Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms writes: Mass and energy are only equivalent when energy is converted to mass. When energy exists only as energy, it does not have the property of mass. That would be potential energy, I suppose, and my understanding is that it does have mass. When you wind a watch, raise a rock up, or charge a battery, you add a tiny amount to the mass of the object. Any form of energy production always reduces mass. What you are saying is more a matter of faith than experimental fact. Granted, the photon appears to be attracted by gravity, hence acts like mass. However, people have found other ways to explain this observation. As far as I know, no unambiguous experimental observation shows that energy in any form acts like mass or would exhibit detectable gravity if in a high enough concentration. I say this knowing that a photon falling through a gravity field appears to change its energy. The issue all of this discussion addresses is whether a very high concentration of ZPE could be detected because it would acquire the properties of mass, i.e gravity and inertia. Perhaps other people have some thoughts on this idea. If this energy is like light or heat, it must originate somewhere, presumably in the sun and other stars. The sun's energy production is all accounted for, as far as I know, except perhaps for a few neutrinos. Presumably the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see. It doesn't originate anywhere, it just is. If you like the Big Bang approach, you can say it was left over from the Big Bang, being energy that has not yet been converted into mass. If you like the Steady-State approach you can say it is the reservoir from which mass forms and into which mass goes when it converts to energy by natural processes. It is the other side of the equilibrium reaction that keeps the universe in balance. Of course, some of this energy is at a low enough frequency that we can see it with our primitive detectors, but that small part is only leakage (or the edge of the frequency distribution) from a huge reservoir. You might say, we are surrounded by dark matter as well as by dark energy. Ed My knowledge of relativity and ZPE combined would barely fill a postcard, so perhaps I am missing something here. - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
In a message dated 7/23/2004 12:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Presumably the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see. Yes, that is true. Given that, we could detect it due to its gravitational influence. Hubble's red shift would be much greater. We do not detect this gravitational influence. The ZPE is not there in any large amount. I gave up on ZPE about 15 years ago when I came to this conclusion. I told Puthoff this. He did not answer this question except to say that maybe ZP energy has no gravitational influence. I don't believe this. This does not mean we cant create energy from nothing. The positive energy would be balanced its negative gravitational influence on the universe. The genesis process requires that we control gravity. My Constants of the Motion Theorem shows us how to do this. It is narrow in scope. It does not include magnet motors. It includes cold fusion. Cold Fusion Information - Frank Znidarsic Frank Znidarsic
Re: Pure Energy Systems
In a message dated 7/23/2004 12:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as I know, no unambiguous experimental observation shows that energy in any form acts like mass or would exhibit detectable gravity if in a high enough concentration. I have went down this path quite a while ago. Momentum is always conserved. When light passes the sun it bends. Momentum is conserved. The bending light must pullback on the sun. How could it do this? With its gravity. Bending light has gravity. If light has gravity distant light from closely spaced stars should arrive in lumps or rods. It does not. Non bending light does not have gravity. Energy is always conserved. The positive energy of the universe is balanced by a negative gravitation potential. When a photon is ejected the photon must have exactly the correct amount of gravity to account for the loss of mass in the ejecting object. The center of gravitational mass is always conserved. The applies to the process of photon ejection. With these observations in mind, I did an analyses of photon ejection and I found that the gravitation mass of the photon is produced due the acceleration force it experiences as it passes through Hubbles constant. This analysis may be found at. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html I found that in all cases that gravity produces a force and a force produces gravity. This analysis lead me to my constants of the motion theorem. This theorem describes the process of quantum transition. enjoy Frank Znidarsic
Re: Pure Energy Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/23/2004 12:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Presumably the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see. Yes, that is true. Given that, we could detect it due to its gravitational influence. Hubble's red shift would be much greater. We do not detect this gravitational influence. The ZPE is not there in any large amount. I gave up on ZPE about 15 years ago when I came to this conclusion. I told Puthoff this. He did not answer this question except to say that maybe ZP energy has no gravitational influence. I don't believe this. If we are in a uniform gravitational field, how would you detect it? In other words, if the ZPE is uniform in all directions, its gravitational influence would cancel. Ed This does not mean we cant create energy from nothing. The positive energy would be balanced its negative gravitational influence on the universe. The genesis process requires that we control gravity. My Constants of the Motion Theorem shows us how to do this. It is narrow in scope. It does not include magnet motors. It includes cold fusion. Cold Fusion Information - Frank Znidarsic Frank Znidarsic
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell posted Jeff Kooistra wrote: Reactionless drives (and anti-gravity machines, which are more or less the same thing) are also impossible, because they violate Newton's third law. That does not I've always wanted to build an improved version of the Cook Drive, www.forceborne.com , to see if Cook's claims hold water. Howard, who once taught Chem Eng at the Univ of MN, said that a reactionless drive would upset his paradigm, which would tickle me.
