I was trying to get some of the files from 96/97 on keelynet but the link
seems to have gone.
Can you investigate??
regards jim.
----------
> From: Jerry W. Decker <jdecker@keelynet.com>
> To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
> Subject: Re: Negative Resistance discovered??
> Date: 12 July 1998 10:58
>
Hi Folks!
Here is another email from Tom Bearden about this claim of negative
resistance;
============
Jerry,
Some more thoughts on Chung et al's reported negative resistor.
It would be quite nice if it becomes as simple as
feeding energy into one end of such a carbon fiber
"negative resistor" and outputting more energy from
the resistor than one inputs. Since in a nominal
simple circuit (such as a battery powering a simple
resistor) the dipole in the battery is a recognized
broken symmetry in the violent flux of the vacuum,
it means that the dipole -- merely because of its
separated opposite charges -- is outputting "organized"
energy flow. Not all its received virtual particle
flux from the vacuum is returned as "unorganized"
virtual flux. Instead, part is returned as "organized"
virtual flux, hence as Poynting energy flow.
Actually this has been known (and is proven
experimentally, that any electric or magnetic charge
and any dipole is a broken symmetry in the active vacuum
flux) in particle physics for over 40 years. It just
has not made it into electrodynamics yet.
Now let's address the fundamentalists who immediately
resort to the charge of "perpetual motion." They
themselves are already the world's greatest advocates
of perpetual motion machines. They assume that every
single charge and every dipole already is the "source"
for its "force fields" and potentials -- and therefore
for all the energy in those fields.
In short, they assume (whether they like the words or
not) that every "source" charge or dipole simply creates
all that energy right out of nothing. Now that is a
dramatic violation of the most primary physics law of
all: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
One CANNOT be in compliance with that master conservation
of energy law, and assume simultaneously that charges
and dipoles are the sole sources of their own field
energy and potential energy (which, by the way, reach
all across the universe before reaching zero magnitude).
The fundamentalists assume that every charge and
every dipole in the universe is already a perpetual
motion machine. They they pound and chastise the
unorthodox (i.e., "free energy") researchers for being
so "bold" as to suggest that one particular circuit
or device might actually be a broken local symmetry in
the vacuum energy, and therefore output an energy flow
freely from the vacuum energy itself.
Also fundamentalists do not calculate the true Poynting
energy flow from a battery or other power source. The
textbooks admit that the battery or power source
produces the Poynting energy flow down the two conductors
(typical simple circuit considered), filling all space
around the two conductors with energy flow essentially
parallel to the conductors.
Only a very small sheath of that flow, immediately
adjacent to the surface of the conductors, strikes
the surface charges and diverges some of the intercepted
energy flow into the wire to power the electrons and
produce current.
So the Poynting flow has two components:
(1) a huge component that does not strike the surface
charges and is not diverged, and
(2) a very tiny component that does strike the surface
charges in the circuit and is diverged into the
circuit, forming the Slepian vector j(phi).
Lorentz taught everyone to just integrate the Poynting
vector around a closed cylindrical surface very close
to the surface of the wire or component.
This has the pronounced effect of discarding the
nondivergent vector (enters the Lorentz cylinder on
one end and all of it emerges on the other end, giving
energy flow out equal to energy flow in, which zeroes
in the integration.
This procedure retains only the divergence vector
component. In short, Lorentz taught us to just throw
away that nondivergent component filling all space
around the circuit conductors, since our "single pass"
energy flow circuit does not intercept it.
If you do a calculation without that Lorentz procedure,
on a nominal circuit, you will come up with (for a
nominal circuit I calculated) about 10exp13 times as
much nondivergent Poynting energy flow in surrounding
space as there is divergent energy flow being diverted
into the wire.
So Lorentz taught us to just discard -- in every
circuit -- something (nominally) on the order of
10exp13 times as much energy flow as we retained.
Put another way, every (nominal) circuit actually
extracts from the active vacuum, and outputs out
along the conductors (radially out to infinity) a
huge energy flow that is 13 or so orders of magnitude
greater than that very small component that gets
intercepted and diverged (collected) in the circuit to
power it.
