New Time Dialation Video!

T12,
Assume Nothing For I Have Conceeded Nothing!
Click to expand...
You have also shown nothing.
yawn.gif

Have you ever lost somone close to you?
Did you "Love" them?

Prove it!

Provide me with "Substantiated Evidence" to support that!
Click to expand...
That's called changing the subject. Let's just stick with the current subject, and your need to substantiate some of the wild (and incomplete) claims in this thread. If we ever get beyond that, then we can come back to this.

RMT
 
Gary,

For some reason it never ceases to amaze me - the things that people say.

Take, for instance Krauss' quote in the Edge article that you referenced:

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the most profound puzzle of the latter half of the 20th Century and it doesn't fly in the face of any modern physics. It was one of the most profound discoveries of the beginning of the 20th Century.

As I stated in my previous post - this was originally profered by Einstein circa 1906-1910...several years before Heisenberg formulated quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle.

We've known for an entire century that the energy of some arbitrary volume of space can't be zero. As you stated, that would violate one of those oh so repressive laws that the mean spirited mainstream physicists have recklessly and randomly imposed on us for their own evil and self-serving purpose with the intent of locking out the "real" scientists.

And what in God's name is an "ultra ray"? Can you show me in the literature where it is defined?

There are various means of producing more powerful energies, It can be obtained by turning hydrogen into helium at low temperature and bombarding deuterium with heavier mesons, releasing a fabulous amount of energy;
Click to expand...

Now, I know that you didn't write this part of your post - it was a copy & paste from a plain text file from a source other than yourself. Therefore I won't hold it against you if you don't understand it. That being said...

At what "low" temperature do you "turn hydrogen into helium"? Can you define the process and intermediate steps in the nucleo synthesis H ---> He.

What is temperature, anyway?

What mesons do you bombard deuterium with? Why deuterium? Why not, for instance, lithium or helium or neon? Why mesons? Why not, for instance, protons or neutrons?

I understand that if hydrogen is nucleo synthesized into helium that "fabulous" amounts of energy is released. That's the process ultimately used in a thermonuclear device. But in your process, how much energy is released per unit mass of hydrogen?
 
Darby,
We've known for an entire century that the energy of some arbitrary volume of space can't be zero. As you stated, that would violate one of those oh so repressive laws that the mean spirited mainstream physicists have recklessly and randomly imposed on us for their own evil and self-serving purpose with the intent of locking out the "real" scientists.
Click to expand...


It's terrible how so much knowledge of physics has been "held back" from the general populace, isn't it? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Too much fun... but I am glad you finally brought temperature into the dicussion. I was just about to go there, but thanks for taking care of that. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

RMT
 
Rainman,

Too much fun... but I am glad you finally brought temperature into the dicussion. I was just about to go there, but thanks for taking care of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I supposed that temperature might have some relationship to the discussion. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Gary,

BTW:

If you allow radioactivity to pass through a magnetic field you will get alpha, beta and gamma rays. The first are helium nuclei, the second are electrons and the third are gamma rays which are similar to ultra rays in their electro-magnetic content.
Click to expand...

Let's see...if I allow radioactivity to pass through a magnetic field I'll get alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays.

So what is "radioactivity" - I mean, other than the emission of alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

Your borrowed statement breaks down to this:

If you pass alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays through a field composed of alpha particles, beta particles and/or gamma ray you'll end up with alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays.

All too true - but a trivial truth.

So what affect does the magnetic field have on this situation? If its a magnetic field, what affect does the electric field have? Does the angle of the vector of the particles relative to the magnetic field make any difference? If so, what?
 
So what affect does the magnetic field have on this situation? If its a magnetic field, what affect does the electric field have? Does the angle of the vector of the particles relative to the magnetic field make any difference? If so, what?

Relative to right angles perhaps?

But then again I seem to be addressing those who think they're not always right, but never wrong! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
Gary,

Relative to right angles perhaps?
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know - or even why I asked. Correct?

We're talking reasonably basic E&M here.


And what about the question about radiation and the particles?

And again, what is an "ultra ray"?
 
Gary,
But then again I seem to be addressing those who think they're not always right, but never wrong!
Click to expand...
Do you always act to demonize those who seek a little more scientific substantiation for your marketing claims? Is asking deep and meaningful questions of the stuff you post really such a bad thing?

RMT
 
Gary,

No - I wasn't curious ebnough to click on your "message". Last time it was a photo of someone flashing someone's IQ. It was humorous - in a pre-adolescent sort of way.

But we seem to have gotten to you here.

If you're going to be a part of a system that puts on sales "conventions" for perpetual motion gadgets that have an admission price of about $250.00 per person then you have got to have a much thicker skin - and a lot better answers. You've been a shill for this game for many years. If you're going to step out of the dugout then you have to step up to the dish and answer some questions.

You know that you probably aren't going to convince me - but you've been doing a rather bad job of it if you're trying to convince others. Based on your original post with the links to Tim Ventura's site where the convention advertisement links are its reasonable to assume that that's why you posted in the first place.

So - how 'bout those "ultra rays" (no - not the TB Devil Rays)? What are they? Where do they exist on the EM spectrum? What properties do they have that UV, X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays don't possess?

