the vacuum, but only
|
|||
|
in the charged particle system itself, with which the
|
|||
|
potentialized vacuum interacts.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You cannot have the classic EM force field in the vacuum, a
|
|||
|
priori. You can't and don't have a force field except when you
|
|||
|
introduce a charge into a potential gradient. There's never been
|
|||
|
an E-field or a B-field in the vacuum as such; never has been,
|
|||
|
and never will be. The classical EM model is flat wrong on that.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 6
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Even Feynman pointed out in his three volumes of physics that
|
|||
|
only the potential for the forcefield exists in the vacuum, not
|
|||
|
the forcefield itself. [27] You've got to understand this point.
|
|||
|
The inclusion of vacuum forcefields is a major screw-up in
|
|||
|
classical EM that prevents real understanding of the vacuum's
|
|||
|
potentialization and local interaction with physical systems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Take the definition of an E-field: E = F/q, where q is charged
|
|||
|
mass. If you don't have any charged mass, you can't possibly
|
|||
|
have any force per unit charged mass, from the definition a
|
|||
|
priori. Try an analogy where E is the number of fish per bucket
|
|||
|
of water, F is the number of fish in all the buckets of water,
|
|||
|
and q is the number of buckets of water. If you have no buckets
|
|||
|
of water at all, for example, you cannot possibly have any fish
|
|||
|
per bucket of water, a priori. If you have a lot of fish around,
|
|||
|
but no buckets of water, however, you have the potential for fish
|
|||
|
per bucket of water, should you bring in some buckets of water
|
|||
|
and couple the fish to them (put them in the buckets of water).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Quantum Mechanical Vacuum
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To understand what is in the vacuum, you need to appreciate the
|
|||
|
quantum mechanical view of the vacuum. In that view, spontaneous
|
|||
|
creation and annihilation of particles occur at an incredible
|
|||
|
rate. Each particle is formed, then disappears, so quickly that
|
|||
|
it cannot be individually observed. But it is real while it is
|
|||
|
existing, because in quantum field theory the exchange of virtual
|
|||
|
particles generates all the forces of nature. We call such a
|
|||
|
fleeting or ghostly particle a virtual particle. Of particular
|
|||
|
interest is that enormous numbers of virtual photons continually
|
|||
|
appear and disappear in the vacuum. The vacuum is thus a fiery,
|
|||
|
seething cauldron of incredible EM energy, but the EM energy is
|
|||
|
essentially disintegrated. At any rate, electromagnetically the
|
|||
|
quantum mechanical vacuum to first order consists of an
|
|||
|
incredible flux of virtual photons. [28]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So to be more precise, in the quantum mechanical vacuum you do
|
|||
|
not have observable charged mass, but you do have virtual charged
|
|||
|
mass. So you can have a virtual E-field in the vacuum, which is
|
|||
|
just a potential gradient without the presence of observable
|
|||
|
charged mass particles. [29] Let's look a bit deeper:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Detected EM Waves Are Electron Precession Waves
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Because of the spin of the electron/particle, that potential
|
|||
|
gradient in the vacuum __ that interacts, e.g., with an electron
|
|||
|
in a detector probe wire __ is actually oriented longitudinally,
|
|||
|
at right angles to the present notion of a transverse wave.