In short, we build (with single-pass energy flow
circuits) the very worst type of circuit that can
be imagined, with incredibly small energy interception
and collection efficiency.
Obviously, one way to produce more energy out than
one inputs by normal calculations, would be to collect
some of that normally nonintercepted (nondivergent)
huge wasted energy flow that is ignored, but there
nevertheless.
There are indeed a few ways of doing that "extra
energy collection." One is given by Bohren and
others, using the resonance frequency of a particle,
in an energy flow at that frequency.
The resonance of the particle can easily cause
18 or so times as much interception and energy
divergence upon a single particle. That is
well-documented and proven experimentally.
Lawandy's lasing without population inversion also
uses such particle resonance in an energy flow at
or near the resonance frequency.
The technical name for "intercepting and collecting
more of the available energy flow" would be "asymmetrical
self-regauging".
Another way to get additional energy collected, is
to retroreflect the energy flow back and forth
iteratively, across the intercepting charges. This
occurs, e.g., in anti-Stokes emission phenomena in
intensely scattering, optically active media.
Patterson's cell, e.g., uses a variation of this
method to asymmetrically self-regauge slowly. The
palladium-clad microspheres iteratively retroreflect
(which I just call "ping pong") the energy flow back
and forth multiple times, thereby increasing the
number of intercepts by individual charged particles
(protons, i.e. H+ ions) in the loaded palladium.
As the palladium slowly loads with ions, the
ping-pong increases, thereby slowly increasing
the local energy density (and the local potential)
of the system. Patterson's cell has been
independently tested by three universities, producing
as much as COP = 1200.
He had difficulty keeping the palladium cladding
on the microspheres, however, and the configuration
was lost gradually as palladium cladding damage occurred. So apparently
he has had to
go to ordinary cladding such as copper. This apparently results in a
dramatic
decrease in the ping pong, and so winds up with a COP of something like
2.0 or
so. Of course that is still overunity COP.
A proven example is also Lawandy's lasing without population inversion.
Several experiments, some beautiful papers in the literature (such as
Nature).
Letokhov's work back in 1967 and later presages Lawandy's work.
Letokhov even
has a paper in Contemporary Physics suggesting (or pointing out, as you
wish)
that such reactions (which he calls "negative absorption of the medium"
and
sometimes "negative resonance absorption of the medium") may be
considered
legitimate "Maxwell's Demons."
Particularly related to ping pong and also Chung's negative resistance
experiments is the well-known but poorly understood Fiber fuse effect.
That
one is always overunity; just make the fiber optics cable longer. It's
a
weird effect; simply take a fiber optics cable that has a core
containing
germanium (silicon cores do not exhibit the effect), and heat it at one
point
with a butane cigarette lighter. After awhile, the fiber fuse emerges.
A
spot on the surface of the core melts into a hole, then another about a
centimeter upwards into the incoming laser light, then another, and so
on.
That thing marches down the cable, no matter how long, at about a meter
per
second, thereby disrupting and destroying the operation of the cable.
Now here's the funny part. Reinitiate the fiber fuse again at the other
end
of the cable, with the laser light (spoiled) reversed, and sometimes an
even
more remarkable thing happens. The beast marches back down the cable,
filling
in all those holes again and restoring the cable to operation!
Once the fiber fuse starts, you can take away the butane lighter. It is
self-
perpetuating. You can stop it, however, by disrupting the geometry of
the
waveguide or "pipe" a little bit. Draw down the pipe into a "throat"
section
just a bit smaller, and the fiber fuse will march to the throat and stop
there.
Russell et al have numerous papers in the literature detailing the fiber
fuse.
Russell has one paper dealing with the overunity aspects.
I personally think that, assuming the Chung carbon fiber stack actually
works,
a variation of the fiber fuse effect with ping pong and phase conjugate
pumping and retroreflections" between fibers -- almost as if in a
waveguide --
may be occurring. If so, in that case the carbon fiber section could
asymmetrically regauge itself, increase the collection of energy from
the
normally nonintercepted nondivergent portion of the Poynting energy flow
in
every ping and pong, and thereby legitimately collect and output more
energy
flow than one input (by one's conventional measurements ignoring the
nondivergent input component) into it. What actually would be happening
is
that the carbon fiber section just had a nonlinear and increased energy
flow
interception and divergence to drive more electrons. It would not
violate the
overall conservation of energy at all. Since it would be an open
thermodynamic system far from equilibrium with its active environment
(the
normally nondivergent portion of the Poynting flow), classical
thermodynamics
with its infamous second law would not even apply -- that thermodynamics
only
applies to systems in equilibrium with their environments. Instead, the
nonlinear thermodynamics of dissipative open systems would apply.