What about temperature? What is temperature? What is "cold fusion"...especially what is meant by "cold" in that case?
 
Gary,

In all seriousness... if you really are interested in "free energy", I can help you out but you've got to understand that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says it will never come "free". I can offer you a decidedly "lower tech" solution than the stuff made of "unobtainium" that you are promoting, but at the same time this solution can be had and it is highly reliable... as reliable as the sun, in fact!


For the past 3 years I have had a 3.3kW solar power system generating 240 VDC power on my roof and coupling it to the grid via static inverter. On an annualized basis I have generated more power than I have used, and my annual payment to SoCal Edision is only a grid connection fee which amounts to about $15 per year.

So how serious are you? If you are serious I can design a system for you and put you in touch with an installation contractor. I'd even offer my design services for less than the $250 admission fee to your Telsatech conference. All you'd have to do is buy the components and pay the contractor to install it and get it bought off by SoCalEdision. Such a deal!

RMT
 
Hi Darby,
What about temperature? What is temperature? What is "cold fusion"...especially what is meant by "cold" in that case?
Click to expand...
I had really hoped Gary would continue to engage you on this topic. Temperature is not only an important (VERY!) concept when it comes to measures of energy in general, but it is also one of the most misunderstood measurements that many people involved in pseudo-science will misappropriate (most often because they do not understand temperature, heat, and thermodynamics, but other times it is purposefully to obfuscate).

A great deal could be learned by many if such pseudo-scientists would be successfully engaged (rather than having them run away) by folks who understand temperature, heat, and thermodynamics. What is truly ironic is that if these pseudo-scientists actually took the time to learn these important facts of physics, they would come to greater understandings about the very things they endeavor to bring to the world.


While Gary may not wish to continue with us here, I would like to point out (for those who might be reading one or more of my other threads elsewhere on the forum) that temperature is yet another integrated measure of "Matter in Motion", much the same as momentum, energy, and as I hope to someday "prove", information. Indeed, if one wanted to generalize conservation laws in a "low tech" manner, one could say that all conservation laws imply that "Matter in Motion" is always conserved.

RMT
 
Gary,

There are no technical difficulties involved in producing an external vacuum. You know that cathode rays have the strange property of decomposing the atmosphere through which they pass. Under the action of these rays, the elements of the atmosphere revert to their etheric state.
Click to expand...

Cathode rays??? Errr...what century do you live in, my friend? Back about 100 years ago, before the "cathode ray" was understood I could see using that term here. But today?

A "cathode ray" is a stream of electrons. That's it. Just electrons (not that "just electrons" diminishes their importance).

They don't "decompose" the atmosphere. They might ionize nitrogen molecules (and other molecules in the air). But electrons, per se, aren't the reason why the sky is blue (or red near the horizon once the sun sets or just before sunrise).

But electrons absolutely do have something to do with the water in the glass not spilling out if the situation is properly and carefully arranged. That might have something to do with the fact that the EM force is 10^42 times greater than gravitation.

In each case that you referenced in your post regarding hydrodynamics you didn't get a free lunch. You added energy to the situation to create vacuums, lift water, turn glasses over, fill glasses with water, etc. This has nothing to do with the perpetual motion gadgets (of the second kind) that you hawk.

Hell, if you want free energy why use hydrodynamics? If you can get a free lunch why not extract the electric energy from the atmosphere? Every meter that you rise from the Earth's surface you have an increase in electrical potential of about 100 volts. The differential between your feet and top of your head is 200 volts. Let's see you get some energy from that potential.
 
why not extract the electric energy from the atmosphere?
Why not, exactly!

Albeit our ability might be limited at the present to create a working device that produces Hydrogen "on demand" however, our current research indicates that this type of revolutionary concept is not at all impossible.

"Impossible simply means we haven't done it yet."
 
Albeit our ability might be limited at the present to create a working device that produces Hydrogen "on demand" however, our current research indicates that this type of revolutionary concept is not at all impossible.
Click to expand...
I didn't know electrolysis was "revolutionary".

And don't forget: Efficiency = Output/Input. When you can get anything better than even 50% efficiency (and can demonstrate it) then let me know. Otherwise, I'll keep using tried and true methods.

RMT
 
Gary,

Albeit our ability might be limited at the present to create a working device that produces Hydrogen "on demand" however, our current research indicates that this type of revolutionary concept is not at all impossible.
Click to expand...

I dunno - but I think that Rainman is correct. Extracting a proton from a water molecule, i.e. hydrogen, is a rather straight forward process. Something tells me that the input energy to unbind a hydrogen atom from the water molecule is ~13.6 eV. No free lunch.

But if you're having problems you could try a uud quark arrangement and build to suit - "albeit" at a rather substantial cost in input energy. I'm sure that someone at the convention knows where to find unbound quarks laying about somewhere.


On the other hand I don't know why one would want to build a proton to create hydrogen considering that ~80% of the entire universe is hydrogen.

But what the heck does this have to do with extracting electrical energy from the atmospheric potential of 100 volts/meter change in altitude?
 
Back
Top