William Barbat: Self-Sustaining Electrical Generator; United States Patent Application # 0070007844 ![](0logo.gif) **[rexresearch.com](../index.htm)** --- **William BARBAT** **Self-Sustaining Electrical Generator** --- [**http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm**](http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm) **The Overlooked Source of Unlimited Electrical Energy** **by William Barbat, President and Chief Scientist, Levitronics, Inc.** Low Mass Electrons (LMEs) produce greater inductive energy output than their kinetic energy input, and most conduction electrons of semiconductors and superconductors possess this subnormal mass. Physicists prefer to assume an unforgivable reversal of entropy (which violates a Law of Physics) so they can claim that this extra energy comes from lattice vibrations. With the lattice vibration excuse, the less-than-normal mass of these special conduction electrons can be treated as imaginary, so it is referred to as effective mass, meaning it looks like a lower mass. Because LMEs accelerate faster than normal electrons, they radiate extra energy from any acceleration they receive. Larmor (1) showed that photon energy radiates from a moving charge in proportion to the square of its acceleration. Superconductors, with an electron mass 1/10,000 that of normal electrons (2) are accelerated 10,000 times faster than normal, so the centripetal acceleration of a supercurrent around a closed superconducting coil gives off a calculated 10,000 X 10,000 = 100,000,000 times more energy (acceleration squared) than is used to charge up the supercurrent . This calculation accurately predicts the magnitude of the energy magnification obtained in an astounding experiment at Princeton University (3). A supercurrent that took about 4 hours to charge up was projected by computer to take 130,000 years to decline exponentially from a calculated 46 amps to 16 amps. As expected, this discharge is about 100,000,000 times longer than the charging time. Left to discharge completely without any other energy needed to sustain cryogenic temperatures (as in outer space), the supercurrent would radiate a calculated 2.8 billion joules from a 4-hour charging. Levitronics recognizes this as newly created energy, not energy from lattice vibrations. The Berlin Physical Society had rejected the 18th-century law of conservation of energy (4) as metaphysics when it was misapplied to inductive and magnetic energy. But two important principles had been clearly described and then violated by that author, Hermann Helmholtz: If a resulting force is not not directly opposed to its causative force, then force can be gained ad infinitum under proper conditions (p. 12 of translation); When more force is produced in one direction than another, a portion of that force can be used to sustain the original force and the remainder can be put to useful purposes perpetually (p. 7 of translation). An unlimited source of cheap electric energy can be developed by these established principles, but mankind has been kept in the Dark Ages by later scientists who were not familiar with the whole treatise. A careful reading of Helmholtz's paper shows he mistakenly included inductive and magnetic energy with faulty assumptions and a disregard for works by Ampere and Faraday. This overlooked energy source can be harnessed by knowing that inductive energy is not conveyed by magnetic lines of force but by directional photon energy, as in radio broadcasting and receiving. If the Princeton experiment had produced an oscillating output, it could have been transformed directly into electric power, as in a common transformer. The practical conversion of oscillating LME energy had been discovered serendipitously nearly a century ago, but no one could explain why it worked before Levitronics. German engineer, E.Leimer (5), discovered that he could magnify the energy of an oscillating electric current in his crystal radio receiver by ionizing LMEs in a cupric oxide coating on wire with alpha radiation from radium. By feeding back a portion of the magnified electrical output from that experiment, a Seattle youth produced a continuous oscilllating electric current in a small fuelless generating device with no moving parts that lit a 20-watt light bulb in 1919 (6). A Physics Professor from Seattle College confirmed that this was not a hoax or a storage device, but he did not know why it worked (7). The generator had certain flat wire coils that could be insulated only with enamel, which would have allowed alpha radiation to pass through. The central coil acted as a sending antenna, the flat-wire windings of the surrounding eight coils were irradiated to magnify the inductive energy as in Leimers receiving antenna, and the coils nested inside the wide-wire coils acted as a secondary of a transformer to convert the magnified oscillating electric energy into an output of more energy than the input. In 1920 by an astounding continuous electrical power output from a 1.0 cubic foot fuelless generator ran a 35-hp electric motor boat at 8-10 knots. The event was reliably witnessed, photographed, and published in a respected newspaper (8).The generator output meaured 330 amps at 125 volts (25 kWe), enough current to overheat the wires and cause shut-downs for cooling. The boat demonstration lasted several hours and created a sensation (9). In comparison the 300 kg of lithium ion cells in the the $57,000 Tesla Model-S auto would have run down in only 100 minutes. The Seattle Post Intelligencer (10) editorialized: "The energy produced could have driven an automobile at moderate speed; it could have illuminated an office building; furnished heat and light for a large residence, or it could have heated seven two-room apartments. And so far as anybody could see the energy came from the air, or the earth. "The possibility that the current came from storage batteries or from an existing power circuit appeared to be out of the question, since the observers prudently looked into that phase of the matter. There were no hidden wires or any indication that the energy came from a source other than the Hubbard coil." Due to high cost and scarcity of radium, the generator technology was abandoned in 1922 . Ten milligrams of radium cost more than a new automobile in the 1920s, and the world's entire 250 gram supply of radium would have supplied only a fraction of a year's auto production. In 1928, Lester Hendershot of Pittsburgh duplicated Hubbard's generator and flew a model airplane (11), which impressed William B Stout, designer of the Ford Trimotor airplane. Col. Chas. A. Lindbergh of the U.S. Air Corps was also convinced of this fuelless generator (12), but the technology was abandoned again because it was too expensive. Later, when the price of radium dropped, copper wire was produced shiny without the CuO coating. Since no one realized that CuO had been essential to the energy magnification, attempts in 1963 to replicate the generator were doomed to failure. Levitronics Energy Technology Today no radionuclide provider will sell a radium source large enough to retest Hubbard's device because the radon emanations from radium-226, which carry all the alpha energy, are considered too hazardous. Levitronics' technology utilizes semiconductors and superconductors as a source of LMEs so no radioactive source is needed. The inductive energy magnifying factor is the same for semiconductors as for a superconductor, (Inductive Energy Magnification Factor) = 1/(electron mass)2. A high power-to-weight ratio similar to the 1920 boat demonstration is indicated for LME generators made with a semiconductor having a high Energy Magnification Factor. Such a generator could outcompete petroleum for all forms of transportation including propellor aircraft. A self-generator utilizing Lead Sulfide, with electron mass 0.16 times normal and a calculated inductive energy magnification factor of 39X, could theoretically power the world's one billion autos using less lead than is found in lead-acid batteries. Self-generators employing silicon might power all the world's homes and industries, and offer low-cost desalinization. A self-generator is relatively simple in design, but it requires special laboratory facilities to make polycrystalline coatings of desired semiconductors. that can conduct large currents of LMEs. Levitronics seeks both laboratories and capital to test a relatively simple self-sustaining generator powered by the common photoconductor, cadmium sulfide, which has a calculated inductive energy magnification factor of 37X. **References** 1.J. Larmor, On the Theory of the Magnetic Influence on Spectra; and on the Radiation from moving ions, Phil Mag. Phil. Mag. 63 , 503-578. 2. J. Bardeen, (1941), Theory of Superconductivity (abstract), Phys Rev. 59, 228. 3. J. File and R. Mills, (1963), Observations of a persistent supercurrent in a superconducting solenoid, Phys. Rev. Let., 10, 3; 1 Feb. 4. H. Helmholtz (1847) On the Conservation of Force (in German), G.A. Reiner, Berlin. English translation by Russell Kahl (1971), Wesleyan Univ. Press, Middletown, CT. 5. E. Leimer (1915), Uber Radiumantennen, ), Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, Heft 8, Feb. 25; English translation, (1916a) The Electrician, Apr. 21; (1916b) Scientific American Supplement No. 2127, Oct. 7. 