I found this totally opaque. Is it possible to shed a little light on
it in a few words?
Frederick Sparber wrote:
Tom Bearden Sez.
"The point is that any charge produces a continuous flow of real,
usable EM energy from the vacuum.
Say what? What is he talking about here?
The field of a fixed charge, as I understand it, is conservative. It's
got a fixed amount of energy; there's no "flow" involved.
So, again, what's he talking about with the "flow" of "real usable EM
energy"?
Thermodynamically we are describing a
nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) system, and such a system is
permitted to continuously emit energy (received from its environment).
The charge also falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics to
any size level and time duration desired, because the emitted photons
As a rule fixed charges only emit real "photons" when they accelerate,
and that requires adding energy.
Or is he talking about virtual photons which mediate the fixed E field?
do
form deterministic EM fields and potentials as a function of radial
distance. One calculates the field intensity and potential intensity at
any radial point, by a deterministic formula -- not by the use of
statistics. Stated in the language of thermodynamics, the charge
consumes positive entropy (disordered and uncontrolled energy) in the
virtual state, and coherently integrates it to ordered and controlled
energy in the observable state, which is a negative entropy operation
producing useful EM energy in the observabl! e state."
"The end result is to put some real substance into Lyne's observations
on the excess energy from atomic hydrogen, which is equivalent to the
excess energy from the proton. The proton (and any other charge, viewed
in the quantum field theory manner) is continuously and ceaselessly
pouring out real EM energy extracted and coherently integrated
(RE-ORDERED and RECOVERED) from the disordered virtual energy of the
seething vacuum. So the only barrier to COP>1.0 EM performance with
atomic hydrogen is in the process or method used to diverge and collect
sufficient of the continuously flowing "gusher" of real EM energy from
each atom (each proton). Or, viewed thermodynamically, COP>1.0
performance is permitted by the NESS process, as is already well known
in the thermodynamics of nonequilibrium steady state systems. It's
rather like a windmill in a steady wind. It can permissibly change the
form of its input energy to a different form of output energy, and par!
t of that output energy can be intercepted, collected, and dissipated to
power external loads. The common solar cell does the same thing,
receiving observable photons from its environment and outputting
electrical energy."
" So the reader is urged to simply consider the fundamental
information in Lyne's cogent writing, in light of the foregoing
discussion, and sort out the science as he sees fit. The real point of
the article is the excess energy output, and its availability for use to
perform real work. "
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Frederick Sparber <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To: *vortex-l <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* 1/2/2006 2:53:17 AM
*Subject:* Re: OCCULT ETHER PHYSICS vs BETA AETHER
The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives the H - H bond
energy of 498,000
Joules per mole (119,000 cal/gram mole) or 472 BTU/gram mole.
Conspiracy, Frank? :-)
Fred
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/a_h%20reaction.htm
" 109,000 cal./gram mole equals 432.6 BTU/gram mole--- roughly the
heat energy contained in _60 loaves of bread_---the "extra heat
energy" which they have asked us to believe is 'stored' in an amount
of atomic hydrogen which weighs 1/28th of an ounce, during its brief
passage through the arc! How could the transformer produce that much
energy, especially when it uses only half what it does in
conventional welding processes? It seems more likely that excess
heat could be stored in molecules than in 'almost naked' atomic
hydrogen atoms. What ever happened to Bohr's little atom! It got
bigger, and bigger, and........
Between the older text (1921-1950, from the first and sixth
editions) and the newer (1976) Norton science encyclopedia, it was
obvious that science was much more straightforward in the
pre-National Security Act days, and that . . . . . . "
