The Fiber Fuse

See Figure 5-5. Although presently a one-shot destructive process, another multicollection phenomenon exhibiting a novel COP>1.0 process is the fiber fuse {298a-e}. This is a well-known but unusual effect in optical fibers and in fiber optic cables.

See Figure 5-5a. Once initiated by simply heating the cable (as with a butane cigarette lighter), the fiber fuse ignites and is self-sustaining. In those susceptible systems utilizing power on the order of one watt or so, the ignited fiber fuse propagates down the cable slowly, at about a meter per second nominally. It is evidenced by a bright white light propagating down the fiber, resembling the burning of a fuse for explosives — which led to the name "fiber fuse".

In fiber optic cables, it occurs only in those that contain germanium in their cores, and not in those containingjust silicon in their cores. It moves down the fiber or cable at approximately one meter per second, and it is unlimited in the length of cable that it will continue along and march to the end. In the core, the marching fuse is actually "hopping", so to speak, and it melts a little "hole" about every centimeter or so, blowing out the material from the hole as it occurs. This "steadily and slowly marching" series of core melts results in the catastrophic destruction of the optical fiber core of the cable and thus destroys the functioning of the cable.




3 IN


3 IN



Figure 5-5 A. Fiber fuse destroys core of fiber optics cable of indefinite length, pitting core with holes.


FLAME HEAT1NQ 11 Figure 5-5 B. Reversed second fiber fuse oftenresiores pitted core in cable, filling holes back up.

Figure 5-5 The fiber fuse.

The mechanism has been theorized to be self-propelled and self-focusing. Other experiments have found evidence for thermal shock waves and chemical reactions.

But see Figure 5-5b. Astonishingly, after a — say — 1 kilometer fiber optics cable is destroyed by such a fiber fuse, it is often possible to "heal" the damage by reversing the direction of the normal laser light propagating down the cable, while re-initiating the fiber fuse from the other end by heating the cable on that end. In that case, sometimes the reverse-ignited liber fuse will then march right back down the cable, precisely refilling those previously-melted little holes every centimeter or so, restoring the functioning ofthe cable! If ever a phenomenon cried out for further painstaking investigation to determine its actual mechanism, the fiber fuse is it.

Truncated coupled-wave theory applies to this phenomenon. A rigorous analysis by Russell {299} of power conservation in dielectric gratings has shown that truncated coupled-wave theories do not rigorously conserve power. Predictably such conclusions have been disputed {300a-300d}, however, and are adulterated by the same old use of Lorentz-surface integration of the Poynting vector around the grating and discarding of the nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component. Those disputing the results and claiming the impossibility of COP>1.0 systems continue to ignore the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component accompanying every EM energy flow situation. In fact, they continue to unwittingly discard that component, and so have never performed a fully adequate analysis of any circuit or process. They also are unaware that all EM energy in 3-space comes directly from the active vacuum — specifically, it enters 3-space from the time domain and then returns to the time domain.

As long as the Lorentz surface integration scheme continues to be ubiquitously used without understanding what it does with respect to energy flow accounting, the dispute will not be dissolved. Presently both sides still use the Lorentz integration and discard the available Heaviside component. So they are really disputing whether the Poynting diverged component of the input energy can be equal to the energy dissipated. The answer to that is simply "No!"

0f course in a lab test the fiber fuse can be initiated with small Poynting energy input by precision point heating. In that case, the total energy required to melt the holes and move the material out of them, every centimeter or so down that (unlimited) length of cable, can be made as large as one reasonably wishes, simply by making the cable as long as one wishes. In short, C0P»1.0. As can be seen, it can be experimentally proven that the input Poynting energy component can be far less than the total energy dissipated in damaging the cable. 0n the other hand, the energy dissipated in damaging the cable is not greater than the sum total of the usually calculated Poynting component together with the neglected extraordinarily large Heaviside nondiverged component. Conservation of energy is upheld, but only if the long-neglected Heaviside component is also accounted.

It stands to reason that the reverse fiber fuse can also be initiated by less input Poynting energy component that the total energy dissipated in restoring the cable. At that point, conventional theory has a problem. 0ne can start with a good cable, put in a little EM energy twice — once to ignite the fiber fuse and once to ignite the reverse fiber fuse — and one winds up with a good fiber optics cable and having done lots more work inside the cable than the amount of energy one input by conventional considerations. We leave the solution to that problem as an exercise for the reader. Again, unless one includes the long-neglected Heaviside component, there is no way to make the energy flow balance, and one will have an experiment that seemingly contradicts the conservation of energy law. It doesn't, and that is the exercise the reader should understand.