6.Anon. (1919), Youthful Seattle inventor and his Invention (photos and captions), Seattle Post Intelligencer, Dec. 17. 7. Anon. (1919), Youth's revolutionary invention is backed by Professor; Hubbard's new energy no fake, says Seattle College man, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Dec. 17. 8. Anon. (1920) Hubbard coil runs boat on Portage Bay ten knots an hour, auto test next, Seattle Post Intelligencer, July 29. 9. Gaston Burridge, (1956), The Hubbard energy tansformer, Fate Magazine, July, 1956, pp.36-42. 10. Anon., Editorial: THE HUBBARD INVENTION, Seattle Post Intelligencer, July 30, 1920. 11. Anon., Fuelless Motor Shown; Gets Current From Air, The Detroit Free Press, Feb. 25, 1928. 12. H. C. White, Lindbergh Tries Motor Earth Runs, The Detroit Free Press, Jan. 25, 1928. --- [**https://books.google.com/books?id=7uu4BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Leimer+radium&source=bl&ots=ipXHkxlXb2&sig=KbIid9Og0YVgtIHH3NDb7WSN1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpPby\_m\_xwIVyaOICh2pyAiC#v=onepage&q=Leimer%20radium&f=false**](https://books.google.com/books?id=7uu4BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Leimer+radium&source=bl&ots=ipXHkxlXb2&sig=KbIid9Og0YVgtIHH3NDb7WSN1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpPby_m_xwIVyaOICh2pyAiC#v=onepage&q=Leimer%20radium&f=false) **Science Myths We Tell Ourselves** **by** **William Barbat** --- **US Patent Application # 2007/0007844** **Self-Sustaining Electric-Power Generator Utilizing Electrons of Low Inertial Mass to Magnify Inductive Energy** **William N. BARBAT** **Abstract** Electrical oscillations in a metallic "sending coil" radiate inductive photons toward one or more "energy-magnifying coils" comprised of a photoconductor or doped semiconductor coating a metallic conductor, or comprised of a superconductor. Electrons of low inertial mass in the energy-magnifying coil(s) receive from the sending coil a transverse force having no in-line backforce, which exempts this force from the energy-conservation rule. The low-mass electrons in the energy-magnifying coil(s) receive increased acceleration proportional to normal electron mass divided by the lesser mass. Secondarily radiated inductive-photon energy is magnified proportionally to the electrons' greater acceleration, squared. E.g., the inductive-energy-magnification factor of CdSe photoelectrons with 0.13.times. normal electron mass is 59.times.. Magnified inductive-photon energy from the energy-magnifying coil(s) induces oscillating electric energy in one or more metallic "output coil(s)." The electric energy output exceeds energy input if more of the magnified photon-induction energy is directed toward the output coil(s) than is directed as a counter force to the sending coil. After an external energy source initiates the oscillations, feedback from the generated surplus energy makes the device a self-sustaining generator of electric power for useful purposes. Correspondence: KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP; 121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OR 97204 Assignee: Levitronics, Inc. US Cl. 310/208 Intl. Cl. H02K 3/04 20060101 H02K003/04 ***Description*** **CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION** [0001] This application corresponds to, and claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119(e), of U.S. Provisional application No. 60/697,729, filed on Jul. 8, 2005, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. **FIELD** [0002] This disclosure introduces a technical field in which practical electrical energy is created in accordance with the overlooked exception to the energy-conservation rule that Herman von Helmholtz described in his 1847 doctrine on energy conservation: "If . . . bodies possess forces which depend upon time and velocity, or which act in directions other than lines which unite each pair of material points, . . . then combinations of such bodies are possible in which force may be either lost or gained ad infinitum." A transverse inductive force qualifies for Helmholtz's ad infinitum rule, but this force is not sufficient of itself to cause a greater energy output than input when applied to electrons of normal mass due to their unique charge-to-mass ratio. However, the increased acceleration of conduction electrons of less-than-normal inertial mass, as occurs in photoconductors, doped semiconductors, and superconductors, is proportional to the normal electron mass divided by the low electron mass, and the magnification of harnessable inductive energy is proportional to the greater relative acceleration, squared. **BACKGROUND** [0003] Magnetic force also satisfies Helmholtz's exemption to the energy-conservation rule because magnetic force is transverse to the force that causes it, and magnetic force is determined by the "relative velocity" (i.e., perpendicular to the connecting line) between electric charges. Magnification of magnetic force and energy was demonstrated by E. Leimer (1915) in the coil of a speaker phone and in the coil of a galvanometer when he irradiated a radio antenna-wire with radium. A 10-milligram, linear radium source produced a measured 2.6-fold increase in electrical current in the antenna-wire in comparing inaudible radio reception without radium to audible reception with radium. This represented a (2.6).sup.2=7.times. increase in electrical energy flowing through the respective wire coils. The possibility of this enhanced reception being attributed to a person's body holding the unit of radium to the wire was eliminated by Leimer's additional observation that, whenever the orientation of the small radium unit was changed to approximately 30 degrees relative to the wire, the energy enhancement ceased. [0004] Applicant has deduced that Leimer's energy magnification most likely was due to low-mass electrons that were liberated and made conductive in the antenna by alpha radiation, which allowed these special electrons to be given a greater-than-normal acceleration by the received radio-broadcast photons. Applicant has further deduced that such low-mass electrons must have originated in a thin-film coating of cupric oxide (CuO) on the antenna wire. CuO is a dull-black, polycrystalline, semiconducting compound that develops in situ on copper and bronze wire in the course of annealing the wire in the presence of air. Such CuO coatings have been observed by Applicant on historical laboratory wire at the Science Museum at Oxford University, U.K., and on copper house wire of that era in the U.S., indicating that CuO coatings were commonplace. In later years, annealing has taken place under conditions that prevent most oxidation. This is followed by acid treatment to remove any remaining oxides, leaving shiny wire. [0005] The same year that the English translation of Leimer's paper appeared in Scientific American, 16-year old Alfred M. Hubbard of Seattle, Wash., reportedly invented a fuelless generator, which he later admitted employed radium. Applicant interprets this as implying that Leimer's energy-magnification was utilized by Hubbard with feedback to make it self-sustaining. Three years later Hubbard publicly demonstrated a relatively advanced fuelless generator that illuminated a 20-watt incandescent bulb (Anon. 1919a). A reputable physics professor from Seattle College, who was intimately familiar with Hubbard's device (but not at liberty to disclose its construction details), vouched for the integrity of the fuelless generator and declared that it was not a storage device, but he did not know why it worked (Anon. 1919b). Because Hubbard initially had no financial means of his own, it is likely the professor had provided Hubbard with the use of the expensive radium initially and thereby witnessed the inventing process in his own laboratory. [0006] Newspaper photos (Anon. 1920a) of a more impressive demonstration of Hubbard's fuelless generator show a device described as 14 inches (36 cm) long and 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter connected by four heavy electrical cables to a 35-horsepower (26 kW) electric motor. The motor reportedly propelled an 18-foot open launch around a lake at a speed of 8 to 10 knots (Anon. 1920b). The event was witnessed by a cautious news reporter who claims to have checked thoroughly for any wires that might have been connected to hidden batteries by lifting the device and motor from the boat. Radioactive-decay energy can be eliminated as the main power source because about 10.sup.8 times more radium than the entire world's supply would have been needed to equal Hubbard's reported electric energy output of 330 amperes and 124 volts. [0007] Lester J. Hendershot of Pittsburgh, Pa., reportedly demonstrated a fuelless generator in 1928 that was claimed by Hubbard to be a copy of his own device (1928h). The president of Stout Air Services, William B. Stout, who also designed the Ford Trimotor airplane, reported (1928b): "The demonstration was very impressive. It was actually uncanny . . . . The small model appeared to operate exactly as Hendershot explained it did." Also reportedly attesting to the operability of Hendershot's fuelless generator were Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh and Major Thomas Lanphier of the