For another refreshing look at the far frontiers of still-developing EM theory, see:

This line of thinking leads to a very useful tool in qualitatively analyzing novel results obtained in experiments with multiple nonlinear components. Barrett, 1991, ibid. shows us that we can expect nonlinear optical functioning of "ordinary-appearing" circuits as one of the primary higher-topology effects that will usually be observed. Hence when one encounters unusual phenomena in novel circuits, one of the first rules is to look for the nonlinear optical functioning of the pieces of the components, at other than optical frequencies. This will often prove to be highly useful, and the primary way to search for the hidden mechanisms involved in higher topology EM functioning beyond the realm of vectors and tensors. Of course, then the results of the qualitative evaluation must itself be evaluated against the hard experimental data for consistency or inconsistency.

See Barrett, 1991, ibid. for the proof. As an example, when charge blocking is applied or partially applied, circuits can often perform optical functions even without the presence of optical materials. From our own work it appears that the hidden variable EM inside the scalar potential -- as shown by Stoney and Whittaker [to be covered later in these notes] -- easily acts in a fashion prescribed by nonlinear phase conjugate optics theory, even when the frequencies are well below the optical region and even in the ELF region.

We accent that it is well-known that there exists radiationless transport of energy between excited and nonexcited atoms, particularly in semiconductors, where in some cases it has been referred to as the interference of reactive EM field components. E.g., see:

Speaking of this type of interference, Kolokolov and Skrotskii state, "As a result an interference flux of energy in a new direction is formed, where energy transport for the original waves can be completely absent."

Further, it is now known that extremely large second-order susceptibilities can be obtained in charge-blocking asymmetric quantum wells in semiconductors. This has been predicted to lead to the emergence of new properties in such semiconductors, such as double resonance enhancement, and even fully solid-state parametric oscillators. E.g., see:

It would appear that the forefront of semiconductor work on quantum wells and charge trapping is groping toward the type of capability already possessed by the patented Fogal semiconductor.

See: Bearden, ibid., Fig. 3, p. 59 for the graphic depiction of what "collection" of energy by electrons actually consists of: It is a dynamic, ongoing process requiring the Poynting flow; it is never a static collection in "chunks" as it is treated in normal physics and electrodynamics. As Bohm stated, "There are no things, only processes."

Exact methods of increasing the energy collection rate in circuits, materials, and media and using it to provide overunity coefficient of performance are given in:

Experimental verification of these mechanisms, and verified processes (such as Anti-Stokes radiation, the Letokhov-Lawandy effect, the Patterson effect, etc.) are included to demonstrate the experimentally proven use of the principles to produce permis sible systems with overunity coefficient of performance, without violating the laws of physics or of nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

For a simple example, see:

In fact, a force can be regarded as a flow of momentum, and torque can be regarded as an angular momentum current. See:

So when we speak of "electric field" and "magnetic field" -- whether static or dynamic -- we should be aware that such static concepts actually represent an ongoing dynamic process.

In quantum field theory, one may regard the magnetic field of the magnet, e.g., as the flow of virtual photons from -- by convention -- the north pole to the south pole. We stress that the north pole (positive magnetic charge) represents a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of vacuum, and this asymmetry is the source which extracts and gates the energy in the magnetic field. Actually, the "negative magnetic charge" south pole (which is just a time-reversed north pole) is also an asymmetry in the VPF of vacuum, and consequently it is a source of virtual antiphotons, and so a flow of antiphotons also flows from the south pole to the north pole. Another way of saying that, is that the two poles of the magnet form a dipole, and the south end of the dipole is known to be time-reversed with respect to the north end, and vice versa. Thus there are two energy flows from the magnet, not one, and these flows in the so-called "lines of force" are interlocked. In 1996-97 Stoney showed that any scalar potential (which would include the magnetostatic scalar potential existing between the two poles of the magnet) can be decomposed into a series of bidirectional wavepairs. See:

In 1903 Whittaker beautifully completed and extended Stoney's approach, to show that a scalar potential decomposes into a harmonic series of hidden bidirectional EM wavepairs, where each wavepair is composed of a wave and its true phase conjugate replica wave (its antiwave). See:

If we now invoke a "strong" interpretation of the Stoney-Whittaker work, then the bidirectional hidden photon/antiphoton flows of the magnet actually are mutual phase conjugate replicas of each other. So they must continually form and unform coupled photon/antiphoton pairs, as the photons and antiphotons pass through each other. However, a photon/antiphoton couplet has spin 2 and so the continually forming and unforming couplets are thus gravitons. Relative spatial movement of the hidden wavepairs of this "magnetic field" with respect to a conductor introduces a phase splitting of the graviton, and the photon half interacts with the electrons in the conductor to produce the well-known magnetic induction, while the antiphoton half interacts in the nucleus of an atom in the conductor, producing the well-known Newtonian recoil.

