Whittaker recommended by Tom Bearden

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

Lamare's post

[QUOTE=lamare;75372]Hi all,

This is definately going in the right direction. I am so glad to have both Peter and John here. Even though I'm not such a good experimenter myself, I have studied a lot of material about free energy. I have studied electrical engineering and hold a masters degree, so when I first saw some video's on free energy on the p2p networks, I didn't believe any of that would work. I thought I knew all about electronics theory and "over unity" and all that was plain BS. So, just out of curiousity I watched some of these video's to have some fun looking at all those outrageous deceivements people were putting up.

And probably there are a lot of deceivers out there, yes. And there is a lot of disinformation out there too. However, I found the work of Eric Dollard, Thomas Bearden, Konstantin Meyl and Klaus Turtur and of course John Bedini very inspiring and thought provoking. I especially like the EM theories of Meyl, because he is really down to earth and sticking to basically nothing but EM field theory, while Bearden also goes a long way into time-related theory, which is hard to grasp and probably not necessary to understand circuits like this.

However, I do like Beardens "don't kill the dipole" and "how circuits are actually powered" theories:
How An Electrical Circuit is REALLY Powered - Bearden for Dummies

"Let me put it this way. Every electrical system we ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the active vacuum by the source dipole in the system."

He explains this concept also very nicely in some of the video's out there. Whenever charge is moving from the + to - poles of a battery or generator, a current flows, which opposes the very reason the current occurs, which is the electric field or potential.

So, it is the electric field that causes the charges to move (do work), while this same movement of charges (current) kills the very reason of it's existence: the field, or the potential on your battery or generator. If you could somehow use the potential of any dipole without killing it, you could get an infinite energy source. In other words: you have to disconnect "current" from "potential" one way or another.

In this line of thinking, the following paper by Klaus Turtur is most interesting:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

In this paper, he shows that the electric field emitted by any charge carrier not only is dynamic (spreading with the speed of light), but it also contains energy. That energy comes from somewhere, which you might call "the Dirac sea" or ZPE, or whatever. Bottomline is: any charge carrier continuously converts some of this "vacuum energy" into a constant stream of "static" electric field energy:

"On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy."


Probably the most important thing to realise is that there are two energy flows in any circuit or wire:
1. the electric (or EM) field(s) - or "radiant energy" as John likes to call it.
2. the current -- charge carriers moving along inside a conductor.

The E(M) field comes for free, it's a continous stream of "vacuum energy" being converted by any charge carrier.

What we're after in all electrical free energy circuits is to find a way to extract this "vacuum energy" without paying the price by killing our dipoles. And as far as I understand, the basic trick for doing that is to exploit the difference in propagation speed of the E(M) field vs. the charge carriers.

If you look at the SG, the Gray tube and the water spark plug, you see that one possibility is to work with abrupt switching of high voltages. So, apparantly fast switching (fast rise/fall times) of high voltages offers one "window of opportunity" to exploit this propagation speed difference.

In the Tesla switch, you're working with batteries, where the charge carriers are ions moving in a fluid. These move much slower than electrons trough a wire, which is why you can exploit this speed difference between E(M) field and charge carriers at much lower frequencies (switching speeds) in comparison to coils, etc.

In a way, a battery can be seen as a very long wire (as Bearden has talked about). When you put some current (charge carriers) in on one side, it takes a relatively long time before they come out on the other side. So, whenever you reverse the current before that time has passed, you can use the potential (Electric field) without killing the dipole.

So, I think that is what all this comes down to: an exploitation of the difference in propagation speed of the EM field vs. the movement of charge carriers.

As for the use of capacitors, there's an interesting post over here mentioning some experiments at MIT:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...dollard-2.html

"Next we have a three-piece dissectible Leyden Jar consisting of two metal cups

Lamare's post continued

by a glass cup. When charged with the Wimshurst machine, we see by touching it with the shorting rod that it holds a large amount of charge. However, when disassembled, the metal cups can be brought into contact with each other and no spark will be generated. When the jar is reassembled it can then be discharged. This demonstrates that, in this situation, the charge actually resides on the surface of the glass (a dielectric), not on the metal."



