Tom, Many thanks for this analysis. I will put it on the website, and recommend that it is visited frequently. The Cathey website receives about 100,000 visits a year, and so should be an ideal vehicle for someone to become seriously interested in an evaluation of your work. It seems to me that top priority should be given to: 1) the cable experiment, and regeneration; 2) a repeat of the Priore experiments. I feel that progress should be made on an empirical level because of the long drawn out nature of theoretical debate. You mention two decades of debate about the Poynting / Heaviside Theorem. It is far better in an emergency for humanity such as the one we have now to do empirical work, in any manner possible. I will think more about your letter, which is full of interest, and I hope others will too. The B(3) debate has been about as gentlemanly as the Battle of Culloden, so standards of debate are deteriorating. Myron cc Roger Cathey and colleagues. --------------------------- DATE: 29/08/97 18:40 Re: Re: energy processes Sender: Tebearden@aol.com To: FishnChips@compuserve.com Subject: Re: energy processes Dear Myron, Thanks for doing what you are doing, and for bearing with my own rather conceptual approach. The results achieved by the Priore team of course are in the French science literature, and have been cited in one Explore paper which I sent to you. Mechanisms to explain the causative agent, however, are missing completely from the literature. I have published one book already on the InterNet, which is available from www.tarapublishing.com/books, at a very nominal cost per downloading. Part I summarizes the overunity energy work, and Part II summarizes the Priore affair and my approach to explaining it. The book is heavily illustrated with intensive graphics as well, and heavily referenced. It is suggested that, in the energy field, anti-Stokes emission phenomena be thoroughly looked at by interested parties, and that Lawandy's lasing without population inversion experiment, from Lawandy et al, Nature, 368(6470), Mar. 31, 1994, p. 436-438, also be carefully examined anew. The excess energy certainly arises and can be demonstrated. The explanation of its source is the contention. Conventional explanations tend to pin it on taking the excess energy right from the internal energy of a molecule, but then where does the molecule get the excess energy from? Lawandy's patents are 5,434,878, July 18, 1995; 5,157,674, Oct. 20, 1992; 5,233,621, Aug 3, 1993; 5,253,258, Oct. 12, 1993; and another application in 1994 for which the patent may have been issued. Although missing from electrodynamics, particle physics already contains the notion (with experimental and theoretical substantiation) that the common dipole and in fact any electrical or magnetic charge already extracts energy directly from the vacuum, because it is a broken symmetry in the violent virtual energy exchange between the vacuum and the masses of the charges comprising the dipole or charge q. Since a priori a broken symmetry (in particle physics, not electrodynamics) changes something virtual to something observable, I concluded that this means that the "part that is not sent back to the vacuum in virtual form" must be sent back in observable form. That requires an observable flow of EM energy from any charge and dipole. I reasoned that there is only one recognized OBSERVABLE energy flow from the charge or dipole, and that (in electrodynamics) is the Poynting flow. In other words, I consider that the vacuum energetics is primary; a broken symmetry in that energy then drives observable energy and energy flow, and that energy flow WHEN INTERCEPTED BY AN INTERCEPTING MASS generates the force upon the collecting mass, by producing a gradient in the energy flow, with that gradient coupled to the mass to form the force [F is identically d/dt(mv) in this view, so that mass is a necessary component of force. I note that foundations physicists such as Feynman, Margenau, and Lindsay take a similar view that there can be no force without the presence of the mass). Then it turned out that the Poynting flow in circuits is still very much the subject of contention in physics, and does not seem to have a consensus among electrical physicists. The Lorentz procedure (surface integration of the Poynting vector around a closed surface surrounding the conductor or component examined) certainly ARBITRARILY discards the nondivergent portion of the Poynting flow -- that part that does not strike the surface charges in the conductors or components, and therefore is not diverged into the circuit to power it. As is well-known, the Poynting flow from the source along the exterior of the conductors fills all space radially out from that conductor to infinity. Almost all of that -- except for just the wee "boundary layer" part striking those collecting surface charges in the wire -- is not intercepted and is not geometrically diverged. So the Lorentz procedure discards all that vast component, which I tentatively found to be (nominal case) about 10exp13 times as great in magnitude as the intercepted and diverged component which powers the