U.S. Air Corps (1928a, et seq.), and Lanphier's troops reportedly assembled a working model of the device. [0008] To the Applicant's best knowledge, the only depiction that was made public of the interior components of any of these reported generators consists of a sketchy drawing (Bermann 1928h) of Hubbard's apparatus similar in size to the device shown in his 1919 demonstration. It depicts a complex set of parallel coils measuring 6 inches (15 cm) in length and 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) overall in diameter. Four leads of insulated wire with the insulation peeled back are shown coming out of the end of the device. What those four wires were connected to internally was not shown. Hubbard's description of the internal arrangement of coils in the device generally matches the drawing (Anon. 1920a): "It is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets, each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire, which are arranged around a large steel core. The core likewise has a single winding. About the entire group of cells is a secondary winding." Nothing was reported or depicted about how components functioned with each other, or how much radium was used and where the radium was positioned. The only connectors visible on the drawing were between the outer windings of the eight electromagnet coils. Theses connectors show that the direction of the windings alternated between clockwise and counterclockwise on adjacent coils, so that the polarity of each electromagnet would have been opposite to that of its adjacent neighbors. [0009] If the Hubbard and Hendershot devices actually operated as reported, they apparently never attained acceptance or commercial success. Assuming the devices actually worked, their lack of success may have largely been financially based or supply-based, or both, compounded with skepticism from believers in the universal energy-conservation doctrine. How much radium was employed by Hubbard in his larger generator can only be guessed at, but assuming a typical laboratory radium needle containing 10 milligrams of radium was used, this amount would have cost $900 in 1920, dropping to $500 in 1929. That much radium in a fuelless generator would have cost as much as an inexpensive automobile in the 1920s. Possibly much more radium was used than 10 milligrams. [0010] In 1922, when the Radium Company of America of Pittsburgh, Pa., reportedly discontinued its work with Hubbard on his invention (1928h), the entire world's supply of radium was only about 250 grams. With the extreme assumption that only 1 milligram of radium was needed per generator, less than 10 percent of a single year's production of autos in the U.S. in the mid-1920s could have been supplied with such generators. Apparently Hendershot had tried to revive the technology by showing that the fuelless generator could extend the range of air flight indefinitely, but his technology never attracted a sponsor from any private, public or philanthropic entity. [0011] U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,433 to Brown superficially resembles the drawing of Hubbard's device. Brown's device appears to have the same number and essentially the same general arrangement of wire coils as Hubbard's generator, as nearly as can be understood from the newspaper articles depicting that device. Apparently no information concerning either the Hubbard or Hendershot devices was considered during prosecution of the '433 patent. Brown discusses the conversion of energy of radioactive decay products, principally alpha emissions, to electrical energy by amplifying electrical oscillations in a high-Q L-C circuit irradiated by radioactive materials. "During the absorption process, each alpha particle will collide with one or more atoms in the conductor knocking electrons from their orbits and imparting some kinetic energy to the electrons in the conductor thereby increasing its conductivity." (Col. 3, line 68 to col. 4, line 5.) No claim was made by Brown that the device employed a semiconductor or photoconductor that could have provided low-mass electrons for energy magnification. [0012] Brown claimed an output of 23 amps at 400 volts, which is vastly greater than all the decay-energy represented by his reported radioactive content of 1 milligram of radium that was surrounded by weakly radioactive uranium rods and thorium powder. Powdered thorium is highly pyrophoric, so it is typically sealed in a nitrogen atmosphere to prevent spontaneous combustion. In his device Brown reportedly confined the thorium in cardboard without any mention of sealing out air. This condition would have invited a meltdown that could have been misinterpreted as massive out-of-control electrical production. [0013] To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, and as noted, none of the devices summarized above ever was commercially accepted or exploited for any of various possible reasons. To the Applicant's best knowledge, no person other than the Applicant has ever indicated that the presence of cupric oxide on their wires could have provided energy magnification. If Hubbard's device actually did work, certain characteristics of its design are unexplainable by the Applicant, namely the use of four rather than two large electrical cables to connect his device to an electric motor, and the use of alternating polarity instead of single-direction polarity in the orientation of the multiple coils surrounding a central coil. Applicant therefore believes that the specification herein sets forth original configurations of electrical-energy generators that have no known precedent. **SUMMARY** [0014] To address the needs for electrical generators that are capable of self-generating substantial amounts of electrical power in various environments, and that are portable as well as stationary, apparatus and methods are provided for magnifying an electrical input, and (with feedback) for generating usable electrical power indefinitely without fuel or other external energy source except for starting. The apparatus utilize electrons of low effective mass, which receive greater acceleration than normal electrons in an amount that is inversely proportional to the effective mass. Applicant has determined that effective mass is the same as the electron's true inertial mass. The photon energy that is radiated when an electron is accelerated is proportional the square of the acceleration, so the increase in radiated photon energy from an accelerated low-mass electron over the energy from a normal electron is equal to the inverse square of the effective mass. E.g., the calculated energy magnification provided by photoconducting electrons in cadmium selenide, with an electron effective mass of 0.13, is 59.times.. The use of a transverse force, that lacks a direct back-force, to accelerate low-mass electrons in an oscillating manner circumvents any equal-and-opposite force that would invoke the application of the energy-conservation law of kinetics and thermodynamics. [0015] The various embodiments of the apparatus, which are configured either to magnify continuously an input of oscillating electric energy, or to serve as a self-sustaining electric generator, employ three principal components: at least one sending coil; at least one energy-magnifying coil comprising a material that produces, in a "condition," low-mass electrons; and at least one output coil. The apparatus desirably also includes means for establishing the condition with respect to the energy-magnifying coil(s). Except where otherwise indicated in the remainder of this text, where the number of coils of a particular type is referred to in the singular, it will be understood that a plurality of coils of the respective type alternatively can be utilized. [0016] Electrical oscillation in the sending coil, which is comprised of a metallic conductor, causes radiation of inductive photons from the sending coil. The energy-magnifying coil is situated relative to the sending coil to receive inductive photons from the sending coil. The inductive photons radiating from electrical oscillations in the sending coil convey a transverse force to the low-mass electrons in the energy-magnifying coil with no direct back-force on the sending coil. The greater-than-normal accelerations that are produced in the low-mass electrons of the energy-magnifying coil produce greater irradiation energy of inductive photons than normal. [0017] The output coil is situated to receive the magnified inductive-photon energy from the energy-magnifying coil. The inductive-photon energy received by the output coil, which is comprised of a metallic conductor, is converted into an oscillating electrical current of normal electrons. In order for the electrical output to exceed the electrical input, the output coil is situated in such a manner that it receives more of the magnified inductive-photon energy than that which is directed back against the sending coil to act as a back-force. This "energy leverage" causes the electrical energy output to exceed the input. [0018] By way of example, the energy-magnifying coil can comprise a superconducting material, wherein the "condition" is a temperature (e.g., a cryogenic temperature) at which the superconducting material exhibits superconducting behavior