Remember Free, what I said about Frank Sweet and negative electricity?
You need TWO circuits in series. One grabs negative electricity from the vacuum but you can't feed that back into itself or the positive and negative electricity will annihilate each other. So you use two similar circuits, then they feed each other, where one of them at least can grab from the vacuum; maybe both.
Anyway, good stuff Free, keep it coming...
in response to:
The building up process of understanding, Thomas E. Bearden some of his material is presented again..
Lorentz symmetry in an electrical circuit forcibly equalizes its back emf and forward emf, and in a magnetic circuit it forcibly equalizes the back mmf and the forward mmf. The power company’s power system transmission lines and circuits all enforce Lorentz symmetry, thus assuring that we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and always lose. To borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla, the ubiquitous use of this self-crippling circuit is
“…one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history." (Tesla, 1919).
By deliberately violating the normal operation of this self-symmetrizing circuit, the system can be forced to violate Lorentz symmetry, hence permitting COP > 1.0. But because of the ubiquitous use of this terrible circuit, the false mystique has erroneously solidified in the scientific community that COP > 1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum (EFTV) electromagnetic circuits cannot be built and that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated. To the contrary, several areas in physics are already known to violate the second law. These areas are listed in some of the leading thermodynamics texts (Kondepudi and Prigogine, 1998 and 1999, p. 459) and are known and accepted by leading nonequilibrium thermodynamicists. One such area is the use of strong gradients (in EM circuits and elsewhere).
In addition, every statistical fluctuation in a system initially in equilibrium (in a state of maximum entropy) produces negative entropy and thereby lowers the system entropy from its initial maximum value. Quoting Maxwell:
"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." (Maxwell, 1878).
Precise fluctuation theorems exist for calculation of these effects (Evans and Searles, 1994; Crooks, 1999). Often the effect can be of significance; in certain chemical solutions the negative entropy effects from fluctuations can exist in up to a cubic micron of fluid, and can last for up to two seconds (Wang et al., 2002). In aqueous solutions a cubic micron may contain about 30 billion ions and molecules, and in that region some of the chemical reactions are running backwards.
That EM energy is always positive energy, and that the mass of electrical charges is always positive. To the contrary, with its electron lifted out and departed, a persisting Dirac sea hole has negative mass-energy. As a source charge each hole will also produce negative energy EM fields and potentials. Currents of such negative mass-energy holes (the so-called “dark matter”) and their resulting negative energy EM fields (the so-called “dark energy”) can be evoked and explored in actual circuits, as has been shown (Bedini and Bearden, 2004).
But even Dirac, who despised negative energy and devoted much of his effort to trying to get rid of it, did take the mistaken view that the hole would be observed as a positron—basing it on the assumption that when the hole was moved away, the space originally occupied by the hole will have lost its excess negative mass-energy and negative charge, and thus has become more positive in charge and with a positive-going increase in positive mass-energy. Of course this positive increase in the local space charge is not a direct observation of the departed hole itself, or of any physical interaction with the hole itself. Neither is the positive-going increase in mass-energy of the vacated space. It is just a reaction of a sudden sharp (and momentary) change in the negative charge of a region of space that started from a more negative charge condition and went to zero, and of the change in positive direction in the negative mass-energy of a region of space. It is the replacement of a negative mass-energy electron by a combined positive mass-energy electron and negative mass-energy electron (the replacement of the hole by a piece of ordinary vacuum). A certain charge change in space is thus observed as a positive-going charge change, after the hole has departed that position. But that is most certainly not an observation of the departing hole, and it is not identically the hole.
This mistaken notion of “observation of the hole itself as a positron” has been applied in materials since in interacting with a material lattice (as in the observing instrument) the hole almost always first eats an available electron and—together with the electron—the two as a couplet disappear back into the vacuum as a “piece of the Dirac Sea” (a piece of normal vacuum) without any radiation whatsoever.8 This leaves behind an excess net positive charge in the lattice, and that net charge has positive mass-energy and positive energy EM fields. The hole, on the other hand, has negative mass-energy and negative energy EM fields.
So an excess positive charge is not the hole at all, because the hole is already departed elsewhere. Normal electron hopping in a material lattice with an extra positive charge results in the excess positive charge (the lattice positron) migrating around as a “lattice positron current”. But it has been largely—and erroneously—accepted in solid state physics as “identical” to the hole. To settle the issue, simply evaluate the hole and its fields prior to the hole moving or interacting with anything, so that observation has not occurred.