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jones Beene writes: I *do* deny o-u motors are possible! Obviously they are impossible, since they violate the conservation of energy. ... or else conservation of energy and the 2nd 'Law' of Thermodynamics is just a semantic generalization, not a real law at all - a generaliztion that has proved 'kind of' accurate thus far, only because we made past accomodations and have not yet determined the newer ways in which it can be violated. Empiricist philosophers would say that description fits all physical laws. The only reason we believe in Newton's third law is because no one has ever observed an action without a reaction. The only reason we (most of us, anyway) believe in special relativity is because no one has ever observed variations in the speed of light, or anything that goes faster than light. Some laws are supported by other laws. That is, deeper laws support or explain the laws. At least, people think they do. Again, the empiricist view is that causality itself is merely statistical, and you can never actually prove that one event triggered another, or one explanation definitely and completely subsumes another. But even if we accept that chemistry explains biology, and physics explains chemistry, and string theory explains physics, that merely pushes the empirical basis of belief down one level. Eventually, you reach the end of presently known laws and observations. The bedrock basis of all knowledge then resolves into a rather trite statement: we think X must be true because no one has ever reported a reliable observation that contradicts it. Actually, the basis of knowledge is even less reliable. As Kuhn pointed out, every observation and law has numerous counterexamples floating around in the literature. We ignore them, because we expect that either they are errors or they will eventually be shown not to contradict the textbooks after all. (These are reasonable expectations.) People say Newton's laws are logically true and they cannot imagine how the universe would work without them. I believe that is because our imagination is limited to minor variations of what we see, and what we have experienced. If reactionless drives are ever discovered, and they become common, a year later everyone will say they cannot imagine how the universe would work without reactionless drives. Pretty soon they would be saying Newton was not exactly wrong, his law was merely a special case, and it was extended the way conservation of energy was extended to mass-energy after radioactivity was discovered. People believe in things so firmly they come to imagine they can actually observe -- or physically feel -- abstractions and generalizations. Someone who indignantly told Chris Tinsley that he was sure energy is conserved because he has watched it being conserved. He can feel it being conserved. - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Edmund Storms wrote: laws are understood by 99.9% of scientists and engineers. CF also appears to violate some textbook laws of nuclear physics, although there is less agreement among experts about which laws it violates, and to what extent it violates them. The point is, only a fool would believe in CF if it had not been proven experimentally. O-U motors should be ruled impossible until it is proven by experiment that they exist. It has to be a widely replicated, well documented, convincing experiment. I suggest the issue is not that CF or O-U devices violate conservation of energy laws. This issue is a distraction. When conservation of energy laws are applied, all sources of energy must be identified. If an unexpected and ignored energy is involved in the process, the conservation law can not be applied. I meant that ZPE appears to violate the conservation of mass-energy. It produces energy without annihilating commensurate mass. In the case of CF, the energy source are unexpected nuclear reactions that produce completely conventional products. Yes. I said that CF appears to violate nuclear physics. I did not mean it violates C. of E. Some skeptics have made that claim, but it is ridiculous. Actually, CF is predicated on calorimetry, which is predicated on the second law. If thermodynamics does not work, CF results are meaningless. In the case of O-U motors, the ignored energy is proposed to be ZPE. The only issue is whether ZPE can be made to run a motor. The laws of conversation of energy have no bearing on the issue. I think they do. Scott Little told me he stopped believing in ZPE some years ago because every time he asked a theorist how much energy it produces, the estimate seemed to go up by another 10 orders of magnitude. Eventually they were talking about boiling away the oceans of earth ten time over with the ZPE in a few centimeters of space. That sounds ridiculous to me. - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