This Newtonian 3rd law recoil was inadvertently omitted from basic EM theory by Faraday's assumption of the EM field in space as composed of physical taut strings (his "lines of force") without any accompanying string holders. In other words, Faraday had already conceptually discarded Newton's third law from his notion. That notion is false because no taut string exists in nature without external tensile forces pulling on the string. In other words, a taut string must have a "string holder" to provide the tensile forces. When the string is plucked to yield transverse string-waves, waves of equal and opposite energy -- though highly damped in magnitude because of the great mass of the "holder" medium -- are inevitably produced in the body of the holder. Both the string wave and the holder wave "slap" the surrounding medium simultaneously, with equal injection of virtual photons. The dually perturbed medium then vibrates according to its own degrees of freedom, not that of the string. Maxwell merely assumed the transverse string wave that resulted from Faraday's view of physical lines of force as actual "taut strings," with no consideration of the "holder" producing the tautness or of the antiwave that occurs in the body of the inevitable string holder. So Maxwell also unwittingly discarded the string holder and the equal-energy antiwave.

Thus Maxwell's EM theory failed to capture Newton's third law, which almost universally occurs in our EM field experiments, but which must presently be mystically invoked by electrodynamicists as "Oh, yes, that's Newton's third law reaction!", without any notion of an EM cause for the reaction. In quantum field theory, all mechanical forces are caused by the absorption and emission of virtual photons. So if Newton's third law appears, being a mechanical force it must have resulted from the same (virtual photon interaction) type of mechanism, but from antiphotons. A single photon interaction can be shown to also initiate Newtonian reaction; hence it must have been accompanied by an erroneously omitted antiphoton. This logical reasoning also establishes the presence of the antiphotons and the antiwave, accompanying the "conventional" EM wave in the vacuum. The so-called "photon" interaction in most cases is a graviton interaction anyway! Else it's interaction could not induce Newtonian recoil.

In short, Faraday and Maxwell erroneously threw out exactly half of the electromagnetics, the electromagnetic waves, the force fields, and the EM energy! Neither Heaviside, Hertz, nor Gibbs did anything to restore the missing electromagnetics, which if anything was just swept under the rug in the ubiquitous "Oh, yes, that's Newtonian third law recoil!" The end result was to discard the unification of EM and gravitation, which appears immediately whenever the missing half of classical EM theory is restored. Succeeding generations of electrodynamicists have not corrected this colossal error.

Contrasted to a normal standing wave whose amplitudes add, we stress here a fundamental difference in the bidirectional wavepair element of the Stoney-Whittaker decomposition of the scalar potential. Each wavepair is composed of a wave and its antiwave (phase conjugate replica or PCR). Now electrically (in terms of electrical force) the wave and its PCR superpose spatially, they do not "add magnitudes" spatially! This is now just the well-known (but poorly named!) distortion correction theorem in phase conjugate optics. The wave and its antiwave twin are antiphased in time, so that along the time dimension only, the absolute values of their time components would add.

But their magnitudes do not add spatially! Quite simply, such a spatial superposition-without force magnitude addition of an EM wave and its true phase conjugate replica constitutes a standing gravitational wave. The main effect has been shifted to the time dimension, rather than the spatial dimensions.

Now suppose we insist that the distortion correction theory applies not only to waves, but also to the photons comprising them. In that case the antiphotons comprising the antiwave and the photons comprising the wave are performing a most interesting dance: The passage of the two waves precisely through each other spatially, as they travel in opposite directions (as perceived by the external observer), must result (from a spatial observation) in the continual coupling and decoupling of photon/antiphoton couplets. But such a couplet is a massless spin-2 entity and therefore a graviton. So coupled gravitons comprise this gravitational wave, each graviton of which is continually forming and unforming. In short, gravitation and electromagnetics are continually turning one into the other, in this "standing wave". Here is where electromagnetics and gravitation unify -- and it is precisely this area that was discarded unwittingly by Faraday and Maxwell when they discarded the string holder and its antiwave.

