"Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous
failure."
--- Dr. Henry Morton, President of the Stevens Institute of Technology
...Said in 1880 about the Edison light bulb. Echoed by many vorticians
(more recently) wrt its (the incandescent light bulb's) likely
replacement and successor.
CAVEAT: I am assuming that there is a significant energy anomaly
in the SEC lighting circuit of Dr. Ron Stiffler, but admittedly there is
no firm proof yet. In the month since this advance was first reported,
there have been a number of improvements which seemed to indicate that a
self-powering circuit would soon emerge from one of several small labs
which are tinkering with it, but 'soon' was a bit optimistic.
It usually is, according to Murphy ;-)
The possibility that any electrical circuit could be overunity turned
many normally receptive thinkers in the field of alternative energy into
skeptics, which is too bad- since "lighting" itself is such a big part
of net energy consumption.
The SEC anomaly concerns the amount of visible light produced, relative
to DC electrical input. This anomaly may, or may not, involve a
violation of the LoT, because - and this is surprising to most people -
even the normal light output of LEDs is NOT as efficient as is often
assumed. However, LEDs are efficient enough, so that a 10-1 advantage is
proved, then it would most likely be overunity.
Therefore, even without OU - the ultimate value to consumers of
electricity, of this circuit - whne implemented to replace over time,
the incandescent bulb and even fluorescent lighting, is absolutely
incredible.
Consider the compact fluorescent bulb - which can consume 18 watts of
power to replace the typical 100 watter for reading: by using the SEC to
power LEDs, this can be further reduced to about 2 watts !
That is a putative 50 times reduction for the same amount of light. The
value to the US economy would be the equivalent of at least 20 giant
nuclear power plants. There is an efficiency table on the Wiki entry for
"luminous efficacy":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
... which indicates that incandescent lights, still the most-used source
of lighting in the USA, are only 2% efficient, and - get this:
fluorescents, which we think of as high (they are 5-8 times better) are
only a maximum of 16% with the compacts closer to 12%!
This is still rather low, but even LEDs, which are better than
fluorescents are only listed on this Wiki table at a maximum of 22%.
Actually some manufacturers claim much higher than that, but still - it
is lacking in efficiency, compared to the new alternative.
The SEC circuit of Ron Stiffler seems to achieve a factor of "up to" 20
times more light, per watt of input power, than the normal LED. I put
"up to" in quotes because the human eye can be deceived in this regard,
but the output has been tested with normal lightmeters, and it is much
higher than expected. A top notch lighting laboratory will be needed to
confirm the actual advantage.
This large gain in photon output is done by substituting RF for DC.
Simple as that. How could this have not been implemented sooner?
The RF circuit, when driving a resistive load is NOT very efficient.
This gives an indication that the LED itself is somehow operating as its
own (partial) power source. How could that be?
One answer derives from QM - quantum mechanical tunneling. Another lies
in partial coherence. If you have read "QED Coherence in Matter" by
Giuliano Preparata you may already be well on you way to getting to a
base level of understanding. Probably few have read it, as it is a
rather arcane (and expensive) book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-MvobTFGLEC&dq=%22qed+coherence+in+matter%22+giuliano+preparata&pg=PP1&ots=9Xl9T2PZ1A&sig=uHGVa84TbkdFwMnr_WI85h_JDKk&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%253Aen-US%253Aofficial%26hl%3Den%26q%3D%2522QED%2BCoherence%2Bin%2BMatter%2522%2B%2BGiuliano%2BPreparata%2B%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1
Although it was written in the context of explaining cold fusion, it is
the closest thing I have seen to possibly explaining parts of "SEC" and
the mathematics of QED which may be involved.
I am trying to integrate Preparata's ideas with the theory of diode
mixers, and Dicke super-radiance, and the neutrino flux. This is getting
to be complicated, since it involves the merger of four or five niche
areas, and I doubt that more than a few professional physicists are
conversant with all of them.
"Diode Mixers" are frequency translation devices which allow the
nonlinear conversion of signals between a higher frequency,and a lower
frequency, or baseband. The Stiffler circuit can be envisioned as a
"diode mixer on steroids" ;-) and furthermore - combined with a resonant
feedback loop. Actually two are more loops may be involved. In a certain
narrow range, the feedback is enhanced by an extreme modulation of the
the dielectric permittivity of the area of the spatial coherence zone.
This may allow for "virtual photons" to be cohered.
One source of "virtual photons" is the gravity field, alluded to earlier
in the posting on the "fifth force" and Heffner's gravimagnetics.
Preparta's method is essentially a standard application of Feynman's
path-integral approach for obtaining the action integral, except that
his Hamiltonian for the quantized matter field include new terms
representing electromagnetic radiation interactions. This is a bit above
the my level of math expertise, but I am relying on Bob Flowers'
interpretation of Dicke and Preparata.
From Bob Flowers review: "By this method - Preparata obtains a set of
two coupled coherence equations governing the evolution of any QED
system. The matter-field equation is analogous to Schrodinger's
equation in which the coupling appears as a 'coherent effective
charge'." The EM-field equation is similar to the free-space Maxwell
equation in which the coupling appears as a modulation of the
dielectric permittivity.
IOW - my take on this is that the AV "plug" of series LEDs, in
combination with the inductors is both cohering one signal, as a mixer
would do but also emitting "something" which is modulating the
dielectric permittivity of the free space around the experiment,
allowing it to further cohere the "virtual photons" of the ubiquitous
gravity field (or of another source ??).
The coherence equations of Preparata are then solved in closed form for
simple two level systems (e.g., radiating electrons), and produce a
remarkable result: the system spontaneously subdivides into an array of
coherence domains within which the matter and EM fields oscillate
coherently (in phase). At the domain boundaries, the EM field
experiences a sort of "total reflection" due to precise coordination
between the particles' motions and the EM field's phase. This could IMHO
be the loose ends of the AV plug.
Preparata proposes the name Coherent Ground State (CGS) for this
condition. The Coherent Ground State is energetically favorable
(compared to the fully-random perturbative ground state) only
at certain "critical" values (frequency and field-strength, etc).
Even if Preparata's math is a bit above my head, the conclusion and the
modality seem to ring true, in logic, and perhaps better for the
Stiffler SEC than for LENR - which was the original context. There is a
curious connection between the two field, however, which comes to the
forefront in the Mizuno glow discharge device.
But as always "experiment trumps theory", and if an when replication of
the light flux anomaly of the SEC arrives, my hope is that the thoughts
above have paved the way for a better understanding of what is going on
... even if it is not found to be OU.
Jones
