 |
There are currently, 686 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
RE: Original Maxwell equations
Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 @ 21:26:07 UTC by vlad
|
|
For those who missed Tom's reply to an earlier post (Thanx Tom): Dear Vlad,
Here are the exact references on Maxwell’s original equations.
Maxwell, James Clerk, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864. Also in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as one, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover, New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-597. Two errata are given on the unnumbered page prior to page 1 of Vol. 1. In this paper Maxwell presents his seminal theory of electromagnetism, containing 20 equations in 20 unknowns. His general equations of the electromagnetic field are given in Part III, General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field, p. 554-564. On p. 561, he lists his 20 variables. On p. 562, he summarizes the different subjects of the 20 equations, being three equations each for magnetic force, electric currents, electromotive force, electric elasticity, electric resistance, total currents; and one equation each for free electricity and continuity. In the paper, Maxwell adopts the approach of first arriving at the laws of induction and then deducing the mechanical attractions and repulsions.
Note that even Maxwell’s original equations still erroneously prescribe the force field in massfree space. The reason was, at that time essentially all the electrodynamicists (there were less than three dozen worldwide) believed in the material ether permeating all space. Hence to them there was not a single point in the universe where mass was absence. If that were true, of course, then there would be no precursor energy fields that were force-free and mass free. All would be force fields in, on, and of mass.
In the conventional equations, just check the present textbook definitions of “electric field” or in a better book, “electric field intensity”. The equations DO NOT EVEN PRESCRIBE “THE” ELECTRIC FIELD OR EM FIELD ITSELF! Actually, the “definitions” are at best an INDICATION of the approximate point intensity of “the massless field as it actually exists in space”, as measured by the interaction of that field in charged STATIC matter and with charged STATIC matter. In short, it is what is diverted from the field in its interaction with charged matter, that is being represented.
Electrical engineering prescribes and uses neither the actual EM field in space, nor it actual intensity. E.g., if one violates that “definition” by feeding EM energy to a system medium consisting of particles which go into particle resonance at the fed frequency, the medium “collects” and re-emits some 18 times as much energy as it would if the same medium were of STATIC particles not in self-resonance (i.e., as the Poynting theory predicts where the E X H involves two fields whose point intensities have been determined in STATIC, NON-RESONANT charged matter media.
That’s the area of “negative resonance absorption of the medium”, known both theoretically and experimentally in physics since the late 50s and early 60s. (Letokhov, Bohren, and many others). However, the scientists in that area do not speak of the thermodynamic COP at all, as far as I’ve seen! Instead, they speak of the “reaction cross section” of that “absorbing” particle with its incident energy field. Thus the “reaction cross section” of the resonant particle is some 18 times as great in magnitude as the “reaction cross section” of the STATIC particle assumed in that definition and used in the “field intensity definitions” applied in the Poynting energy flow theory. In simple terms, the “resonating” charge physically sweeps out a greater interaction area geometrically than does the same particle when absolutely static. Much the same way as a fixed rock in a river’s flow diverges so much of the stream of water, around it, while if the same rock is churned violently to and fro sideways, it diverges much more of the stream of water.
By never using terms like “overunity” or addressing the thermodynamic COP of the process, the scientists in that field thus avoid being persecuted for being “perpetual motion nuts” etc. And they positively DO NOT state in any fashion that energy is being created out of nothing! It is not. It’s purely a matter of how much interaction a certain particle does when static, as opposed to when it is in self-resonance, in the same input energy flow.
My personal take on it is that, since the “divergence” of the field is defined for the static situation because of the field itself being defined only for the intensity of its interaction with a static charged particle, then for the resonant particle one has “swept outside” the normally diverged Poynting component, and gone into intercepting some of the usually nondiverged huge Heaviside curled component of energy flow that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded circa the 1890s. The excess energy flow is there around every circuit, but never interacts with (diverges on) normal static charges and in relatively flat spacetime because in flat spacetime vector analysis holds and the divergence of the curl is a zero vector. But in a curved spacetime, that is no longer true, and so some of that “energy in curl form” in the flat spacetime is now divergent.
I think that’s what the self-oscillation and COP of 18 is showing. But researchers should take their own look at it, including in deeper detail, and see what they come up with.
But simply check the literature on that entire field of negative resonance absorption of the medium. The output of 18 times the input is doable, both by using insulating particles which self-resonate in the IR and feeding them with IR energy, and by using metallic (conducting) particles which self-resonate in the UV, and feeding them with UV energy.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
--------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: ZPEnergy
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:48 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Original Maxwell equations
Hi Tom,
I hope you are well and you have few minutes to reply to these gentlemen who would like to know where can they find the original Maxell equations you mentioned about so many times. Pls read the post below.
Original Maxwell equations
I thank you again and wish you only the best,
Vlad
______________________
Moderator
ZPEnergy.com
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Another issue regarding T Bearden? (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Saturday, April 24, 2004 @ 20:26:03 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | There are a few MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) newsgroups and on one of them I found the following post, can someone clear this up? :
"I was just wondering about the following reference Dr Myron Evans
makes to his coauthor Dr. Thomas Bearden on www.aias.us.
Have they had an academic disagreement or something? If there is such
a rift, does this not threaten the future of all physics of
the third millenium? I shudder to think.
>So any honest scientist and engineer can see that the dishonest
>fringe diatribes of a Rodrigues and the meaningless verbiage of a
>Bearden can be dismissed outright as either crackpot or fraudulent
>or both.
>Just stick to the mathematics herein described and remember that
>field unification occurs through the Evans Ansatz:
>A sup a sub mu = A(0) q sup a sub mu
>These calculations form the core and basis of all known physics, and
>make string theory a thing of the past, and so should be checked by
>Maple. I have already checked them many times by hand.
>Myron W. Evans,
>AIAS Director
r whether anyone can explain this comment
by Dr Myron Wyn Evans posted on the webpage of aias.
Did he not write a paper with Dr Thomas Bearden,
reviewed in Mathematical Reviews, explaining scientifically
how this machine drew energy from the vacuum? Why now
does he attack his coauthor. Have they had a tiff?"
The posting was on the site
|
|
|
|
|