It is well-known in dissipative open system thermodynamics that such
systems
can permissibly (1) self-oscillate, (2) exhibit COP>1.0, (3) exhibit
local
negative entropy, and (4) "self-power" themselves and their loads.
Physics and thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations (before arbitrary
symmetrical regauging) do permit such systems. Arbitrary regauging
merely to
provide altered equations with variables separated -- and thereby much
easier
to solve -- also arbitrarily discarded such Maxwellian systems that are
open
systems not in local thermodynamic equilibrium with their EM
environment.
Of course such a proposed candidate system must still be (1)
independently
replicated, and (2) independently tested and verified. That is the
scientific
method. So that process and that process alone will determine whether
the
Chung negative resistor effects are real or flawed in some manner.
And for those fundamentalists who just wish to be instant naysayers, we
simply
present them with the electrodynamic problem of the source charge
assumption
used in their own classical EM. When they can show how those charges
really
create energy filling the entire universe right out of nothing, and have
been
doing it since the big bang, and simultaneously doing that without
violating
the master energy conservation law, then one can believe that classical
EM
alone can be accepted as refuting the possibility of a true negative
resistor.
Until then, classical EM has far too many serious errors and flaws to be
an
arbiter. In its present form it has nothing to say about open
dissipative
thermodynamic systems -- which a true negative resistor is a priori.
In closing, an interesting side bit of information.
One of the greatest (if not the greatest) electrical scientists the U.S.
ever
produced was Gabriel Kron. Before and during WW II, communications work
was
calculated by very large analog simulation of Maxwell's equations, and
analogue simulation of other equations, particularly in the U.S. Navy's
Network Analyzer at Stanford University, with contractor General
Electric.
Some papers are openly published on that Network Analyzer work. In
addition,
GE internally published additional information. We have a bit of that
internal information (no further comment will be given) which shows a
most
interesting thing. Kron reported that the team had developed a negative
resistor (and mentions this lightly also in an open paper or two), which
when
placed in the Network analyzer, allowed the generator to be disconnected
since
the negative resistor would power the network simulator. No further
details
of Kron's negative resistor were ever given, and so far as I know,
neither GE
nor the U.S. Navy ever released any further details on it.
But certainly Kron was authoritative and a great scientist. He applied
not
only electrodynamics (and different topologies at that), but also full
general
relativity to circuits, motors, generators, etc. So I am much inclined
to
believe his statement about the true negative resistor the team built
and
tested.
Perhaps now with the Chung work we will get a second chance at a true
"negative resistor" which, given an input level of energy flow rate,
outputs a
greater energy flow rate. I really do not see any great problem in such
a
notion, if actions occur in transition through the resistor which cause
iterative retroreflections and self-targeting from fiber to fiber,
thereby in
turn resulting in asymmetrical self-regauging.
Electrodynamics already permits the potential energy of a component or
system
to be freely changed without cost (without having to do work upon the
system).
The only way the electrodynamicists discarded EM systems far from
thermodynamic equilibrium with their local active vacuum environment,
was by
assuming inert space (vaccum) as just emptiness, and then by
symmetrically
regauging Heaviside/Maxwell equations (i.e., applying the Lorentz
condition)
so that the variables were separable. Jackson in his Classical
Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, shows this very clearly. But then they
had to
assume that the source charges themselves just created all that energy
in
their fields and potentials reaching across the universe in all
directions.
Either electrodynamicists have to incorporate the active vacuum and the
particle physicists' finding and proof that any charge is a broken
symmetry in
that energy action, or else they are self-convicted of gross violation
of the
master conservation of energy law, and massively incorporating perpetual
motion machines. Until those issues are resolved in changes, I do not
believe
classical EM has anything definitive to say about the Chung experiments.