circuit. The mindset difficulty is that this business of such a small interception of the actual energy flow, is also endemic in our measuring instruments. In other words, they also only intercept some 10exp(-13) of the impinging Poynting flow upon them. So if one wishes to agree with the instruments, one must choose only the divergent component, because that is what the instruments select a priori. Our voltmeters, ammeters, and powermeters are thus rather arbitrarily forcing us to discard the enormous component of the Poynting flow that is (1) not intercepted, (2) not diverged, and (3) not measured. Of course the entire point is that we CAN do something to collect a lot more of that totally wasted nondivergent component! In circuits, the entire Poynting flow area seems to have remained under debate for a century. In American Journal of Physics alone, the debate has ranged over two decades, in a gentlemanly fashion. Early on Poynting, for example, got the direction of flow wrong, and also assumed only the diverged component. Heaviside corrected the direction, and also pointed out that the divergent component of the energy flow is only a small fraction of the overall flow. Poynting also added an additional term. Ironically, today we apply Heaviside's version and call it Poynting flow! Let me appeal to the better physicists and theoreticians in your audience to give this very serious attention! If I am right in that all our circuits already produce nominally about 10exp13 times as much energy flow as we account for with our voltmeters, ammeters, and powermeters, then obviously there actually exists no worldwide energy problem insofar as energy SOURCES are concerned! A single flashlight battery could in theory -- if its entire Poynting energy flow could be harnessed -- power the entire United States. Presently I'm convinced this is the real case. However, this needs careful attention from far better scientists than I am. I'm basically a very, very crude engineer, and not even a good one at that! Nonetheless, I believe these things are rigorous and will hold up under scrutiny. If not, then certainly they will be refuted validly and I will be happy to learn that lesson. But I too noticed that most responses in the past have not been serious responses at all, but almost knee-jerk responses simply quoting the conventional texts. That will not suffice where one has raised a question in a fundamental procedure assumed in the texts; first the question raised must be settled. Either that fundamental "examine the issue" procedure is sufficient or it is insufficient. I think that is the attitude I would like to project. For example, is Lorentz's arbitrary method of simply discarding all the "noncontact" or nondivergent component of the Poynting flow justifiable? We can see that it is not justifiable on the basis that IN A SINGLE ONE-WAY pass, that remaining tiny 10exp(-13) component is all that is collected and used to power the loads and losses. But that is dependent on that special case and those particular assumptions. What about the case for retroreflection of the passed (even the divergent component) of energy, after either the noncollection or the collection and scattering to do work have been done? What happens when we get multiple collections from the same part of the energy flow, simply by rerouting the energy flow back around again, and getting another "scoop" at it? What happens when that is a deliberate, iterative process -- as occurs in optically active intensely scattering media, evidenced by the well-known anti-Stokes emission phenomenon which is ALWAYS overunity by definition? Also we have raised a direct challenge to the hoary notion that one joule of energy can only do one joule of work. That's true in a single-pass, single collection case, where nothing special is done to artificially cause more divergence and thus additional energy collection. To state the conventional "one joule of energy, one joule of work" assumption more accurately,one might try "one joule of intercepted and collected energy from the Poynting flow can only yield one joule of work when that intercepting and collecting process is dissipated." One cannot CONSUME the energy, but only the COLLECTING AND THEREFORE THE DISSIPATING processes. Even after the joule of work is done, all the energy there at the beginning is still remaining. It can still be used to do another joule of work, and another, and so on. One is only debating whether that now SCATTERED joule of energy can be passively retroreflected and reordered without additional energy input by the operator. Certainly in theory -- in a gedankenexperiment -- it can be, by simple 100% phase conjugation or just 100% retroreflection. Note we are talking "in theory," we understand the difficulty in physically achieving efficient phase conjugate retroreflection! However, visualize a heater resistor (say a little sphere, for simplicity) inside a spherical cavity. Assume that the inner walls of the cavity have a phase conjugating reflection coefficient, say, of 0.1. Now suppose you input one watt of power (that is, the rate of intercepting and diverging of