|
|||
|
Let's see why: The conduction electron in the wire is relatively
|
|||
|
constrained [30] by all the other conduction electrons ahead of
|
|||
|
it pushing back when it tries to accelerate. Being constrained
|
|||
|
longitudinally but spinning, it acts then as a gyro, and
|
|||
|
precesses laterally (from the direction of the disturbing
|
|||
|
"force". If a vacuum potential gradient "virtual force" pushes
|
|||
|
on that spinning electron gyro in a wire probe, the spinning
|
|||
|
electron must move at right angles to the direction of the
|
|||
|
virtual force, because its movement is mostly precession.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 7
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Conduction electrons thus don't move down the wire at the
|
|||
|
"disturbing force's" signal velocity; instead, they precess
|
|||
|
sideways, and occasionally "slip" forward down the wire a bit
|
|||
|
during their precession. They thus "drift" along down the wire
|
|||
|
at centimeters per second or so __ not even approaching the
|
|||
|
signal velocity (i.e., the velocity of the change in potential as
|
|||
|
the change moves down the wire). The signal velocity down the
|
|||
|
wire is only slightly less than the speed of light in vacuum,
|
|||
|
which is about 300,000,000 meters per second. [31][32] The
|
|||
|
lateral or transverse EM forcefield waves we measure in our
|
|||
|
probes and instruments __ and erroneously model in our theory as
|
|||
|
existing in the vacuum __ are actually electron translation waves
|
|||
|
in the charged particle system (the detector). Since that
|
|||
|
translation is precession, the measured EM transverse waves are
|
|||
|
actually electron precession waves. They are not at all what is
|
|||
|
in the vacuum. Instead, they are what is in the electron gas in
|
|||
|
the wires and circuits of our detectors and instruments.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EM Waves in the Vacuum Are Longitudinal
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Since the interacting/disturbing virtual E-field (the massless
|
|||
|
potential gradient) "force" in the vacuum must be oriented at
|
|||
|
right angles to the detected precession movement of the
|
|||
|
electrons, then the EM waves in vacuum are actually "waves of
|
|||
|
potential gradients" and are longitudinal. It appears that
|
|||
|
Nikola Tesla was quite correct on this, you see, and all the
|
|||
|
modern textbooks are quite wrong. [33]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So you cannot have an observable E-field in the vacuum, contrary
|
|||
|
to what classical EM theory and your physics text prescribe,
|
|||
|
because it would require the presence of observable charged
|
|||
|
particles, none of which are there. It would in fact require the
|
|||
|
presence of the mechanical ether, a notion that was destroyed
|
|||
|
before the turn of the last century. You do have virtual charged
|
|||
|
particles present in the vacuum, and the gradients in the
|
|||
|
vacuum/virtual domain are longitudinal, not transverse.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Why Maxwell Assumed Transverse EM Waves
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When Maxwell wrote his theory, he used a mechanical model of the
|
|||
|
ether. [34] In that model, thin but observable mass "fluid" is
|
|||
|
assumed to comprise and fill the vacuum. Accordingly, Maxwell
|
|||
|
assumed observable forcefields and transverse EM waves to exist
|
|||
|
also, since that is what is measured in the electron gas in our
|
|||
|
probes and detectors. The electron had not been predicted yet,
|
|||
|
and electricity was considered to be a thin material fluid, as
|
|||
|
was the "luminiferous ether." Decades later, the notion of a
|
|||
|
mechanical ether was destroyed experimentally, [35] but Maxwell's
|
|||
|
mechanical-ether-based EM model __ as by then long-since
|
|||
|
"interpreted" from quaternions into vectors, by Heaviside and
|
|||
|
Gibbs __ was not changed accordingly. With respect to the form
|
|||
|
of EM waves in vacuum, the Heaviside/Gibbs vector interpretation
|
|||
|
model has been in error a long time __ just as was its Maxwellian
|
|||
|
quaternionic predecessor __ and it's still in error, contrary to
|
|||
|
what they taught you in your textbooks and classes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There Is a Mechanism for the Flow of Time
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note in passing that the scattering interaction of the external
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 8
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EM with the electron shells of atoms primarily creates the basic
|
|||
|
quantum changes that in turn create and control the nature of the
|
|||
|
macroscopic flow of time. In other words, a quantum consists of
|
|||
|
action, or "energy times time." It carries not only a piece of
|
|||
|
energy, but also a piece of time. [36][37][38] Keep that firmly
|
|||
|
in mind for the following:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A photon is freed EM energy. Its thing is to travel at the speed
|
|||
|
of light. Mass is trapped EM energy. Its thing is to trap
|
|||
|
photons and sit there and hold them as a densely packed mass
|
|||
|
potential. (more on that later).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the ubiquitous photon interaction with mass __ continual
|
|||
|
photon absorption by matter and photon emission from it __ the
|
|||
|
energy portion in the absorbed quantum (photon; free EM energy)
|
|||
|
turns into mass (trapped EM energy). Simply divide the photon's
|
|||
|
energy by c-squared to get the amount of extra resulting mass.