characterized by production of low-mass electrons. By way of another example, the energy-magnifying coil can comprise a photoconductive material, wherein the "condition" is a situation in which the photoconductive material is illuminated by a wavelength of photon radiation sufficient to cause the photoconductive material of the energy-magnifying coil to produce conduction electrons having low effective mass. In this latter example, the means for establishing the condition can comprise a photoconduction exciter (e.g., one or more LEDs) situated and configured to illuminate the photoconductive material of the energy-magnifying coil with the wavelength of photon radiation. By way of yet another example, the "condition" is the presence of a particular dopant in a semiconductor that provides a low-mass electron as a charge carrier. Also by way of example, the energy-magnifying coil can comprise a semiconductive element or compound that has been doped with a particular element or compound that makes it conductive of low-mass electrons without illumination by photon radiation other than by ambient photons. [0019] Various apparatus embodiments comprise different respective numbers and arrangements of the principal components. The various embodiments additionally can comprise one or more of circuitry, energizers, shielding, and other components to fulfill the object of providing a self-sustaining source of electrical power for useful purposes. [0020] Also provided are methods for generating an electrical current. In an embodiment of such a method a first coil is energized with an electrical oscillation sufficient to cause the first coil to radiate inductive photons. At least some of the radiated inductive photons from the first coil, called a sending coil, are received by a second coil, called the energy-magnifying coil, comprising a material that produces low-mass electrons. The received inductive photons impart respective transverse forces to the low-mass electrons that cause the low-mass electrons to experience accelerations in the material that are greater than accelerations that otherwise would be experienced by normal free electrons experiencing the transverse forces. Conduction of the accelerated low-mass electrons in the second coil causes the second coil to produce a magnified inductive force. The magnified inductive force is received by a third coil so as to cause the third coil to produce an oscillating electrical output of normal conduction electrons that has greater energy than the initial oscillation. A portion of the oscillating electrical output is directed as feed-back from the third coil to the sending coil so as to provide the electrical oscillation to the sending coil. This portion of the oscillating electrical current directed to the sending coil desirably is sufficient to cause self-sustaining generation of inductive photons by the first coil without an external energy source. The surplus oscillating electrical output from the third coil can be directed to a work loop. [0021] The method further can comprise the step of starting the energization of the first coil to commence generation of the oscillating electrical output. This "starting" step can comprise momentarily exposing the first coil to an external oscillating inductive force or to an external magnetic force that initiates an electrical pulse, for example. [0022] The foregoing and additional features and advantages of the invention will be more readily apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings. **BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS** [0023] **FIG. 1(A)** is a perspective view schematically depicting a sending coil in relationship to an energy-magnifying coil such that inductive photons from the sending coil propagate to the energy-magnifying coil. ![](fig1a.jpg) [0024] **FIG. 1(B)** is a schematic end view of the sending coil and energy-magnifying coil of FIG. 1(A), further depicting radiation of inductive photons from the sending coil and respective directions of electron flow in the coils. ![](fig1b.jpg) [0025] **FIG. 1(C)** is a schematic end view of the sending coil and energy-magnifying coil of FIG. 1(A), further depicting the production of inwardly radiating and outwardly radiating magnified inductive photons from the energy-magnifying coil. ![](fig1c.jpg) [0026] **FIG. 2(A)** is a perspective view schematically showing an internal output coil coaxially nested inside the energy-magnifying coil to allow efficient induction of the internal output coil by the energy-magnifying coil, wherein the induction current established in the internal output coil is used to power a load connected across the internal output coil. ![](fig2a.jpg) [0027] **FIG. 2(B)** is a schematic end view of the coils shown in FIG. 2(A), further depicting the greater amount of magnified inductive-photon radiation that is received by the external output coil in comparison to the lesser amount that is directed toward the sending coil to act as a back-force. ![](fig2b.jpg) [0028] **FIG. 3** is an electrical schematic diagram of a representative embodiment of a generating apparatus. ![](fig3.jpg) [0029] **FIG. 4** is a schematic end view of a representative embodiment comprising a centrally disposed sending coil surrounded by six energy-magnifying coils each having an axis that is substantially parallel to the axis of the sending coil. A respective internal output coil is coaxially nested inside each energy-magnifying coil, and the energy-magnifying coils are arranged so as to capture substantially all the inductive photons radiating from the sending coil. ![](fig4.jpg) [0030] **FIG. 5** is a schematic end view of the embodiment of FIG. 4, further including an external output coil situated coaxially with the sending coil and configured to surround all six energy-magnifying coils so as to capture outwardly radiating inductive photons from the energy-magnifying coils. Also depicted is the greater amount of magnified inductive-photon radiation that is received by the internal output coils and the external output coil in comparison to the lesser amount of inductive-photon radiation that is directed toward the sending coil to act as a back-force. Also shown are the arrays of LEDs used for exciting the energy-magnifying coils to become photoconductive. ![](fig5.jpg) [0031] **FIG. 6** is a perspective view of the embodiment of FIGS. 4 and 5, but further depicting respective intercoil connectors for the energy-magnifying and internal output coils, as well as respective leads for the sending coil, internal output coils, and external output coil. ![](fig6.jpg) [0032] **FIG. 7** is a schematic head-end view schematically depicting exemplary current-flow directions in the sending coil, energy-magnifying coils, internal output coils, and external output coils, as well as in the various intercoil connectors, of the embodiment of FIG. 4. ![](fig7.jpg) [0033] **FIG. 8** is a schematic end view showing an embodiment of the manner in which intercoil connections can be made between adjacent energy-magnifying coils. ![](fig8.jpg) [0034] **FIG. 9(A)** is a schematic end view depicting the coil configuration of an embodiment in which a sending coil and an internal output coil are nested inside an energy-magnifying coil, which is in turn nested inside an exterior output coil. A metallic separator, having a substantially parabolic shape and being situated between the sending coil and the internal output coil, reflects some of the otherwise unused inductive-photon radiation to maximize the effective radiation received by the energy-magnifying coil. Also, the metallic shield prevents the internal output coil from receiving radiation sent from the sending coil. ![](fig9a.jpg) [0035] **FIG. 9(B)** is a schematic end view of the coil configuration of FIG. 9(A), further depicting the metallic separator acting as a shield to restrict the back-force radiation reaching the sending coil while allowing the internal output coil to receive a substantial portion of the magnified radiation from the energy-magnifying coil. Also depicted is the greater amount of magnified inductive-photon radiation that is received by the internal output coil and the external output coil in comparison to the lesser amount that is received by the sending coil to act as a back-force. ![](fig9b.jpg) [0036] **FIG. 10(A)** is a schematic end view depicting the coil configuration of yet another embodiment that is similar in some respects to the embodiment of FIG. 4, but also including respective ferromagnetic cores inside the sending coil and internal output coils. Also depicted is a metallic shield surrounding the entire apparatus. ![](fig10ab.jpg) [0037] **FIG. 10(B)** is a schematic end view of a sending coil of yet another embodiment in which a ferromagnetic sleeve is disposed coaxially around the sending coil. **DETAILED DESCRIPTION** ***General Technical Considerations*** [0038] An understanding of how infinite energy mistakenly came to be rejected by the scientific community clarifies the basis of this invention. The electrodynamic function described in the embodiments described later below conforms to Helmholtz's alternate energy rule, which states that a force that is not in-line with its causative force "may be either lost or gained ad infinitum." This rule was included in "Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft" ("On the Conservation of Force") that Hermann Helmholtz delivered to the Physical Society of Berlin in 1847. But, Helmholtz mistakenly believed that "all actions in nature are reducible to forces of attraction and repulsion, the intensity of forces depending solely upon the distances between points involved . . . [so i]t is impossible to obtain an unlimited amount of force capable of doing work as the result of any combination whatsoever of natural objects." [0039] Helmholtz refused to accept the idea that magnetic energy qualifies for ad infinitum status despite the fact that Ampere's (1820) magnetic force on parallel straight conductors is obviously transverse to the direction of the electric currents rather than being in-line with the currents. He omitted mention that the magnetic force in Ampere's (1825) important invention, the solenoidal electromagnet, is caused by currents in the loops of his coils, which are transverse to the direction of magnetic force. Also, he failed to mention that Ampere considered the magnetic force of a permanent magnet to be caused by minute transverse circular currents, which are now recognized as electrons that spin and orbit transversely. [0040] Helmholtz, who was educated as a military medical doctor without any formal study of physics, relied instead on an obsolete metaphysical explanation of magnetic force: "Magnetic attraction may be deduced completely from the assumption of two fluids which attract or repel in the inverse ratio of the square of their distance . . . . It is known that the external effects of a magnet can always be represented by a certain distribution of the magnetic fluids on its surface." Without departing from this belief in magnetic fluids, Helmholtz cited Wilhelm Weber's (1846) similarly wrong interpretation that magnetic and inductive forces are directed in the same line as that between the moving electric charges that cause the forces. [0041] Weber had thought that he could unify Coulombic, magnetic, and inductive forces in a single, simple equation, but Weber's flawed magnetic-force term leads to the absurd conclusion that a steady current in a straight wire induces a steady electric current in a parallel wire. Also, a changing current does not induce an electromotive force in-line with the current, as Weber's equation showed. The induced force is offset instead, which becomes more apparent the further that two nested, coaxial coils are separated. What appears to be a directly opposing backforce is actually a reciprocal inductive force. [0042] Helmholtz's assertion that the total sum of the energy in the universe is a fixed amount that is immutable in quantity from eternity to eternity appealed to his young friends. But, the elder scientists of the Physical Society of Berlin declared his paper to be "fantastical speculation" and a "hazardous leap into very speculative metaphysics," so it was rejected for publication in Annalen der Physik. Rather than accept this rejection constructively, Helmholtz found a printer willing to help him self-publish his work. Helmholtz headed the publication with a statement that his paper had been read before the Society, but he disingenuously withheld mention of its outright rejection. Unwary readers have since received the wrong impression that his universal energy-conservation rule had received the Society's endorsement rather than its censure. [0043] Helmholtz (1862, 1863) publicized his concept thusly: "[W]e have been led up to a universal natural law, which . . . expresses a perfectly general and particularly characteristic property of all natural forces, and which . . . is to be placed by the side of the laws of the unalterability of mass and the unalterability of the chemical elements." Helmholtz (1881) declared that any force that did not conserve energy would be "in contradiction to Newton's axiom, which established the equality of action and reaction for all natural forces" [sic]. With this deceitful misrepresentation of Newton's strictly mechanical principle, Helmholtz had craftily succeeded in commuting the profound respect for Newton's laws to his unscientific doctrine. Subsequently, the Grand Cross was conferred on Helmholtz by the kings of Sweden and Italy and the President of the French Republic, and he was welcomed by the German Emperor into nobility with the title of "von" added to his name. These prestigious awards made his doctrine virtually unassailable in the scientific community. [0044] Ampere's principle of transverse magnetic attraction and repulsion between electric currents had been made into an equation for the magnetic force between moving electric charges by Carl Frederick Gauss (written in 1835, published posthumously in 1865). The critical part of Gauss's equation shows, and modem physics texts agree, that magnetic force is transverse to the force that imparts a relative velocity (i.e., perpendicular to a connecting line) between charges. Lacking a direct backforce, a transverse magnetic force can produce a greater force than the force that causes it. [0045] The only physicist to recognize in print the profound significance of Gauss's work was James Clerk Maxwell (1873), who stated, "[If Gauss's formula is correct,] energy might be generated indefinitely in a finite system by physical means." Prepossessed with Helmholtz's "law," Maxwell chose not to believe Gauss's transverse magnetic-force equation and accepted Wilhelm Weber's (1846) erroneous in-line formula instead. Maxwell even admitted knowing of Gauss's (1845) rebuke of Weber for his mistaken direction of magnetic force as "a complete overthrow of Ampere's fundamental formula and the adoption of essentially a different one." [0046] In 1893 the critical part of Ampere's formula for magnetic force, which Weber and Maxwell rejected, and which Helmholtz had replaced with his contrary metaphysical explanation, was proposed for the basis for the international measure of electric current, the Ampere (or amp), to be defined in terms of the transverse magnetic force that the current produces. But Helmholtz's doctrine had become so impervious to facts that anyone who challenged this "law" faced defamation and ridicule. [0047] The first recognition of unlimited energy came from Sir Joseph Larmor who reported in 1897, "[A] single ion e, describing an elliptic orbit under an attraction to a fixed center . . . must rapidly lose its energy by radiation . . . [but] in the cases of steady motion it is just this amount that is needed to maintain the permanency of motion in the aether." Apparently to mollify critics of his heretical concept, Larmor offered a half-hearted recantation in 1900: "[T]he energy of orbital groups . . . would be through time sensibly dissipated by radiation, so that such groups could not be permanent." [0048] In 1911 Rutherford found that an atom resembles a small solar system with negative ions moving like planets around a small, positively charged nucleus. These endlessly orbiting electrons were a source of the perpetual radiation that had been aptly described by Larmor, and these orbiting electrons were also Planck's (1911) "harmonic oscillators" that he used to explain Zero-Point Energy (ZPE). ZPE was shown by the fact that helium remains liquid under atmospheric pressure at absolute zero, so that helium must be pressurized to become solid at that temperature. Planck believed that harmonic oscillators derived "dark energy" from the aether to sustain their oscillations, thereby admitting that an infinite source of energy exists. However, he assigned an occult origin to this infinite energy rather than a conventional source that had not met with Helmholtz's approval. [0049] Niels Bohr (1924) was bothered by the notion that radiation from an orbiting electron would quickly drain its energy so that the electron should spiral into the nucleus. Whittaker (1951) states, "[Bohr and associates] abandoned the principle . . . that an atom which is emitting or absorbing radiation must be losing or gaining energy. In its place they introduced the notion of virtual radiation, which was propagated in . . . waves but which does not transmit energy or momentum." Subsequently the entire scientific community dismissed Larmor radiation as a source of real energy because it failed to conform to Helmholtz's universally accepted doctrine. [0050] Helmholtz's constraining idea that the vast amount of light and heat radiating from the many billions of stars in the universe can only come from previously stored energy has led scientists to concur that fusion of pre-existing hydrogen to helium supplies nearly all the energy that causes light and heat to radiate from the sun and other stars. If so, then the entire universe will become completely dark after the present hydrogen supply in stars is consumed in about 20 billion years. William A. Fowler (1965) believed that essentially all the hydrogen in the universe "emerged from the first few minutes of the early high temperature, high density stage of the expanding Universe, the so-called `big bang`. . . ." Moreover, the background energy of the universe was thought by some to be "relic" radiation from the "Big Bang." [0051] To accept the Big Bang idea that all the stars in the universe originated at the same time, it was necessary to disregard the fact that most stars are much younger or older than the supposed age of the one-time event, which indicates that their energy must have come from a recurring source. The Big Bang is entirely dependent on the idea that the whole universe is expanding, which stemmed from the interpretation that Hubble's red-shift with distance from the light source represents a Doppler shift of receding stars and galaxies. This expanding-universe interpretation was shattered by William G. Tifft (1976, 1977), who found that observed red-shifts are not spread randomly and smoothly over a range of values, as would be expected from the Doppler shifts of a vast number of receding stars and galaxies. Instead, the observed red-shifts all fall on evenly spaced, quantized values. [0052] Moreover, Shpenkov and Kreidik (2002) determined that the radiation temperature corresponding to the fundamental period of the orbital electron motion in the hydrogen atom of 2.7289.degree. K. matches the measured temperature of cosmic background radiation of 2.725.degree..