the Poynting flow is one watt. Further, neglect the little hole in the sphere where the wiring is connected to the internal heater. So what will happen? There is a steady DC input rate of 1 watt, which you furnish and never vary. There is an initial steady feedback rate of 0.1 watt, to add to the available power of the input. This is now a positive feedback situation. I would urge the interested reader to actually make some calculations. If there is any positive feedback at all, the energy density in the chamber will rise slowly and steadily (we are assuming linearity, of course, for initial simplicity). This is of course true for any positive feedback situation with steady positive input! Now look at what is escaping from the outside of the sphere. By definition, the walls of the cylinder transmit rather than reflect some 0.9 of all the energy flow rate impinging upon them from the inside. But because of the positive feedback, the energy density inside the chamber is steadily rising. So as the energy density in the chamber increases, the amount striking the wall at any instant, and therefore the output diffusing through the wall, increases also. Shortly there is more than 1 watt of radiation power being emitted from the outside of the cylinder. Eventually there is 100 watts, and so on. Eventually the cylinder is emitting a kilowatt of power, and you are still inputting jjust that one watt. The Patterson Power Cell(R), for example, has been independently tested and verified as outputting some 1200 times as much as in being input. Patterson is moving toward introducing a marketable produce. His company also offers for sale a cold fusion kit which competent researchers can purchase and positively see the resulting new nuclides produced in the device's reaction. From whence comes the excess energy in the radiating sphere with positive internal energy retroreflection? Is there a serious flaw in the gedanken experiment here, given the admittedly rather arbitrary assumptions, so that we can examine a PRINCIPLE itself? I would be most interested in seeing intelligent discussion of this question. In addition to the Lawandy experiment and patents, another very interesting "overunity" phenomena -- in the literature and repeatable -- is the fiber fuse anomaly. I leave it to the reader to run that one down, where a repetitive reaction in a fiber optics cable kilometers long can run down the cable at about a meter per second, melting holes in the inner core's surface every centimeter or so, and destroying the cable, ONLY if the cable core is a germanium-based core rather than a silicon based core. Then eerily, sometimes in the destroyed cable, if you reverse the direction of the laser light and ignite the "fiber fuse" again from the other end, the reaction will move back down the cable and FILL IN ALL THOSE HOLES AGAIN AND RESTORE THE CABLE. If ever there's a practical experiment begging for the most serious attention by the most capable scientists, this one is it. I have advanced the thesis that any overunity electromagnetic system is an asymmetrically regauged system. Any repetitively self-powered overunity EM system is an asymmetrically self-regauged system. What seemingly happens in the real world, of course, is that such "asymmetrically self-regauging" systems simply reach a more nonlinear level where the "increase without bound" assumption fails, and usually produces an energy density threshold where the positive feedback operation in the system gradually declines to zero. Therefore the system stabilizes at that level (I am conjecturing). For a given situation, the threshold can very (again, I am conjecturing). I am presently postulating that this asymmetrical self-regauging of such systems to self-increase their internal energy density (taking the excess energy directly from the vacuum by broken symmetry in the vacuum flux) is a universal sort of process that requires a fundamental alteration of the work-energy theorem. This process seems to follow whenever (1) the energy flow is retroreflected repeatedly, so as to increase the return of the same energy flow for additional interception and therefore produce an increase in the COLLECTED local energy density of the system, and (2) There exist nonlinear materials, feedback mechanisms, etc. to create the positive feedback loop, and (3) the particular system exhibiting the asymmetical self-regauging remains beneath its "tolerance capability" when it reaches its performance threshold (that point at which the positive feedback reaches zero). If that tolerance level is exceeded, the system would usually just rupture and fail catastrophically -- as will the asymmetrically self-regauging hollow sphere heater used in our gedanken experiment. If the nominal 10exp13 factor of the actual energy flow involved versus the divergent component (collected component) holds as a reasonable estimate, then one may be facing a breathtaking vista, which we postulate as follows: the nonlinearity of internal processes in a system, and the toughness of the system, determine (1) the energy density threshold for declining and elimination of the positive feedback