If that is true, you can expect a similar low propagation speed of the charge carriers inside capacitors, but I guess probably still ignificantly higher than in a battery. So, I would guess a Tesla switch using capacitors will be a lot harder to get working than a battery-based one, because you probably have to switch significantly faster.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so let's discuss this. I have to watch the video's later.

First of all, there's also a neat description in Kelly's "free energy guide":
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf

It describes the piling up of electrons inside the batteries very nicely.


As for understanding how this works, the following article by Thom Bearden gives the key understanding of what the difference is between field and current and what energies are flowing trough a circuit:
How An Electrical Circuit is REALLY Powered - Bearden for Dummies

IMHO, there's quite some distractive information in there, but the key parts are these:

"Here's a simple explanation of what powers every electrical circuit.

When we crank the shaft of the generator and rotate it, the rotation transforms the input "mechanical" energy into internal "magnetic field" energy. In that little part of the circuit that is between the terminals of the generator and inside it, the magnetic field energy is dissipated on the charges right there, to do work on them. This work (expending the magnetic energy) forces the negative charges in one direction, and the positive charges in the other direction. In copper, for example, for every electron we "push" off an atom into the conductor as a free electron to make "current", there is a "hole" left on that atom. That "hole" is a positive charge.

So the same magnetic field energy, while moving those electrons, also applies forces to those positive holes. The positive charge of each hole, however, is attached to a far heavier mass (the atom) than is the charge of the electron. So the atoms with positive charges (ions) are pushed and rocked back a little.

That's all that rotating the shaft of the generator accomplishes. None of that input shaft energy was transformed into EM energy and sent out down the powerline, as electrical engineers assume. Not to worry, energy does get sent down the powerline. But not from the generator shaft energy or its transduction.

Essentially then, all the energy we put into the shaft of the generator is dissipated inside the generator itself, to push the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other. The separation of the charges forms what is called a "dipole" (opposite charges separated from each other a bit).

That is all that the generator does. That is all that burning all that coal or oil or gas does. It heats a boiler to make steam, so that the steam runs a steam turbine attached to the shaft of the generator, and turns it -- and therefore forcing those charges apart and making that dipole between the terminals of the generator. "

Bottomline: separation of charges creates a dipole.

"So we "see" the dipole as if it were just sitting there and pouring out real EM energy continuously, in all directions, like a spray nozzle or giant energy gusher. We don't see the input energy from the vacuum at all! But it's there, and it's well-known in particle physics. It's just that electrical engineers -- particularly those that have designed and built all our electrical power systems for more than a century -- do not know it.

So, according to proven particle physics and a Nobel Prize, the easiest thing in all the world is to extract EM energy from the vacuum. All you wish. Anywhere in the universe. For free. Just pay a little bit once, to make a little dipole, and that silly thing is like a great oil well you just successfully drilled that has turned into a mighty gusher of oil without you having to pump it. The dipole just sits there and does its thing, and it pours energy out forever, for free, as long as that dipole continues to exist.

So pouring from the terminals (from the internal source dipole) of every generator and battery, there is a stream of EM energy pouring out, once that internal dipole is made. This outflowing EM energy has been extracted and converted directly from the seething vacuum by that dipole's broken symmetry. The outflowing EM energy is not transformed shaft energy one put into the generator! That flow of energy extracted from the vacuum fills all space around the external wires attached to the terminals, and it flows at the speed of light."

Bottomline: the energy that flows out of the dipole is EM energy, a *field*, not a *current*..

It is this energy that makes the electrons flow inside the wires. And that is what kills this "separation of charges", the dipole, the *source* of the EM energy we're trying to use:

"The external (attached) circuits and power lines etc. catch some of that available EM energy flowing through space (generally flowing parallel to the wires but outside them). Some of the flowing energy is intercepted and diverted into the wires themselves, to power up the internal electrons and force them into currents, thus powering the entire power line and all its circuits.