+-.0.002.degree. K. This represents perpetual zero-level Larmor radiation from interstellar hydrogen atoms dispersed in the universe. So, Helmholtz's idea that "the energy in the universe is a fixed amount immutable in quantity from eternity to eternity" does not stand up to known facts. [0053] The large aggregate quantity of heat-photons that are generated continually by Larmor radiation can account for the illumination of stars and for the enormous heat and pressure in active galactic centers. Based on the fact that photons exhibit momentum, photons must possess mass because, as Newton explained, momentum is mass times velocity, which in this case is "c". Consequently the creation of photons by induction or by Larmor radiation also creates new mass. The conditions that Fowler was seeking for hydrogen nucleosynthesis are apparently being supplied indefinitely in active galaxies and possibly in the sun and other stars above a certain size. This invention utilizes a similar unlimited energy source. [0054] Another principle that is important to this specification is that the transfer of energy by electrical induction was found by the Applicant to work in the same manner as the transfer of energy by the broadcast and reception of oscillating radio signals. A transverse force is communicated in both cases, the force declines similarly with distance, and the effects of shielding and reflection are identical. Since radio signals are communicated by photons, Applicant considers that inductive force is also communicated by photons. The radiation of newly formed inductive photons results when an accelerated charge experiences a change in direction of acceleration. Inductive radiation occurs when the acceleration of electric charges is reversed, as in Rontgen's bremsstrahlung, in Hertz's linear oscillator (plus all other radio-broadcasting antennas), and in all coils that carry an alternating current. [0055] In a similar case, when electric charges move in a curving motion due to a continually changing centripetal acceleration, inductive photons are steadily radiated. This includes the radiation from electrons orbiting atomic nuclei (Larmor radiation) and from conduction electrons flowing in a wire coil, whether the current is steady or not. Circularly produced inductive photons induce a circular motion (diamagnetism) in mobile electrons located near the axis of the electron's circular movement. [0056] In both the reverse-acceleration and centripetal-acceleration cases, inductive photons convey a force to mobile electrons that is transverse to the photon's propagation path. As Lapp and Andrews (1954) reported, "Low-energy photons produce photoelectrons at right angles to their path . . . ." This same right-angle force without a direct backforce applies to all conduction electrons that are accelerated by low-energy photons as well. Hence, inductive energy qualifies for exemption from the energy-conservation law by Helmholtz's same ad infinitum principle that exempts magnetic energy. [0057] The transverse force that inductively produced photons deliver to mobile electrons is opposite in direction to the simultaneous movement of the primary charge that produces the radiation. This is shown by Faraday's induced current opposite to the inducing current and by the diamagnetically induced circular motion that is opposite in a rotational sense to the circular electron motion in the coil producing it. An oscillating flow of electrons within a loop of a wire coil induces a force in the opposite direction on the conduction electrons in adjacent loops of the same wire, resulting in self-induction. [0058] Important to this specification is the realization that the energy transmitted by photons is kinetic rather than electromagnetic. Inductively radiated photons of low energy, and light rays, and X-rays cannot be deflected by an electric or magnetic field due to the photons' neutral charge. Neither do neutral photons carry with them an electric or magnetic field. Photon radiation is produced by a change in the acceleration of an electric charge, so it has an electrokinetic origin that involves a magnetic force only in special cases. To honor these facts, Applicant uses the term "electrokinetic" spectrum in place of "electromagnetic" spectrum. [0059] Another principle that is important to this specification is the realization that, although the charge on the electron has a constant value under all conditions, the mass of an electron is not a fixed, unchanging amount. All free electrons, as in cathode rays, have exactly the same amount of mass at subrelativistic velocities, which is called "normal" mass and is denoted by m.sub.e. Free electrons have a unique charge-to-mass ratio that makes the magnetic force resulting from a sub-relativistic velocity imparted to such an electron exactly equal to the force that imparts the velocity, so magnetic energy output is always equal to the energy input with "normal" electrons. [0060] Also, when a normal electron is given a subrelativistic acceleration, the inductive force it produces is equal to the force it receives. The mass of highly conductive electrons of metals is apparently very close to normal, but any very slight inductive-energy gains would be masked by inefficiencies. The ubiquity of free electrons and the conduction electrons of metals has led to the view that electron mass is a never-varying figure that would allow the energy-conservation law to apply to magnetic energy and inductive energy. [0061] Accurate determinations of electron mass in solid materials have been made possible by cyclotron resonance, which is also called diamagnetic resonance. The diamagnetic force produced by the flow of electrons steadily in a wire coil induces the mobile electrons of a semiconductor to move in a circular orbit of indefinite radius but at a definite angular frequency. This frequency is related only to the inductive force and the electron's mass. At the same time, a repulsive magnetic force is developed by the relative velocity between the electron flow in the coil and the conduction electrons, causing the mobile electrons of the semiconductor to move in a helical path away from the coil rather than in planar circles. Only two measurements are needed to determine the mass of such an electron, the cyclotron frequency that resonates with the frequency of the electron's circular motion and the strength of the inductive force, which is determined by the current and dimensions of the coil. Since the co-produced magnetic field is related to the same parameters, its measurement serves as a surrogate for inductive force. [0062] Because the measured mass of conduction electrons in semiconductors is less than normal, a complicated explanation has been adopted to defend the constancy of electron mass in order to support Helmholtz's energy doctrine. An extra force is supposedly received from the vibrational lattice-wave energy of the crystal (in what would have to be an act of self-refrigeration) to make normal-mass electrons move faster than expected around a circular path, thereby giving the appearance that the electron has less mass than normal. In this explanation the electron is considered to be a smeared-out wave rather than a particle, which is contradicted by the billiard-ball-like recoil of an electron when it is bumped by a quantum of radiation, as described by Arthur Compton and Samuel Allison (1935). [0063] The fallacy that borrowed energy can provide a boost in velocity to an electron is more apparent in the case of linear motion. The effective-mass theory considers that the greater linear velocity is caused by a boost given to normal-mass electrons by a "longitudinal wave" in the same direction as the electron motion that is imparted by an externally applied force. Since this longitudinal wave also is considered to have a source in crystal-lattice vibrations, the effective-mass theory relies upon a reversal of entropy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [0064] No reasonable contribution of direction directional energy can be invoked from any source to impart abnormally great velocity to the conduction electrons in semiconductors. So, the operation of apparatus embodiments described herein relies upon electrons having