|
|||
|
However, absorption of the energy portion of the photon leaves
|
|||
|
its "time portion" or "time tail" attached to the "excited" mass
|
|||
|
that absorbed the photon. Thus that (formerly) mass __ that
|
|||
|
absorbed the energy portion of the photon __ is now "masstime"
|
|||
|
and not mass.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that mass does not exist in time. Masstime does. Each
|
|||
|
constituent particle of the atom thus is alternately existing as
|
|||
|
mass, masstime, mass, masstime, etc. Or in other words, it's
|
|||
|
flipping between atom, atom-time, atom, atom-time, etc. states.
|
|||
|
Think deeply about that. Things don't "flow through time"
|
|||
|
continuously in the manner universally assumed. To the macro
|
|||
|
observer, of course, the flipping is so rapid that he cannot see
|
|||
|
it. So he sees the macro world as solid and continuous. At the
|
|||
|
micro level, physical reality is being created and annihilated,
|
|||
|
quantum by quantum but at an incredible rate.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shortly after absorbing the photon, photon emission from that
|
|||
|
excited atom-time occurs, and a bit of the atom-time's mass (the
|
|||
|
trapped EM energy) is reconverted back to a new energy part of a
|
|||
|
photon (freed EM energy). In the photon freeing/formation
|
|||
|
process, this freed "photon energy part" absorbs/joins the time
|
|||
|
tail of the atom-time as part of itself. The emission of this
|
|||
|
photon "tears off and carries away the time tail" from the
|
|||
|
mass/atom-time, leaving behind mass/atom again, and not
|
|||
|
(mass/atom)-time. So a mass is continually changing into
|
|||
|
masstime, then mass, then masstime, then mass, etc. The mass
|
|||
|
"moves through time" in little jumps, so to speak, at a very high
|
|||
|
"jumping rate."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The result is that the "time dimension" connected to the mass of
|
|||
|
the observer or instrument is not continuous, but discontinuous.
|
|||
|
It's rather like a switch being repeatedly thrown back and forth,
|
|||
|
between off and on states. A mass's "passage through time" is in
|
|||
|
that vein. The "time dimension" is continually being created and
|
|||
|
destroyed, for each particle of mass in the observer/instrument,
|
|||
|
by photon interaction. By the creation portion, things exist in
|
|||
|
time, producing causality and a future and a past. By the
|
|||
|
destruction portion, the future and the past are disconnected and
|
|||
|
"lost." That's why you can look in a corner, and see the three
|
|||
|
length (spatial) dimensions, but try as you will, you cannot see
|
|||
|
the time dimension at right angles to them. It doesn't exist as
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 9
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a continuous dimension; otherwise, you could see into the past
|
|||
|
and into the future.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Play around with multiple masses and multiple time flows a bit,
|
|||
|
and you'll discover that there are ways to "see into the future
|
|||
|
and the past," but's that's way beyond the scope of this present
|
|||
|
discussion! [Suffice it to say that I know one physicist (PhD)
|
|||
|
who has extensively experimented with that, and another scientist
|
|||
|
who has also experimented with it, but I am not at liberty to
|
|||
|
discuss the results.].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
External and Internal Electromagnetics
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But to return. To understand scalar EM, as we said, you must
|
|||
|
understand that there are actually two kinds of electromagnetics.
|
|||
|
One is __ so to speak __ only on the external "surface magnitude'
|
|||
|
of the vacuum potential, and the other is in the interior of the
|
|||
|
vacuum potential. The exterior kind is spatial in nature; the
|
|||
|
interior kind is hyperspatial in nature.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(1) The exterior kind of EM is caused or due to the
|
|||
|
potential magnitudes and their gradients, interacting with
|
|||
|
charged particles (forcefields); that's the "normal" kind.
|
|||
|
In that kind the theoretical EM model's focus is on the
|
|||
|
forcefields as causes, with the potentials themselves just
|
|||
|
regarded as mathematical conveniences. Certainly that
|
|||
|
"normal" EM does not contain any sort of organized EM
|
|||
|
structure inside, and composing, the scalar EM potential.
|
|||
|
It just models the scalar potential at a point as a
|
|||
|
magnitude, and the vector potential at a point as a
|
|||
|
magnitude and direction. Notice it thus models only local
|
|||
|
action; it does not model any sort of action at a distance.