However, the power system engineers use just one kind of circuit. In the standard "closed current loop" circuit, all the "spent electrons" (spent after giving up their excess energy in the loads, losses, etc.) are then forcibly "rammed" back through that little internal section between the ends of the source dipole (between the terminals). These "rammed" electrons smash the charges in the dipole away, and destroy the dipole then and there.

It can easily be shown that half the "caught" energy in the external circuit is used to destroy that source dipole, and nothing else.

For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses.

So half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole (kill the free energy gusher), and less than half is used to power the loads. It follows that our electrical engineers are trained to use only those power circuits that kill themselves (kill their gushing free energy from the vacuum) faster than they can power their loads.

Well, to get the energy gusher going again, the dipole has to be restored in order to extract the energy and pour it out again.

So we have to pay to crank the shaft of that generator some more, to turn that generator some more, so that we can dissipate some more magnetic energy to re-make the dipole. We have to work on that shaft at least as much as the external circuit worked on that source dipole to destroy it. So we have to "input more shaft energy" to the generator than the external power system uses to power its loads. Since we pay for the input shaft energy, we have to keep on burning that coal, oil, and gas etc. to do so.

All our electrical power systems are "suicidal" vacuum-powered systems, freely extracting their useful EM energy from the seething vacuum, but deliberately killing themselves faster than they power their loads.


All that the burning of all that coal, oil, gas, etc. accomplishes is to continually remake the source dipole, which our engineers insure will then receive be killed by the system itself faster than the system gives us work in the load. "



This is the most important concept to understand. Any charge continously emits an energy field, an electric field, spreading with the speed of light, and that is the real energy source that makes our circuits run.

This energy-field, generated by the charges in our wires, is not created out of thin-air, however. Since there is a continous flow of energy out of every charge, there also is a continous flow of energy going into every charge. And that is where the energy eventually comes from, right from the vacuum itself. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter how the energy that ends up in the electric field is being taken out of the vacuum. It may be ZPE, it may be a "virtual partical flux", it may be anything. It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

All we need to know is that somehow, some form of energy flows into each and every charge in the universe and this energy flow is continuously converted into an outflowing electric energy field by each and every charge in the universe, 27/7, 365 days a year, for free.

And this is the basic concept to understand. The electric field comes for free, as long as you keep the charges separated. That is where the energy actually comes from. The key to extracting more energy from the vacuum, without paying for it ourselves, is to keep the charges separate. Any trick that prevents the source of our dipole, the charge, to reach the opposite side of the dipole and kills it will do.

Bearden emphasizes not killing the dipole, and keeping an imbalance in the system to allow the vacuum's radiant energy to continuously enter (the system). I believe Bearden sees contemporary Electrical Engineering's deviation away from this fundamental understanding as a result of its adopting Heavyside's erroneous balancing of Maxwell's equations.

My understanding is that Bearden looks at the electrical spike's quick decay as the 'imbalance' moment where the dipole is again open, allowing for omnipresent RE to enter the system. At the same time, I am intrigued at Dr. Stiffler's reference to 'pinging' the 'spatial energy lattice' to draw ('cohere') energy into the system. Are Bearden and Stiffler coming to the same conclusion with different vocabulary arising from perhaps different vantage points?

Bearden absolutely has a point in not killing the dipole and that the Maxwell equations are incomplete as taught today. And I believe he is right that this has been done on purpose, even though that is not so relevant in the technical discussion. Anyway, Meyl re-derived the Maxwell equations directly from Faraday's experimental observations and comes to the same result, as far as I understood. So, Meyls work gives a solid foundation of the Maxwell equations as they should be. In essence a straight-forward mathematical exercise without any postulates, based on observed physical measurements.

The most essential difference between the classical Maxwell equations and Meyl (and Bearden, I assume) is that Meyl no longer postulates the existence of charge carriers as the cause for the EM fields. In other words: Meyl basically proves that EM fields can exist without any need for matter to be present. EM fields are the cause matter exists and not the other way around. As a result of that, it is clear that both longitudinal and transversal EM waves can exist in vacuum, while in the classical view the former cannot exist, because it is assumed there are no charge-carriers present in the vacuum.

