Legend:
_text_ = underlined text
\text\ = italic text
_\text\_ = underlined italic text
B_in = B subscript in
B^2 = B exponent 2
B_in^2 = (B subscript in) exponent 2
{phi} = greek letter phi
{del} = partial derivative
{pi} = greek letter pi
Delta = greek letter delta (triangle)
{integral over t} = mathematical symbol of integral with t under it
== = identity relationship (three parallel lines)
____________________________________________________________________


Fax to David Jonsson, Uppsala, Sweden (internet: david@ibg.uu.se)
(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. Voil! 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{phi}/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{phi}. 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 == m_q {phi}_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 {phi}_q \is\, since any potential is comprised of a
virtual particle flux, and the electrostatic scalar potential
{phi} 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{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B^2 + E^2)
                + cE(i + i') = 0                            [1]

where S= c/(4{pi})(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{pi}) {del}/{del}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:

Initial    Amount        Amount      Amount        Amount
Field   +  Gained by  -  Lost by  -  Lost by    -  to translate
Energy     Inflow        Outflow     Divergence    charges

   Final
=  Field
   Energy

     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:

Rate of     Rate of     Rate of        Rate of Loss       Net Rate
Gain by  -  Loss by  -  Loss by     -  in Translating  =  of
Inflow      Outflow     Divergence     Charges            Change

     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{pi}) (B_o^2 + E_o^2)                               [2]

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

        1/(8{pi}) (B_f^2 + E_f^2)                               [3]

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

{integral over t} 1/(8{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B_in^2 + E_in^2)      [4]

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

{integral over t} 1/(8{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B_out^2 + E_out^2)    [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

{integral over t} cE.(i+i')                                     [6]

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

{integral over 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{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B^2 + E^2)
= 1/(8{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B_in^2 + E_in^2)
-  1/(8{pi}) {del}/{del}t (B_out^2 + E_out^2)                   [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,

Sincerely,



Tom Bearden
May 28/29, 1995