In a message dated 7/20/04 9:18:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I *do* deny o-u motors are possible! Obviously they are impossible, since they violate the conservation of energy. That does not mean we can be absolutely, positively sure they do not exist. The laws of the conservation of energy are improperly formed and miss half of the energy equation laws according to Joseph Hasslberger at www.hasslberger.com: "While radiation is an entropic phenomena, gravitation is an expressive syntropy, Joseph Hassleberger" " A new beginning for thermodynamics by Joseph Hassleberger posted at www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_2.htm" "Joachim Kirchoff, who has done a thorough research on the development and the history of thermodynamics has shown that these laws, and especially the basic assumption of conservation of energy, can be traced back to an authoritative pronunciation of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, made in the year 1775, saying that henceforth, the Academy "will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion". The "laws" thus established and enshrined as the laws of thermodynamics have entered the official screening process of all new inventions. There is such a thing as conservation of energy. However our understanding of the concept is largely incomplete. By negating the idea of an ether, which I called "space background", we have limited our conception of energy to that which is observable on the purely physical plane. All electric and magnetic as well as gravitational phenomena however, are not purely physical. They require for their understanding a conception of a higher dimensional space background, which is to use the term of Moray, a "sea of energy". Conservation of energy in the current form of understanding is a useless concept, as it negates the existence of the giant reservoir of energy, and does not take into account the constant interchange (through the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and gravitation), of our world of physical existence and that reservoir. Generation of electrical energy through magnetism for example, is not limited to the mechanical motive power applied to a generator and the movement of electrons through a wire, but involves a complex exchange between space background and physical machinery. Here we have the key to resolving the riddle of thermodynamics. We can see how nature, using both these types of motion in a balanced way, can ever regenerate itself. It simply goes, over and over again, through a whole cycle of Chaos-- build up -- decay -- chaos, using the centripetal or vortex motion in the buildup part of the cycle and the radiative, heat generating motion in the decay part. The idea of entropy is the constant and irreversible winding down of the universe with the second law of thermodynamics. This law is based on an observation of James Wattis steam machine, which was the only technological utilization of thermal energy available at the time. Entropy is associated with radiation. It signifies an ever increasing randomly of motion, and expenditure of the "innate energy of a system". According to the current views of thermodynamics, there is no antidote to entropy. Once expended, energy is said to be lost forever in that giant heat sink, which we imagine the vast reaches of the universe to be. One of the great minds of this century, an outsider to established science, has recognized the folly of this view and coined a term for the antidote. He calls it syntropy. In his book "Cosmography", R. Buckminster Fuller writes: "The reader will discover that the inexorable course of the gradual running down of the energy of the universe - that is, entropy - is only part of the picture. Entropy has a complementary phase, which we designated syntropy". We can now assert that syntropy is real, and that it is closely associated with the second kind of motion discussed above, with the centripedal, the vortex motion. ... In an article based on the research of Viktor Schauberger, regarding the functions of vortex motion, Schaffer writes in 1972: "If the second law (of thermodynamics) does not hold true in the case of vortex motion, one could postulate the following cycle: Heat -- Vortex -- Motion-- Friction--Heat Vortices therefore should be able to change heat energy into motive energy. This would necessitate an acceleration of low and a cooling effect. Both of these can be observed in the case of vortices. .. "The descriptive language used by physicists is mathematics. It is adequate to describe a number of observed phenomena, but depending on what phenomena is to be described, physicists conveniently switch mathematics, thereby changing their whole frame of reference. There is no one theory that can adequately describe all the forces know to exists and the search for a unified field theory is running into serious problems. Joseph Hassleberger" Konstatine Meyl in his book Scalar
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: laws are understood by 99.9% of scientists and engineers. CF also appears to violate some textbook laws of nuclear physics, although there is less agreement among experts about which laws it violates, and to what extent it violates them. The point is, only a fool would believe in CF if it had not been proven experimentally. O-U motors should be ruled impossible until it is proven by experiment that they exist. It has to be a widely replicated, well documented, convincing experiment. I suggest the issue is not that CF or O-U devices violate conservation of energy laws. This issue is a distraction. When conservation of energy laws are applied, all sources of energy must be identified. If an unexpected and ignored energy is involved in the process, the conservation law can not be applied. I meant that ZPE appears to violate the conservation of mass-energy. It produces energy without annihilating commensurate mass. In the case of