So, essentially, with Meyls Maxwell equations we have a set of equations that describe the propagation of waves trough a medium, which at the same time reflect the characteristics of that medium. And these resemble the characteristics of a fluid/gas very nicely, hence we have basically a description of a fluid/gas like medium we used to call aether.

And on its turn, the waves that flow trough this medium have the ability to form the localised waves we call matter. According to Meyl, matter actually is some kind of vortex and it appears logical to assume that these vortexes can "suck" up some kind of aether energy flow from the environment and convert that into a steady outflowing energy stream known as the electric field. In other words: a charge appears to be some kind of spherical (combination of) aether vortex(es) capable of continously converting some kind of incoming aether energy flow into a "static" electric field. This is an ever-lasting process, which can be considered as a monopole.

However, that "static" field is not static at all. It's a continuous flow of energy. Interestingly, there are two kinds of charges. We call them positive and negative and it appears these generate two distinct kinds of energy flows. One from positive to negative, and one back from negative to positive. When superimposed on one another, these appear to (largely) cancel eachother out in terms of the ability to do work, that is, the ability to apply a resulting force onto free charges (electrons) in order to make them move.

Of course, once charges are moving, they are moving in such a direction that these two energy flows eventually balance each other out.

So, these energy flows are there continously, but they are affected by any charge in the neighbourhood and there are two of these, which cancel eachother out whenever a system is in balance.

In other words: you can only observe a resulting energy stream when there is an inbalance in the system. That is, when the charge is unevenly distributed in the system.

So, in my view, it appears as though energy is only flowing into the system when there is an imbalance, while actually there are two continuous energy streams taking place. However, the net result is practically the same.

The prime question is how to make these energy streams do more work for us than we have to do in order to get it.

One way to do that, is to use resonance, as Dr. Stiffler is doing. I have done some experiments myself with Stifflers system, and as far as I understand, the key element is to have an open-ended coil resonate at multiples of its natural base resonance frequency. When you do that, you get several (oscillating) dipoles inside the coil, and it appears to act a bit like a longitudinal transmission line, because the parasitic capacitance between the coil windings become the dominant transmission medium, when the frequency is high enough. See:

The L.M.D./T.E.M.Test

When you talk about "spike decay", I think the key element is the difference in propagation speed of the field vs. the charge carriers that eventually kill the dipole.

Thank you

Thank you lamare

With my present (probably incomplete) understanding, I have not seen inconsistencies in your very well written overview.

In Dr.Stifflers thread I also posted the reference to Naudin's page in the frustration to understand my experiments.

You are the first to comment this issue (in the limited amount of posts I have read).

Do you have an explanation on why the excited field from a SEC exited tower can be extended with mass repeaters, or better more un-powered "tank" circuits ?

By "tank" I mean a sphere and a coil mathing the exciter frequency ?

Most notably you can add these un-powered resonant circuits to the vicinity of the powered tower (or an un-powered tower), without increasing the consumption in the single powered SEC tower, as I demonstrated in my video posted in Dr.Stifflers thread.

Eric

Lamare:
I enjoyed your post and find it ringing true with my own conclusions. You highlight harmonic resonance within Doc Stiffler's coils forming "several oscillating dipoles inside the coil." This makes perfect sense, I believe, particularly in light of Bearden's position vis-a-vis keeping the system imbalanced in order to assure the continued influx of energy from the vacuum.

Harmonic resonance seems to be key here. However, one further item seems to come into play with the work of Naudin, Frolov, Stiffler and many others. Would you care to take a stab at explaining the role of the AV plug in the physics of this dynamic in light of your above remarks?

B

Let's look a bit deeper into resonating coils. As I stated before, Stifflers circuit resonates a coil at a multiple of its natural ground resonance frequency. Since the coil windings have a parasite capacitance towards one another, part of the electric energy, which is a wave, travels across these capacitances.

Usually, these parasite capacitors are only considered as a whole in order to calculate the natural ground resonance frequency of a coil. However, they are very significant when we want to understand what happens with Stifflers circuit, the Joule Thief, Stanley Meyers stuff and all other resonating free energy coil systems.

