- Thank you received: 0
Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver
20 years 11 months ago #7307
by Samizdat
Replied by Samizdat on topic Reply from Frederick Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
(Oh well, be careful what you ask for ...)
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wonder if we could convince Fogal to license a working model to us to study. We'd have to convince him that we could guarantee its security.
<br />
(Oh well, be careful what you ask for ...)
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wonder if we could convince Fogal to license a working model to us to study. We'd have to convince him that we could guarantee its security.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #6857
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
I suppose it might be possible - his patents are a little over 10 years old now, and not much has come of them yet. (Maybe that only means that he and the investors he's trying to woo are looking at the wrong aspects of his idea.) It might not be too expensive, expecially since we would just need to borrow it for a little while.
In any case, I'd want to <b>see</b> that working model first ...
Or, if we told him what we want to find out he might do it himself. Or, even better, tell us the results of tests he has already done. Since he already has patents, secrecy shouldn't be a major concern to him.
LB
In any case, I'd want to <b>see</b> that working model first ...
Or, if we told him what we want to find out he might do it himself. Or, even better, tell us the results of tests he has already done. Since he already has patents, secrecy shouldn't be a major concern to him.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6878
by Samizdat
Replied by Samizdat on topic Reply from Frederick Wilson
I quote the following excerpt (as an appetizer) from Fogal's zip download (available from website)
www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/
:
"Energy Flows Continuously from Magnetic and Electric Charges
Have you ever taken two magnets and held one magnet in each hand, with the magnets facing each other with the same poles? As you bring the magnets close to each other, you can feel the repulsion and the build-up of the "energy field" as the magnets begin to push your hands away from each other. Each of the magnetic poles is pouring forth hidden energy3 that acts upon the other pole, producing the force that you feel.
That energy is continuously flowing from the magnets, 4, 5, 6 and fills the entire space around them, literally to the ends of the universe. The electron7 also has such a flowing energy field, and electrons will react just like the magnets under certain conditions. When two like charges approach each other, their streams of energy impact one upon the other, and produce
(i) excess pileup of energy8 on the electrons, and
(ii) mutual repulsion.
However, unlike the magnets, usually the electrons are notoriously free to move. So free electrons will rapidly move away from the site of repelling charges. As electrons mutually repel each other and move away, they also drain away the collected portion9 of their excess energy field in the process.10
Now if we could only collect and use the energy from the flowing energy field directly, further down the circuit, and not move the repelling electrons themselves! In that case our constrained electrons would continue to be an inexhaustible source of that energy flow, and we could collect and use the excess energy from them, without draining away the source by allowing electron current flow from it.
And there'd be another great advantage: We would also rid ourselves of most of the electron collision noise, that is created in the lattice by the longitudinal movement of the electrons as ordinary current. In other words, we could simply use the direct energy flow changes caused by our signal modulations, without adding lots of little unwanted and spurious field changes due to those electron collisions. This notion is simple: Use field energy flow to bypass the blocked electron flow, and you bypass much of the noise in the intervening transmission line and associated circuits."
Note: upon clicking the "Contact us" button you will find Fogal's admonition that the device is not available for Joe Blow's use, but serious government or corporate enquiries are welcome. I wrote him, suggesting that a business plan might be built around his device, for the production of superluminal communication devices, if I had enough information to demonstrate this as an application. I then requested he direct me to further sources toward this end. Hopefully he'll help, as there is no way any sane banker is going to back something undemonstrable.
Now I wish to heck I'd specified "*wireless* superluminal communication devices," as this is crucial to what I have in mind, i.e., superluminal radar or radar-like applications, and interstellar applications.
"Energy Flows Continuously from Magnetic and Electric Charges
Have you ever taken two magnets and held one magnet in each hand, with the magnets facing each other with the same poles? As you bring the magnets close to each other, you can feel the repulsion and the build-up of the "energy field" as the magnets begin to push your hands away from each other. Each of the magnetic poles is pouring forth hidden energy3 that acts upon the other pole, producing the force that you feel.
That energy is continuously flowing from the magnets, 4, 5, 6 and fills the entire space around them, literally to the ends of the universe. The electron7 also has such a flowing energy field, and electrons will react just like the magnets under certain conditions. When two like charges approach each other, their streams of energy impact one upon the other, and produce
(i) excess pileup of energy8 on the electrons, and
(ii) mutual repulsion.
However, unlike the magnets, usually the electrons are notoriously free to move. So free electrons will rapidly move away from the site of repelling charges. As electrons mutually repel each other and move away, they also drain away the collected portion9 of their excess energy field in the process.10
Now if we could only collect and use the energy from the flowing energy field directly, further down the circuit, and not move the repelling electrons themselves! In that case our constrained electrons would continue to be an inexhaustible source of that energy flow, and we could collect and use the excess energy from them, without draining away the source by allowing electron current flow from it.
And there'd be another great advantage: We would also rid ourselves of most of the electron collision noise, that is created in the lattice by the longitudinal movement of the electrons as ordinary current. In other words, we could simply use the direct energy flow changes caused by our signal modulations, without adding lots of little unwanted and spurious field changes due to those electron collisions. This notion is simple: Use field energy flow to bypass the blocked electron flow, and you bypass much of the noise in the intervening transmission line and associated circuits."
Note: upon clicking the "Contact us" button you will find Fogal's admonition that the device is not available for Joe Blow's use, but serious government or corporate enquiries are welcome. I wrote him, suggesting that a business plan might be built around his device, for the production of superluminal communication devices, if I had enough information to demonstrate this as an application. I then requested he direct me to further sources toward this end. Hopefully he'll help, as there is no way any sane banker is going to back something undemonstrable.
Now I wish to heck I'd specified "*wireless* superluminal communication devices," as this is crucial to what I have in mind, i.e., superluminal radar or radar-like applications, and interstellar applications.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #7121
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
I suspect that a successful FTL experiment will have to be wireless.
But any FTL channel that can be demonstrated repeatedly will break the log jam.
Keep us posted,
LB
But any FTL channel that can be demonstrated repeatedly will break the log jam.
Keep us posted,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6985
by Samizdat
Replied by Samizdat on topic Reply from Frederick Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Keep us posted,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know about the "us," but I'll keep you posted. There seems to be far more fiefdomization than co-operation between maverick or fringe elements. It seems to me "we" would have more success by pooling resources/ideas. Does anyone imagine anything less will ultimately bring down the behemoth of mainstream physics? Perhaps SR still rules because too many of those who might otherwise prevail are too busy pointing fingers at every one else on the fringe as "nuts," or otherwise ignoring/snubbing/undermining/attacking them.
I sense the same stone wall here on this site Fogal must sense in trying to get his transistor into production.
<br />
Keep us posted,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know about the "us," but I'll keep you posted. There seems to be far more fiefdomization than co-operation between maverick or fringe elements. It seems to me "we" would have more success by pooling resources/ideas. Does anyone imagine anything less will ultimately bring down the behemoth of mainstream physics? Perhaps SR still rules because too many of those who might otherwise prevail are too busy pointing fingers at every one else on the fringe as "nuts," or otherwise ignoring/snubbing/undermining/attacking them.
I sense the same stone wall here on this site Fogal must sense in trying to get his transistor into production.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6891
by Samizdat
Replied by Samizdat on topic Reply from Frederick Wilson
What we have to face up to is that most folks will flee from anything remotely suggesting action, effort, or practicality, let alone practical application, LB.
No word from Fogal. His website hasn't been updated since '97 and Bearden regularly says "breakthrough just around the corner" (for production of the Fogal transistor). I'd take a crack at the benchtop if had anything with which to work. Btw, did you ever look into doing any of the quantum tunneling experiments I posted in detail to this site a few months back? Speaking for myself: although I'm not much of a shop hand, sheer disgust impels me to overcome this shortcoming, fast.
No word from Fogal. His website hasn't been updated since '97 and Bearden regularly says "breakthrough just around the corner" (for production of the Fogal transistor). I'd take a crack at the benchtop if had anything with which to work. Btw, did you ever look into doing any of the quantum tunneling experiments I posted in detail to this site a few months back? Speaking for myself: although I'm not much of a shop hand, sheer disgust impels me to overcome this shortcoming, fast.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.401 seconds