|
|||
|
The EM action is considered __ and described in the
|
|||
|
classical EM model __ as existing at a point in space and
|
|||
|
time. Further, the local spacetime itself is considered not
|
|||
|
to have any direct causative EM interaction there. In other
|
|||
|
words, there are assumed to be no local vacuum engines __ no
|
|||
|
Whittaker activation of mass or the local vacuum.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(2) There's also an internal EM, normally completely inside
|
|||
|
the scalar potential, which exists as "infolded" harmonic
|
|||
|
sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs. Whittaker 1903
|
|||
|
describes that kind of EM. This internal EM was in
|
|||
|
Maxwell's original quaternion equations, hidden in the
|
|||
|
scalar component resultant that remained when the
|
|||
|
directional components of quaternions interacted to form
|
|||
|
directional zero resultants. The scalar component resultant
|
|||
|
of the interaction often still remained, and infolded inside
|
|||
|
itself (i.e., it then consisted of) scalar and vector
|
|||
|
functions of the yet-present-and-interacting component
|
|||
|
vectors. [39]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Today that part of Maxwell's original theory just appears in
|
|||
|
classical EM Heaviside/Gibbs theory as a vector zero
|
|||
|
resultant, which is erroneously discarded as if it were a
|
|||
|
complete absence of EM. It is no such thing; it is merely
|
|||
|
the absence of EM translation of charged particles. It
|
|||
|
indeed is a patterned EM-induced gravitational stress in
|
|||
|
local spacetime, and it is a little "vacuum engine" capable
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 10
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of working directly on the atomic nucleus. If you want to
|
|||
|
know what all the fuss about the difference between
|
|||
|
Maxwell's 200-odd quaternion equations EM theory [40] and
|
|||
|
the Heaviside/Gibbs four vector equations
|
|||
|
curtailment/subset, just look at the difference between a
|
|||
|
zero vector result and a quaternion resultant, in an
|
|||
|
interaction where the vector resultant is zero but the
|
|||
|
scalar component of the quaternion resultant remains.
|
|||
|
Specifically, look mathematically at the internal functional
|
|||
|
nature of that remaining scalar resultant __ the part that's
|
|||
|
thrown away in the present theory.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(3) Note that the internal EM is more than just a model of
|
|||
|
conditions at a point. In addition to that, it prescribes a
|
|||
|
hyperspatial, bidirectional flow of EM transverse wave
|
|||
|
energy at the point, into and out of it, into it from afar
|
|||
|
and away from it back to afar, on an infinite number of
|
|||
|
phase-locked frequencies. In other words, the internal EM
|
|||
|
energetically connects conditions at a point with
|
|||
|
essentially all the other points in the universe. And when
|
|||
|
we interfere two such scalar potentials, we are actually
|
|||
|
interfering both of those sets of an infinite number of
|
|||
|
bidirectional EM waves. (See Whittaker's second paper,
|
|||
|
1904). [41] It doesn't matter where the interference zone
|
|||
|
occurs; it can be a million miles away, or a light-year
|
|||
|
away. The interference accomplishes "outfolding," and
|
|||
|
creates "normal" or "exterior" EM effects. Specifically, it
|
|||
|
creates force fields and patterns of them __ both static and
|
|||
|
dynamic __ on charged particle systems. The internal EM
|
|||
|
thus prescribes and models action at a distance, and
|
|||
|
incorporates the "normal" exterior EM as a special case of
|
|||
|
local scalar interferometry. Whittaker rigorously proved
|
|||
|
this mathematically.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zero-Translation-Vector-Resultant Systems
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You must also do some thinking about the scalar envelope nature
|
|||
|
of a series of finite, nonzero, interacting translation vectors
|
|||
|
which result in a zero-vector resultant for translation. They
|
|||
|
still form an internally active system, and their action cannot
|
|||
|
be ignored if one is to grasp the total physics of the situation.