I have been thinking about this for quite a while, but up to yesterday, I never understood what is actually happening inside a coil and wondered wether or not you could get the same effect by putting a bunch of caps in series and put those in resonance.

Then I realised that a coil wire is round and that the current, the electrons, actually travel across the surface of a wire. If we only consider the longitudinal component of the resonating waves along a coil, we are looking into the electrical wave traveling along the coil, perpendicular to the coil wires. In other words: we consider an electrical component that travels perpendicular to what we usually consider the direction of the currents going trough the wire.

I made some sketches which I have attached. The first page is just a rough sketch with some notes illustrating my line of thinking, but not much more.

If you take a look at the second pge, you see at the top-left two parts of coil windings, with at the top-right a model made up of capacitors, which is how you would usually think about these kind of things. If we consider the wire in the model connecting the different capacitors, and consider a current going trough there, you will have a magnetic field H curling around the wire.

However, the real parasite capacitors at the surface of coil wires are not at all connected to one another with straight wires. It’s a round surface, so the electrons will make curves, spirals, moving between the “capacitor plates”. So, you won’t get a H field curling around, but you will get an H field in parallel with the coil wires!

When I made this second page, I assumed there would be a resulting current spiraling around the surface of the wire. Then I realised that there is actually no reason to assume this spiralling current to have any preference for a particular direction. In other words: half of the electrons traveling between the capacitor plates will go in one direction, the other half will go in the other direction. And that is very interesting, since we now have an electric field propagating between the coil windings, *without* a resulting magnetic field!!!

And, if there’s no magnetic component, there’s no Poynting vector, and therefore no radiation of energy…

Very interesting, because this might give us some hints on how to make signal guides for longitudinal electric waves. One tends to think in the direction of putting several isolated wires in a row. Then, you would have the capacitive coupling to propagate the energy, while the spiralling currents prevent any magnetic component to spring up and radiate our precious energy away into outer space……

Something like this: |||||||||

Anyway, I will get back to this later, answer your questions (have typed this in the train to work and have to do some work now), and continue thinking and explaining how I look at things. However, by no means I claim this is correct and this is the final answer. It’s just a theory being built up and considered and I welcome all comments, questions and feedback. That way we can all learn and move into the right direction.

As a last remark I’d like to point out that everything I have posted and will post on this forum that is my own work is to be considered as part of the public domain. You can do whatever you want with it.

Lamare's theory of longitudinal waves in coil

I like that theory Lamare.

It feels pleasant in one's mind; fits like a glove.

It reminds me of all the 'longitudinal scalar wave of electrical field without a magnetic component' stuff from borderlands and eric dollard's latest videos on youtube.

One way to test it is to see if magnetic fields affect the propagation of the effect thru space; it shouldn't. Which is why (maybe) there is very little RF EM around the Stiffler circuit, but lots of energy nonetheless.

I hope someone tests that, I'm out of action for another month or so but it's important to check new theories through experiment..

Who's able to try it out or postulate a controlled experiment?

ok guys forigvie me for even speaking in this thread for I am nowhere smart enough to be talking in here. If this needs to be in a new thread please let me know.
But I have a few simple questions and probably no easy answer. Ive read and watched Mr. Beardon till my brain bled. The one thing that continuously sticks out in my head is "DONT DESTROY THE DIPOLE!!!"
Great I understand that completely. But how does one accomplish this? When all electronics are designed to do exactly that. I can tap the vacuum because its "the easiest thing in the world to do" says Mr. Beardon, all day long but if I put a conventional load on it then I destroy the Dipole. Correct? I mean is there an electric motor out there that doesn't do that? OR at least as bad? One that actually produces usable torque? Or a light that doesn't close the loop and destroy said dipole?
Are ANY of the devices that ANY of us are working on, not destroying the dipole? I replicate many experiments on here. (mostly becasue I am nowhere near smart enough to design my own electronic devices) They are SOOO interesting and exciting to me. But I keep coming to a point in my experiments that I go "well now what do I do with it?" I cant run a motor strong enough to run a little vehicle. The big Joule Thief of Jeannas is running a 20W CFL for hours off 1 AA battery!!!! PHENOMENAL!!! BUT still destroying the dipole. So is there an answer to this. Can we make a motor that doesnt consume a Billion amps to turn a shaft with some nominal torque? How do we make devices that dont destroy the dipole? Or is that the crux of this art? We can produce HV low current but everything in the world is designed for Low V high C. Is there an easy answer? And please no one answer with "sure, easy, just design a high Voltage low current consumption motor." LOL