CF, the energy source are unexpected nuclear reactions that produce completely conventional products. Yes. I said that CF appears to violate nuclear physics. I did not mean it violates C. of E. Some skeptics have made that claim, but it is ridiculous. Actually, CF is predicated on calorimetry, which is predicated on the second law. If thermodynamics does not work, CF results are meaningless. In the case of O-U motors, the ignored energy is proposed to be ZPE. The only issue is whether ZPE can be made to run a motor. The laws of conversation of energy have no bearing on the issue. I think they do. Scott Little told me he stopped believing in ZPE some years ago because every time he asked a theorist how much energy it produces, the estimate seemed to go up by another 10 orders of magnitude. Eventually they were talking about boiling away the oceans of earth ten time over with the ZPE in a few centimeters of space. That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course it is ridiculous. This is like saying at all the energy in the oceans, if extracted, would run the world for decades. The extraction process for ZPE will obviously be very inefficient and probably is limited by what would be equivalent to the Carnot cycle. Ed - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
While agreeing with almost everything 'skeptical' which has been brought up about Brady and his video and past work (it could also apply to Newman and many others), don't forget the small but real possibility that even a con-artist or IP thief or nut-case can stumble onto something very important. It might even have happened before. Life is not fair, and some undeserving but persevering guy will occasionally get real lucky and be in the right place at the right time - even if he has demonstrated extraordinary scientific ignorance in the past. Actually this outcome of undeserving success being perceived as unfair is only from the perspective of those not appreciating the real underlying reasons behind who gets usually gets the glory and who gets the gold. It is more often tenacity, determination, luck and greed than intellectual brilliance. There are two ways of looking at every inconsistency, to wit: Jeff Kooistra wrote: I don't deny O-U motors are possible--this just isn't one of them. Jed Rothwell counters: I *do* deny o-u motors are possible! Obviously they are impossible, since they violate the conservation of energy. ... or else conservation of energy and the 2nd 'Law' of Thermodynamics is just a semantic generalization, not a real law at all - a generaliztion that has proved 'kind of' accurate thus far, only because we made past accomodations and have not yet determined the newer ways in which it can be violated. For instance, the possibility of nuclear energy was not beliveved by some scientists before it was demonstrated, partly because it seemed to violate these laws, but afterwards, the law itself was slightly reworded and reinterpreted to accomodate conversion of nuclear mass into energy, and it will be the same with ZPE extraction once that is demonstrated. A good case-in-point of how this semantic/scientific reordering process is now underway is the BLP work, which (IF it is ever proven) is NOT technically nuclear because it only involves the electron. Consequently this is now deemed to be chemical - and technically would violate the law. If it does prove out and at first seems to violate the second law while not being nuclear, then it will have done so by a previously unheard of rationale - that the being the loss of angular momentum of the electron (according to R Mills). This will only mean that the laws of conservation of energy will be reinterpreted to accomodate this new violation AS IT ALWAYS WILL BE ONCE A VIOLATION APPEARS. I think one of the reasons that Jeff, myself and others have some belief that it is just a matter of time before a self-powered spinner like Brady's is demonstrated goes beyond a macro-implementation of conservation of spin to a realization that large transformers and generating machines are now very efficient (98%+) and if you were to calculate the expected copper losses and iron losses and bearing friction and heat dissipated for these machines *independently* - i.e not just subtracting to get the ~2 percent, you will find that that they probably are very slightly OU already, and if RTSC ever hits the streets, then they will be pushed so far overunity that it can't be denied any more. How will the 2nd law then be salvaged? Probably by saying that energy has been extracted from outside the system, of course, and that we just didn't realize previously that ZPE was an energy resource that could be used this way. Everybody saves face, and the skeptics still have their 2nd law to hide behind for the next violator. How would that happen with transformers, specificially? I hate to use the word regauged as has become bastardized by some nut-cases and cranks, but basically it involves the externally aided-reorientation of magnetic field domains, these having being pushed to some extent by microscopic forces, just like the Casimir, which push or pull at certain nano-dimensions. Unfortunately this will not be the answer to solve our future needs as it is a QM effect and is not statistically amenable (without something more) to economies of scale. Jones BTW I apologize for a previous private email that got sent to vortex by mistake.
