on 12/2/04 5:36 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 4:02 PM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research. >> I thought your focus was D+D fusion. >> Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the >> conservation laws by physical means? > > Actually, if you look at the vortex archives at > > <http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex> > > around June or July 2003, you will see that the gravi-chem stuff was merely > comments I posted here on vortex as a result of what I considered some bad > math written by folks who apparently had no concept of bouyancy. It did > seem to take a life of its own though because it is so general in nature > and so unexplored. The immediate energy application is probably in the > mundane field of hydrogen generation I would guess. If there is indeed > free energy to be had from the theory (I doubt it) then it is likely to be > had in chemical form. The only clear relation of gravi-chem to CF is the > fact that electrolysis is one mode of CF and a more efficient electrolysis > merely results in a better COP (coefficient of power) for a CF device. > > However, extremely high g forces change the location of the nucleus to a > point away from the center of charge of the electron cloud. The electron > cloud can thus be compressed, and electron shielding can potentially be > increased. The distance between deuterons in D2, D2O, and D3O+ molecules > can be decreased under extreme pressure, thereby increasing the potential > for fusion. As evidenced by neutron stars, *some* degree of gravitational > force or compressive force will ultimately cause nuclear reactions. The > problem is how best to make use of such a force in a practically achievable > domain. > > My main focus, if I have such, being a rank amateur and irreverant member > of the free energy lunatic finge, is collaboration in search of a solution > to the energy problem. There is also the joy of seeing various anomalies > and puzzles posted here on occasion. When you subscribe to vortex you > never know for sure when you wake up exactly what you might possess your > thinking by evening. 8^) After reading some more, it seems to me a more accurate name for this field is non-inertial-chemistry. Gravi-chemistry is misleading unless you are endorsing the general theory of relativity which assumes that an accelerating or non-inertial frame of reference and a gravitational field are indistinguishable. Harry Harry