|
|||
|
Not all vector zeroes are equal __ it is a serious fallacy of
|
|||
|
vector analysis to equate them, and also to equate all of them as
|
|||
|
"total absences." [42] There's a great deal of difference in two
|
|||
|
identical tanks, one of which is truly empty, and one which is
|
|||
|
filled with a gas under enormous pressure. Neither is
|
|||
|
translating, but which one would you prefer to cut into with a
|
|||
|
cutting torch? As an example, the resultant system of two
|
|||
|
equally forceful elephants pushing fiercely against each other
|
|||
|
may not translate, so they will do no external translation work
|
|||
|
on an external system. But they do struggle fiercely against
|
|||
|
each other, and put a lot of stress in there, and each is
|
|||
|
constantly working furiously. The system isn't doing external
|
|||
|
translation work, but it's doing a whale of a lot of internal
|
|||
|
work, of one elephant on the other. [That, after all, is what
|
|||
|
internal stress is __ it's a condition of internal work being
|
|||
|
continually performed on the parts of a system, without external
|
|||
|
translation of the system.]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 11
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Internal EM Energy As Continual Internal Work
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now two matched fleas pushing together would be the same sort of
|
|||
|
"zero vector translation" system as the system of two matched
|
|||
|
elephants. But if one thinks that all vector zero resultants are
|
|||
|
really equal, and really are the total absence of work and force,
|
|||
|
just try standing between the elephants and then between the
|
|||
|
fleas, and compare your two experiences. I think you can
|
|||
|
immediately see a great difference in the two systems! I also
|
|||
|
think you can see that you really shouldn't neglect the internal
|
|||
|
energy trapped in that zero-translation-vector system. Many
|
|||
|
learned professors challenged with standing between two straining
|
|||
|
elephants, to test their notion that the zero vector system is a
|
|||
|
"total absence of force" type of zero and is to be simply
|
|||
|
discarded, just don't seem to see the humor in the issue posed.
|
|||
|
Instead, they are quite apt to become rather furious at the
|
|||
|
suggestion of putting the issue to such a practical and
|
|||
|
definitive test. Ah, me! They really will not submit their
|
|||
|
pronouncements to scientific verification or validation by a
|
|||
|
simple experiment! [I am particularly fond of challenging the
|
|||
|
ones who call me all the dirty names, to test it with the two
|
|||
|
elephants.]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But in a physical system, you might ask, how can the system, just
|
|||
|
sitting there doing nothing externally, be continually performing
|
|||
|
internal work, which requires continual scattering of energy
|
|||
|
inside itself? Simple. All systems are open, driven systems __
|
|||
|
driven by the VPF of vacuum. Such a system, in equilibrium in
|
|||
|
its driving flux exchange flows, can easily be constantly
|
|||
|
performing internal work. Again, it's like sticking a
|
|||
|
paddlewheel in a river, without connecting any external load to
|
|||
|
the shaft. The system will just sit there and continually do
|
|||
|
internal work, but it will not be doing any external translation
|
|||
|
work. Nontranslating systems are just "idling" systems, so to
|
|||
|
speak, driven by the VPF exchange with the vacuum. The vacuum is
|
|||
|
driving everything, everywhere, anyway.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What Electrical Charge Really Is
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Nowhere in classical EM does it tell you what electrical charge
|
|||
|
is or what causes it. For that question, you will have to dig
|
|||
|
the answer out of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
|
|||
|
Briefly, the electrical charge of a mass is really its violent
|
|||
|
exchange of virtual photons with the vacuum. The charged mass of
|
|||
|
the particle is continually absorbing virtual photons from the
|
|||
|
surrounding vacuum, and re-emitting them back to the vacuum.
|
|||
|
Actually, the magnitude of the electrical charge is simply a
|
|||
|
measure of the volumetric intensity of this virtual photon flux
|
|||
|
(VPF) exchange. Also, it is fixed only for a fixed vacuum VPF
|
|||
|
intensity, in which it is embedded. It's really discrete, not
|
|||
|
quantized. If you change the local vacuum VPF flux intensity (by
|
|||
|
simply adding, e.g., a positive or negative electrostatic scalar
|
|||
|
potential), you create a "locally excited vacuum," a "locally
|
|||
|
curved spacetime," and an altered magnitude of the charge on a
|
|||
|
fundamental charged particle located in that excited
|
|||
|
(potentialized) vacuum. If you want to get a Nobel prize, then
|
|||
|
perform some experiments along this line, to demonstrate that the
|
|||
|
electrical charge of a particle is discretized as a function of
|
|||
|
local vacuum VPF intensity, but it is not quantized, and write it
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 12
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
up and publish it in a leading journal. Of course if you do your
|
|||
|
experiments in an unexcited (i.e., normal ambient) vacuum, you'll
|
|||
|
get the same answer everyone else has before you. Tesla,
|
|||
|
however, certainly held a very different view, and considered the
|
|||
|
electron as having a variable charge. [43] A lot of things in
|
|||
|
your EE book were simply assumed, back there at the beginning.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What Unorthodox Researchers Mean By "Free Energy"
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Regarding your present "free energy is impossible" education,
|
|||
|
don't believe a lot of what you were told. If they didn't even
|
|||
|
get the definition of energy correct __ and they didn't __ then
|
|||
|
you might suspect they really are not too sure just what kind of
|
|||
|
energy is free for the taking and what kind is not. Many of them
|
|||
|
certainly don't seem to recognize that there's absolutely no such
|
|||
|
thing as a closed system, anywhere in the universe. Everything
|
|||
|
is open to a virtual particle flux exchange with the vacuum, and
|
|||
|
every system is driven by that flux and its energy. Indeed,
|
|||
|
every system is just a complex order in equilibrium in that VPF
|
|||
|
of vacuum, with violent input and output continually. All we
|
|||
|
mean by "free energy device" is a device that incorporates some
|
|||
|
sort of "gating mechanism" to gate out a bit of that violent VPF
|
|||
|
energy circulation in and out of the system. We just wish to
|
|||
|
gate some of the vacuum energy that runs in to the nucleus __
|
|||
|
catch it there before it runs back out to the vacuum, and "gate"
|
|||
|
it out to the external circuit and the load before it is allowed
|
|||
|
to scatter and run back permanently to the vacuum. It's no
|
|||
|
different than wishing to put a paddlewheel in a river, with a
|
|||
|
sluice-box arrangement to divert some of the river's water to the
|
|||
|
load (the paddles) and get shaft power from the rushing water,
|
|||
|
before the water is allowed to spill off the paddles and return
|
|||
|
permanently back to the river.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Local Energy Conservation Can Be Legitimately Violated
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Conservation of energy" ruthlessly depends upon time symmetry;
|
|||
|
if time stress is made asymmetrical (as in
|
|||
|
potentialization/curvature of the local vacuum/spacetime and
|
|||
|
deliberately altering its Whittaker structure), then local
|
|||
|
conservation of energy is violated, and the local vacuum will
|
|||
|
serve as a sink or a source, depending upon which way it's
|
|||
|
potentialized. You can easily violate local conservation of
|
|||
|
energy by curving local spacetime, if you understand Whittaker's
|
|||
|
two papers. [44] He already shows you that, in the potential at
|
|||
|
a point, you've got bidirectional EM wave flows of energy, in and
|
|||
|
out, from all the rest of the vacuum in the universe. That
|
|||
|
exchange of the vacuum is mostly with the nucleus of the atom,
|
|||
|
for that's where most of the mass potential is. If you "gate" a
|
|||
|
little bit of the inflowing EM Whittaker wave energy out to the
|
|||
|
external circuits of a device, you will extract and use EM energy
|
|||
|
directly from the vacuum source. As I showed in the Sweet vacuum
|
|||
|
triode write-up, there's at least one major way of doing just
|
|||
|
that sort of gating __ and the device proves it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
On Self-Powered Permanent Magnet Devices
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
And they told you a magnet won't turn itself, didn't they? Well,
|
|||
|
that's not always true. They never heard of a kinetic
|
|||
|
(activated) magnet, which by definition traps-in a special vacuum
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 13
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
engine function to drive it. Floyd Sweet activates the magnets
|
|||
|
in his vacuum triode by a special proprietary process, after
|
|||
|
which it can gate energy out of the vacuum into the external load
|
|||
|
circuit. Until the nuclei are activated to function as
|
|||
|
controlled vacuum engines, the device is just an inert, solid
|
|||
|
state pattern of materials, and quite useless as a generator.
|
|||
|
Also, check the Einstein-de Haas effect for rigorous proof of
|
|||
|
additional considerations in a magnet other than magnetic forces.
