What Powers an EM Circuit or Electrical Power System

Another modern example of science's resistance to change is the continued engineering of electrical power systems with the erroneous notion that mechanically powering the shaft of a generator directly powers the power line. The notion is that the generator transduces some of the mechanical shaft energy into output EM energy added to the power line {71}. To the contrary, all EM systems are powered by energy extracted from the vacuum. They are not powered by the mechanical energy we input to the shaft of a generator, or by the chemical energy in a battery. In this book, we discuss at some length what powers the EM system, and we have previously published the basis for our "shocking" statement {12, 72}. The basis for how an EM system is powered by energy from the vacuum has been known in particle physics for nearly a half-century {73}, since the experimental proof of broken symmetry {74}, including the broken symmetry of opposite charges (and hence of any dipole) in its fierce energy exchange with the active vacuum {75}.

A generator or battery expends all of its available energy to separate its internal charges and form its source dipole between the terminals. Once made, the dipole's broken symmetry — in its violent energy exchange with the active vacuum — converts virtual photon energy absorbed from the vacuum into observable EM energy, and emits it — pours it out — through the terminals and along the power line, filling all space around the conductors.

If one wishes to appreciate the enormity of the vacuum changes engendered by formation of that source dipole, simply visualize those two

infinite charge energy functions (from Weinberg's quotation above) for every charged particle on the ends of that dipole. The dipole then is a great set of offsetting infinities in EM energy (photon energy) boiling and being ordered in the vacuum. Making a simple little dipole or producing a simple charge initiates into motion an enormous set of infinite energy changes in the vacuum! None of these startling, enormous vacuum energy changes and functions is modeled in classical electrodynamics and electrical power engineering. So when we speak of the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component pouring from the terminals of a generator, as being a trillion or ten trillion times as great in magnitude as the intercepted Poynting component, the reader should not be appalled. The reader should recall that we are dealing with the difference between sets of infinities that combine to provide finite differences. These finite differences can be very small, or they can be extraordinarily large, depending on the exact situation. In the case of a source dipole formed in an ordinary generator or battery, the difference of the infinities is very large.

Figure 1, adapted from Kraus {76}, illustrates that small part of the external energy flow around a typical transmission line that is intercepted by the surface charges and their fields, and that is drawn into the wires to power the circuit as these charges are driven axially back and forth across the conductors. The surface charges are constrained to the "drift velocity" (usually a few inches per hour) movement down the wire by repulsion of the electrons ahead of them.

The spinning, longitudinally restrained electrons precess laterally, thus withdrawing across the transverse axis of the wire. So the laterally precessing electron withdraws a little ways, withdrawing that first small portion of its fields and their energy increased by intercept of additional energy from the outside energy flow. The further part of the fields is not withdrawn into the conductor, and is not used to power the electrons.

charges and is diverged into conductors to power the circuit Axial movement of the electrons draws in the energy density indicated by the numbEren contours.

Figure 1-1 Poynting (caught energy) flow contours surrounding a transmission line.

charges and is diverged into conductors to power the circuit Axial movement of the electrons draws in the energy density indicated by the numbEren contours.

Figure 1-1 Poynting (caught energy) flow contours surrounding a transmission line.

Most of the available energy flow misses the circuit and is not drawn into the conductors. However, that large component is not shown by Kraus, and Poynting did not consider it. Heaviside {5c} pointed out that the remaining flow component is hardly reduced (hardly changes direction) from the entire flow component before the extraction of the small Poynting component. Given sufficient intercepting charges outside the wires in separate receiving circuits, the total remaining energy flow that could potentially be intercepted is enormous — far more than the feeble amount of energy that is input to the generator shaft or that is in the chemical energy of a battery.