Let's hope that the work of Chung et al will hold up and be replicated.
If
so, then it represents a really great breakthrough in energy systems, of
first
magnitude. If not, then the job still remains to be done. Whatever
happens,
let's at least give Chung and her colleagues a rousing good cheer for
having
the guts to try the experiments and state the results. If something
turns out
to be wrong with the experiments, then undoubtedly we will hear of that
shortly.
Meanwhile, no serious researcher or serious scientist should ever make
degrading remarks and snide comments about honestly reported scientific
work,
even if that work later turns out to be in error. Poynting, e.g., got
the
direction of the energy flow wrong, and only discovered the divergent
part.
Heaviside corrected the direction, and also pointed out that the flow is
really huge, with only a tiny fraction being diverged into the circuit.
He
also added an additional term not discovered by Poynting. Today we use
Heaviside's energy flow theory, and call it "Poynting flow."
Lots of great scientists (such as Nobelist Feynman and John Wheeler)
have
tried to correct known errors in electrodynamics, and failed for one
reason or
another. Feynman himself pointed out that the field concept in space
was
wrong. He also pointed out that scientists cannot rigorously define
force,
and do not rigorously know what energy is (check out his three volumes
of
physics). Wheeler and Feynman viewed the field in mass-free space not
as a
force field per se (which requires the presence of mass), but only as
the
potentiality for a force field there, given that one placed a charged
particle
there. In other words, the field only appears upon and of the charged
mass.
Presently, electrodynamics (since Maxwell and Faraday) still assumes
that all
space is filled with a thin material fluid. In other words, at every
point in
space there is assumed to be a point coulomb, a point unit north pole,
and a
point unit mass. The Heaviside-Maxwell equations actually describe what
happens to those assumed mass entities. The equations actually have
nothing
at all to say about what form etc. electrodynamic entities actually
exist in,
in mass-free space.
The Michelson-Morley experiments in the 1880s falsified the notion that
all
those charges and masses exist at every point in space. Yet not a
single
Maxwell equation has ever been changed, to root out that assumption of
the
material ether that is in the equations themselves.
So one must be extremely wary of just slapping on a critique based on
classical electrodynamics. It is seriously flawed, known to be so, and
still
has never pulled the motes out of its own eye.
And a number of the very best theorists are presently engaged in
altering
electrodynamics, to produce a new electrodynamics revolution. Names
readily
coming to mind are Evans, Barrett, Rodrigues, Lu, Hestenes, and many
others.
We are definitely going to have a new and dramatically extended
electrodynamics in the future.
Cheers,
Tom Bearden
One of the greatest (if not the greatest) electrical scientists the U.S.
ever
produced was Gabriel Kron. Before and during WW II, communications work
was
calculated by very large simulation of Maxwell's equations, and other
equations, particularly in the U.S. Navy's Network Analyzer at Stanford
University, with contractor General Electric. Kron reported that he had
developed a negative resistor, which when placed in the Network
analyzer,
allowed the generator to be disconnected since the negative resistor
would
power the network simulator. No further details were ever given, and so
far
as I know, neither GE nor the U.S. Navy ever released any further
details.
But certainly Kron was authoritative and a great scientist. So I am
much
inclined to believe his statement.
Perhaps now we will get a second chance at a true "negative resistor"
which,
given an input level of energy flow rate, outputs a greater energy flow
rate.
I really do not see any great problem in such a notion, if actions occur
in
transition through the resistor which cause iterative retroreflections
and
self-targeting from fiber to fiber, thereby in turn resulting in
asymmetrical
self-regauging. Electrodynamics already permits the energy of a
component or
system to be freely changed without cost. The only way the
electrodynamicists
discarded EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their local
active vacuum environment, was by assuming inert space (vaccum) as just
emptiness, and then by symmetrically regauging Heaviside/Maxwell
equations
(i.e., applying the Lorentz condition) so that the variables were
separable.
Jackson in his Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, shows this very
clearly.
Let's hope that the work of Chung et al will hold up and be replicated.
If
so, then it represents a really great breakthrough in energy systems, of
first
magnitude.
-- Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501 ICQ # - 13175100 / AOL - Keelyman KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187