Patent Regarding Final Purpose of Superconductivity

Copyright © T. E. Bearden - May 13, 1994
Association of Distinguished American Scientists

Fax to David Jonsson, Uppsala, Sweden (internet: (prior to filing of final claim with Patent Office)
May 28/29, 1995

Dear David:

Sorry to be so seemingly uncommunicative for a while. Hope things go well with you.

Here is our present status, for you to place in your internet files for wide availability if you wish. I believe you will find the information of importance.

Beginning about October/November 1994, we started working toward a new patent application. The effort rapidly picked up in December, and since early January 1995, I have been working 12-16 hour days on that project. Just now, we have a formidable (about 260 pages) patent application sitting in the Patent Attorney's office, with final claims being prepared, which will be filed with the U.S. Patent Office Friday next or no later than the first part of the week following.

This has been a monstruous effort. The U.S. Patent Office will probably come back in a year or so and direct us to separate it into three separate applications: one for room temperature superconductivity, one for Poynting generators and powering circuits with Poynting field energy density flow, and one for the application of both of these to overunity electrical systems.

We placed full theoretical justification in our application, in addition to exhibiting the embodiement circuits. So I am now feverishly preparing a technical paper on the above, that digests the approach, documents it, and presents the fundamental mechanisms. As ever, it is my intent to fully share the information the moment the patent is filed and our rights are protected. I will send you a copy of the paper just as soon as it is finished, for placing on the internet if you wish. The paper will also be published in Explore! journal if all goes well.

At CTEC, we have been severely crippled by the massive (some 6,000) layoff of aerospace engineers here in Huntsville. Of our seven engineers, five are now unemployed (myself included!). So one doesn't get a lot of work done when all the engineers are scrambling and trying to find some way to earn a living for their families. Nevertheless, we are continuing with single-minded concentration upon the task.

We believe that, with this new patent application, we will finally have something of great commercial value to market. Further, perhaps you recall the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia". At one point, the British Commander, facing the map of enemy dispositions and speaking to his Artillery General, struck the map repeatedly with his fist, exclaiming, "Pound them, Charlie! Pound them!" That is precisely what I intend to do with the superconductivity community. Here's the approach:

Question: What is your statement of the final purpose of superconductivity?

Answer: Simply put, you have some electrons on the left side of the superconducting (SC) section, where these electrons are overpotentialized (with respect to ground reference) and thus are "loaded up with excess energy". You wish to get electrons on the right side of the SC section that also are overpotentialized and have the same amount of excess energy collected on them.

Question: How can this purpose be achieved, in your opinion?

Answer: There are two candidate methods, only one of which has been considered by the superconductivity community:

  1. The accepted way is to try to move the overpotentialized electrons on the left (from the input) across the SC section to the right (to the output), without dissipating any of the excess energy the electrons are carrying. There are a lot of problems with that approach, such as lattice vibrations, electron collisions causing scattering radiation, defects in the lattices "spoiling" the ordering, etc. Essentially, to do it, you have to get a very comprehensive ordering of charges and everything else in the SC section -- in the lattices, the electron gas, the whole works. The conventional approach is to "get rid of" as much disorder as possible first. By cooling everything down sufficiently, you get such ordering phenomena, including Cooper pairing of the electrons, and coordination of the remaining electron movements as charge density waves, synchronized with the small remaining lattice vibrations (which also order). After all this ordering gets properly established, you can shove the Cooper-pairs through this highly ordered SC section without spilling any energy. Of course, you have to watch the charge density waves; if they get commensurate with the lattice vibrations, the waves will "hang up" in the "pothole effect" caused by the defects in the lattice. So conventionally, you must have incommensurate charge density waves so they will not stick on the lattice defects. The main purpose of all the cryogenics is just to eliminate the random collisions and vibrations, and to get the ordering phenomena going. This is a hard way to run a railroad. The cryogenics use a lot of power, and so overall, this makes for an inefficient, bulky, worrisome system. Further, all the load current is still conventionally passed back through the source, so even discounting the cryogenic burden losses, the system has a COP<1.0.

    Consequently, to get rid of the cryogenic burden, a frantic search for exotic materials (where the materials cause some of the ordering phenomena to occur, rather than just by lowering of the temperature) has been underway for a decade, primarily with the cuprates. That search has peaked out at about 200 degrees Kelvin, and it isn't going to get much higher.

    There is a limit to the amount of "ordering" you can get from sheer material characteristics, as the temperature rises. Simply put, the temperature is the measure of how much disordering you have anyway. There's a logical conflict in the notion of loss-free physical transport of energy (perfect ordering) via electrons in dq/dt. The very notion of room temperature for the carriers implies a certain amount of disorder in the physics of carriers. But if this disorder exists, a priori you do not have disorder-free transport! So the question of room temperature superconductivity via electron flow simply seems to lead to a logical contradiction. Obviously some other ordered mechanism rather than the dq/dt must be invoked. In other words, the electrons in the dq/dt must remain with some disorder, else one can object that it is not "at room temperature". It follows that at room temperature, some other ordered mechanism must then be present, in addition to the disorder in the dq/dt, so that this other mechanism must then be present, in addition to the disorder in the dq/dt, so that this other mechanism transports the energy without loss. However, if the dq/dt is permitted to exist, it will still add disorder and dissipate some of the overall energy transport. So for room temperature superconductivity, the logical requirements that emerge are (i) the current dq/dt must be blocked so that it is zero, and (ii) some other nonmaterial mechanism must be invoked for the energy transport, since all materials have some disorder at room temperature, the temperature a priori being just a measure of that disorder. Further, it is already known that the Cooper pair theory no longer works in about half the higher temperature experiments, and neither does any of the other alternatives that have been formally proposed to date.

  2. Better yet, you can just make seven the easy way. You can simply block the electrons from flowing in the conducting SC section, so that dq/dt = 0, and let the Poynting field energy density S flow across the SC section and onto the waiting electrons on the other side. This is equivalent to just letting the input voltage flow across the SC section and onto the electrons on the ouput side, without any dq/dt flowing. Voilą! If you check the Poynting equation closely, as we will develop below, you will see that blocking the current term gets rid of all the losses from moving dq/dt. So the Poynting term for "energy loss via displacement of charges" goes to zero. (This was a requirement of our logical analysis anyway). The Poynting divergence loss term also goes to zero because the Poynting flow S down a wire does not diverge; instead, the Poynting field energy density flow S tracks the wire like a railroad track or inverse waveguide. However, since the Poynting flow S is essentially an equipotential flow, it also "potentializes" all blocked electrons in the dq/dt-blocked wire, as it flows down the wire at lightspeed. In fact, S will flow right on across the blocked section and onto a separate closed (to dq/dt) current loop to which the blocker's output leads are connected! There, it will simply add excess field energy density and emf, so that the electrons collect excess EM energy and possess an S-flow-created E-Field. In short, you simply pipe the energy out of the blocked out potentialized circuit directly onto the separate dq/dt-isolated current loop! So you get your energized electrons on the right side of the SC section, at room temperature, and you did not lose a single bit of it.

    You don't need any cryogenics. You don't need any exotic materials. Copper wire is fine. This is what we are filing the patent upon (i.e., it is one aspect of the patent). We then cover several other fundamental new things that allows this to be done in fairly straightforward manner. I will release those things in a couple of weeks. Further, in getting the lossless Poynting energy transport across the SC section, no current dq/dt flowed. Hence none was driven back up through the primary source (the dq/dt-blocked circuit on the left of the SC section) against the back emf of the source. Consequently, there is no degradation of the source, and so the system can exhibit overunity coefficient of performance.

There are several main ways of performing the dq/dt-blocking function. One is to use the Fogal chip, the world's first patented charge-blocking transistor. Although not yet in production and open sales, the chip has now been tested by several independant commercial laboratories and its absence of normal thermal noise validated, in the presence of gain both in current and in voltage. This chip should be in production within a year.

Another way to achieve dq/dt-blocking is to utilize a nonlinear ferroelectric capacitor (FEC) in an unusual manner. One chooses an FEC that has a substantial hysteresis loop in its Q-V curve, so that it Q-saturates at a certain voltage after which no more current can flow into the capacitor even though the voltage can still be increased. Bias the capacitor into its Q-saturated region, well on beyond the initial Q-saturation voltage threshold. Then vary the voltage sinusoidally around the bias point, but so that the FEC capacitor always remains completely above its Q-saturation. In that case, the capacitor will pass only an AC voltage and Poynting field energy density flow S. So it can be emplowed in that manner as a dq/dt-blocking "bridge" -- in short, from an energy flow viewpoint, it can be utilized as a superconducting bridge which passes Poynting field energy density flow S and voltage but does not pass dq/dt. Such a bridge can therefore be used to separate and extract pure EM field energy flow from a dq/dt-blocked, potentialized dq/dt-closed source current loop and simply pipe that energy flow across to a second dq/dt-closed current loop. This fulfills all real requirements for room temperature superconductivity. It also does not dissipate the original source, since no dq/dt is driven back up through the back emf of the original source. Hence this approach can legitimately enable a system COP>1.0 while obeying all the laws of physics and thermodynamics. It is not a perpetuum mobile, but an open system freely extracting, collecting, and utilizing excess energy from an external source. As such, it can permissibly exhibit overunity coefficient of performance, just as can a common heat pump.

We call the dq/dt-blocked pair of lines comprising the new room temperature SC sections a superconducting bridge, or just a bridge for short. The bridge consists of the input and output lines plus a dq/dt-blocker (Fogal chip, saturation-biased FEC), or one of several other common things I name in the patent and will release shortly). Now, we can simply extracts and bridge energy flow from one closed (with respect to dq/dt) current loop to another, without the flow of dq/dt. We simply separate, process, and pass the Poynting flow S (which includes the flows d/dt, dV/dt, dE/dt, dB/dt, and d/dt(emf).

Every closed current loop furnishes its own current dq/dt. No source furnishes a single electron to its closed current loop. It only furnishes potential and Poynting energy density flow.

So our invention and approach simply generates and extracts the "source function of overpotentializing the electron gas in a closed current loop" from that closed loop containing a potential difference and thus a Poynting S-flow, and flows S across the bridge onto another closed (with respect to dq/dt only) current loop, providing an inflow of excess energy and emf into and onto the receiving circuit. The receiving circuit may contain the load. The excess energy and overpotentialization added to the second circuit couples to the electrons and overpotentializes them, forming an E-field which drives the energized electrons around that loop in normal fashion, powering the load.

No load current dq/dt passes back through the primary source, and so the source is not dissipated. The system is capable of overunity COP a priori.

Note how strongly conventional researchers have tried to prevent just this very thing. They have been meticulously careful, e.g., not to get commensurate charge density waves, so that the defects in the material lattice don't give them the dq/dt-blocking! They have leaned over backwards to eliminate the very thing they should have been trying -- and may be getting anyway in about half their high temperature experiments.

At any rate, this is the culmination of our intense research. With our patent pending status achieved within the week, we expect to have patent pending claims that are highly commercial, so that we can negotiate a really substantial agreement with a major financial partner. We are looking for the right one now, one with deep pockets so we can get on with this at great speed and vigor!

I will be going forward with all this information in detail to the SC community. We expect that they will quickly prove or disprove it in their own multi-million dollar laboratories! In other words, we will substitute their expensive labs for our little $25,000 lab, and let them earn their salaries. As you can well expect, initially, it will be a bumpy ride, for initially, they are almost certain to react angrily and dogmatically to such upstart proposals. But the sharp young postdocs and sharp young graduate students will listen and try it. We do not have to prove the Poynting flow; it is already established in the literature both theoretically and experimentally.

Apparently, the SC researchers just never sat down and did a complete, unbiased systems engineering requirements analysis of sufficient rigor to show exactly what had to be done for room temperature SC, and what the various options were. They applied what they were already assuming. As a decrepit old systems engineer, a requirements analysis is the first thing I've been trained to do. So I simply did an elementary analysis, once I had read sufficiently into the SC problem to understand it to the necessary systems functional level and in the necessary context that I needed.

The SC researchers came to a fork in the road decades ago and did not realize it. They continued the gross EM error of chasing the current flow in a circuit and confusing it with the energy flow in that circuit. Electromagnetics itself is still fouled up on that one to this day. Everyone just roared off the same fork in the road, and that became the accepted thing to do. It seemed so natural, because physics and engineering still has not adequately applied Poynting theory to circuits. Only the leading EM text even mention that, and then they only give one or two examples, after which, with great relief, they rush away from what they perceive as a yawning, bottomless pit, wringling their hands and exclaiming "There! By the grace of God, that's enough of that!".

Further, the papers in the literature that attempt to address the issue of the energy flow in circuits are a mixed bag. One or two are quite good indeed. A few others are good. The others are flawed, and at least half are very seriously flawed. Some even try to replace the ExH Poynting vector with the old Slepian vector J. This is replacing a totally nonmaterial thing with something which contains material. It's the same error the electricians originally made with charge q in the first place, and which they continue making to this day. Plus which the Slepian vector has long since been falsified -- e.g., by the experimental proof that fields have momentum, and the theoretical demonstration that such field momentum is absolutely essential to uphold the conservation of momentum law itself. But a whole school persists in the Slepian approach, which puts you back inside the wire, gets rid of the energy flow outside the wire at the speed of light, cannot explain how a transformer works, and discards any possibility of overunity COP.

So one must be very discerning when one reads the Poynting literature with regard to its proposed application to circuits. In passing, you recall that I long since pointed out that, rigorously, q is a system given by q mq q. Here, you can see the resemblance to the Slepian vector. Essentially Slepian almost discovered what charge really was made of. Note that quantum field theory already treats the charge of the fundamental particle as due to exchange of virtual photons between the mass of the particle and the surrounding vacuum. That's all the term q is, since any potential is comprised of a virtual particle flux, and the electrostatic scalar potential is just a change in the virtual photon flux density of the ambient vacuum. But by equating the mass density portion of J as part of the energy flow, Slepian (and his followers today) fell into the same error of failing to separate that which is material clearly from that which is nonmaterial.

So the job isn't finished; one still has to completely redo classical EM theory, based on that clear separation. When that is done, q and J will emerge as systems of multiple, coupled entities, not unitary entities of only a single thing. Note that Maxwell formed the theory, everything -- even the ether itself -- was considered material! So there was no such separation to be made, in the minds of the early theoreticians. Consequently, Maxwell simply wrote down hydrodynamics equations for a material fluid model of electricity, and everyone since has just blindly continued with it.

The Poynting equation is:

div(S+S') + 1/(8) /t (B2 + E2) + cE(i + i') = 0
[Equation 1]

where S= c/(4)(E x B) is the Poynting vector, and S' is any vector field whose divergence vanishes; div(S) is the rate at which the stored field energy is diminishing in the unit volume in question due to a net outward flow of energy; 1/(8) /t (B2 + E2) is the rate at which the amount of stored field energy in the unit volume is changing, and the third term cE(i + i') is the rate at which the electric field does work on all the moving charges, in unit volume, losing energy at that rate. Further, i represents the ordinary gross macroscopic conduction current while i' represents the net microscopic current (within the molecules or within the atoms).

The curl of any vector field can be added to S, since the divergence of the curl vanishes. In the theoretical case, EM energy which flows along (outside) a wire in an open or dq/dt-blocked electric circuit is just such a divergence-free field. Consequently, an "open conducting circuit" -- i.e., a conducting circuit in which the current dq/dt is blocked in the conducting lines -- may still pass EM energy since all the "energy flow" in a circuit exists in the flow of voltage (potential), and voltage may flow down an ideal conductor without concomitant current.

The Poynting theory of equation [1] deals with the loss of EM field energy from a unit volume. It states that the field energy in a unit volume of interest can be lost by three methods, as previously explained. The three loss terms in the equation [1] do not overtly allow a flow of energy into the unit volume, except by the divergence loss term becoming negative and hence an inflow, and the work term for translation of charged particles becoming negative, in which case the particles are giving up field energy to the volume.

So as far as electrical circuit are concerned, the standard Poynting equation is a very awkward expression, primarily adapted to deal only with energy flow out of unit volume and through unit area thereof. However, this shortcoming can be remedied by rewriting the terms so that all expressions deal both with field energy loss and field energy gain. For clarity, we use the following word equation shown in Figure 1 for a change in the field energy stored in a unit volume:

Figure 1:  Accounting of
Poynting-related energy change in a unit volume.

Figure 1 shows the work equation used to set up the necessary mathematical relationships. One simply starts with an initial amount of field energy in the unit volume, then adds all gains and substracts all losses, to arrive at the final field energy stored in the unit volume. By definition, we take the convention that the algebraic sign of gains is positive, and the sign of losses is negative. So we shall apply these principles to examine the rates of the energy changes as follows:

Figure 2: Accounting of
Poynting-related rate of change of stored energy.

Figure 2 shows the word equation used to set up the necessary rates of gains or losses of field energy in a unit volume. By integrating each term over a definite time t, that term becomes an amount of change after that time t has elapsed. By then adding the initial EM energy, the final remaining amount of energy in the unit volume can be ascertained as was shown in Figure 1.

We take the initial field energy stored in the unit volume of interest as

1/(8) (Bo2 + Eo2)
[Equation 2]

where the subscript zero means initial. We take the amount remaining after the change as

1/(8) (Bf2 + Ef2)
[Equation 3]

where the subscript f means final. The amount gained by inflow is the time integral of the instantaneous rate of inflow, or

t 1/(8) /t (Bin2 + Ein2)
[Equation 4]

The amount lost by outflow is the time integral of the instantaneous rate of outflow, or

t 1/(8) /t (Bout2 + Eout2)
[Equation 5]

We shall assume there is no field divergence loss, since the circuitry wires act as waveguides and energy transport flow is confined to the waveguides. The loss in performing work to translate conduction charges is given by the time integral of the instantaneous rate of loss for conduction charge translation, which is:

t cE.(i+i')
[Equation 6]

Note that, if we do not consider the internal atomic or molecular charge movement, this reduces to:

t cE.i
[no number]

Further, if we block the charge flow i, the remainder of the term reduces to zero.

So with dq/dt-blocking, the instantaneous rate of change of the field energy stored in the unit volume is given by

1/(8) /t (B2 + E2) = 1/(8) /t (Bin2 + Ein2) - 1/(8) /t (Bout2 + Eout2)
[Equation 7]

We note specifically that the two terms on the right side of equation [7] need not be equal. If the rightmost term is largest, then the stored energy is discharging. If the leftmost term on the right side of equation [7] is the larger, then the stored energy is increasing. If the two terms on the right side of the equation are of equal magnitude, the term on the left is zero and the Poynting energy is flowing into and out of the reference unit volume at equal rates, so that no net change of the energy occurs in that volume. This is the case for an ideal conductor, or for a dq/dt-blocked, S-conducting line (for a bridge).

We further point out that, if the current-free field energy is being stored in an inductive collector, the B-field increase is significant. If the current-free field energy is being stored in a capacitive collector, the E-field increase is significant.

Note that a dq/dt-blocked conducting circuit is also a conducting circuit having an artificially extended electron gas relaxation time, in the sense of our first patent application and in the sense of our original paper, "The Final Secert of Free Energy", released worldwide over the internet in February 1993.

In fact, rigorously the EM energy flowing "in" an electrical circuit does not flow through the wire, but outside it. The wire serves as a sort of waveguide or railroad track for the energy flow outside, as pointed out by Mark M. Heald, "Electric fields and charges in elementary circuits", American Journal of Physics, 52(6), June 1984, p.522-526. Quoting: "The charge on the surface of the wire provide two types of electric field. The charges provide the field inside the wire that drives the conduction current according to Ohm's law. Simultaneously, the charges provide a field outside the wire that creates a Poynting flux. By means of this latter field, the charges enable the wire to be a guide (in the sense of a railroad track) for electromagnetic energy flowing in the space around the wire. Intuitively, one might prefer the notion that electromagnetic energy is transported by the current, inside the wires. It takes some effort to convince oneself (and one's students) that this is not the case and that in fact the energy flows in the space outside the wire".

Obviously, if we block the current dq/dt in the wire, we shall block the expenditure of EM energy as work in that blocked current loop. However, we can still pass the Poynting vector flow without any expenditure, and therefore we can still pass EM energy without any dissipation of it in that current loop. Since no work is being performed in the current loop, no work is being done inside the source for that blocked current loop -- the source being in series in that loop.

The primary electrical power source is not dissipated whenever only loss-free field energy density is extracted from it. Any source of potential is a priori a free source of EM field energy density -- the open-circuit or dq/dt-blocked potential flows "for free" and at no dissipation to the source. The Poynting vector S also flows continually from an open or dq/dt-blocked circuit, without dissipation of the source. The potential of the source moves down the dq/dt-blocked open transmission line, so that an equipotential exists everywhere along the positive line with respect to the reference ground line. As is well known, a Poynting vector S flows along an equipotential. Hence there is a Poynting S-flow of EM field energy density, flowing down the positive line and outside it, with reference to the ground return line. The situation is reversed on the ground return line. For a direct illustration, see John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992, p.578, Figure 12-60(b). The energy is extracted from the vacuum exchange with the dipolar separation of charges inside the source, and flows along the dq/dt-blocked (S-conducting) circuit wires as lossless flow of potential onto collectors (such as the "electron capacitors" provided by the conduction electrons). Applying this potential to trapped charges in a capacitive collector allows energy to be extracted from the vacuum by the source, and furnished to the collector as excess field energy stored upon the blocked electrical charges of the collector.

At any rate, this will give you the gist of what we are about, our present status, and how we are proceeding.

Our next major effort is two-fold: (1) Alert the community, and (2) seek out a major financial partner for major capitalization of our corporation.

Best wishes to you in all your own endeavours,


Tom Bearden
May 28/29, 1995

Mass As An  Electromagnetic Effect Realm of Electric Shadows Email Me Pioneer of Power Practical Overunity Energy Devices