Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

The conversion that you speak of is not as simple as it seems.  If linear 
momentum is all that you have in the beginning then any generated angular 
momentum will always have an opposite brother that exactly negates the total 
when vector summed.  Of course this is only true for a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft




LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a 
piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..


What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation, 
linear or angular.  Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and 
momentum's constant.  I'm not sure anyone's suggested otherwise.. 

But a tethered EM drive is not producing counter-torque, so net angular 
momentum would not be constant...


...and if it were switched off mid-flight, and whatever it was tethered to 
suddenly released to move freely, the whole rotating system would fly off in a 
straight line, the two masses orbiting eachother as they fly thru space 
forever, their center of mass following a straight line.



Which is not to suggest that reactionless torque can necessarilly be converted 
to reactionless linear force - although i've seen at least one suggestion that 
a pair of opposing-signed 'angons' nailed to the same base would generate a net 
linear force, forming a 'linon' - an intruiging thought nonetheless LOL..



The suggestion that linear can be converted to angular was yours, remember...  
you were saying that an EM drive tethered this way demonstrates a further 
conservation violation.


I'm simply pointing out that inertia doesn't care what the direction of 
acceleration is, it's purely a function of how much mass has been accelerated / 
through how much space & time.  Linear inertia is invariant due to mass 
constancy, while angular MoI is a variable function of mass times radius.  But 
either way, the energy disunity is between the savings made on inputting 
momentum from within the accelerating frame, versus its usual KE value as 
measured from the external static frame, where N3 still applies - it's an 
excess of output work by the Higgs field, in relation to a deficit of input 
work on the part of our accelerating net system momentum.


My point's simply that there's no logical paradox or supernatural invocations 
etc. - the resolutions are already implicit within the terms of the 
proposition.   Any symmetry break implies an open thermodynamic system, and the 
source or sink is whatever's responsible for the passive force/time variation.  
This applies to all of them - overunity or underunity - all we're talking about 
is work performed by forces, or else its absence.


The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it would 
violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.   


  




On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't 
change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the linear momentum 
of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  Since it's exerting no 
torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.

Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing constantly, 
as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a force on the pivot 
point, as a result of which the linear momentum of whatever the pivot is 
anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a way that the sum of the two 
remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as it goes as the square of the 
velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT velocity at zero velocity.)

There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I already 
said, they're conserved separately.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

Linear momentum and angular momentum are orthagonal to each other within a 
closed system.  Each is conserved separately and one can not convert into the 
other.  I have seen where linear momentum can be induced to generate two or 
more angular momentum components, but the vector sum of the system angular 
momentum remains zero.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft



What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


Are you supposing that there's a fundamentally different interaction 
manifesting inertia in angular vs linear accelerations?  "Angons" vs "linons" 
or something? 



On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of their 
impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of physics" 
- is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical symmetry break, 
that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our interest.

It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular 
momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

[Vo]:Advanced Robotic Arm

[Ron Wormus]

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Greek version of Rossi on PBS

[H Ucar]

It is John Kanzius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius) first
reported to split water with RF. Otoh, I think I did it at 1996 with self
resonating coil circuit (Bipeg) to split the water in air having high
humidity and produced ozone as by product. Fields of the coil have rich
harmonics and now known to produce evanescent waves (near fields). Such a
combination make it little hazardous like ionization radiation.


On Dec 29, 2016 18:11, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

Frank,

The voice in the video is Stefan Hartmann who is German. He has an online
blog where... IIRC... he says that there are two GHz frequencies used in
the range of 150 GHz.

The implication is that that the lower frequency waves from the two sources
interact via interference to produce other harmonics including terahertz.

Frank Znidarsic wrote:

This video said microwaves.  The other said terahertz radiation.  I noticed
that the hydrogen burned.  When water is split hydrogen and oxygen are
produced.  This mixture explodes with a poping noise.  For the combustion
that the video shows the oxygen must have been be removed from the gas
stream.  This may have been done as the oxygen consumed the aluminum.  This
supports Jones claim that the consumption of aluminum produces the energy.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic

He says he is using Terahertz radiation.  I has a frequency that is orders
of magnitude higher than microwave.  That's the frequency of nano-meter
cold fusion operation.  He does not state how he produces the terahertz
radiation.