particle properties and upon electrons having less-than-normal inertial mass without invoking any special forces. This is supported by Brennan's (1999) statement that "the complicated problem of an electron moving within a crystal under the interaction of a periodic but complicated potential can be reduced to that of a simple free particle but with a modified mass." The term "effective mass" (denoted by m\*) was bestowed on sub-normal electron mass to indicate that it is not considered to be true mass. The term "effective" is herein considered redundant in referring to truly inertial mass, but "effective mass" still has relevance in referring to the net movement of orbital vacancies or "holes" in the opposite direction of low-mass electrons. [0065] By F=ma, a low-mass electron receives greater acceleration and greater velocity from a given force than an electron of normal mass. The velocity and kinetic energy imparted by a force to an electrically charged body are determined by the inertial mass of the body without regard to the charge. In contrast, the magnetic force and magnetic energy produced transversely from the velocity are determined by the electric charge without regard to the body's mass. A smaller amount of mass allows a body to attain greater velocity with a given force. Hence, the magnetic force produced by the charge at this higher velocity will be greater than it would normally be for that same amount of force. This allows low-mass electrons to produce a magnetic force that is greater than the applied force. [0066] Also, the amount of inductive radiation energy from accelerated electrons is related to an electron's charge without regard to its mass. The energy of inductive radiation increases with the square of the electron's acceleration according to Larmor's (1900) equation, while the acceleration is inversely proportional to the lesser electron mass relative to normal electron mass. Therefore, the greater-than-normal acceleration of low-mass electrons allows the re-radiation of magnified inductive-photon energy at a magnification factor that is proportional to the inverse square of the electron's mass. E.g., the inductive-energy magnification factor of cadmium selenide photoelectrons with 0.13 times normal electron mass is (0.13).sup.2=59.times.. [0067] Electrons appear to acquire or shed mass from photons in order to fit the constraints of particular orbits around nuclei, because each orbit dictates a very specific electron mass. In metals where the conduction electrons seem to move as a gas, one might think that they would assume the normal mass of free electrons. But, the largest mean free path of electrons in the most conductive metals is reportedly about 100 atomic spacings between collisions (Pops, 1997), so the conduction electrons apparently fall back into orbit from time to time and thereby regain their metal-specific mass values. [0068] As conduction electrons pass from one metal type to another, they either lose or gain heat-photons to adjust their mass to different orbital constraints. In a circuit comprising two different metallic conductors placed in series contact with each other, the flow of conduction electrons in one direction will cause the emission of heat-photons at the junction, while an electron flow in the reverse direction causes cooling as the result of ambient heat-photons being absorbed by the conduction electrons at the junction (Peltier cooling effect). When a metal is joined with a semiconductor whose conductive electrons have much lower mass than in metals, much greater heating or cooling occurs at their junction. [0069] John Bardeen (1941) reported that the (effective) mass of superconducting electrons in low-temperature superconductors is only 10.sup.-4 as great as the mass of normal electrons. This is demonstrated when superconducting electrons are accelerated to a much faster circular velocity than normal in diamagnetically induced eddy currents, which results in enormous magnetic forces that are capable of levitating heavy magnetic objects. Electrons with 10.sup.-4 times normal mass are apparently devoid of (or nearly devoid of) included photon mass, so normal electrons are deduced to possess about 10.sup.4 times more included photon mass than the bare electron's own mass. [0070] The means by which photon mass may be incorporated within, or ejected from, electrons can be deduced from known information. Based on the Thomson scattering cross-section, the classical radius of a normal electron is 2.8.times.10.sup.-15 cm. If the electron has uniform charge throughout a sphere of that radius, the peripheral velocity would greatly exceed the velocity of light in order to provide the observed magnetic moment. Dehmelt (1989) determined that the radius of the spinning charge that creates an electron's magnetism is approximately 10.sup.-20 cm. This apparent incongruity can be explained if the electron is considered to be a hollow shell (which is commensurate with the bare electron's tiny mass in comparison to the very large radius) and if the negative charge of the shell is not the source of the magnetic moment. [0071] It has long been known that a photon can be split into a negative ion (electron) and a positive ion (positron), each having the same amount of charge but of opposite sign. Electrons and positrons can recombine into electrically neutral photons, so it is apparent that photons are composed of a positive and a negative ion. Two ions spinning around each other could produce the photon's wave nature. The only size of photon ion that can exist as a separate entity has a charge of exactly plus one or minus one, whereas the ions can have very much larger or very much smaller charge and mass when combined in photons, as long as the two ions are equal in charge and mass. Combined in a photon, the two ions are apparently attracted together so strongly that their individual volumes are very much smaller than as separate entities. [0072] When a dipole photon enters an electron shell, its negative-ion portion is expected to be forced toward the shell's center by Coulombic repulsion, while the photon's positive ion would be attracted by the negative charge of the shell equally in all directions. The negative photon ions would likely merge into a single body at the electron's center while the positive-ion portion would orbit around the centralized negative ion to retain the photon's angular momentum. The high peripheral velocity of this orbiting photon mass would enable portions of photon material to spin off and exit the electron shell at the same velocity that they entered the electron, i.e., the speed of light. The orbiting of the positive photon charge at Dehmelt's small radius most likely accounts for the magnetic moment that is observed in electrons of normal mass. [0073] Liberated low-mass conduction electrons within intrinsic semiconductors (which are also photoconductors by their nature) and within doped semiconductors are mostly protected against acquiring mass from ambient-heat photons by the heat-insulative properties of the semiconductors. In contrast, low-mass electrons injected into heat-conducting metals rapidly acquire mass from ambient-heat photons. Superconducting low-mass electrons of extremely low mass are protected against acquiring mass from ambient-heat photons by the existence of cryogenic conditions, but they are vulnerable to internal heat-photons created by excessive induction. [0074] Conduction electrons of metals typically move as a group at drift velocities of less than one millimeter per second, although the velocity of the electrical effects approaches the velocity of light. (Photons are probably involved in the movement of electrical energy in metallic conductors.) In contrast, conductive low-mass electrons can move individually at great velocities in superconductors and semiconductors. Brennan (1999, p. 631) reports the drift velocity of a particular electron moving in a semiconductor to be one micrometer in about 10 picoseconds, which is equivalent to 100 kilometers per second. [0075] The concentration of the conduction electrons in metals is the same as the number of atoms, whereas in semiconductors the mobile low-mass electrons that are free to move can vary greatly with the amount of certain photon radiation received. Since the magnitude of an electric current is a summation of the number of electrons involved times their respective drift velocities, the current developed by a small ensemble of photoconducting electrons moving at high speed can exceed the current of a much greater number of conduction electrons moving at a very low speed in a metal. [0076] A general feature of intrinsic semiconductors is that they become photoconductive in proportion to the amount of bombardment by some particular electron-liberating frequency (or band of frequencies) of photon energy up to some limit. The amount of bombardment by the particular wavelength (or, equivalently, the frequency) increases along with all other photon wavelengths as the ambient temperature rises, that is, as the area increases under Planck's black-body radiation curve. Consequently, the conductivity of semiconductors continues to increase with temperature, while the conductivity drops almost to zero at low temperature unless superconductivity occurs. [0077] A