this fellow Hathaway tried to explain his discovery to me. Alas, his
words fell on deaf ears. I have no clue what he is talking about,
since my knowledge of physics ends somewhere around 1895 just about
the time they discovered x-rays. For the benefit of readers here who
may have some clue what he is talking about, here is an exchange of
messages between us. You can see what he is up against, dealing with
an unimaginative person who insists that all energy must have a
nuclear, chemical or mechanical primary source. It must be frustrating!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Todd Hathaway, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK. Let's start over with Cooper pair breaking.
Magnetic flux flows through a transformer via path A and B. Let's
assign path B as the long path where magnetic flux travels through
YBCO-coated cylinders at liquid nitrogen temperatures. When 930 nm
photons are shot at the YBCO using a small laser (kind folks have on
their keychains), it disrupts the flow of Cooper pairs and produces
an avalanche effect that disrupts the entire material, similar to how
lightning cuts through the air if you were to draw it on a sheet of
paper. This avalanche effect blocks the magnetic flux from
travelling down path B, so it takes the shorter path A. Cooper pair
breaking is a relatively short-term disruption (picoseconds), and the
YBCO (and any other type II superconductor for that matter) 'resets'
its original superconductor structure AUTOMATICALLY. This pheonmena
is proven, so there should be no issue with that claim. Now, by
winding copper wire around Path A and B, this
superconductive-nonsuperconductive oscillation process resulting from
switching the laser on and off at a high frequency produces a change
in flux through each channel where the magnetic flux is directed at
the same frequency. A change in magnetic flux produces through
copper windings produces electricity...that's it. Nothing magical
beyond whatever is going on in superconductors. That's the bigger
mystery, not the magnetic component.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MY RESPONSE:
Whoa! Hold it. I read the web site. Back up. Just answer this:
What is the primary source of energy? Chemical, nuclear, wind, solar,
geothermal or hydro?
According to conventional physics, you cannot generate energy out of
nowhere, as I am sure you realize. You must have a primary source. On
earth, those six are the only known sources. (No doubt you also know
hydro is solar once removed and geothermal is nuclear -- but let us
not get lost in the details.)
Which of these six primary sources do you tap?
Or have you discovered a new source?
Or do you create the energy out of nowhere, with no primary source?
That would be 'free energy,' which does not exist as far as I know.
I think the details you describe on the web site and in this message
are irrelevant. In my opinion, if you want credibility you must
address the issues listed above. All of your readers will assume, as
I do, that energy must have a primary source and these are the only
primary sources on earth.
- Jed