Frank


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

Terry,
Here is a video of an older device, showing the basic setup - curiously
using microwaves. The amount of gas is indeed impressive but there is no
valid proof or even raw data to show that it could be anomalous.
Plus- he is not being clear that there is a metal electrode - which is
almost certainly consumed as water is split. He seems to be in denial of
that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6k5eOJ4e8

 Terry Blanton wrote:


Jones Beene wrote:

> PETROS ZOGRAFOS is a Greek inventor who claims to split water in a way to
> get more energy out than was put into the system.


Transcript:

http://www.off-grid.net/power-tap-water/

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 02:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think 
of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..


You are confusing angular velocity, rotational energy, and kinetic 
energy with angular momentum and linear momentum.


A crank and piston doesn't convert linear momentum to angular momentum, 
any more than a resistor in an antenna converts the angular momentum of 
the EM wave into heat.


If you think otherwise then you don't understand CoA and there's no 
point in continuing this discussion.  And if you /don't/ think otherwise 
then you already know your example doesn't show conversion between the 
two and you are just trolling, in which case there's also no point in 
continuing the discussion.


And by the way, who are you?  I seriously doubt your parents named you 
"Vibrator".

[Vo]:erase "anomalous" from the LENR dictionary

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-29-2016-do-not-call-lenr-or-excess.html

-peter-
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a
piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..

What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation,
linear or angular.  Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and
momentum's constant.  I'm not sure anyone's suggested otherwise..

But a tethered EM drive is not producing counter-torque, so net angular
momentum would not be constant...

...and if it were switched off mid-flight, and whatever it was tethered to
suddenly released to move freely, the whole rotating system would fly off
in a straight line, the two masses orbiting eachother as they fly thru
space forever, their center of mass following a straight line.

Which is not to suggest that reactionless torque can necessarilly be
converted to reactionless linear force - although i've seen at least one
suggestion that a pair of opposing-signed 'angons' nailed to the same base
would generate a net linear force, forming a 'linon' - an intruiging
thought nonetheless LOL..

The suggestion that linear can be converted to angular was yours,
remember...  you were saying that an EM drive tethered this way
demonstrates a further conservation violation.

I'm simply pointing out that inertia doesn't care what the direction of
acceleration is, it's purely a function of how much mass has been
accelerated / through how much space & time.  Linear inertia is invariant
due to mass constancy, while angular MoI is a variable function of mass
times radius.  But either way, the energy disunity is between the savings
made on inputting momentum from within the accelerating frame, versus its
usual KE value as measured from the external static frame, where N3 still
applies - it's an excess of output work by the Higgs field, in relation to
a deficit of input work on the part of our accelerating net system momentum.

My point's simply that there's no logical paradox or supernatural
invocations etc. - the resolutions are already implicit within the terms of
the proposition.   Any symmetry break implies an open thermodynamic system,
and the source or sink is whatever's responsible for the passive force/time
variation.  This applies to all of them - overunity or underunity - all
we're talking about is work performed by forces, or else its absence.

The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it
would violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.



On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?
>>
>
> With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't
> change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the linear
> momentum of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  Since
> it's exerting no torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.
>
> Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing
> constantly, as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a force
> on the pivot point, as a result of which the linear momentum of whatever
> the pivot is anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a way that
> the sum of the two remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as it goes as
> the square of the velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT velocity at
> zero velocity.)
>
> There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I
> already said, they're conserved separately.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
  So, there's an intriguing thought to end on - if an EM-driven 
spacecraft subsequently decelerates again by simply performing a 180° 
rotation and continuing to apply constant thrust, all of the 
'anomolous' momentum and energy is neatly returned to source.


Well, no, actually, it wouldn't be.

You've neglected angular momentum, which isn't so easily patched up as that.