providing the asymmetrical self-regauging, and (2) the tolerance threshold before system failure or "violent release" of the excess stored energy density. One can start with the anti-Stokes emission phenomena, which (as typified by the Lawandy experiment) shows an "overunity" threshold for energy emission versus the steady energy input. From that one may speculate new, tougher systems whose internal dynamics have higher "release thresholds" for their internal iterative positive feedback. If true, this speculation leads into a classification of systems based on "self-regauging energy density" achieved by the system before "violent release" of the excess stored energy. Interestingly, one can throw in such things as the gamma ray bursters, and even more energetic events, by postulating their probability to be less as the energy density threshold rises. This speculative "ordering" of the energy density built up and released, as the probability for the higher density reactions occurring decreased, points to a great limiting process: the big bang. In other words, the limitation of the entire process would have to be the big bang itself. (again, we are conjecturing all of this at this point!) Whether this can be made to fit the present view of the false vacuum and its self-pumping up and self-initiating explosion, remains to be seen. What I suspect I may be doing is attempting to describe the process that produces the actual self-pump up of the vacuum, and perhaps very inadequately at that. To fit all this, I did the most elementary step: One notices that the standard work-energy theorem, electromagnetically, may be taken as W = Vq, where V is the potential (phi) representing the energy density collected by the intercepting charges or other internal dynamic elements of the self-regauging system. We add the factor alpha to allow for multipath, multireflection, multicollection of the energy flow inputs. Then we rewrite the work/energy theorem as W = (lambda)Vq. Now there are at least three interesting cases (imaginary values of lambda not considered). First, lambda can be less than 1.0. That corresponds to (1) single pass Energy flow and collection, where recoil of the collector occurs. In other words, that's just the familiar Stokes emission. Part of the incoming (input) collected energy is re-emitted back to the vacuum, and the other part of the collected energy produces some recoil of the absorber. There there is the case for lambda = 1.0. That corresponds to the limit of Stokes emission, which is the well-known resonance emission. All the energy absorbed (collected) is re-emitted. Finally, in the case for lambda >1.0, one is dealing with multipass, multicollection of the energy and hence asymetrical self-regauging. One has a positive feedback situation. For a "pulse" input, if the retroreflection is less than 0.5, the energy output is sustained for a bit on a decaying exponential curve. At exactly 0.5, the energy output stabililizes at 1.0, the actual energy density being 2.0, with half escaping and half fed back. This case looks like a simple "superconductor" process. If the retroreflectivity energy flow feedback is greater than 0.5, the series increases without bound, in this case until a limiting threshold area is entered where lambda is no longer constant but decreases toward and to 1.0. That is a stability plateau, with a certain "gain" in continuous energy out versus continuous energy in. In the electrodynamic case, a governed, limited actual feedback can be used to adjust and stabilize at a given level. So a system then becomes an asymmetrically self-regauging system, or in other words a so-called "self-powering" system which powers itself and its load simultaneously. Note that the excess energy comes from the vacuum, there is no violation of energy conservation, and classical thermodynamics does not apply because the system is an open system freely receiving excess energy from an external source. Nonlinear thermodynamics of dissipative open systems far from equilibrium applies. As is known, such systems can exhibit self-ordering and self-oscillation, including self-pumping. They can exhibit both COP>1.0 and "self-powering" of themselves and a load simultaneously. Anyway, for my overunity energy work those are the major considerations. We do refute the conventional assumption that one joule of collected energy can only yield a joule of work as any "absolute" statement. It instead is a conditional statement, based on single pass of the energy flow and "normal" interception and collection by the collectors. It does apply widely, as does classical thermodynamics. It does not apply universally -- and neither does classical thermodynamics. Again I very much appreciate your time and attention to these matters. I am personally dedicated to doing everything I can to help resolve (1) the energy problem, and (2) the problem of deadly diseases now on the rise and ever more resistant to our antibiotics and other conventional means. I fervently believe we must take a new direction on both problems, and that both are extremely important to the entire human species. Sincerely, Tom Bearden