__Posted on 12-10-00__

**Dear All,
You will find below some informations sent by Tom Bearden.
Best Regards
Jean-Louis Naudin**

Sujet : | Information |

Date : | Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:36:27 -0600 |

From: xxxxxx (Tom
Bearden) To: Jnaudin509@aol.com (Jean-Louis Naudin) |

*Dear Jean-Louis:
Some fellows in your discussion groups raised the question of my
use of energy flow (Poynting diverged component versus Heaviside
nondiverged component) but made an error in their questioning.
The correction is important for the free energy researcher, for
it reveals a gigantic source of free energy around every little
EM circuit, once we pay a little to get the circuit in operation.
In other words, scientists should have harnessed more of that
already enormous energy flow right under their noses around every
circuit anyway, and should have given us free, cheap, clean
electrical power.
To understand EM energy flow around EM circuits, I strongly
suggest one put aside the textbooks' interpretations until one
checks the original applicable papers of Heaviside and of
Poynting, who independently and essentially simultaneously
discovered the flow of energy through space in the 1880s.
The concept of the flow of energy through space was not present
in physics until then. Also note that Maxwell was already
dead, having passed on from stomach cancer in 1879. Several
of my papers (e.g., Dark Matter or Dark Energy?, published in
Journal of New Energy) give the appropriate references one should
check.
First, there is an enormous energy flow (trillions of times
greater than what you input to the shaft of a generator, and than
the chemical energy in a battery) pouring out of the terminals of
every generator or battery. The enormity of this energy
flow is easily shown, and measurements can be made of actual
collection of energy from it by intercepting charges placed in it.
Particularly see John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992, Figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578.
Kraus shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling all
space around the two conductors of a transmission line, with
almost all of that energy flow not intercepted by the circuit at
all and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just
"wasted."
Kraus also shows the "equi-divergence" contours in this
energy flow, with measurements of the energy flow that can be
collected by (diverged around) a unit point static charge placed
at any point on each contour. So yes, that vast energy flow
filling all space surrounding the circuit is real, it is known,
but it has been arbitrarily discarded from accountability in
energy measurements in circuits because no one has been able to
explain the source of it before. We explain it in "Giant
Negentropy from the Common Dipole", published in Journal of
New Energy.
Note that, at any point in one of Kraus' contours, if you place
100 unit point static coulombs of intercepting charge at that
same point instead of the unit point static charge that is "standard",
you will diverge continuously around that charge some 100 times
as much energy flow as the magnitude shown by Kraus. In
short, then you multiply the value of energy interception at each
point on that contour by 100. Since we are describing a steady
state condition, this means that now we are collecting 100 times
as much energy "statically" (actually "continuously
and steadily) at each point in the divergence zone around the
charge.
You can do that sort of thing at each and every point in space
surrounding the circuit, out to an almost infinite radius.
None of that vast energy flow that is in that surrounding space
is hitting the circuit and entering it. Also, you really
can collect energy from that wasted but enormous energy flow.
Only a tiny, tiny portion of that surrounding external energy
flow moves right along the surface of the conductors, strikes the
surface charges in the circuit conductors and components, and is
thereby diverged into the conductors to power up (potentialize)
the Drude electrons and the circuit. That tiny "diverged"
portion of the energy flow that enters the circuit is the
Poynting component, not the losses. The respondent thus got
it exactly reversed. Here is Poynting's own words:
"This paper describes a hypothesis as to the connexion
between current in conductors and the transfer of electric and
magnetic inductions in the surrounding field. The
hypothesis is suggested by the mode of transfer of energy in the
electromagnetic field, resulting from Maxwell's equations
investigated in a former paper ("Phil. Trans.," vol.
175, pp. 343-361, 1884). It was there shown that according
to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory the energy which is
dissipated in the circuit is transferred through the medium,
always moving perpendicularly to the plane containing the lines
of electric and magnetic intensity, and that it comes into the
conductor from the surrounding insulator, not flowing along the
wire." [J.H. Poynting, "On the connexion
between electric current and the electric and magnetic inductions
in the surrounding field," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 38,
1984-85, p. 168].
So your respondent was in error when he spoke of that little
"dip" in the flow as what was "wasted" and
the "losses". He got it exactly reversed.
Here is the straightforward way to deal with it. Simply
separate the entire energy flow vector into two vector components:
a very large component vector parallel to the conductor and a
very small vertical component vector pointing vertically into the
wire from outside. The combination (the sum vector)
is the entire energy flow that is almost parallel to the wires
but not quite (see quote from Heaviside). The parallel flow
component vector is the Heaviside energy flow that completely
misses the conductors and roars off into space and is lost.
The tiny vertical flow component is the Poynting energy flow
component that enters the circuit and powers it by potentializing
the Drude electrons, and then being dissipated by the excited
electrons in the circuit's loads and losses. This small
vertical component is the tiny energy flow portion that Poynting
assumed from the outset, and he never even considered the
enormous parallel component.
The problem was that, if one estimated the magnitude of the sum
vector energy flow or the Heaviside parallel component, the
startling amount of energy pouring out of the terminals was so
vast that it staggered the imagination. In the 1880s, if
you tried to state that a "one watt nominal circuit"
actually was pouring out trillions of joules per second, almost
all of which missed the circuit entirely and roared off into
space and was lost, you would have been tarred and feathered and
drummed out of science as a total lunatic. Heaviside had
not the slightest notion of what could possibly be furnishing
such a mind-staggering energy flow! So Heaviside -- who did
include that NONDIVERGED vast component in his theory (while
Poynting completely omitted it), was extremely cautious and spoke
only of the "angle" of the energy flow and the "angles"
of the components. Here are his exact words:
"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity
of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope
towards the wire... . Prof Poynting, on the other hand,
holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly
perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the
vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only
arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the
nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting
electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly
perpendicular to the wire. The departure from
perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken
of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are,
before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight
departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the
wire." Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p.
94.
As you can see, that slight "dip" is due to the
vertical convergence of the Poynting energy component into the
wire, and that is of course known in electrodynamics and appears
in the texts.
Now when you measure energy in circuits, you actually measure
energy dissipation. All the energy that is dissipated from
or in a circuit, must have entered the circuit in the first place.
So if you measure all the energy that a circuit dissipates, that
is equal to all the energy that actually entered the circuit via
the Poynting component. In short, we always "measure"
Poynting's entering energy component as it is exiting, in the
many places and components where it exits, etc.
We are NEVER measuring the remaining vast energy flow component,
which Heaviside exposed and which the Kraus diagram illustrates
very well. *

*And there the matter rested until Lorentz (the
greatest electrical scientist of his day) entered the picture.
Lorentz understood both components, but he also had not the
foggiest notion of where on earth such an enormous energy flow
could be coming from. He also would have been attacked and
destroyed if he had actually advocated that huge "Heaviside"
nondiverged component.
Unable to solve the vexing problem, Lorentz simply got rid of it.
He reasoned that Heaviside's vast parallel component was "physically
insignificant" (Lorentz's term) since it did not interact
with the circuit and did not power anything, and therefore
it could just be arbitrarily discarded from all accountability.
So Lorentz simply integrated the entire energy flow vector around
an assumed closed surface surrounding any volume element of
interest. Voila! The Heaviside nondiverged component
of the energy flow vector passes straight through, positive (let
us say) going into the surface and thus negative coming out of it.
Hence the Lorentz closed surface integration procedure discards
the enormous Heaviside nondiverged component. It does not
eliminate the actual huge energy flow, but just arbitrarily
discards any further accountability of it. On the other
hand, the Lorentz procedure does retain the DIVERGED component,
so it retains Poynting's component.
Electrodynamicists have just continued that very practice to this
day, and have never resolved the "Heaviside component"
problem. They do not usually bring it out as clearly as has
Kraus, but even Kraus does not point out the startling fact that
this proves that the shaft input to a generator cannot possibly
be producing all that energy flow. Electrodynamicists
continue to avoid the Heaviside flow component problem, because
their model eliminates the vacuum interaction with the source
dipole formed in the generator. Energy extracted from the vacuum
by the broken 3-symmetry of that source dipole is what pours out
both the Heaviside and Poynting energy flow components, as I
discuss in my paper, "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?" in
Journal of New Energy.
However, this integration procedure has caused the great
confusion that some electrodynamicists and particularly many
engineers are unaware that there is a dramatic difference between
the entire EM "energy flow" per se that is connected
with the circuit, and the Poynting energy flow component that is
connected with the circuit. About half think those are one
and the same thing, including authors of some of the textbooks.
Anyway, my paper, "Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole",
just published in Journal of New Energy, points out the rigorous
and surprising solution of the Heaviside-Lorentz problem, and
gives the precise source and of the enormous size of that
discarded but still present nondiverged EM energy flow around
every EM circuit.
In an AIAS group paper, Anastasovski, P. K; Bearden, T. E;
Ciubotariu, C; Coffey, W. T.; Crowell, L. B; Evans, G. J; Evans,
M. W; Flower, R; Jeffers, S; Labounsky, A; Lehnert, B; Meszaros,
M; Molnar, P. R; Vigier, J P; Roy, S. "Classical
electrodynamics without the Lorentz condition: Extracting energy
from the vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p.513-517,
I gave several ways of possibly extracting (diverging into the
circuit and using) more of that Heaviside energy flow. The
simplest and proven way (COP = 18) is the Bohren experiment which
simply places the intercepting "unit point charge" into
resonance. Thus the Bohren resonating charge sweeps out a
greater geometrical reaction cross section area in the impinging
energy flow, and collects more of the otherwise "missing a
static charge" energy flow adjacent to a static collecting
charge.
If -- after it has passed the circuit -- you retroreflect the
Heaviside energy flow component back across the same circuit, you
will get an additional Poynting collection by the surface
charges, and get more energy. If you iterate this
retroreflection, you get an overunity process, IF you do not use
the common closed current loop circuit which uses half of the
collected energy to destroy the dipole faster that one can
power the load. Instead, one might adapt Tesla's "one wire
circuit" between two widely separated capacitors connected
by a long conductor. The best way, of course, is Letokhov's
"negative absorption of the medium" which is excess
emission from optically active, highly scattering media.
In the Physica Scripta you may also be interested in some of the
more than a dozen ways suggested for extracting energy from the
vacuum.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden*

**Return to the ****MEG Project page**