Note: this topic is from October 4, 2004. Thanks -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-.
· String Theory Ping List ·
· View or Post in 'blog · Join · Bookmark · Topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 10/04/2004 9:23:57 AM PDT by -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
When I was asked to work on this technology, I said, "I wil l hear nothing more on queer Eskimos."
--Boris
...not to mention bleeding people to get the devil out of them and alchemy.
According to Tewari, the movement of "voids" in the spinning magnetized cylinder of his Space Power Generator liberates free energy out of the space between the machine's axis and the magnet.
But men can fly. Just like coyotes.
Well, at least until impact...
BEEP-BEEP!
Given my FReeper name, I feel obligated to comment. The amazing thing in this amalgam of lunacies is that one could so cavalierly chuck all of thermodynamics as a hoax. Poor Newton, Maxwell, Boltzman, and Einstein never knew what dupes they were. Oh well, we have to have something to "generate" discussion on radio after midnight. (I do think that this "free" energy idea might have application in explaining the effect of Scotch on neural receptors.)
Two questions: 1) How many times has this site been on the Just DamnTM ping list?
2) How did you ever find a site to make DUmmies look sane?
Couldn't tell if your site was the first, but some of the agribusinesses are at it too:
The guy should just post the plans and specs all over the internet and we'll know if it works in a few years when US electric consumption as measured by grid draw declines.
After the fact, he can hook up with John Edwards and sue all of the utilities for engineering the suppression of the technology to the detriment of the population at large and reap his profit there...
I'll bet lots of Midwesterners remember sticking their tongue to a flag pole in mid-winter.
So I guess it gets to around the orbit of Mars and stops.
That guy has got a LOT of time on his hands (gee is that a pun?), or he has a very serious mental problem. I'm still trying to figure out what ... he should have an "about" section LOL.
You know, I'm not very good in math, I mean I'm no Einstien or Hawkins, but if someone else could express my theory in terms of an equation or 2, (and I'd be willing to pay $100.00 if they could disprove it), because quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided and I've I've been working on this for 15yrs, and although it may not quite be a paradigm shift, it is cutting edge. I may not be a self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy, but I have been to school, and I know a hidebound reactionary when I see one. Yes, I've had shrinks try to talk me out of my theory, but they were brownshirts and the scientific establishment has been engaged in a conspiracy to prevent my work from gaining its well-deserved recognition. They don't believe that my theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization. Why I'm expecting to receive the Nobel Prize in the near future. I might be the next Galileo or Newton and when my theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is and show trials in which scientists who mocked my theories will be forced to recant.
HA HA, that'll show them!
I guess that some of the crackpots are thinking like that. What is the score?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics(written by John Baez):
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
"What is the score?"
Well, I think mine's about 330. Of course, I think it deserves more since I never even described the theory. But most people in the field understood it . LoL. (How many more points do I get for that?) LoL.
Thx.
The title of an unclassified, eight-page, Defense Analysis Report produced by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and released on November 13, 2009 says it all: Worldwide Research on “Cold Fusion” Increasing and Gaining Acceptance. Only the report didn’t call it “cold fusion” but “Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” one of the terms under which this work has continued since Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world in 1989 that their eletrochemical experiments had produced excess energy, which they thought could be nuclear in origin, at room temperature. But when most researchers attempting to replicate their results failed, the physics community dismissed their work, which the press labeled “cold fusion,” as lacking credibility.
Since then, according to this DIA Technology Forecast, “Scientists worldwide have been quietly investigating low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) for the past 20 years. Researchers in this controversial field are now claiming paradigm-shifting results, including generation of large amounts of excess heat, nuclear activity and transmutation of elements. Although no current theory exists to explain all the reported phenomena, some scientists now believe quantum-level nuclear reactions may be occurring. DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room tempera- tures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.”
Although much skepticism remains, these once unconventional research programs are now receiving increased support worldwide, including state sponsorship and funding from major corporations. “DIA assesses that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field, although Russia, China, Israel, and India are devoting significant resources to this work in the hope of finding a new clean energy source.”
There is one strange quirk of vacuum energy that opens up a possibility. In a thermal system at rest, the temperature is uniform. There are no differences in temperature that would allow energy extraction. But vacuum energy is different: it depends upon local structures and boundaries. Both in open space and inside a Casimir cavity, the state of lowest available energy is the zero-point energy state. As described earlier, however, the cavity rejects some of the ZPE, and so there is a difference between the energy levels inside and outside the plates. It’s as if sea level were constant, except in some locations. On a real sea, the water would spill from the higher level to the lower, but for a Casimir cavity the local difference in “sea” levels is stable.
There may be a way to take advantage of this natural step in the lowest available energy. Gas flowing into the cavity from outside experiences this drop in ZPE. The gas atoms may drop into a lower-energy state inside the cavity. On the way in, they could emit the difference in energy in the form of electromagnetic waves, according to a patent that was issued in 2008 (U.S. # 7,379,286). After flowing through the Casimir cavity and exiting on the other side, the atoms would be re-energized to their initial state by the ambient ZPE field. The gas could be pumped through the Casimir cavity many times, so that the emitted energy would provide a continuous power source.
This is not like the contracting Casimir cavity described previously, which required the energy gained to separate the plates again. The function of pumping the gas is only to move it through the system, and is not directly related to the energy obtained from the vacuum. The pumping energy required is much less than what could be extracted from the gas emission. The overall function of the system would be to transfer ZPE from the environment and deposit it locally, where it could be used. This approach of using gas flowing through Casimir cavities circumvents the violations of thermodynamics that blocked the earlier approaches.
--Garret Moddel, professor, Elec, Comp, & Energy Engr Dept. at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.