single high-energy alpha particle can liberate a great number of low-mass electrons in a thin-film semiconductor, as Leimer's (1915) energy-magnifying experiment appears to show. Leimer's alpha radiation was situated near the distant end of a suspended antenna wire of unreported length when he experienced the maximum magnetic energy increase in the coil of the ammeter in the receiver. The low-mass electrons had to have traveled the entire length of the suspended antenna wire and the connecting line to his receiving apparatus without encountering any trapping holes. Assuming these electrons traversed a distance of 1 to 10 meters in less than one-half cycle of the radio frequency (that is, less than 4 microseconds at 128 kHz) at which time the low-mass electrons' direction would have been reversed this would be equivalent to velocities of 25 to 250 km/sec. [0078] A great number of superconducting electrons can be set in motion by inductive photon radiation. In contrast, inductive photon radiation can pass mostly through photoconductors that have low concentrations of mobile, low-mass electrons. Applicant's interpretation of Leimer's experiment is that the liberated low-mass electrons of the semiconductor-coating of the antenna wire were not directly accelerated by the inductive photons of the radio signal, but rather were accelerated to high velocities by an oscillating electric field created in the metallic wire by the radio photons. [0079] A review of an experiment performed by File and Mills (1963) shows that the very low mass of superconducting electrons is responsible for causing supercurrents to differ from normal electric currents. A superconducting solenoidal coil (comprising a Nb-25% Zr alloy wire below 4.3.degree. K.) with the terminals spot-welded together to make a continuous conductor, was employed. Extremely slow declines of induced supercurrents were observed, which can be attributed to an enormous increase in the coil's self-induction. Because a supercurrent approaches its maximum charge asymptotically when charging up, or approaches zero current asymptotically when discharging, a convenient measure of the coil's charging or discharging rate is the "time-constant." The time-constant has the same value for both charging and discharging, and it is defined as (a) the time needed for charging the coil to 63% of the maximum amount of current inducible in the coil by a given diamagnetic force, or (b) the time needed to discharge 63% of the coil's induced current. [0080] In normal conductors, the inductive time-constant is calculated by the inductance of the coil divided by the resistance of the coil. By use of an empirical equation, the inductance of the coil in its non-superconducting state is calculated to be 0.34 Henry based on a double-layered solenoid of 384 turns that measured 4 inches (10 cm) diameter and 10 inches (25 cm) long. The resistance of the 0.020-inch diameter (0.51 mm) wire at T=5.degree. K. (just above T.sub.c) is estimated, by using data for Zr alone, to be 4.times.10.sup.2 ohms. (Resistivity data were not available for Nb or the subject alloy.) Under non-superconducting conditions, the time-constant for charging and discharging this coil is thereby calculated to be approximately 8.times.10.sup.-5 sec. [0081] The time it took to charge up a supercurrent in the coil in the experiment was not reported. But, based on the reported 50 re-energizings and magnetic determinations performed in 200 hours, the measured charging time in the superconducting state is computed to be no more than 4 hours on average. [0082] Using Bardeen's (1941) m\*.apprxeq.(10.sup.-4)m.sub.e for the order of magnitude of the low-T.sub.c superconducting electron's mass, and using Larmor's equation (1900), which relates inductive radiation power to the square of the acceleration of the charge, the inductance of the coil is expected to increase by (10.sup.4).sup.2=10.sup.8 times in the superconducting state. Thus, the calculated increase in the time-constant of charging up the supercurrent is (8.times.10.sup.-5)(10.sup.8)=8.times.10.sup.3 seconds, or 2.2 hours, which is the same order of magnitude as the maximum actual charging time. The self-induction increased by that amount because the low-mass electrons are accelerated 10.sup.4 times faster. [0083] In the case of discharging, the time constant of the supercurrent was projected by File and Mills from measured declines observed over periods of 21 and 37 days. The projections of the two 63% declines agreed closely at 4.times.10.sup.12 sec (=1.3.times.10.sup.5 years). Therefore, the time-constant of supercurrent discharge, based on projecting actual measurements, had increased by 5.times.10.sup.16 times over the time-constant for electrons of normal mass. [0084] The driving force during charging had been the applied inductive force, whereas the driving force during discharging was the supercurrent that had been magnified 10.sup.8 times. Therefore, during the discharging of the supercurrent, the time-constant is increased again by 10.sup.8 times, so the calculated total increase in the time-constant of discharge is 10.sup.8.times.10.sup.8=10.sup.16 times greater than the normal time-constant. This calculated value of the non-superconducting time-constant, based solely on the increase of inductive radiation due to extremely low electron mass, compares favorably in magnitude with the actually observed value of 5.times.10.sup.16 times the normal time-constant. [0085] The superconducting coil required no more than four hours to charge up the supercurrent, yet during subsequent discharge the superconducting coil was projected to radiate inductive photon energy from the centripetal acceleration of the superconducting electrons for 130,000 years before declining by 63%. If this experiment could take place where no energy would be needed to sustain critical cryogenic conditions, as in outer space, the lengthy discharge of this energized coil would clearly demonstrate the creation of energy in the form of newly created photons inductively radiating from the superconducting low-mass electrons that circulate around the coils' loops. Applicant interprets this as showing that low-mass electrons are capable of inductive-energy-magnification based solely on their mass relative to that of normal electrons. [0086] In the embodiments described below, the magnified inductive energy of low-mass electrons is utilized in coils for electric-energy generation by employing a flow of inductively accelerated photons that alternates in direction. This, in turn, drives low-mass electrons in an oscillating manner, so this forced reversal involves only a single stage of inductive-energy magnification rather than the two stages (charging and naturally discharging) in the foregoing experiment. ***Mode of Operation*** [0087] Inductive photons radiating from an oscillating electric current in a sending conductor (e.g., from a radio-wave-broadcasting antenna) convey a force, on conduction electrons in a receiving conductor, that is transverse to the incidence direction of the incident inductive photons on the receiving conductor. As a result, no back-force is transferred directly back to the sending conductor. Applicant has discovered that the action of this transverse force on low-mass electrons in a receiving conductor is analogous to the action of Gauss's transverse magnetic force on free electrons in a conductor, which is not subject to the kinetics law of conservation of energy. If the receiving conductor has low-mass conduction electrons, then this transverse force would impart greater acceleration to the low-mass electrons than imparted by the force to normal free electrons. The resulting greater drift velocities of low-mass electrons than normal free electrons in the receiving conductor would yield an increased magnitude of inductive force produced by the low-mass electrons in the receiving conductor and hence produce a magnification of the irradiation energy of inductive photons. [0088] The direction of the transverse force imparted by the radiated inductive photons on conduction electrons in the receiving conductor is opposite the direction of the corresponding electron flow in the sending conductor. This relationship is similar to the inductive force on electrons in the secondary coil of a transformer, which also is opposite to the direction of flow of electrons in the primary coil. [0089] Various embodiments of Applicant's electrical generator employ inductive photons radiated from electrical oscillations in a "sending coil." Inductive photons are radiated from the sending coil toward an inductive-photon-receiving coil, termed an "energy-magnifying coil," that comprises a photoconductive or superconductive material, or other suitable material as described later below. The energy-magnifying coil is placed in a condition favorable for the production of low-mass electrons that participate in electrical conduction in the energy-magnifying coil. For example, if the energy-magnifying coil is made of photoconductive material, the coil is provided with a photoconduction exciter. Alternatively, if the energy-magnifying coil is made of a superconductor, the energy-magnifying coil is placed in an environment at a temperature (T) no greater than the critical temperature (T.sub.c); i.e., T