So unless one uncovers and specifies the external source (Heaviside's energy flow component) of excess energy feeding the fiber fuse, it is a demonstrable experiment whose efficiency seemingly winds up being _ >1.0. It works every time and seemingly violates the conservation of energy law as that law is conventionally and imprecisely stated for an equilibrium system only. The COP>1.0 fiber fuse phenomenon does not violate overall conservation of energy because the system is not in equilibrium with the other two components of its supersystem. It only violates (permissibly!) the conservation of energy statement for a system in equilibrium. The "system" consisting of the fiber fuse and the cable is not in equilibrium in its energy exchange with its active environment (with the other two components ofthe supersystem, consisting ofthe active vacuum energy exchange and the active local curvature of spacetime). We point out, of course, that the Heaviside component is flowing in space outside the physical system, hence in the vacuum and therefore in the external environment.

Specifically, every dipole in the system is extracting and pouring out energy from the vacuum, and only the small Poynting diverged component of this available energyflow is ordinarily caught. The extreme nonlinearity (and some resonances!) ofthe particles in and exposed to the extraordinarily locally heated fiber fuse do sweep out a greater reaction cross section than do cold, static charges, in afashion similar to the separate demonstration ofsuch extended geometrical reaction cross section in the Bohren experiment {301}. Hence the fiber fuse subsystem and the associatedparticles ofmelted matter from the holes do intercept, diverge, and collect some ofthe accompanying but usually nondiverged Heavisidecomponent.

See again paragraph 2.1.6 in Chapter 2. Iterative retroreflective systems — such as in intensely scattering nonlinear optical materials — are not necessarily limited to COP < 1.0. Such a system is not necessarily limited to only the energy input by the operator, and it is not limited to only the operator's input Poynting component. Instead, the system can receive an input of excess energy from (i) its active local vacuum, and/or (ii) the local curvatures of spacetime. Its efficiency however, is always L < 1.0, even when its COP is clearly greater than 1.0.

Since scientists disputing the energy aspects of the fiber fuse only have assumed an equilibrium system and have not considered the neglected Heaviside energy flow component, the present arguments against COP>1,0 performance of the fiber fuse are quite irrelevant.

We also point out that an optical phenomenon is involved, and that the core materials in the melt are optically active. Hence, appreciable iterative phase conjugate retroreflections occur in the fiber fuse itself and particularly in the melt materials (in the "inferno" of the "spot" itself). This asymmetrical self-regauging process gets more than one joule of work from one joule of original input Poynting energy, because of the iterative (and reciprocating) change of form of the energy. That operation produces iterative joules of work for each joule of original input energy, plus the unaccounted original input of the Heaviside component.

Again, there is no law of conservation ofwork in nature. The present conventional energy-work theorem erroneously considers only a "single interception and change of form" of the energy collected in the system, before loss of the energy from the system. Therefore, it only considers each joule of input energy performing one joule of work on the system to "excite" it to a higher potential energy state. It also considers that, once a joule of energy is then dissipated from the system as work in an internal load or process, it has departed the system forever and is not returned to do additional work by having its form changed yet again! In intensely retroreflective or intensely scattering systems, those conventional assumptions do not necessarily hold. For analysis of the fiber fuse phenomenon, the extended work-energy theorem must be utilized.

Finally, we point out the connection of this fiber fuse phenomenon to the similar "runaway" phenomena we have previously postulated as involved in producing the x-ray burster, gamma ray burster, etc. where iterative retroreflection and thus asymptotic rise in energy density is involved.

Another possibly related phenomenon is the unexpected explosion of porous silicon, as discovered at the Technical University of Munich {302}. The porous pellet involved in the unexpected experiment is covered with a layer of hydrogen atoms. In the presence of oxygen penetrating the oxygen barrier, an extraordinary and superfast chain reaction is initiated. The power of the explosion is some 10 times that of TNT. In the inferno portion of the fiber fuse, the "melt" as it puddles and then particulates, should be in the presence of oxygen and hydrogen from air in the cable. This dramatically differs from the explosive pellet, but may be sufficient to ignite at least in a local area rather than explode violently. If so, between the ablating particles of silicon there could exist iterative phase conjugation, thus producing an asymptotic rise in temperature and energy, perhaps sufficient to sustain the fuse. At least this possibility should be investigated.

DIY Battery Repair

DIY Battery Repair

You can now recondition your old batteries at home and bring them back to 100 percent of their working condition. This guide will enable you to revive All NiCd batteries regardless of brand and battery volt. It will give you the required information on how to re-energize and revive your NiCd batteries through the RVD process, charging method and charging guidelines.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment