- Thank you received: 0
Antigravity Research
- cosmicsurfer
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
19 years 1 week ago #12866
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
FOCUS FUSION: A Primary Grid Power Potential
"Focus Fusion poses overwhelming competition to Tokamak
Purports to be a far more feasible and profoundly less expensive approach to hot fusion, in contrast to what the international project (ITER) in France is pursuing. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is currently researching and developing the Plasma Focus Device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.
HOW IT WORKS:
A pulse of electricity from a capacitor bank is discharged across the electrodes. For a few millionths of a second, an intense current flows from the outer to the inner electrode through the gas. This current starts to heat the gas and creates an intense magnetic field.
Guided by its own magnetic field, the current forms itself into a thin sheath of tiny filaments -- little whirlwinds of hot, electrically-conducting gas called plasma.
Picture of plasma filaments:
This sheath travels to the end of the inner electrode where the magnetic fields produced by the currents pinch and twist the plasma into a tiny, dense ball only a few thousandths of an inch across called a plasmoid. All of this happens without being guided by external magnets.
The magnetic fields very quickly collapse, and these changing magnetic fields induce an electric field which causes a beam of electrons to flow in one direction and a beam of ions (atoms that have lost electrons) in the other. The electron beam heats the plasmoid, thus igniting fusion reactions which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion and electron beams contain more energy than was input by the original electric current.
These beams of charged particles are directed into decelerators which act like particle accelerators in reverse. Instead of using electricity to accelerate charged particles they decelerate charged particles and to produce electricity. (Ref. The above quote was slightly edited.)
Some of this electricity is recycled to power the next fusion pulse, at a frequency expected to be optimal at around 1000 times per second. The excess energy from each pulse is available as net energy, and is output as product electricity from the fusion power plant for sale to the grid – or will be, once this is all proven and implemented.
Photo of hot plasma vortex filaments:
.....Imagine! At the flip of a switch, going from room temperature (or from the temperature of boiling water in the case of the liquid decaborane fuel), all the way up to a billion degrees, and then up to 6 billion degrees, all in a fraction of a second; then with another flip of the switch, when you are done, going back down to ambient temperature. And in the interim, you have produced excess energy from fusion -- safely, cleanly.
Part of that theoretical equation has been proven. Part has yet to be proven.
Lerner credits the field of astrophysics as playing a significant role in serendipitously developing much of the theoretical basis behind focus fusion, due to the parallels between neutron star research and plasma physics.
Mary-Sue Haliburton, chief editor for PESN and OSEN news, points out that the plasma filament process described above resembles Birkeland currents of the sun, which are described as “twisting”. In addition to confirming a portion of the focus fusion theory, she points out that focus fusion theory adds weight to the theory that the sun is electrical, and this strong correlation between the two processes " could help to shift the direction of fusion research more toward this Focus concept." (Ref. electric-sun website)
Based on his focus-fusion research done through the grant from JPL at the University of Illinois, his subsequent research at Texas A&M University, and research done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lerner et al. have proven the ability to attain, and even to surpass, the billion degree benchmark. (Ref)
Valone said that such an achievement should have been front page news in the NY Times and Washington Post. (Ref.)
Though Lerner and his colleagues went beyond the pre-determined performance standard, NASA chose to not publicize that breakthrough. Instead of honoring Lerner et al. with the accolades they deserved, an administrator at LANL threatened the University and the professor involved, saying that they were not to compare their results with pet-project Tokamak. The professor was so intimidated he stopped working with Lerner.
Lerner's persistent quest to find other federal monies has thus far been unfruitful. "This administration does not want to fund any serious competitor to oil or gas," Lerner said. He has also approached some foreign governments.
Eric Lerner, physicist, inventor
Executive Director of the non-profit, Focus Fusion. He is also President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., the corporate interest bringing this technology forward.
Despite the political setbacks, Lerner is pressing forward, and has been successful in acquiring limited funding. However, he needs substantially more to reach the next milestone of building a break-even prototype. To achieve the fusion process with measurable energy output, he needs $1.5 to $2 million dollars. This is a mere pittance compared to the $10 billion being sunk into Tokamak, which Valone considers to be an inferior design."
opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID...33-8002-a69aca481e6a
"Focus Fusion poses overwhelming competition to Tokamak
Purports to be a far more feasible and profoundly less expensive approach to hot fusion, in contrast to what the international project (ITER) in France is pursuing. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is currently researching and developing the Plasma Focus Device for hydrogen-boron nuclear fusion.
HOW IT WORKS:
A pulse of electricity from a capacitor bank is discharged across the electrodes. For a few millionths of a second, an intense current flows from the outer to the inner electrode through the gas. This current starts to heat the gas and creates an intense magnetic field.
Guided by its own magnetic field, the current forms itself into a thin sheath of tiny filaments -- little whirlwinds of hot, electrically-conducting gas called plasma.
Picture of plasma filaments:
This sheath travels to the end of the inner electrode where the magnetic fields produced by the currents pinch and twist the plasma into a tiny, dense ball only a few thousandths of an inch across called a plasmoid. All of this happens without being guided by external magnets.
The magnetic fields very quickly collapse, and these changing magnetic fields induce an electric field which causes a beam of electrons to flow in one direction and a beam of ions (atoms that have lost electrons) in the other. The electron beam heats the plasmoid, thus igniting fusion reactions which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion and electron beams contain more energy than was input by the original electric current.
These beams of charged particles are directed into decelerators which act like particle accelerators in reverse. Instead of using electricity to accelerate charged particles they decelerate charged particles and to produce electricity. (Ref. The above quote was slightly edited.)
Some of this electricity is recycled to power the next fusion pulse, at a frequency expected to be optimal at around 1000 times per second. The excess energy from each pulse is available as net energy, and is output as product electricity from the fusion power plant for sale to the grid – or will be, once this is all proven and implemented.
Photo of hot plasma vortex filaments:
.....Imagine! At the flip of a switch, going from room temperature (or from the temperature of boiling water in the case of the liquid decaborane fuel), all the way up to a billion degrees, and then up to 6 billion degrees, all in a fraction of a second; then with another flip of the switch, when you are done, going back down to ambient temperature. And in the interim, you have produced excess energy from fusion -- safely, cleanly.
Part of that theoretical equation has been proven. Part has yet to be proven.
Lerner credits the field of astrophysics as playing a significant role in serendipitously developing much of the theoretical basis behind focus fusion, due to the parallels between neutron star research and plasma physics.
Mary-Sue Haliburton, chief editor for PESN and OSEN news, points out that the plasma filament process described above resembles Birkeland currents of the sun, which are described as “twisting”. In addition to confirming a portion of the focus fusion theory, she points out that focus fusion theory adds weight to the theory that the sun is electrical, and this strong correlation between the two processes " could help to shift the direction of fusion research more toward this Focus concept." (Ref. electric-sun website)
Based on his focus-fusion research done through the grant from JPL at the University of Illinois, his subsequent research at Texas A&M University, and research done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lerner et al. have proven the ability to attain, and even to surpass, the billion degree benchmark. (Ref)
Valone said that such an achievement should have been front page news in the NY Times and Washington Post. (Ref.)
Though Lerner and his colleagues went beyond the pre-determined performance standard, NASA chose to not publicize that breakthrough. Instead of honoring Lerner et al. with the accolades they deserved, an administrator at LANL threatened the University and the professor involved, saying that they were not to compare their results with pet-project Tokamak. The professor was so intimidated he stopped working with Lerner.
Lerner's persistent quest to find other federal monies has thus far been unfruitful. "This administration does not want to fund any serious competitor to oil or gas," Lerner said. He has also approached some foreign governments.
Eric Lerner, physicist, inventor
Executive Director of the non-profit, Focus Fusion. He is also President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., the corporate interest bringing this technology forward.
Despite the political setbacks, Lerner is pressing forward, and has been successful in acquiring limited funding. However, he needs substantially more to reach the next milestone of building a break-even prototype. To achieve the fusion process with measurable energy output, he needs $1.5 to $2 million dollars. This is a mere pittance compared to the $10 billion being sunk into Tokamak, which Valone considers to be an inferior design."
opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID...33-8002-a69aca481e6a
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- cosmicsurfer
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
19 years 6 days ago #12886
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
NEGATIVE ENTROPIC SYSTEMS: WILL FUTURE REGENERATIVE TECHNOLOGIES CHALLENGE THE BASIC TENETS OF SCIENCE?
Imagine a hydrogen plasma electric vehicle that gets 1000 miles per gallon, runs on H20, and with a cold tap condensation return line can recycle all of the water vapor and take water out of the atmosphere when idling. Will we even need gas stations?
Imagine that gravity operates on scales that appear instantaneous at 20 billion times the speed of light. Talk about rocking the boat in science thanks to TVF!!!! Now, imagine that jumping capacitors create motion upon discharge by moving towards the positive pole which can be used to create lift thanks to Townsend Brown's research (first approximations to understanding high field electrostatic repulsive forces). Imagine high capacitance field generators built into your own personal antigrav vehicle that changes the gravity field around your vehicle's mass by utilizing electrostatic repulsion at FTL speeds. Plus, the vehicle violates known physics and laws of thermodynamics because it is an over unity device that operates cold and self regenerates an unlimited source of energy from the vacuum dimensional time wave. Sound impossible?
Saying good bye to ENTROPY will take major changes in how we perceive that the Universe operates. Here is an example of the battle that we must contend with:
TOM BEARDON ---- RESPONSE TO AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGIES ARTICLE ON ZPE.
SCALAR SCIENTIST BEARDEN DECLINES TO WRITE TO MAGAZINE
Posted By: billym <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2004, 8:12 a.m.
Bearden Declines to Comment for Magazine
Here's a flurry of interesting emails about a discussion in the magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology. Jan Riis-christensen spotted the discussion, which was about Zero-Point energy, and felt that certain statements in it should be challenged. At issue is the famous "Second Law of Thermodynamics," which seems to forbid the idea that you can get free energy from the vacuum of space - the so-called "law of entropy."
So Jan writes to scalar scientist Tom Bearden via his webmaster, Tony Craddock, asking if Bearden would write something challenging the nay-sayers in the magazine's discussion. Bearden has written about the possibility of "negentropy," or the tapping of the "zero-point energy" of the vacuum of space -- that is to say, free energy devices. Entropy says that everything is gradually running down and tending toward more chaos, which is disorder. Negentropy says that the reverse is possible, that an increase of order is possible in certain circumstances, free energy from the time domain (4th dimension) transduced into the 3-dimensional world of matter.
Of particular interest is Bearden's response. Although he declined to comment to the magazine, in fact he has here given us his comments.
First Jan writes to Tony Craddock, then there are some excerpts from the magazine, then Bearden gives his reason for not bothering to write to the magazine. Bearden's comments are in bold.
=========================================
Message: 1
Subject: ZPE
There is a discussion going on in Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) on the subject of zero point energy (ZPE), where Jan Riis-Christensen got his comments on ZPE printed. To follow up the trend Jan e-mailed Thomas E. Bearden asking him to consider writing AW&ST a comment on ZPE. Bearden wrote in reply.
Copied from: www.uprootmedia.org/bearden comment.html
In succession:
Original Message
From: Jan Riis-christensen
To: webmaster@cheniere.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: VS: Editorial on ZPE in Aviation Week & Space Technology
Tony Craddock - (Cheniere.org)
Please pass on the following information to Tom Bearden.
With due respect I wish to inform you about my comments in AW&ST (March 22, 2004). Unfortunately and for reasons unknown your name (Thomas E. Bearden) was withdrawn from my original text. I.e. {... was granted U.S. patent # 6,362,718, on Mar. 26, 2002.} & {...active vacuum, and was developed by a team led by Dr. Thomas E. Bearden.}
The same goes for my next comment in AW&ST (May 17, 2004), where I suggested reading the well-founded analysis on ZPE, Energy From The Vacuum, written by Bearden. Please see my following e-mail.
Kind regards,
Jan Riis-Christensen
================================
Text as printed (March 22, 2004):
ZPE would zap fossil fuels Your editorial on "zero point energy" (ZPE) describes the research and development situation in unduly restrained terms (AW&ST Mar. 1. p. 50). In fact, this is one field of development in which the U.S. Energy Dept. has deliberately chosen not to serve the public interest. The fossil fuel industry, besides nuclear hot-fusion R&D, is the major player behind this policy. Mainstream R&D communities are, without interference, securing federal funding. A breakthrough with the non-polluting ZPE, such as the over-unity extracting of electrical energy from the active vacuum, would bring a rapid loss of prominence to fossil fuel production and consumption of its goods and services. Worthy of note is the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG). This over-unity device was granted a U.S. patent on Mar. 26, 2002. The MEG efficiently derives useful electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum.
Jan Riis Christensen
Oslo, Norway
===============================
'Correspondence', AW&ST May 17, 2004:
PART OF ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Regarding John Lynch's belief that a zero point energy system is an oxymoron violating the First Law of Thermodynamics (AW&ST Apr. 19, p.
, in certain commanding financial levels this point of view is part of an economic strategy. Legitimate over-unity devices are already operational and extracting electromagnetic (EM) energy from the active vacuum - without violation of any known laws of physics.
The conservation of energy - First Law of Thermodynamics - is a statement of macroscopic experience. Two types of energy in transition are listed: heat and work. The dissipation of energy is work, not the energy itself. In the up-to-date EM model, over-unity is a statement of reasons in which additional joules of work are performed by each joule of input energy. The broken symmetry of an exchange was shown to be true in 1957 with the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.
Jan Riis-Christensen
Oslo, Norway
_____________________________________
LYNCH ON THE ZPE MARK
Thermodynamics is alive and well but not living in the zero point energy community. Reader John Lynch is on the mark. Further, even if he were wrong, the Second Law of Thermodynamics excludes using conversion of random energy fluctuations into useful power. The late James Clerk Maxwell proposed the existence of "a demon" that could convert random motion of gas molecules into useful energy. He then proved such a demon could not exist. Maxwell also might devise a demon to show that ZPE is not convertible into useful energy.
Eugene E. Covert
Cambridge, Mass.
This is really something !!! Here we go again with the wrong interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics! I'm mailing this to Thomas E. Bearden. This comment should not stand unanswered.
Jan Riis-Christensen
_____________________________________
Original Message
From: Jan Riis-christensen
To: webmaster@cheniere.org
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Letter to the Managing Editor, Aviation Week & Space
Technology
Tony Craddock,
If Thomas Bearden wishes to comment on ZPE, there are two possible alternatives as I see it. Either a letter shorter than 200 words for the 'Correspondence' column, or (even better) a special article (one page) under 'Viewpoint'. Mail to awstletters@aviationweek.com. It is worth trying - for sure !
Kind regards,
Jan Riis-Christensen
Original Message
From: A.J. Craddock
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 2:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Jan,
Rather useless to send in anything; AW&ST would never develop the source-charge problem, nor discuss it, nor discuss the present Maxwell-Heaviside model assumption that every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing, by those source charges.
It just is not possible to have any kind of meaningful dialog in such media. Understand, AW&ST does a good job in things like aerospace, etc. But to my knowledge, they have never had a single article pointing out the foundations assumptions in Maxwell-Heaviside classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.
Really cannot blame AW&ST! They turn to the scientific community, and the scientists assure them that everything is already known in that model.
But I still have not found a single textbook which does list the foundations assumptions, and does then point out which ones have been falsified by particle physics since the 1865 paper of James Clerk Maxwell.
Heck, they appear not to realize that no such thing as a force field exists in space, even though the EE and CEM model assumes such. (That, of course, assumes a material ether). They do not recognize that Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion, and that experiments with persistent superconducting currents initiated in shorted superconductor circuits will circulate indefinitely. Statistically, the estimate of the half- life of the current is 10exp23 years -- an incredible period of time nearly unimaginably greater than the entire life of the universe to date.
One can buy a little kit for a few hundred dollars, and do one's own perpetual motion experiment at will.
And the Second Law of thermodynamics as written applies only to equilibrium systems (which is the condition of maximum entropy). Anytime the system is taken into disequilibrium, it automatically reduces its entropy, which is a negative entropy operation, permissibly violating the equilibrium Second Law because equilibrium no longer applies.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=49778
Imagine a hydrogen plasma electric vehicle that gets 1000 miles per gallon, runs on H20, and with a cold tap condensation return line can recycle all of the water vapor and take water out of the atmosphere when idling. Will we even need gas stations?
Imagine that gravity operates on scales that appear instantaneous at 20 billion times the speed of light. Talk about rocking the boat in science thanks to TVF!!!! Now, imagine that jumping capacitors create motion upon discharge by moving towards the positive pole which can be used to create lift thanks to Townsend Brown's research (first approximations to understanding high field electrostatic repulsive forces). Imagine high capacitance field generators built into your own personal antigrav vehicle that changes the gravity field around your vehicle's mass by utilizing electrostatic repulsion at FTL speeds. Plus, the vehicle violates known physics and laws of thermodynamics because it is an over unity device that operates cold and self regenerates an unlimited source of energy from the vacuum dimensional time wave. Sound impossible?
Saying good bye to ENTROPY will take major changes in how we perceive that the Universe operates. Here is an example of the battle that we must contend with:
TOM BEARDON ---- RESPONSE TO AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGIES ARTICLE ON ZPE.
SCALAR SCIENTIST BEARDEN DECLINES TO WRITE TO MAGAZINE
Posted By: billym <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2004, 8:12 a.m.
Bearden Declines to Comment for Magazine
Here's a flurry of interesting emails about a discussion in the magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology. Jan Riis-christensen spotted the discussion, which was about Zero-Point energy, and felt that certain statements in it should be challenged. At issue is the famous "Second Law of Thermodynamics," which seems to forbid the idea that you can get free energy from the vacuum of space - the so-called "law of entropy."
So Jan writes to scalar scientist Tom Bearden via his webmaster, Tony Craddock, asking if Bearden would write something challenging the nay-sayers in the magazine's discussion. Bearden has written about the possibility of "negentropy," or the tapping of the "zero-point energy" of the vacuum of space -- that is to say, free energy devices. Entropy says that everything is gradually running down and tending toward more chaos, which is disorder. Negentropy says that the reverse is possible, that an increase of order is possible in certain circumstances, free energy from the time domain (4th dimension) transduced into the 3-dimensional world of matter.
Of particular interest is Bearden's response. Although he declined to comment to the magazine, in fact he has here given us his comments.
First Jan writes to Tony Craddock, then there are some excerpts from the magazine, then Bearden gives his reason for not bothering to write to the magazine. Bearden's comments are in bold.
=========================================
Message: 1
Subject: ZPE
There is a discussion going on in Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) on the subject of zero point energy (ZPE), where Jan Riis-Christensen got his comments on ZPE printed. To follow up the trend Jan e-mailed Thomas E. Bearden asking him to consider writing AW&ST a comment on ZPE. Bearden wrote in reply.
Copied from: www.uprootmedia.org/bearden comment.html
In succession:
Original Message
From: Jan Riis-christensen
To: webmaster@cheniere.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: VS: Editorial on ZPE in Aviation Week & Space Technology
Tony Craddock - (Cheniere.org)
Please pass on the following information to Tom Bearden.
With due respect I wish to inform you about my comments in AW&ST (March 22, 2004). Unfortunately and for reasons unknown your name (Thomas E. Bearden) was withdrawn from my original text. I.e. {... was granted U.S. patent # 6,362,718, on Mar. 26, 2002.} & {...active vacuum, and was developed by a team led by Dr. Thomas E. Bearden.}
The same goes for my next comment in AW&ST (May 17, 2004), where I suggested reading the well-founded analysis on ZPE, Energy From The Vacuum, written by Bearden. Please see my following e-mail.
Kind regards,
Jan Riis-Christensen
================================
Text as printed (March 22, 2004):
ZPE would zap fossil fuels Your editorial on "zero point energy" (ZPE) describes the research and development situation in unduly restrained terms (AW&ST Mar. 1. p. 50). In fact, this is one field of development in which the U.S. Energy Dept. has deliberately chosen not to serve the public interest. The fossil fuel industry, besides nuclear hot-fusion R&D, is the major player behind this policy. Mainstream R&D communities are, without interference, securing federal funding. A breakthrough with the non-polluting ZPE, such as the over-unity extracting of electrical energy from the active vacuum, would bring a rapid loss of prominence to fossil fuel production and consumption of its goods and services. Worthy of note is the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG). This over-unity device was granted a U.S. patent on Mar. 26, 2002. The MEG efficiently derives useful electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum.
Jan Riis Christensen
Oslo, Norway
===============================
'Correspondence', AW&ST May 17, 2004:
PART OF ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Regarding John Lynch's belief that a zero point energy system is an oxymoron violating the First Law of Thermodynamics (AW&ST Apr. 19, p.
, in certain commanding financial levels this point of view is part of an economic strategy. Legitimate over-unity devices are already operational and extracting electromagnetic (EM) energy from the active vacuum - without violation of any known laws of physics.The conservation of energy - First Law of Thermodynamics - is a statement of macroscopic experience. Two types of energy in transition are listed: heat and work. The dissipation of energy is work, not the energy itself. In the up-to-date EM model, over-unity is a statement of reasons in which additional joules of work are performed by each joule of input energy. The broken symmetry of an exchange was shown to be true in 1957 with the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.
Jan Riis-Christensen
Oslo, Norway
_____________________________________
LYNCH ON THE ZPE MARK
Thermodynamics is alive and well but not living in the zero point energy community. Reader John Lynch is on the mark. Further, even if he were wrong, the Second Law of Thermodynamics excludes using conversion of random energy fluctuations into useful power. The late James Clerk Maxwell proposed the existence of "a demon" that could convert random motion of gas molecules into useful energy. He then proved such a demon could not exist. Maxwell also might devise a demon to show that ZPE is not convertible into useful energy.
Eugene E. Covert
Cambridge, Mass.
This is really something !!! Here we go again with the wrong interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics! I'm mailing this to Thomas E. Bearden. This comment should not stand unanswered.
Jan Riis-Christensen
_____________________________________
Original Message
From: Jan Riis-christensen
To: webmaster@cheniere.org
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Letter to the Managing Editor, Aviation Week & Space
Technology
Tony Craddock,
If Thomas Bearden wishes to comment on ZPE, there are two possible alternatives as I see it. Either a letter shorter than 200 words for the 'Correspondence' column, or (even better) a special article (one page) under 'Viewpoint'. Mail to awstletters@aviationweek.com. It is worth trying - for sure !
Kind regards,
Jan Riis-Christensen
Original Message
From: A.J. Craddock
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 2:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Jan,
Rather useless to send in anything; AW&ST would never develop the source-charge problem, nor discuss it, nor discuss the present Maxwell-Heaviside model assumption that every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing, by those source charges.
It just is not possible to have any kind of meaningful dialog in such media. Understand, AW&ST does a good job in things like aerospace, etc. But to my knowledge, they have never had a single article pointing out the foundations assumptions in Maxwell-Heaviside classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering.
Really cannot blame AW&ST! They turn to the scientific community, and the scientists assure them that everything is already known in that model.
But I still have not found a single textbook which does list the foundations assumptions, and does then point out which ones have been falsified by particle physics since the 1865 paper of James Clerk Maxwell.
Heck, they appear not to realize that no such thing as a force field exists in space, even though the EE and CEM model assumes such. (That, of course, assumes a material ether). They do not recognize that Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion, and that experiments with persistent superconducting currents initiated in shorted superconductor circuits will circulate indefinitely. Statistically, the estimate of the half- life of the current is 10exp23 years -- an incredible period of time nearly unimaginably greater than the entire life of the universe to date.
One can buy a little kit for a few hundred dollars, and do one's own perpetual motion experiment at will.
And the Second Law of thermodynamics as written applies only to equilibrium systems (which is the condition of maximum entropy). Anytime the system is taken into disequilibrium, it automatically reduces its entropy, which is a negative entropy operation, permissibly violating the equilibrium Second Law because equilibrium no longer applies.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=49778
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
19 years 3 days ago #12904
by cosmicsurfer
Gravitational (temporal) energy is radiated from these devices. As a consequence, FREE ENERGY, or excess electrical energy in the form of NEGATIVE ENERGY is extracted during the demagnetization phase of the inductive magnetization/demagnetization cycle, or during the discharge phase of the capacitive charge/discharge cycle. This is known as the Gravitational Amplification Process or GAP. The mass is reduced and the flow of time is faster during the demagnetization or discharge phase as shown above. Mass returns to normal after the demagnetization or discharge phase.
So, all of these metrics or parameters that are confined within space-time are affected, and includes:
Mass M.
Capacitance C.
Inductance L.
Volume V.
These same metrics curve across a decreased gravitational field:
Mass decreases, M - DM.
Capacitance decreases, C - DC.
Inductance decreases, L - DL.
Volume increases, V + DV.
Excess electrical energy where COP > 1.0 is extracted during demagnetization or discharge phase and then, original mass is restored from the active vacuum.
FREE ENERGY devices run faster in time, so therefore, are considered to be relativistic devices!
www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Library/Library.htm
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Gravitational (temporal) energy is radiated from these devices. As a consequence, FREE ENERGY, or excess electrical energy in the form of NEGATIVE ENERGY is extracted during the demagnetization phase of the inductive magnetization/demagnetization cycle, or during the discharge phase of the capacitive charge/discharge cycle. This is known as the Gravitational Amplification Process or GAP. The mass is reduced and the flow of time is faster during the demagnetization or discharge phase as shown above. Mass returns to normal after the demagnetization or discharge phase.
So, all of these metrics or parameters that are confined within space-time are affected, and includes:
Mass M.
Capacitance C.
Inductance L.
Volume V.
These same metrics curve across a decreased gravitational field:
Mass decreases, M - DM.
Capacitance decreases, C - DC.
Inductance decreases, L - DL.
Volume increases, V + DV.
Excess electrical energy where COP > 1.0 is extracted during demagnetization or discharge phase and then, original mass is restored from the active vacuum.
FREE ENERGY devices run faster in time, so therefore, are considered to be relativistic devices!
www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Library/Library.htm
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
19 years 1 day ago #13006
by cosmicsurfer
ASTROPHYSICS CHALLENGED BY DARK ENERGY FINDING
By Ray Villard
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 07:00 am ET
10 April 2001
A strange repulsive force of "dark energy" pervades every nook and cranny of the universe, a team of scientists said earlier this month, but the force not only pushes against the master force of gravity -- it also has astrophysicists' heads spinning.
While gravity gently binds planets, stars and galaxies together, dark energy tugs on the fabric of time and space, pushing galaxies apart ever faster and faster into the farthest reaches of the universe.
The evidence came in a recent Hubble space telescope observation of the most distant supernova (exploding star) ever detected. The record-breaking supernova appears brighter than it should if the universe had been expanding at a steady rate. The new finding suggests that a decelerating universe holds galaxies relatively close together and objects in them would have appeared brighter because they would be closer.
The trouble is that with this finding and others in the past three years, the universe is beginning to look like a complex witch's brew of dark energy, normal matter and dark matter (an invisible exotic form of matter).
"This starts to look incredibly ugly and complicated," says Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute. "I even wonder if we are we asking right questions."
{I AGREE, WE ARE NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS}
'New ocean of discovery'
For other scientists, the new finding holds promise for astrophysics. Morris Aizenman, a senior science associate with the National Science Foundation, was so moved by the finding that he likened it to a Keats poem about Cortez' first sighting of the Pacific Ocean.
"It's an entire new ocean of discovery we're about to set out on and I feel that it's an extraordinary opportunity for the physics and astronomy community as we really start probing everything from the structure of an atom to the entire structure of the universe," Aizenman said. "It's all part of the same question."
The dark energy finding closes a loophole left by the second-greatest cosmological finding of the past century -- that the universe is not merely expanding (this is Edwin Hubble's finding of the 1920s, widely noted as the greatest cosmological finding of the past 100 years) but its expansion is accelerating.
Merely a year ago many astronomers were skeptical that the universe was accelerating, despite supernovae (exploded star) observations published in 1998 that suggested space is expanding faster today than long ago just the opposite of conventional cosmological wisdom.
{"EXPANDING FASTER TODAY" KIND OF PUTS A KINK IN THE OLD BIG BANG THEORY DOES'NT IT?}
Now, the observation of the farthest supernova ever detected now puts a "big nail in the coffin of alternative theories," says astrophysicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago.
The dark energy confirmation comes on the heels of other closed loopholes that have shaken up the astrophysics world and lent more support to the accelerating universe idea. For instance, in the past three years, scientists have discovered that the universe is basically flat. This finding and others are knocking down an explanation for variations in the brightness of supernovae -- that some type of cosmic dust simply absorbs the light.
{THE EARTH SEEMS FLAT ALSO, BUT OF COURSE WE KNOW NOW THAT IT IS NOT. GEE, I WONDER IF THE "FLATNESS" OF UNIVERSE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT STEP BACK FAR ENOUGH TO SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE ACTUALLY HAS CURVATURE AND ROTATION?}
Upheaval for physics
Saul Perlmutter, who headed up the first group to publish its findings on the accelerating universe three years ago, said the confirmation of dark energy will spark an entirely new brand of physics.
{"A NEW BRAND OF PHYSICS?" IT'S ABOUT TIME. OF COURSE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT TIME AND DIMENSIONAL TIME DOMAINS, BUT WE HAVE FAILED MISERABLY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT EVEN EXIST IF TIME DID NOT HAVE TWO DIRECTIONS TO SUPPORT A CONDENSATION MATRIX THAT HAS CURVATURE AND ROTATION}
"Dark energy is something we have no clue as to what is causing it, and it doesn't fit into current physics theories, and they have to develop new approaches to explain it," said Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "That's exciting. It's rare that we get to do this."
{TIME FUNNELS TIME AT FTL SPEEDS FORMING A GRAVITY VORTEX AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF ALL MATTER IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AS A SUBSET OF THESE HIGHER FREQUENCIES. ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS? NO!!! BECAUSE THERE STILL IS ZERO EXPLANATION FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF UNIVERSE. DOES TIME SPEED UP AROUND GRAVITY WELLS AS HIGH FREQUENCY TIME WAVES THAT ARE 20 BILLION TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT SLOWDOWN? DO MASSIVE BLACK HOLES THAT FORM AROUND THE CENTER OF GALAXIES ACTUALLY MOVE INTO EXTREME FORWARD TIME BEYOUND THE EVENT HORIZON? DOES, TIME FUNNEL BACKWARDS AS JETS OF ANTIMATTER FROM THE CENTER OF NEO STAR FORMATION DIPOLES AND GALACTIC BLACK HOLES?}
In 1917, Albert Einstein first imagined a repulsive force pervading space, which later came to be called the "cosmological constant." Like a 20th-century version of the mythological Atlas, Einstein sought to shore up the universe by keeping stars from falling together under gravity. Einstein fudged his relativity equations to add a repulsive force under certain conditions in space. This would keep the universe eternally balanced at a "steady state."
When astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe wasnt static but expanding, Einstein abandoned his cosmological constant and called it his biggest blunder. Astronomers kept Einsteins "fudge factor" locked away as a closet skeleton for decades.
"Now I have to take dark energy seriously whether I want to or not," said physicist Michael Dine of University of California, Santa Cruz.
Livio agreed. "Dark energy now becomes very central to our ideas about the universe," he said.
{DARK ENERGY IS A CONSTRUCT THAT EVOLVED OUT OF BIG BANG THINKING, IT IS JUST AN ARTIFACT OF WRONG ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS HOW ENERGY INTERACTS WITH FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME DOMAINS}
In 1917, Albert Einstein first imagined a repulsive force pervading space, which later came to be called the "cosmological constant." Like a 20th-century version of the mythological Atlas, Einstein sought to shore up the universe by keeping stars from falling together under gravity. Einstein fudged his relativity equations to add a repulsive force under certain conditions in space. This would keep the universe eternally balanced at a "steady state."
When astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe wasnt static but expanding, Einstein abandoned his cosmological constant and called it his biggest blunder. Astronomers kept Einsteins "fudge factor" locked away as a closet skeleton for decades.
"Now I have to take dark energy seriously whether I want to or not," said physicist Michael Dine of University of California, Santa Cruz.
Livio agreed. "Dark energy now becomes very central to our ideas about the universe," he said.
Percolating energy and quintessence
Although physicists have yet to say what dark energy is, they have some ideas about where it came from. Some say it could percolate from the vacuum of space. Laboratory experiments show that seemingly empty space is actually seething with virtual particles that wink in and out of existence.
{GOOD BYE ENTROPY??? ENERGY MUST COME FROM SOME SORT OF INTERACTION, BUT FROM A VACUUM THAT APPEARS EMPTY? MAKES YOU WONDER IF WE TOTALLY ARE WRONG ABOUT A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING POWER STRUCTURE OF UNIVERSE}
This perpetually bubbling vacuum provides energy that could take the form of a repulsive "negative gravity," some say. The problem is that this vacuum-energy as calculated would be so absurdly powerful that it would have blown apart the universe very long ago. One way out is to assume that the vacuum-energy vastly weakens over time and is not constant as imagined by Einstein.
This leads to another idea called "quintessence" (for "fifth essence") which proposes a repulsive field embedded in space, not unlike a gravitational field or a magnetic field.
Under that hypothesis, the field was created in the early moments of the universe along with the other forces in nature, and now stretches across the universe like a spider web. As the universe expanded and cooled, gravity and quintessence were locked in an arm wrestle for dominance over space. Both fields weakened with the universes expansion. But ultimately quintessence won out over gravity and took control to push galaxies apart.
{PERPETUALLY BUBBLING VACUUM? SPIDERWEBS? ARM WRESTLING FORCES THAT JUST APPEAR AND JUST EXACTLY HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? SINGULAR THINKING, TRAPPED IN THIS BIG BANG IDEOLOGY THAT IS FLAT WITH ZERO MENTION OF TIME, AND NO CAUSATION FOR THE BUBBLING SEETHING AND MATTER FORMING EPISODIC BEHAVIOR? WRONG, ENERGY CAN BE HOT OR COLD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COOLING OF UNIVERSE BUT WITH MASS INTERACTING WITH MOTION OF TIME. "QUINTESSENCE WON AS THE REPULSIVE FORCE AGAINST GRAVITY," HMMM ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE MAGIC TO ME.}
Laissez-faire astrophysics
Other astronomers simply say, "Why worry?" Dark energy is just a basic feature of the universe. Trying to explain it is as pointless as trying to explain why Earth was the right distance from the Sun for life to develop. It just turned out that way; if it didnt we wouldnt be here to ask the question.
Historically, successful scientific theories are assembled from the simplest ideas. In the case of dark energy the simpler explanation is that dark matter -- as-yet-unidentified particles that comprise the bulk of the universe's mass -- and dark energy are really manifestations of a new theory of gravity. Maybe gravity weakens over time. Or, maybe the gravitational force leaks into unknown dimensions of the universe, mimicking the effects of eerie "dark stuff" in space.
Astronomers plan to look at more distant supernovae to precisely track how the universes expansion rate has changed, and this hopefully will narrow the dark energy alternatives.
"The dark energy mystery may be answered only by precision astronomical observations and not in the physics lab," says Turner. "One of our goals is to test for dark energy and see if this is preposterous because we are just dead wrong, or find out that we really do live in a preposterous universe."
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalsc...rgy_folo_010410.html
The problem here is that we are not asking the correct questions, so we are getting the wrong answers. If the premises of your science are incorrect in the first place, then the results of any further inquery will also be wrong.
"Do we live in a preposterous Universe?"
John
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
ASTROPHYSICS CHALLENGED BY DARK ENERGY FINDING
By Ray Villard
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 07:00 am ET
10 April 2001
A strange repulsive force of "dark energy" pervades every nook and cranny of the universe, a team of scientists said earlier this month, but the force not only pushes against the master force of gravity -- it also has astrophysicists' heads spinning.
While gravity gently binds planets, stars and galaxies together, dark energy tugs on the fabric of time and space, pushing galaxies apart ever faster and faster into the farthest reaches of the universe.
The evidence came in a recent Hubble space telescope observation of the most distant supernova (exploding star) ever detected. The record-breaking supernova appears brighter than it should if the universe had been expanding at a steady rate. The new finding suggests that a decelerating universe holds galaxies relatively close together and objects in them would have appeared brighter because they would be closer.
The trouble is that with this finding and others in the past three years, the universe is beginning to look like a complex witch's brew of dark energy, normal matter and dark matter (an invisible exotic form of matter).
"This starts to look incredibly ugly and complicated," says Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute. "I even wonder if we are we asking right questions."
{I AGREE, WE ARE NOT ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS}
'New ocean of discovery'
For other scientists, the new finding holds promise for astrophysics. Morris Aizenman, a senior science associate with the National Science Foundation, was so moved by the finding that he likened it to a Keats poem about Cortez' first sighting of the Pacific Ocean.
"It's an entire new ocean of discovery we're about to set out on and I feel that it's an extraordinary opportunity for the physics and astronomy community as we really start probing everything from the structure of an atom to the entire structure of the universe," Aizenman said. "It's all part of the same question."
The dark energy finding closes a loophole left by the second-greatest cosmological finding of the past century -- that the universe is not merely expanding (this is Edwin Hubble's finding of the 1920s, widely noted as the greatest cosmological finding of the past 100 years) but its expansion is accelerating.
Merely a year ago many astronomers were skeptical that the universe was accelerating, despite supernovae (exploded star) observations published in 1998 that suggested space is expanding faster today than long ago just the opposite of conventional cosmological wisdom.
{"EXPANDING FASTER TODAY" KIND OF PUTS A KINK IN THE OLD BIG BANG THEORY DOES'NT IT?}
Now, the observation of the farthest supernova ever detected now puts a "big nail in the coffin of alternative theories," says astrophysicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago.
The dark energy confirmation comes on the heels of other closed loopholes that have shaken up the astrophysics world and lent more support to the accelerating universe idea. For instance, in the past three years, scientists have discovered that the universe is basically flat. This finding and others are knocking down an explanation for variations in the brightness of supernovae -- that some type of cosmic dust simply absorbs the light.
{THE EARTH SEEMS FLAT ALSO, BUT OF COURSE WE KNOW NOW THAT IT IS NOT. GEE, I WONDER IF THE "FLATNESS" OF UNIVERSE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT STEP BACK FAR ENOUGH TO SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE ACTUALLY HAS CURVATURE AND ROTATION?}
Upheaval for physics
Saul Perlmutter, who headed up the first group to publish its findings on the accelerating universe three years ago, said the confirmation of dark energy will spark an entirely new brand of physics.
{"A NEW BRAND OF PHYSICS?" IT'S ABOUT TIME. OF COURSE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT TIME AND DIMENSIONAL TIME DOMAINS, BUT WE HAVE FAILED MISERABLY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT EVEN EXIST IF TIME DID NOT HAVE TWO DIRECTIONS TO SUPPORT A CONDENSATION MATRIX THAT HAS CURVATURE AND ROTATION}
"Dark energy is something we have no clue as to what is causing it, and it doesn't fit into current physics theories, and they have to develop new approaches to explain it," said Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "That's exciting. It's rare that we get to do this."
{TIME FUNNELS TIME AT FTL SPEEDS FORMING A GRAVITY VORTEX AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF ALL MATTER IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AS A SUBSET OF THESE HIGHER FREQUENCIES. ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS? NO!!! BECAUSE THERE STILL IS ZERO EXPLANATION FOR ACCELERATED EXPANSION OF UNIVERSE. DOES TIME SPEED UP AROUND GRAVITY WELLS AS HIGH FREQUENCY TIME WAVES THAT ARE 20 BILLION TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT SLOWDOWN? DO MASSIVE BLACK HOLES THAT FORM AROUND THE CENTER OF GALAXIES ACTUALLY MOVE INTO EXTREME FORWARD TIME BEYOUND THE EVENT HORIZON? DOES, TIME FUNNEL BACKWARDS AS JETS OF ANTIMATTER FROM THE CENTER OF NEO STAR FORMATION DIPOLES AND GALACTIC BLACK HOLES?}
In 1917, Albert Einstein first imagined a repulsive force pervading space, which later came to be called the "cosmological constant." Like a 20th-century version of the mythological Atlas, Einstein sought to shore up the universe by keeping stars from falling together under gravity. Einstein fudged his relativity equations to add a repulsive force under certain conditions in space. This would keep the universe eternally balanced at a "steady state."
When astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe wasnt static but expanding, Einstein abandoned his cosmological constant and called it his biggest blunder. Astronomers kept Einsteins "fudge factor" locked away as a closet skeleton for decades.
"Now I have to take dark energy seriously whether I want to or not," said physicist Michael Dine of University of California, Santa Cruz.
Livio agreed. "Dark energy now becomes very central to our ideas about the universe," he said.
{DARK ENERGY IS A CONSTRUCT THAT EVOLVED OUT OF BIG BANG THINKING, IT IS JUST AN ARTIFACT OF WRONG ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS HOW ENERGY INTERACTS WITH FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME DOMAINS}
In 1917, Albert Einstein first imagined a repulsive force pervading space, which later came to be called the "cosmological constant." Like a 20th-century version of the mythological Atlas, Einstein sought to shore up the universe by keeping stars from falling together under gravity. Einstein fudged his relativity equations to add a repulsive force under certain conditions in space. This would keep the universe eternally balanced at a "steady state."
When astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe wasnt static but expanding, Einstein abandoned his cosmological constant and called it his biggest blunder. Astronomers kept Einsteins "fudge factor" locked away as a closet skeleton for decades.
"Now I have to take dark energy seriously whether I want to or not," said physicist Michael Dine of University of California, Santa Cruz.
Livio agreed. "Dark energy now becomes very central to our ideas about the universe," he said.
Percolating energy and quintessence
Although physicists have yet to say what dark energy is, they have some ideas about where it came from. Some say it could percolate from the vacuum of space. Laboratory experiments show that seemingly empty space is actually seething with virtual particles that wink in and out of existence.
{GOOD BYE ENTROPY??? ENERGY MUST COME FROM SOME SORT OF INTERACTION, BUT FROM A VACUUM THAT APPEARS EMPTY? MAKES YOU WONDER IF WE TOTALLY ARE WRONG ABOUT A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING POWER STRUCTURE OF UNIVERSE}
This perpetually bubbling vacuum provides energy that could take the form of a repulsive "negative gravity," some say. The problem is that this vacuum-energy as calculated would be so absurdly powerful that it would have blown apart the universe very long ago. One way out is to assume that the vacuum-energy vastly weakens over time and is not constant as imagined by Einstein.
This leads to another idea called "quintessence" (for "fifth essence") which proposes a repulsive field embedded in space, not unlike a gravitational field or a magnetic field.
Under that hypothesis, the field was created in the early moments of the universe along with the other forces in nature, and now stretches across the universe like a spider web. As the universe expanded and cooled, gravity and quintessence were locked in an arm wrestle for dominance over space. Both fields weakened with the universes expansion. But ultimately quintessence won out over gravity and took control to push galaxies apart.
{PERPETUALLY BUBBLING VACUUM? SPIDERWEBS? ARM WRESTLING FORCES THAT JUST APPEAR AND JUST EXACTLY HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? SINGULAR THINKING, TRAPPED IN THIS BIG BANG IDEOLOGY THAT IS FLAT WITH ZERO MENTION OF TIME, AND NO CAUSATION FOR THE BUBBLING SEETHING AND MATTER FORMING EPISODIC BEHAVIOR? WRONG, ENERGY CAN BE HOT OR COLD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COOLING OF UNIVERSE BUT WITH MASS INTERACTING WITH MOTION OF TIME. "QUINTESSENCE WON AS THE REPULSIVE FORCE AGAINST GRAVITY," HMMM ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE MAGIC TO ME.}
Laissez-faire astrophysics
Other astronomers simply say, "Why worry?" Dark energy is just a basic feature of the universe. Trying to explain it is as pointless as trying to explain why Earth was the right distance from the Sun for life to develop. It just turned out that way; if it didnt we wouldnt be here to ask the question.
Historically, successful scientific theories are assembled from the simplest ideas. In the case of dark energy the simpler explanation is that dark matter -- as-yet-unidentified particles that comprise the bulk of the universe's mass -- and dark energy are really manifestations of a new theory of gravity. Maybe gravity weakens over time. Or, maybe the gravitational force leaks into unknown dimensions of the universe, mimicking the effects of eerie "dark stuff" in space.
Astronomers plan to look at more distant supernovae to precisely track how the universes expansion rate has changed, and this hopefully will narrow the dark energy alternatives.
"The dark energy mystery may be answered only by precision astronomical observations and not in the physics lab," says Turner. "One of our goals is to test for dark energy and see if this is preposterous because we are just dead wrong, or find out that we really do live in a preposterous universe."
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalsc...rgy_folo_010410.html
The problem here is that we are not asking the correct questions, so we are getting the wrong answers. If the premises of your science are incorrect in the first place, then the results of any further inquery will also be wrong.
"Do we live in a preposterous Universe?"
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Time to create page: 0.436 seconds