Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Radiowave Reactor
Hey, ecat builder, you wouldn't happen to be a HAM, would you? Or, do you know one? Look around your neighborhood for some who has a Rohn 25 tower in their backyard with an antenna which surely isn't seeking My HAM license expired in 2003. And I don't have any easy way to put wires, electricity, or pulses into my reactor... And Rossi said heat alone was enough to run the reactor.. but that could be a misdirection. I'm currently in wait and see mode as I have run out of simple, safe, and inexpensive ideas on e-cat replication. Rossi has promised 1MW pictures this month--that I hope will restore some collective faith. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Hi Frank, I was thinking about this some time ago. I see these problems: When we make the Casimir plates then we must create two surfaces that fit exactly together. This requires energy. There are some simple possibilities: 1) We break a piece of metal and then we have two pieces that fit exactly together. Obvoiusly we need more energy to create the pieces than we can get when we put the pieces together. 2) We polish two plates, so they fit together. While polishing the plates, we must overcome the casimir force too! So we cannot get energy surplus when we put the plates together. 2) We use two plates and put them together. Then we pull both plates sidewards and we hope this consumes less energy. Now, there is no reason for this hope. This would not work with a plate capacitor, and this principle did not work for Brady's magnet motors, (Brady is in Jail now, because he sold motors but was unable to deliver, he is not in jail because the motors did not work, he is in jail because he had no motors, working or not, at all ;-) So why should this work with Casimir Plates? Best, Peter Am 05.09.2011 04:31, schrieb Frank: Scott, Sorry for the late response but found a couple small nits to pick. I am ok with your synopsis for a moving plate [snip]we are left with a net radiation pressure of the larger waves outside of the cavity that act only on the outside of the cavity, pushing the one-moveable plate toward the other. [/snip] but for the case of two immovable plates that are braced apart the pressure on the outside portion of the wavelength causes the interior portion to defract onto a different angle relative to the time axis allowing it to fit between the plates even while it appears to get shorter from our perspective outside the cavity.
[Vo]:A book, thanks Horace
Horace, Thank you for you comment about writing a book. I did in 1989, sales were dismal. I don't even get that many hits on me free web page anymore. I wish Jed would do a book on Kendal and let me write a chapter. I know Jones would buy one just to read my stuff. I do have a nice article coming out in the Winter addition of Science and Technology out of London UK. They told me it will be huge, however, I have heard this before. I will post a link to it after it comes out. Until it comes out I am to be quiet on the content. Horace, I like your radio frequency ideas, I have been building and testing this kind of stuff for years..sorry to say I have had no anomalous energy to date. Pick and then up a hair to view. It runs on IE. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg6 Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:H2+O2 demonstration
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I hope this improves safety awareness for anyone generating or using hydrogen. Including hearing protectors. T
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Good question Peter, A possible answer begins on page 7 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf The lateral forces on capacitor plates is due to fringe fields. The Casimir force is highly non-linear, so fringe forces differ from electrostatic forces, and this difference leads to a means to extract zero point energy. The lateral Casimir force between a square plate edge and an adjecent parallel plate is not the same as for a beveled plate edge and opposing plate, and thus a net energy gain is feasible from a Casimir effect motor provided the edges of the plates are appropriately shaped. I show in the above essay, by comparative analysis, that the lateral Casimir force due to forces between a square plate edge and an adjecent parallel plate is not the same as for a beveled plate edge and opposing plate, and thus a net energy gain is feasible from a Casimir effect motor provided the edges of the plates are appropriately shaped. It is thus feasible to build a motor rotor consisting merely of a parallelogram shaped lobes, and stator which is merely a flat surface near which the rotor rotates. Of course it have to be very small. 8) On Sep 5, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Hi Frank, I was thinking about this some time ago. I see these problems: When we make the Casimir plates then we must create two surfaces that fit exactly together. This requires energy. There are some simple possibilities: 1) We break a piece of metal and then we have two pieces that fit exactly together. Obvoiusly we need more energy to create the pieces than we can get when we put the pieces together. 2) We polish two plates, so they fit together. While polishing the plates, we must overcome the casimir force too! So we cannot get energy surplus when we put the plates together. 2) We use two plates and put them together. Then we pull both plates sidewards and we hope this consumes less energy. Now, there is no reason for this hope. This would not work with a plate capacitor, and this principle did not work for Brady's magnet motors, (Brady is in Jail now, because he sold motors but was unable to deliver, he is not in jail because the motors did not work, he is in jail because he had no motors, working or not, at all ;-) So why should this work with Casimir Plates? Best, Peter Am 05.09.2011 04:31, schrieb Frank: Scott, Sorry for the late response but found a couple small nits to pick. I am ok with your synopsis for a moving plate [snip] we are left with a net radiation pressure of the larger waves outside of the cavity that act only on the outside of the cavity, pushing the one-moveable plate toward the other. [/snip] but for the case of two “immovable” plates that are braced apart the pressure on the outside portion of the wavelength causes the interior portion to defract onto a different angle relative to the time axis allowing it to fit between the plates even while it appears to get shorter from our perspective outside the cavity. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Hi Peter, As with Scott I agree with most of what you said to the extent that you pursued it but disagree with your assumption that I have any interest in a moving plate to derive energy or in Scott's pursuit of a mirror that can absorb energy and then reradiate it unequally in a spatial vector to provide thrust. I do believe this field may lead to a space drive system but I don't believe Casimir plates ALONE can produce thrust or energy, be it from the rectified mechanical energy of moving plates AND I don't believe Casimir plates ALONE can produce a vectored thrust as Scott suggested in his VTEC paper. My position requires an unbalanced interaction of a gas with changes in Casimir geometry - the plates only produce the environment and you still need an object to interact with said environment for any gain opportunities. You made a good point about the energy required to make a plate and the additional energy required to pull them apart - The stiction forces are always going to attempt to pull the plates together and it will always take more to pull them apart but there are other opportunities.. if we are only trying to create a permanent cavity like leaching the aluminum out of Rayney nickel to create a tapestry of Casimir geometries then we can distribute the energy cost over the lifetime of the cavities. This goes back to what I said about creating an environment that enhances the probability - No one would disagree that a spaceship travelling near C or approaching an event horizon would appear to LOWER the probability of nuclear reactions from our perspective simply due to time dilation . BUT I am suggesting that the LOWER vacuum energy density we observe in a Casimir cavity is also a relativistic effect and the unit time quantum is now shorter instead of the more familiar longer wavelengths we observer from our inertial frame when viewing objects approaching C or an event horizon. My real heresy is suggesting that suppression doesn't pay the Pythagorean penalty of the V^2/C^2 relationship and instead directly effects C such that even objects with low spatial velocity can assume negative energy relative to objects outside the cavity. Which is to say we outside the cavity appear to be the Paradox twin approaching C and slowing down due to time dilation relative to the modified ratio of V^2/C^2 inside the cavity. All the above requires a gas migrating through the changing Casimir geometry in a biased manner - I don't believe in getting something for nothing and think the random motion of gas and geometry of both the gas and the cavity combine to steer the gas through the different energy densities in an asymmetrical manner - I am convinced that Casimir geometry creates a balanced segregation where the lower density focused in the cavity is balanced by a much larger shallow region outside the entire cavity where the energy density is higher - As Scott pointed out we do have documented cases of both accelerated and decelerated time dilation of different radioactive gases when absorbed into lattices containing cavities. Regards Fran On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:25:22 -0700 Peter Heckert wrote Hi Frank, I was thinking about this some time ago. I see these problems: When we make the Casimir plates then we must create two surfaces that fit exactly together. This requires energy. There are some simple possibilities: 1) We break a piece of metal and then we have two pieces that fit exactly together. Obvoiusly we need more energy to create the pieces than we can get when we put the pieces together. 2) We polish two plates, so they fit together. While polishing the plates, we must overcome the casimir force too! So we cannot get energy surplus when we put the plates together. 2) We use two plates and put them together. Then we pull both plates sidewards and we hope this consumes less energy. Now, there is no reason for this hope. This would not work with a plate capacitor, and this principle did not work for Brady's magnet motors, (Brady is in Jail now, because he sold motors but was unable to deliver, he is not in jail because the motors did not work, he is in jail because he had no motors, working or not, at all ;-) So why should this work with Casimir Plates? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Of course it have to be very small. 8) Speaking of small motors: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14763223 T
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Of course it have to be very small. 8) Speaking of small motors: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14763223 T This is cool. Too bad it requires energy to drive it. I wrote: It is thus feasible to build a motor rotor consisting merely of a parallelogram shaped lobes, and stator which is merely a flat surface near which the rotor rotates. Of course it have to be very small. It might of more use to make the stator a surface with non- symmetrical cross section grooves or fairly closely spaced parallelogram cross section blades. Call this the activator surface. Such a surface could be relatively large in area. Then the rotor or armature need only provide a closely mated smooth surface at a very small distance from the stator. The activator could be planar, or cylindrical, or conical, etc., with the stator shaped to mate surfaces. It is easier to build oscillating arm micromechanical devices than similar devices with rotors because it eliminates the need for bearings, and the construction can be achieved using existing electronic chip making technology. A linear motion armature could be activated by changing the distance between the stator and armature in one direction in order to initiate free energy motion in the other. An x axis moving armature sandwiched between two connected activator plates that move together in the y axis, one growing closer to the armature as the other recedes, each activator plate with groove shapes opposed to the other, would cause the armature to oscillate directions, with net energy from each oscillation . Since the force curves are symmetric, no net energy is required to drive the activator plates. Electrical energy can be extracted from linear armature motion by having it change the separation between charged capacitor plates, or by having a connected dielectric material move in and out of the volume between two charged capacitor plates. Similarly, some of the generated energy could be fed back to capacitively drive the motion of the activator plates. That's my guess anyway. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Why We Crave Creativity but Reject Creative Ideas
Why We Crave Creativity but Reject Creative Ideas ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2011) — Most people view creativity as an asset -- until they come across a creative idea. That's because creativity not only reveals new perspectives; it promotes a sense of uncertainty. The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm. more... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110903142411.htm
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
I wrote: The activator could be planar, or cylindrical, or conical, etc., with the stator shaped to mate surfaces. Should have said: The activator surface could be planar, or cylindrical, or conical, etc., with the *rotor* (armature) shaped to mate surfaces. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Time-Frame-Based Casimir Effect
Fran, I think this is part of the difference between cavities that exhibit negative internal pressure or positive internal pressure. If we start by assuming that Lorentz Invariance applies to nanocavities then, at first, we expect the same pressure inside the cavity as outside the cavity, except for one little detail: Casimir Plates actually move! How can this be? Clearly, if we are correct, the pressure actually is the same in each time frame, but faster time means more instances of impulse as counted from a slower time frame; this gives us a positive pressure cavity. If time passes slower inside the cavity, then we have a negative pressure cavity. In other words, the time change is what is actually causing the Casimir Effect. Therefore, a cavity with a U-shaped cross section of the right materials, size and proportions can probably be designed so as to experience equal forces on its ceiling as on its roof, but at different rates of time. Therefore, a properly designed cavity will experience a net force. What do you think?Scott,