In an inertial frame in which the craft is initially at rest, it's all 
good.  But if we assume that we're viewing it from a frame in which the 
craft was originally travelling on a line passing through the origin, 
/and/ we assume that its initial acceleration took place /perpendicular/ 
to that line, /and/ we assume (just to keep it simple) that it 
accelerated very hard for a very short time /just as it passed through 
the origin/, then, though its linear momentum changed, the initial 
acceleration didn't affect its angular momentum.


However, the final acceleration, which takes place after it has 
travelled a significant distance from the origin, will not be parallel 
to its radius vector, and hence will change its angular momentum but a 
significant amount.


Consequently, angular momentum won't be conserved in this scenario.

This is, BTW, one of the issues with teleportation as it commonly 
appears in sci-fi.  You can patch the linear momentum pretty easily but 
unless you want to throw CoAM overboard you've got a problem.


As I said to start with, none of this "proves" the EM drive can't work.  
However, it makes the /likelihood/ that it's anything more than bad 
measurements seem very small, as CoAM, CoM, and CoE have been verified 
many times over, in the exact realm the EM drive operates in.  It's 
reflecting reasonably garden-variety EM radiation in a cavity, which is 
well within the region where classical physics is most solid.  It's not 
like the thing has a black hole on board or something.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place 
doesn't change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the 
linear momentum of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  
Since it's exerting no torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.


Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing 
constantly, as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a 
force on the pivot point, as a result of which the linear momentum of 
whatever the pivot is anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a 
way that the sum of the two remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as 
it goes as the square of the velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT 
velocity at zero velocity.)


There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I 
already said, they're conserved separately.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

They are closely related, as angular momentum (in classical mechanics) 
is the sum of the angular momentum of each object in the system measured 
about its own axis, along with the sum of the linear momentum of each 
object crossed with its radius vector.  Total angular momentum depends 
on where you put the origin -- but then, total linear momentum depends 
on your frame of reference, as does total energy.


However, linear and angular momentum are conserved separately. Given a 
particular frame of reference and origin, you can't start with 50 
kg-m/sec of linear momentum and magically reduce that to zero while 
increasing the angular momentum of the system by an equivalent amount.


Granted, in classical mechanics the conservation law for angular 
momentum is derived from the conservation law for linear momentum, but 
when you get into quantum mechanics, not so much.


On 12/29/2016 12:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as 
evidence of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd 
break the laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is 
explicitly a classical symmetry break, that's its whole prospective 
value, and reason for our interest.


It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to 
angular momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?

Are you supposing that there's a fundamentally different interaction
manifesting inertia in angular vs linear accelerations?  "Angons" vs
"linons" or something?

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
>> their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
>> physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical
>> symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
>> interest.
>>
>> It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular
>> momentum,
>>
>
> Do tell.
>
> Got an example of that?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence 
of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the 
laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a 
classical symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and 
reason for our interest.


It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to 
angular momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Vibrator !]

Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical
symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
interest.

It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular
momentum, so the distinction in this sense is also redundant - this is one
classical CoM violation, not two discrete ones.

Plus the classical CoE violation.

It's important to keep that "classical" bit in the description of the
phenomenon in question - evidence of the non-conservation of momentum or
energy is intrinsically impossible - akin to positing evidence of a
causality violation; an inherently oxymoronic position..  We can only
rationally intepret an apparent example of non-conservation as evidence
that a system usually thermodynamically closed is somehow open.

So we don't simply halt at the prospect, presume we've run out of road and
pack up to go home..  we park up our expectations, grab a few essentials
and continue following the trail that's lead us here..

Both the CoM and CoE anomalies are eminently resolvable from first
principles.

To simplify the system, let's presume we have a passively superconducting
frustum.  Because I^2 * R * T is the only disssipative loss mechanism
involved, eliminating it provides a perfectly-efficient means of applying a
momentum asymmetry... but NOT thrust!

The thrust is, in turn, produced by the momentum asymmetry.

This is the key distinction.  Our input energy is only performing a
constant internal workload - specifically, generating an asymmetry in the
ratios of positive to negative ambient momenta exchanged between the
virtual photon field and opposite ends of the frustum.

In principle, merely rendering a field costs nothing, aside from a small
but notionally conserved  input energy.  Only if that field then performs
work, is that workload applied to the field-source energy supply, via
Newton's 3rd law or its EM counterpart, Lenz's law.

Furthermore, if that workload is merely mass displacement at constant
velocity then all energy invested in the acceleration remains conserved in
that momentum, and can likewise be recouped to the field source.

However the acceleration corresponding to a cyclical (ie. closed-loop)
momentum asymmetry represents work performed by the field itself - or, more
precisely, the quantum exchanges that constitute the substance of the force
in question. The input energy only needs to generate and sustain the
imbalance of opposing momenta.

To clarify this, let's eliminate the EM component entirely, and examine a
hypothetical but purely mechanical CoM violation:

 - suppose we can 'turn off' mass at will, accelerating a body with zero
inertia, before switching it back on again, and so generating free momentum
and energy

..so in this scenario, the Higgs field has output mechanical work for us,
we've netted ambient momentum and energy directly from the vacuum
potential, and the only cost to us was that required to momentarilly
disable the mass / inertia.  But crucially, we input no work against the
Higgs..

However even if that input energy was far greater than the output KE
netted, provided we can keep repeating the interaction, building up
successively more net system momentum, we eventually pass a threshold
wherein the net system KE as measured from the non-inertial frame exceeds
the net input energy as measured from within the accelerating system.

If the EM-drive principle is viable, then its subsequent gain in energy and
momentum is a direct linear function of its internal momentum asymmetry,
not its input energy, and its internal efficiency or CoP never exceeds
unity...

The confusion arises when we assume that a passively-superconducting EM
drive would only be spending energy on its own mechanical acceleration -
after all if we've eliminated heat loss then acceleration seems the only
remaining workload...

..however here, the net acceleration is the sum of not just the applied
positive momenta, but also the circumvented or negated negative momenta!
IE. it's a function of the momentum disunity, which can be anything from
100% (ie. full cancellation of counter-force) down to any non-zero value.
So the net system energy is augmented by the KE value of its diverging
reference frame.

The clearest handle on this is given by consideration of just why
KE=1/2mV^2 in the first place -  why does KE have different dimensions to
momentum (P=mV)..?  The reasons are obvious when you realise them, but
subtle enough that resolution of this "vis viva" debate was surely THE most
fundamental breakthrough of the enlightenment in classical mechanics...

Energy evolves as the half square of inertia times velocity as a direct
consequence of the constraint of Newton's 3rd law - we must inevitably
accelerate reaction mass, and the faster our reaction mass is moving away
from us, the 

Re: [Vo]:Greek version of Rossi on PBS

[Jones Beene]

Nigel Dyer wrote:

We had a very good presentation of Browns Gas by the Hurtaks at the 
last water conference although no overunity was claimed, just that it 
was able to improve the efficiency of an internal combustion energy. 
This looks to be very similar to a classic Browns gas setup


Nigel


Yes - the infamous "dry cell" or common-manifold multiplate electrolysis 
system, which created a stir on a few forums several years back ... 
thousands were sold, and maybe a dozen are still in service. But that 
argument is still being used (that the value of adding a tiny amount of 
hydrogen comes from increasing the efficiency of burning hydrocarbons in 
an ICE).


It is a valid argument, that much is true... but it was over-hyped, 
since the cost effectiveness of such a system is minimal without 
something more that has been demonstrated so far. I do know of a couple 
of large diesel installations in the Caribbean using the CAT 100L 
engines, where "HHO" is used to augment diesel - but there is risk 
involved and the payback is much longer than was promoted.


The real reason for keeping an eye on these inventors like Zografos - 
even though he may or may not be the real deal - is that the obvious 
connection to LENR means that someone may eventually hit on a technique 
for getting large gain. This particular demo is almost exactly what one 
would expect to see - if that big breakthrough has been made. When it 
happens, however, the inventor will be more than happy to let skeptics 
take real data.


It is easy to imagine that the electrode used by Zografos could in fact 
be both splitting hydrogen and oxygen from water and at the same time - 
densifying the hydrogen into UDH, which is almost what Randell Mills 
claims to be doing with his device, using an electric arc. RF would be 
highly preferable to an electric arc.


If that was happening, then the UV emission should be intense. Yet we 
have an open air demo with not protection. The most convincing detail of 
success would be if Zografos suffered from intense sunburn... which does 
not appear to be the case.


However, given that he appears to be a showman in the best AR tradition, 
look for his next demo to include a makeup artist and a red-faced 
inventor 

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Greek version of Rossi on PBS

[Jones Beene]

Frank,

The voice in the video is Stefan Hartmann who is German. He has an 
online blog where... IIRC... he says that there are two GHz frequencies 
used in the range of 150 GHz.


The implication is that that the lower frequency waves from the two 
sources interact via interference to produce other harmonics including 
terahertz.



Frank Znidarsic wrote:
This video said microwaves.  The other said terahertz radiation.  I 
noticed that the hydrogen burned.  When water is split hydrogen and 
oxygen are produced.  This mixture explodes with a poping noise.  For 
the combustion that the video shows the oxygen must have been be 
removed from the gas stream.  This may have been done as the oxygen 
consumed the aluminum.  This supports Jones claim that the consumption 
of aluminum produces the energy.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic

He says he is using Terahertz radiation.  I has a frequency that is 
orders of magnitude higher than microwave.  That's the frequency of 
nano-meter cold fusion operation.  He does not state how he produces 
the terahertz radiation.


Frank


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

Terry,
Here is a video of an older device, showing the basic setup - 
curiously using microwaves. The amount of gas is indeed impressive but 
there is no valid proof or even raw data to show that it could be 
anomalous.
Plus- he is not being clear that there is a metal electrode - which is 
almost certainly consumed as water is split. He seems to be in denial 
of that part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6k5eOJ4e8

 Terry Blanton wrote:


Jones Beene wrote:

PETROS ZOGRAFOS is a Greek inventor who claims to split water
in a way to get more energy out than was put into the system.


Transcript:

http://www.off-grid.net/power-tap-water/

Re: [Vo]:Greek version of Rossi on PBS

[Nigel Dyer]

We had a very good presentation of Browns Gas by the Hurtaks at the last 
water conference although no overunity was claimed, just that it was 
able to improve the efficiency of an internal combustion energy. This 
looks to be very similar to a classic Browns gas setup


Nigel

On 28/12/2016 04:36, Jones Beene wrote:
PETROS ZOGRAFOS is a Greek inventor who claims to split water in a way 
to get more energy out than was put into the system. Sound familiar? 
Shades of Stanley Meyer. He even uses the "resonance" spiel of Meyer 
and pretends that it is a new thing.


Zografos was apparently featured on PBS tonight but I missed it. His 
videos have been up on You Tube for several weeks however. 
Unfortunately he prefers to keep things mysterious so it is not clear 
if he is an inventive genius or scam artist in the best tradition of 
Stan... not to mention the recent demo of Randy Mills - which is a new 
twist on the old theme.


Zografos has shown several systems in the old videos but he is 
basically comes off as a showman who is almost as disingenuous as AR 
in providing no data. In one system, it was discovered that he was 
consuming aluminum from electrodes in order to split water in a way 
that makes it look super efficient - if, that is ... you forget about 
the energy required to refine the aluminum.


Maybe PBS is new to this kind of scam - the legacy of Yull Brown and 
Meyer and man others others ... or maybe Zografos has found a new 
breakthrough which is real anomaly. His past work was no more than 
smoke and mirrors - but there is always hope for the big breakthrough 
in splitting water with resonance.


That hope for turning water into a fuel is the legacy of Jules Verne 
who created a meme which is by now ingrained in the free-energy 
aspirations of every new age. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.