|
|||
|
[45] In the standard Einstein-de Haas experiment using a coil,
|
|||
|
substitute the linear field region between two permanent magnets
|
|||
|
for the coil's field region, and you will see what I mean. The
|
|||
|
Einstein-de Haas effect is only a little bitty white crow, but
|
|||
|
it's quite sufficient to prove that not all crows are black. But
|
|||
|
what if you could make the crow grow?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Further, Howard Johnson goes after a self-powered permanent motor
|
|||
|
in a slightly different fashion. Imagine a "rotary wheel" motor,
|
|||
|
where one permanent bar magnet is used on the rotor and one on
|
|||
|
the stator. Suppose the stator magnet has its north pole facing
|
|||
|
the rotor, and the rotor magnet has its south pole facing
|
|||
|
outward. As the rotor magnet's south pole approaches the stator
|
|||
|
magnet's north pole, it is magnetically attracted and accelerates
|
|||
|
toward it, producing forceful torque and shaft horsepower.
|
|||
|
During the approach phase, energy is stored in the flywheel as
|
|||
|
mechanical energy. Now just as the magnetic south pole on the
|
|||
|
rotor is passing the stator's north pole, suppose you have
|
|||
|
cleverly produced or "activated" a little region of time-reversal
|
|||
|
on the back side of the stator's "north" pole. In the time-
|
|||
|
reversed region, the north pole of the stator functions precisely
|
|||
|
as if it were a south pole, to an external observer (to the just-
|
|||
|
departing rotor south pole, for example.). Consequently, the
|
|||
|
rotor finds itself repelled on away from the stator, accelerating
|
|||
|
yet again in the same rotational direction as before. This
|
|||
|
stores additional energy in the flywheel. As can be seen, you
|
|||
|
are now in an "over-unity" condition, and you can power an
|
|||
|
external load continually.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In a real-world device, you may not get total time-reversal at
|
|||
|
the backside of the stator magnet's north pole, but only partial
|
|||
|
time reversal. So to the departing south pole of the rotor
|
|||
|
magnet, the north pole backside of the stator magnet will appear
|
|||
|
to be a much-weakened north pole. It will still extract back
|
|||
|
some of the shaft energy previously stored in the flywheel during
|
|||
|
the approach phase, but not all of it. Hence the device is still
|
|||
|
in an "over-unity" condition, and energy __ though not as much as
|
|||
|
before __ can be continually extracted from it to power an
|
|||
|
external load.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In both cases, using time-reversal we have created a region of
|
|||
|
local time asymmetry, so we can locally violate conservation of
|
|||
|
energy. In this fashion, you can legitimately build a permanent
|
|||
|
magnet motor that appears to be "self-powered." The entire
|
|||
|
secret is how you achieve the time asymmetry in the exactly
|
|||
|
needed place. But even with this over-unity condition, you are
|
|||
|
not violating overall conservation of the universe as a whole.
|
|||
|
Remember, all systems are driven. This self-powered permanent
|
|||
|
magnet motor is actually extracting and gating energy from the
|
|||
|
local now-asymmetrical flux exchange of the atoms/nuclei of the
|
|||
|
magnet material with the vacuum. It's still a special sort of
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 14
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
paddlewheel in a special sort of river. Time asymmetry, achieved
|
|||
|
by using a time-reversing material and process, furnishes the
|
|||
|
stream __ and standard techniques will furnish the "paddlewheel."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Remember the principle: Conservation of energy ruthlessly depends
|
|||
|
upon time symmetry. If you're going to locally violate
|
|||
|
conservation of energy, you must establish and utilize a local
|
|||
|
time asymmetry. And that can be done; at our present elemental
|
|||
|
level of knowledge of vacuum engineering, it's quite tricky, and
|
|||
|
everything must be precisely so and highly nonlinear __ but it
|
|||
|
can be done. And it's really no more mystical than putting a
|
|||
|
sluice-box arrangement in a flowing stream, diverting some of the
|
|||
|
water to a waterwheel, and extracting shaft horsepower.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We emphasize, however, that you cannot, cannot, cannot make a
|
|||
|
self-powered permanent magnet motor with "ordinary" magnets and
|
|||
|
an "ordinary" time-symmetrical vacuum, no matter how strong the
|
|||
|
magnets, or what exotic form you twist them into. You can make
|
|||
|
one with activated magnets and an extraordinary asymmetrical
|
|||
|
vacuum, which have locked-in time asymmetry regions.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
|
|||
|
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
|
|||
|
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
|
|||
|
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
|
|||
|
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
If we can be of service, you may contact
|
|||
|
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Page 15
|