In this case, remarks by Farmelo are of direct interest. He stated:
"Dirac's idea was that 'empty space' actually contains electrons that obey the negative-energy solutions of the equation. He suggested that the negative-energy states are normally 'full', just like the electrons that fill up the low-energy states of heavy atoms, according to the Pauli principle. This means that positive-energy electrons can't make transitions to these negative-energy states, explaining why ordinary electrons don't continually disappear into space. ... by 1931 he had changed his mind and come to a much more radical conclusion: 'A hole, if there was one, would be a new kind of elementary particle, unknown to experimental physics, having the same mass and opposite charge to the electron.' …By the time Dirac came to collect his Nobel prize in physics, towards the end of 1933, he was in the enviable position of the theorist who has been proven right after his colleagues had almost unanimously dismissed his most imaginative work as misguided and even perverse. His hole theory was soon superseded by quantum field theory (which he did much to invent and came to abominate), so one can only wonder at his ability to use a wrong theory to produce one of the most triumphant predictions of modern science." (Farmelo, 2002, p. 48).
That EM waves in space are transverse; e.g., given propagation along the z-axis, the E-field might be taken as oscillating along the x-axis and the H-field along the y-axis. This assumption of the transverse EM force-field wave in space is false. To explain its falsity, we must explain how the field is measured, and the implications.
Consider the Drude electron gas (Drude, 1900) in a conductor (as in a simple antenna or in a detecting instrument). The electrons continually hop off an atom, into the electron gas, onto another atom whose electron had gone wandering, etc. All the electrons have spin as well, and so we can roughly compare an electron to a spinning gyro if the analogy is not pushed too far.
When an EM signal moves through space longitudinally along a wire at nearly the speed of light, the electrons do not move (migrate) that way or at that speed at all. Longitudinal force is indeed developed in the Drude gas electrons by the diverged Poynting component. When a longitudinally-forced Drude gas electron tries to move longitudinally down the wire, it is repelled back nearly equally by all those electrons beyond it. So viewed as a gyro, the electron’s spin axis is essentially constrained longitudinally. The restrained spinning electron acts as a gyro, and so it precesses (in the wire) at right angles to the longitudinal disturbing force generated by the potentialization energy flow. The longitudinally restrained electron precesses laterally across the cross section of the wire, when "pushed" parallel to the wire with a longitudinal force. As the potentialization signal oscillates to and fro longitudinally, the precessing electrons oscillate to and fro transversely, mostly within the wire’s cross section.
In a conductor whose Drude electrons experience longitudinal to and fro forces from the longitudinally oscillating “signal from space” interaction, these electrons spend most of their time moving axially back and forth (transversely) in the wire, due to their lateral gyro-precession reaction to the longitudinal forces. The electrons do slip longitudinally just a wee bit (particularly at the surface of the wire), and so they do move down the wire with only a small "drift velocity"—usually of a few inches per hour!
In space, the EM wave is a compression and rarefaction of the energy density of vacuum—i.e., of the stress energy of the vacuum. In short, it is analogous to a “sound wave”, and hence longitudinal.
We detect the electron transverse precession movement and direction, so we detect transverse electron gyroprecession waves in the wire. Even for electrons in space away from wires, due to their masses the electrons are relatively very sluggish and inertially-restrained longitudinally, and so they still mostly precess transversely to and fro. The “effect” force field waves in charged matter are transverse electron gyroprecession waves. The “causative” EM waves in space are force-free longitudinal precursor waves of oscillating curvature changes in spacetime—and thus oscillating changes in the intensity of the virtual particle flux of the vacuum.
The detection of electron precession waves and theorizing of EM transverse waves in the conductor and in space were accomplished and fixed before the electron was even known or discovered. Hence no such thing as the electron, its gyroelectron precession effect, or the Drude electron gas itself was even suspected. Since transverse waves were detected in the receiving conductor and instrument, everyone thought that the EM waves coming in from space had just been "intercepted" in the wire. Thus it was assumed that the incoming EM waves in space must obviously be transverse force field waves also.
That is precisely how the pioneers of electrodynamics got the totally mistaken notion of the transverse EM wave in space. They believed in the material ether also, so to them there was not a single point in the universe where mass was absent. If there had been a material ether with spinning material particles to precess, then those transverse force fields (in the ether) would indeed have existed. No such ether exists, and no such transverse EM waves exist in the matter-free vacuum.
so yes annihilation must occur under this theorem.
it is true however we can draw from an infinite stream of particles. Dipole alignment only as a magnetic means to act upon the electric field..;)