You are right, it's not exactly easy to make something that doesn't destroy the dipole. However, once you have something that outputs more energy than you need to put in in order to get it, then it should be possible to use some of that output energy in order to restore the dipole. So, as long as you keep the dipole alive long enough to extract more energy then you need supply yourself in order to create the dipole, you're in business. And that's basically the crux of the art....

Next point, of course, is to solve the problem of how to feed the excess energy at the output back and keep the dipole alive that way.

When you're talking resonating circuits, you're talking high frequencies, which are difficult to work with. However, in the thread about Dr. Stifflers stuff, some people used a so-called AV-plug, named after its inventor Avramenko, to create DC out of a HF signal coming of a coil. That would probably also work with a Joule Thief, even though I don't know the details of the JT.

So, there are some solutions in the direction of solving the feedback problem, but AFAIK, this has not been done yet, at least not publicly.



When you want to power motors, I think one of the most promising circuits at the moment is the Tesla Switch, discussed here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...la-switch.html

Recently, John Bedini has joined this thread and some replications have been reported. This circuit produces LV with respectable currents, depending on the batteries you use.

Still, this circuit requires some experimentation to get working. But, it is said that Ron Brandt actually ran a car on some variation of this circuit back in the 1980's.....

The interesting thing about this circuit, is that the feedback problem is already solved by the nature of the circuit itself. The batteries in this system constantly change their role from "powering" to "charging".

In other words: there's 4 dipoles in this circuit. At any time, two of them are being killed, *but* at the same time the other two are being recreated (charging of the battery).....

Meyl explains this here:

http://www.k-meyl.de/go/60_Primaerli...alar-Waves.pdf

Basically, the two antenna spheres can be considered as a capacitor. In this paper, Meyl shows that you can think of this as two resonating coils, coupled with a capacitor. When you move the capacitor plates apart, the (longitudinal!) resonance keeps intact:

"If both electrodes of the capacitor are pulled apart, then between both is stretching an electric field. The field lines start at one sphere, the transmitter, and they bundle up again at the receiver. In that way a higher degree of effectiveness and a very tight coupling can be expected. In this manner without doubt some of the effects can be explained, but not all.
The inductance is split up in two air transformers, which are wound completely identical. If a fed in sinusoidal tension voltage is transformed up in the transmitter, then it is again transformed down at the receiver. The output voltage should be smaller or at maximum equal the input voltage – but it is substantially bigger!

There can be drawn and calculated an alternative wiring diagram, but in no case the measurable result comes out, that light-emitting diodes at the receiver glow brightly (U>2Volt), whereas at the same time the corresponding light-emitting diodes at the transmitter go out (U<2Volt)! To check this both coils are exchanged.

The measured degree of effectiveness lies despite the exchange at 1000 percent. If the law of conservation of energy should not be violated, then only one interpretation is left: The open capacitor withdraws field energy from its environment. Without consideration of this circumstance does the error deviation of every conventional model calculation lie at more than 90 percent. There one rather should do without the calculation."

However, I don't agree with his statement that "only one interpretation is left". There's another interpretation left, which is that the transmitter coil draws field energy from its environment.

Further, I am not convinced that longitudinal waves travel at a speed at 1.5 times the speed of light, nor am I convinced that neutrino's have anything to do with this.

I posted some comments regarding the propagation speed, and also some stuff about coil theory and other stuff by Meyl:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post59725
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post60443
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post60761

However, I will have to update and rethink some of this stuff, because I didn't take the spiralling electron movements I posted in this thread about into account.

Lamare

If the coil is making longitudinal waves minus the magnetic field, then essentially the longitudinal waves are a series of dipoles.

This would allow for gain from the virtual particles of the zero point energy field during transmission through space.

In theory.