When we place an electron in a different potential (which after all is just a change to the local vacuum potential), we alter the rate of VPF exchange between the electron and the vacuum because now the electron is embedded in an altered VPF. In other words, we alter the dipoles comprising the electron system, and we alter the "massless electrical charge" of the electron system. In turn, that alters the rate of Poynting flow S that these dipoles produce from the vacuum, by their asymmetry. The massless (i.e., the VPF exchange) of an electron is not quantized, contrary to the conventional assumption of its quantization! The self-potential f _e (i.e., the massless charge of the electron) is discretized as a function of its VPF with the vacuum, which can be altered at will simply by altering the local vacuum potential (i.e., placing the electron in a different potential). In the ambient (standard) vacuum, the discretized VPF value is standard, and so the electron appears to be charge-quantized because then the discretized value of its f _e does not vary.

The point is, a flowing current dq/dt in a conductor is not at all just the simple thing it is treated as, in classical electromagnetics (CEM). It is instead a highly dynamic system of free energy generators comprised of many different kinds of movements, levels, asymmetries, energy exchanges, and interaction changes simultaneously. Classical EM (and even quantum electrodynamics) are gross simplifications and extremely high level averaging of the much deeper, complex physics and dynamic structuring of the vacuum that are actually occurring, along with a myriad of Poynting energy flows!

See particularly:

Circa 1962 Kron wrote in a paper, "The frustrating search for a geometrical model of electrodynamic networks," journal unknown, p. 111-128, the following words:

And on p. 114 Kron gave the result of his decades of search as follows:

It is the thesis of one of the present authors (Bearden) that the Fogal charge-barrier semiconductor will ultimately be found to partially function in Kron's final mode involving simultaneous open and closed paths.

...for a comprehensive introduction to the double surface theory and to overpotential theory in particular. For a succinct synopsis of the overpotential and its importance, see:

Most electrical engineers are unaware of this overpotential theory and its importance, although the modern solid state physicist is aware of it, as well as the importance and peculiarities of double surface effects.

We specifically point out that altering the potential f across a double surface area, while blocking dq/dt, rigorously constitutes asymmetrical regauging of the circuit area involved, rather than the symmetrical regauging commonly used -- by assumption -- in classical electrodynamics to separate the variables of the two Heaviside-Maxwell equations that Heaviside produced as his vector reduction of Maxwell's theory (potential form). The ordinary symmetrical regauging [which is actually two simultaneous asymmetrical regaugings, such that one produces an equal and opposite excess force as produced by the other] used to separate variables thus discards the extra E-field and overpotential effect that Bill produces and utilizes. Note that he is violating a standard "symmetrical regauging" assumption arbitrarily imposed upon Maxwell's CEM theory, not the fundamental theory itself. Nonetheless, electrical engineers with the symmetrically and arbitrarily regauged Maxwellian equations firmly in their minds cannot usually comprehend the mechanism used in Bill's charge-barrier technology.

Every joule of it has already done countless "millions of joules" of work! Note that retroreflection (as in phase conjugate reflection) is a negentropic and engineerable process. At any rate, the multipass, multi-retroreflection, multicollection process is a fundamental change to the work-energy theorem of physics. As presently stated, that theorem implicitly assumes single-pass, single collection of energy, with consequent loss, scattering, or transport of the collected energy. Further, electrodynamic collection of energy is nominally a process of only about 10 ¹³ efficiency. Thus almost all the flowing Poynting energy is still there in the S-flow after a single-pass collection. Millions or even billions of iterative additional energy collections are possible in the same volumetric area from the same S-flow, merely by retroreflecting it iteratively. When the energy density in that volume is thus increased by multipass multicollection, this also increases the Poynting flow itself, since the local f (energy density) increases by the extra collection of energy in the same volume.

We are preparing a technical paper detailing this major change to the present work-energy theorem, and its major ramifications for overunity processes. Both the Patterson Power CellÒ and the Lawandy patents (lasing without population inversion, via negative absorption in -- translation: excess emission from -- the medium) are already independently validated and patented overunity processes using iterative retroreflection for iterative multicollection in the same volume, from the input Poynting S-flow.

If there is no scattering of the Poynting flow, there is no divergence and no heating. This of course has always been the first part of the solution to room temperature superconductivity; i.e., it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for room temperature superconductivity. In this respect, the bridging concept is important. By bridging we mean the external introduction of Poynting flow S, of emf, of dE/dt, and of df /dt onto and into a dq/dt closed loop -- without externally introducing any dq/dt in the process. We call the component which connects the external S-source with the dq/dt closed loop the bridge. From the processes just being described in Fogal's semiconductor, one remaining condition for achieving room temperature superconductivity is that the Poynting flow furnished from the process described so far, must again be introduced into the external current loop, without introducing current dq/dt from outside that loop. In that fashion the electrons in the load loop can be energized and powered normally by the introduced emf alone.

However, it can be shown that the external loop electrons in the return line will not power back against the back emf, if no other function is accomplished. In other words, in the receiving (load) loop, the "source" component acting as the emf source must provide an additional function that makes the current flow backwards, against the back emf in that region. So a second remaining condition for room temperature superconductivity is that, in this "activated" or "energized" load loop, the back emf across the load-loop side of the bridge must exist in a partially time-reversed region -- which simply means phase conjugate reflection of at least some of the photons comprising the back EMF so that partial "time reversal" is achieved. That means that a fraction of the "back EMF" -- as seen by the external observer in his "forward time" -- actually is a forward emf, as far as the return conduction electrons are concerned, because of the partial time reversal. Expressed another way, the current flows with the inducing emf in a time-forward region, and against the emf in a time-reversed region.

With the addition of the time-reversing function on the load side of the bridge, the dq/dt isolated load loop will be fully powered-up by the external introduction of the S-flow across the bridge, and current dq/dt will circulate normally in the load. This provides not only room temperature superconductivity, but also overunity coefficient of performance of the load loop, since it is:

Energetically being an open system not in equilibrium, nonequilibrium thermodynamics applies and overunity COP is permissible, as is well-known for such systems.

Presently the only device I know of, that will reliably perform the bridging function, is the Fogal semiconductor. We have several other candidates, but so far none has yet proven out. My colleagues and I have filed several patent applications on the process for use of the bridging concept for room temperature superconductivity and overunity COP, and for the use of the Fogal semiconductor in the requisite Poynting flow bridging. Fogal retains full patent rights on his semiconductor; our use of it in our own patent pending processes represents a licensed application.

I believe that Kron's "open paths" may correspond to, or be related to, my own concept of bridging the S-flow between dq/dt isolated closed loops. To show the complexity of what is actually ongoing in electrical circuits, we further quote from Gabriel Kron:

Quoting again from the same reference, p. 464:

The point is, when one blocks dq/dt and "slips" the S-flow on past, one directly alters the entire multidimensional topology of the involved circuitry. Something very akin to higher dimensional "translation" of charges can occur, and something similar to this is what Bill is referring to by charge coupling and by charge compression.

For a refutation of the Slepian vector approach advocated by Carpenter, including citing of experimental refutation, see:

The energy flow is S = E ´ H, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of that energy flow is "intercepted" (collected) by the electrons in the circuit and then dissipated in the loads and losses. It can be shown that, in a nominal single-pass circuit, only about 10- ¹³ of the available Poynting flow S is intercepted and "collected" and dissipated by the conduction electrons in the circuit. Of that minuscule collected fraction, half is expended in the source dipole to scatter the charges comprising the dipole, thereby gradually "killing" the dipole and consequently its broken symmetry "gate" that is extracting and furnishing the Poynting energy flow.

Most university electromagnetics texts give very short shift to Poynting energy flow in circuits, usually showing only one or two very simple circuit examples, then moving on from that "bottomless pit" with a great sigh of relief. E.g., J.D. Jackson's epochal Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, Wiley, 1975, does not even cover Poynting flow in circuits. But see:

...for an excellent example of Poynting flow and effects in a simple circuit. Jackson strongly accents the fact that the surface charge densities must vary in the conductors. But as with other texts, the concept does not appear of bridging the Poynting flow from a blocked charge area, and introducing it upon a dq/dt closed current loop containing the load.

To define a charge, the definition must capture (1) the mass of the charge, and (2) the violent flux exchange between the charge and the surrounding QM vacuum, at least to the point of including the broken symmetry in that flux and hence the gated Poynting S-flow, with its concomitant f and E. To first order, q º f _q m_q, where f _q is the self-potential exhibited by the charge q and interpreted as the set of virtual EM interactions between m_q and the entire surrounding vacuum, and m_q is the mass associated with q. The importance of this definition is that charge q is not a unitary quantity at all! Instead, it is a system comprised of a massless charge (potential) f _q, and a mass m_q. Charge itself is massless and is the f _q portion. [A separate and fundamental definition for mass has also previously been given; see:

With q º f _qm_q, one may then apply Stoney/Whittaker decomposition to express f _q as a harmonic set of hidden bidirectional wave pairs, extending from the location of q out to infinity in all directions. This further provides internal hidden EM variables inside f _q. By separately forming such wavepairs in a desired sequence, and assembling them, one can create a massless charge (scalar potential) with a desired, deterministic set of "hidden wave" structuring. Placing charges q in this potential will result in a gradual exchange of internal patterning (dimensioning) via a mutual diffusion process. When the now-dimensioned charges are then removed and sent elsewhere, they carry their dimensioned self-potentials f _q with them, holding it for a while as it gradually dissipates by diffusion mixing with other potentials it comes in contact with. Charges q with such deterministic components of structuring inside their f _q components are said to be dimensioned. A dimensioned charge q can behave quite differently in -- for example -- chemical interactions in the body than does a nondimensioned "identical" charge q. An entirely new area of electrodynamics is opened up, one which allows the direct engineering of Bohm's hidden variable theory, including instantaneous action at a distance, and including deliberate structuring and usage of Bohm's quantum potential. The implications for physics, electronics, medicine, and power systems are profound.

Our only comment on Heald's statement is that electrodynamicists do not utilize the concept of the electron as a system in a violent energy exchange with the vacuum, and do not include the asymmetry of the charges with the vacuum VPF, the formation of the virtual dipoles, and the emission of the charge systems' individual Poynting energy density flows S = E ´ H as the collective cause that produces the circuit's S-flow, E-fields, etc.

At least something very similar to the preceding is happening in the transistor, which can perhaps explain

Obviously a great deal of very exacting, specialized laboratory testing must be accomplished on the semiconductor in order to fully develop and substantiate the unusual mechanisms occurring, and the full parameters of the device.

Here Whittaker shows that any EM wave or field pattern can be expressed as two scalar potentials (rather than the conventional scalar potential and vector potential). By Whittaker 1903, each of those two scalar potentials is further comprised of biwaves in harmonic series. So rigorously, even an "ordinary EM wave" is comprised of hidden biwaves.

Maxwell included the material ether (and Faraday's physical strings comprising it!) in his electrodynamics, and it was perpetuated in the subsequent topological reduction to a subset theory, by Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs.

So the myth of the "transverse EM wave in the vacuum" continued, and is still present in all our textbooks today -- and the assumption of the material ether is still erroneously contained in CEM, in the notion that force fields exist in the vacuum. There are no force fields in the nonmaterial vacuum. Mass is a component of force, by F º d/dt(mv).
Electrodynamics actually assumes that at each and every point in the vacuum, there exists a unit north pole, a unit positive electric charge, and a unit mass -- an assumption that foundations scientists are well aware of. E.g., see:

...which emphasizes that a "field of force" at any point is actually defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at that point.

It follows from the antiwave generation of Newtonian recoil in the nuclei of the receiving antenna, that were we to redirect the antiwave before it struck the nuclei, then the atomic nuclei would not recoil and the antenna would exhibit an "apparent violation" of Newton's third law. This has already been widely done, in phase conjugate mirror reflectors. Here the incoming waves undergo multiwave interaction due to the nonlinearity of the situation. The antiwaves from the incoming signal wave are interacted outside the nucleus, and redirected back along the path of the signal wave (via the distortion correction theorem). But that means that Newton's third law reaction mechanism did not occur, since the antiwaves did not interact with the nuclei to generate the reaction. One would therefore predict that a phase conjugate mirror, no matter how strongly pumped, will not recoil when it emits a powerful phase conjugate replica wave. And that is true, as has long been proven in PPCM theory of nonlinear optics, although there it is "explained" (actually described) quantum mechanically.

We can in fact also utilize this process for "absenting a force-creation mechanism" effect to produce antigravity directly in a suitable material on the bench, but that is outside the scope of the present commentary. For an actual experiment that did this successfully, see:

The wavelength of the switching frequency to separate the hidden wave pairs is on the order of the length of the dynamic dipoles constituting an atom, where the negative end of the dipole is one of the electrons in the electron shells, and the positive end of the dipole is one of the protons in the nucleus. This is largely beyond the ability of "charge pushing" switching; instead, optical switching is required. Since the Fogal semiconductor process in terms of field energy and Poynting energy density flow, it can in fact observe such optical switching times -- sharply differentiating it from orthodox transistors. In theory, an extremely well-made Fogal semiconductor should be able to switch and amplify at frequencies from the infrasonic range to the optical range, and perhaps eventually even into the x-ray and g -ray range, in the same device.

See also:

Ziolkowski in my opinion laid the groundwork for superluminal communication -- for communication with the stars. Further, if there are advanced civilizations "out there" in other star systems, then they are almost certainly communicating superluminally, not by the puerile electromagnetics we presently use.

The infolding experiment at Huntsville was the beginning of our experimentation intended to eventually achieve superluminal transmission capability, along the following lines:

Thus the (in standard theory) transverse waves we normally produce, simply "blank out" an associated instantaneous communication by their longitudinal components. On the other hand, if we infold the signal, so that a "surface gradient" is not present, then we remove the offending transverse component. At least conceptually, then, we have removed the term which canceled the instantaneous longitudinal component. In that case, the "infolded" signal is free to travel instantaneously -- or certainly much faster than the speed of light. Certain anomalies in previous communications testing of a Fogal device, made by one of the leading communications companies, did reveal what appear to be "absences of appropriate system delay" through satellite links, link amplifiers, etc.

So in our search for superluminal communications, our testing had started at the beginning: Simply see if the Fogal device can infold signals, inside a DC potential, so we can rid ourselves of that offending "transverse field component" and free the longitudinal component. If one believes the exact mathematics of Stoney, Whittaker, and Ziolkowski, and if one also believes quantum mechanics (which has always included instantaneous action at a distance), then superluminal communication is possible. And we think the place to start on it, is to begin tests on infolding signals in DC potentials.

Finally, we point out that "infolding" may be modeled in n dimensions, where n > 4, as moving the signal out of 3-space into hyperspace. In that case it is free to move superluminally, since a single orthogonal rotation in hyperspace, away from the velocity vector, is what the speed c is. Two consecutive "departing" orthorotations would give (to the normal 3-space observer) a communications speed c². Three would give c³, etc. If one insists on 4-d Minkowski space modeling, then infolding is moving the signal into "subspace," where it can move superluminally anyhow.

Rigorously this means that the reflections from the entire volume of surveilled space in the camera image, contain not only surface information from all the reflecting objects, but also voluminous internal information from each and every one of them. This "hidden variable" information in the primary image -- i.e., the internal (infolded) pinna information content of the "gross potential gradient fields" -- can be detected and processed by the Fogal semiconductor. Therefore one should not be surprised that the infolded content of a fixed "field of view" image from a video camera can also be scanned "in focus" in both its seemingly blurred foreground and its seemingly blurred background. The internal information is not blurred!

Another way of looking at it is to consider a zero vector resultant that is comprised of nonzero finite vectors. The "gross" examination of that system -- by a detector that only uses gross translation of electrons -- will see nothing at all because its electrons are not translated. On the other hand, an examination of that system by a detector that "sees beneath the zero-vector-summation surface" to the "infolded" real vectors beneath it, will see a pattern of real hidden vectors and real, hidden dynamics. By using only bulk gradients in scalar potentials and ignoring the Stoney/Whittaker decomposition of the potential into its infolded hidden dynamics, orthodox EM models have unwittingly discarded consideration of the infolded real vector components of zero-vector-summation systems. Such zero-vector systems are still very much real entities, containing real energy, hidden dynamics, and hidden information! In the simplest example, these "trapped" energies constitute nested structuring of curvatures of local spacetime. Thus they are little vacuum engines which can act upon subcomponents of physical systems, and upon the hidden EM dynamics of those components, in other than a "gross particle translation" manner.

For information on the pinna transform, see:

It is stressed that the backtracking of the emitted wave from the PCMs is convergent and like a "laser beam" rather than a broad wave front. So this is not a "broad wavefront" type of repelling force effect, but instead is a set of pinpoint repulsion-force-generating beams. The energy is far more concentrated at its "targeted pinpoints" than is the same energy in a broad-front force field. Further, the pinpoint effect is iterated for all approaching atoms and molecules; these are "self-tracked" in pinpoint fashion. In nonlinear optics, such an effect is known as self-targeting. In this fashion the "repulsion beam" can actually be "locked-on" to the repelled object, delivering all its energy to that object to repel it. At least in theory, eventually it should be possible to use this effect on an aircraft skin -- for example -- to repel incoming bullets or projectiles.

It also appears possible to adapt this PPCM effect to produce attraction forces upon the targeted objects rather than repulsion, but that is beyond the scope of these comments.

In theory it is also possible to develop an electromagnetic antigravity propulsion system, and a concept along that line was developed some years ago and -- at least once -- successfully tested, smoothly and controllably reducing the weight of an object on the bench by 90%. For the results of the test, see:

Further discussion of this effect is proprietary and beyond the present scope.