This is easily established by actual experiments placing intercepting charges in separate "receiving" circuits in the otherwise nondivergent energy flow outside the conductors, or one may show it with Bohren's experiment {24}. Collecting additional energy completely outside conductors is one part of the C0P>1.0 operation of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) {37}, to be discussed later in this book. The Sweet device {29a} established sustaining self-oscillation of the

barium nuclei in a barium ferrite magnet, by using the surrounding vacuum as a semiconducting medium.30

1.4.4 The Incompleteness of Aristotelian Logic

Another false notion usually perpetuated in much of science and mathematics is that Aristotelian logic is complete and consistent {77, 78}. To the contrary, it is both incomplete and inconsistent, as is easily shown. Let us use the symbols "A" for a particular thing, "A" for that which is notA, ' =" for "is identical to," "£" for "is not identical to", "V" for "or", and "A" for "and". Using these symbols, the three laws of Aristotelian logic may be expressed as follows:

The first law states that a thing is identical to itself. The second states that a thing is not identical to that which is not itself. The third states that a thing is either itself, or it is something else. Those are the three laws of Aristotelian logic. As written, the process of perception, observation, etc. has been excluded. More on that in a moment.

Specifically excluded are the laws

Which says that a thing is not identical to itself but is identical to something else that is not itself.

Heraclitus posed a profound challenge to Aristotelian logic, a challenge that has not been adequately resolved by Aristotelians to date. He simply observed that, for a thing to change, it had to change into something else. "But then," he asked, "how can a thing be itself but also something else as

30 E.g., see Richard E. Prange and Peter Strance, "The Semiconducting Vacuum," Am. J. Phys., 52(1), Jan. 1984, p. 19-21. The vacuum may be regarded as a semiconductor. In particular, the vacuum in the region close to the nucleus of a superheavy element is analogous to the inversion layer in a field effect transistor. The authors introduce the idea of the inverted vacuum. Just as a semiconductor may be manipulated by subjecting it to external fields, doping etc., it appears that so can be the vacuum.

well?" In philosophy that is still known as the unresolved "problem of change". It has no resolution in Aristotelian logic, but can be resolved in an extended logic we shall advance. The solution to Heraclitus' problem of change is the nature of observation, as advanced in this book.

We now critique Aristotelian logic, by observing a simple Venn diagram of the type used in "proving" logic theorems in axiomatic logic. See Figure 1-2.



l-2a. Usual Venn diagram of A and A.



l-2b. Applying second and third laws to divider.

??? NOT

HING ???

1 -2c Applying second Ii'ii third iiiws to divider and outer boundary.

1 -2c Applying second Ii'ii third iiiws to divider and outer boundary.

Figure 1-2 Applying Aristotle's laws to Venn diagram used to prove logic theorems destroys the entire diagram.

In Figure 1-2 a, we have introduced a dividing boundary line between A and A. Unfortunately that dividing line belongs entirely to both A and A. So it violates all three Aristotelian laws, and must be removed.31 Therefore, we remove it in Figure 1-2 b. Now we have neither a discernible A or a discernible A, but we have removed naught but the boundary separating them, so we may argue that they are both still there although not discernible. However, if they are not discernible, we cannot distinguish what A is or what A is, and so we cannot discern whether they

31 A clever fellow once proposed regarding the boundary as a total discontinuity, being neither A nor A. However, in that case A and A could never meet, so there could not be a cause interacting with not-cause to produce an effect. So that suggestion as to how to "fix" Aristotelian logic does not hold.

are identical or not. Here again this violates all three laws of Aristotelian logic, so we have to remove the diagram. Indeed, the outer rectangle line is also such a boundary, between the "inside" and the "outside" (the notinside), and so it must be removed. In compliance with Aristotle's laws, we are left with the trivial diagram shown in Figure 1-2 c, which is nothing at all.

If this Venn diagram method is objected to, then we must insist that all those papers and texts using that method of proof of logic theorems be either abolished or corrected!

Sometimes the objection is raised that, as far as the center boundary line is concerned in Figure 1-2a, the line "belongs to A on the left and belongs to A on the right". Fine! Then we have a unique situation where a line (call it L) is an entity made of two entirely different things, which we may refer to as Ll and LR. Yet L = L, without any qualifications as to "sides" Ll and LR. It can be shown that every point in L is a point in LL, and is simultaneously a point in LR. The point in L is obviously identical to itself, by Aristotle's first law. Further, the same point in LL and in LR is identical to itself, by the same first law. But LL is the set of all such points, and so is LR, and so is L. Therefore L = LL = LR, since each one consists of each point that the others consist of. There is absolutely no distinction between the three things themselves, unless we are to violate Aristotle's laws.

Note that in passing from left to right across the boundary, a "change" occurs. This simply re-resurrects Heraclitus' original objection that, according to Aristotelian logic, there can be no change. That is, a line cannot change from "a different entity as seen from the left" compared to that entity as seen from the right. None of Aristotle's three laws contains a "left and a right" for A or A.

So the question of logic is a little more complex than writing three simple laws and drawing simplified Venn diagrams. In short, one cannot have Aristotelian logic without having something else outside it, which follows directly from Godel's theorem and proof {78}. Note that we are introducing the required notion of "perception" into the formal notions implied as axioms in Aristotle's laws, as that "something outside the prescription of the laws themselves" and in addition to them. We are perfectly free to use Godel's theorem and observation.

See Figure 1-3. We now add the notion that a thing is a perceived, thought, or observed thing. So let us use the symbol t to mean explicit, i.e., output by a given perception, thought, or observation process as the result of a d/dt operator having been applied to whatever exists prior to perception, thought, or observation. The symbol -l is used to mean implicit, e.g., when one observes an observation "Y" at time two, and later is deciding in time three whether or not that observation "Y" in time two is identical to a previous observation "X" made during time one, then memories of the observations of X and Y are involved in time three rather than the observations X and Y themselves, and so the observations of X at time one and Y at time two — by whatever manner they were observed and according to whatever decision algorithm is used — is said to be "implicit".

We note that we can know nothing about the so-called "thing in itself" without thought, perception, observation, or other process involving d/dt. Further, at the moment the d/dt operator is applied, time momentarily ceases. The resulting perception, thought, or observation exists therefore as a "frozen output" at that single moment in time. To have it "persist" or exist a moment later, we have to apply the d/dt operator again, and stop time again, so that we again perceive, think, or observe.

But at any moment later than when we made a particular perception, thought, or observation of "A", that specific "perceived A" no longer exists, except in our memory as a recording of "observed A" that we can continually recall. Our conscious mind is a very fast serial processor, with only one "perception" or "thought" at each fleeting moment — only one

slide at a time in the slide projector, so to speak. But it is very rapid. However, our so-called "unconscious" mind is totally conscious, just multiply so. It is a massively parallel processor, and has "a great many slides in the slide projector" at any given time.32 Hence in our genetic multiprocessor mind, we can indeed record, recall, compare, etc. — and perform all the modern massively parallel computer operations.

Let us now re-examine the three Aristotelian laws. Let us label the "slide snapshots" with the time instants when each "perception, thought, or observation" is or was consciously made, by use of a subscript, such as Ai, which means what was perceived, thought, or observed as "A" in time-

snapshot 1. Let us also note that each of the symbols and A

actually involves the output of a comparison and decision algorithm in the massively parallel processor, after the two observations X1 and X2 were made. Let us use the symbol ^ to mean "results in the decision that" or "implies that". As a check for identity, e.g., simple comparison algorithms for determining identity or nonidentity might be

Thus we more precisely rewrite Aristotle's laws as

32 E.g., this can be seen by a moment's reflection. At any one time, the "unconscious" mind is controlling and directing a great multitude of ongoing physical processes, is also processing short-term and long-term memory processing, filing conflicts for resolution or later presentation to the conscious mind in symbolic fashion, etc. One can physically measure the electromagnetics associated with this activity, after the mind transduces its time-polarized EM interactions into 3-space EM actions. The process is two-way, and certain recorded EM stimuli will be "reverse-processed" back to affect the time-polarized EM operations of mind. Mind operations are electromagnetic; but they use time-polarized (scalar) photons and time-polarized (scalar) EM waves which are unobservable a priori. Mind operations are also electrodynamically engineerable, but that is beyond the scope of this treatise.

Where — surprise! We have now accounted for all those different times and periods of observations, processing, comparison, decision, etc. We are dealing not with some mystical "thing-in-itself", but with interactions (perceptions, thoughts, observations, associations) in the mind and psyche of the observer. And hidden in time 3 is the application of a decision algorithm such as given in [6] and [7] above.

Now the first law [8] states that in time one an observation was made and named "A", notated (Ai), by comparing it to a previously recorded observational memory of what we call "A". The existence of that memory of what we call A is implicitly assumed in the first law, as well as the others. We do not show the memory itself in [8], [9], and [10]. In time two an observation X2 was made (not notated), but it is not then known at the moment whether that X2 is A or A. So in time interval three the decision algorithm to determine identity or non-identity occurred in the mind, and the zero output of that algorithm [6, 7] established that A(2) was actually identical to A1, according to the decision algorithm actually used. The algorithm matters, and it too is a variable.

A similar process occurs in law two [9], but this time the algorithm had a different output. Note that the little line over X(2) to make it A(2) was not assigned until time interval four (not shown) after the decision algorithm had given its output in time interval three.

The second law merely states that the operation of the decision algorithm in time interval 3 found the two snapshots (in time 1 and in time 2) not to be identical, by the decision algorithm and comparison process utilized. Again, the algorithm matters, and it too is a variable that must be taken into account.

All three laws [8, 9, 10] written one after the other assume that the identity algorithm does not change between snapshot 1 and snapshot 2, in all three of them. This is the key point.

With two different versions of the identity decision algorithm, the results of two different comparisons may differ. If the identity decision algorithm does not change during the time between snapshot one and snapshot two, then we have one case. This is like a person with good color vision, looking at a red marble beside a black marble. That observer clearly

distinguishes the marbles, and to him they do not appear identical. Every time he looks again, they still differ because he did not change his decision algorithm between looks. On the other hand, a color-blind observer cannot distinguish the marbles, and to him they are seen as identical. Every time he looks, they are seen as identical, because his identity decision algorithm did not change.

Or, suppose a proponent argues that the "rightness" or "leftness" of the dividing line L, between A and A in the Venn diagram, can be taken into account. He is actually invoking a different algorithm (it belongs to the left and therefore to A) in one time snapshot than the algorithm (it belongs to the right and therefore to A) used in the other time snapshot. So his right side and left side of a line implicitly invokes the very point we are making: the algorithm utilized is a variable and must be accounted.

The point is this: identity — whether in perception, thought, or observation — is not absolute, but depends upon the precise nature of the operation of the perception, thought, or observation process utilized and specifically on the "decision algorithm" used for "determining" identity or nonidentity. For example, two antennas certainly "see" quite differently, if one is a VLF (very low frequency) antenna and the other is an IR (infrared) antenna! As another example, two observers in different frames may see a particular object as quite different observed things! In n-space, an observer in a frame at right angles to the lab frame, will see any mass in the lab frame as a wavefront going at light speed; in short, as a photon or photonic object, whereas the observer in the lab frame will continue to see it as just a common old mass object. So the "same object" physically differs to the two different observers, according to their frame of reference. An observer whose frame is rotated by three orthogonal rotations from the lab frame, will see that object as an "object existing in time only," i.e., as simply a sort of "thought" image, so to speak. To be more scientific, he may assign it to something called the "virtual state".

In short, we can violate any and all of the laws of Aristotelian logic, because identity per se is perceived, thought, or observed identity — the output of a variable decision algorithm — and is not absolute.

For clarity, we add a fourth law that violates all Aristotle's three:

All this really says is that, in time 3, the decision algorithm being used was changed from what it had been in times 1 and 2, and now could not distinguish between what was seen in snapshot 1 and what was seen in

snapshot 2, even though to some "ultimate" observer the two were distinctly different.

In addition, we say that it "implicitly includes" the negations of all three Aristotelian laws. We then add an "application rule" (or a fifth law, as one wishes) as follows:

{ [(A1 -3 A2)t A (A1 £3 A2)]^ }5 V { [(A1 -3 A2H A

This winds up producing an extension of Aristotle's logic, so that the following explicit laws emerge:

We also have the exact opposites of those three laws implicitly. The opposites can all be congealed into a single fourth law:

To make sense of these, we also have the master application rule or 5th law:

We prefer to refer to this extension as a "four-law logic", where equations [13], [14], and [15] are the normal "explicit" laws, with the implicit law [16] understood but not explicitly written, and where equation [17] is the master application rule that puts it all together. But if one wishes to be rigorous, we have specified a 5-law extended logic that contains but expands Aristotle's 3-law logic. The application rule is the fifth law.

The point is this: In every case, we have a part of the perception, thought, or observation that obeys the explicit laws, and we also have a part that obeys the implicit laws. If opposites are not explicitly identical, then they

are simultaneously implicitly identical. If opposites are explicitly identical, then simultaneously they are also implicitly not identical.

The new approach then covers what we observe more completely. As an example, any "wave" (observed) is implicitly a non-wave (particle), but not observably so. If its particle nature is observed and therefore explicit, its wave nature is unobserved and therefore implicit, and vice versa.

One also resolves such dilemmas as stating something "does not exist" but having to first call it into existence to even state it does not exist. In the new approach, it simply does not explicitly exist, but implicitly exists. Not-being is something like that: explicitly it doesn't exist, but implicitly it exists. The great problems of the philosophers were never solved, mostly because the logic brought to bear was Aristotelian and incomplete. The ultimate answers they sought all involved the fourth and fifth logic laws. So the ultimate answers all appeared to them to involve such things as "the accursed necessity for the identity of opposites." Precisely!

In physics, there has been the same problem over whether a fundamental particle is a particle or a wave. Physicists argued fiercely until they realized the futility of further argument, and settled for the duality principle. That simply states, well, in one case it can be a particle as observed in your experiments, and in another case it can be a wave as observed. So simply treat it as whichever one is useful! The philosophers, on the other hand, split into different schools, where each school had its "interpretation" usually involving a very "smooth" position statement of the school's position. In physics also, there are eight or more "interpretations" of quantum mechanics, for example. So the same centuries-old problem is still with us today in modern physics.

Opposites are no longer the formidable opponents they once seemed. Instead, they become more like the two sides of a coin, lying with only one side up. To see heads or tails is to decide which is explicit. The other is always there, implicitly. But notice also that the "two sides" require a 3-dimensional object, and not just the 2-dimensional "head" or the 2-dimensional "tail". This juxtaposition of "identical" opposites is strongly met with in modern physics. For example, quoting Lee33 :

33 T. D. Lee, "Space Inversion, Time Reversal and Particle-Antiparticle Conjugation," Physics Today, 19(3), Mar. 1966, p. 23. Positive charge is really observation imposed on negative charge moving backwards in time, and the positron is really observation imposed upon an electron traveling backwards in time, etc.

"As we expand our observation, we extend our concepts. Thus the simple symmetries that once seemed self-evident are no longer taken for granted. Out of studies of different kinds of interactions we are learning that symmetry in nature is some complex mixture of changing plus into minus, running time backward and turning things inside out."

Any addition to the Aristotelian laws of logic is actually a higher dimensional form of it. Three-law Aristotelian logic is in fact fitted to primitive observation — the result or output of single-photon interaction and observation processes.

This "four-law" logic (or "five-law" logic if one includes the master application rule as another "law") has proven very useful over the years, particularly in bioenergetics applications. It has also been most useful in attempting to decipher that branch of Russian energetics weapon science called "psychoenergetics", and in attempting to decipher the mind-body coupling mechanism, but that is beyond the scope of this chapter {79}.34

1.4.5 Substitution of Effect for Cause

Refer to Figure 1-3 again, to see the relationship of the unobserved cause, the interaction of cause and a previous effect, and the production of the resulting "new effect" as a change to the old effect or the output of a second replica of it. The greatest non sequitur in electrodynamics — and in parts of physics such as mechanics — is the widespread substitution of the effect for the cause, as a result of considering an observable to persist in time without any physical interaction. We discuss that more fully in Chapter 2, particularly with respect the notion of the same EM field existing both as a component of a material environment and as a component of a nonmaterial environment, but with the "force reducing to zero" in the latter. Jackson {80} points out the prevailing view of electrodynamicists as follows:

"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable

34 The interested reader is referred to my website, www.cheniere.org, for papers dealing with the nature of the mind-body coupling mechanism and the body-mind coupling mechanism, as well as direct engineering of the mind, and limited information on the weapons referred to.

quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field."

On the other hand, Bunge {81} very clearly stated that the standard electrodynamics and physics itself are in terrible shape. Here is a direct quotation:

"... the best modern physicist is the one who acknowledges that neither classical nor quantum physics are cut and dried, both being full of holes and in need of a vigorous overhauling not only to better cover their own domains but also to join smoothly so as to produce a coherent picture of the various levels of physical reality."

We shall try to further clarify these unresolved difficulties with the field concept in Chapter 2.

Saving Power, Saving The World

Saving Power, Saving The World

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save Power. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Use Renewable Energy As Your Alternative Power Suppliers.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment