Re: Podkletnov's Disks
RC Macaulay wrote: Wes and Fred, Force field reaction may be closer to describing the event. Yep but what lies at the heart of and defines the field, if not zpe then it must be something very new. Generally when we get a directional beam we get a flow of something. Photons, electrons, etc. Is it impossible to think in terms of a beam of zpe. Can I send pictures to vortex or do they get blocked or deleted? I have a crude jpeg diagram. Richard
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
Wesley Bruce wrote: No drive can be truly reactionless! We are really talking of drives that that that interact electrostatically with waves or photons. These become invisible or substantial reaction mass. Agreed Wes. I think Dr. (ms?) Li left NASA and went back to China to pursue Podkletnov's work. This isn't an antigravity effect per se, but, rather a "force field" interaction between the subatomic quarks of matter. Each of the three quarks in the protons of the 5.98e24 kilogram massof the earth actually have a current of a megampere relativistically time-dilated by about 3.0e18 orders of magnitude, resulting in a picoampere currentfor each. Sum up the total number of quarks ( mass ~ = 1.66e-27/3 Kg) in the earth's mass, neglecting the free electron mass (one per proton excluding the electron bound up in the neutron) and you can arrive at a +/- force proportional to the field strengthdeveloped bythe disks divided by the square of the 6.38e6 meter radius of the earth or the square of the distance from a mass such as an asteroid, comet, bullet, or the sun. IOW, all inertial mass (air atoms/molecules or spacecraft) can be made to interact with the "strange field" that Podkletnov discovered while spinning a superconducting disk. If I recall correctly things got quiet afterPodkletnov announced strong interaction with a "target" at a few miles distance. Note the silence of the antigravity buffs/researchers on vortex since Podkletnov- Dr. Li announced their experimental and theoretical findings. :-) Fred
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
Wes and Fred, Force field reaction may be closer to describing the event. Richard - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 6:30 AM Subject: Re: Podkletnov's Disks Wesley Bruce wrote: No drive can be truly reactionless! We are really talking of drives that that that interact electrostatically with waves or photons. These become invisible or substantial reaction mass. Agreed Wes. I think Dr. (ms?) Li left NASA and went back to China to pursue Podkletnov's work. This isn't an antigravity effect per se, but, rather a "force field" interaction between the subatomic quarks of matter. Each of the three quarks in the protons of the 5.98e24 kilogram massof the earth actually have a current of a megampere relativistically time-dilated by about 3.0e18 orders of magnitude, resulting in a picoampere currentfor each. Sum up the total number of quarks ( mass ~ = 1.66e-27/3 Kg) in the earth's mass, neglecting the free electron mass (one per proton excluding the electron bound up in the neutron) and you can arrive at a +/- force proportional to the field strengthdeveloped bythe disks divided by the square of the 6.38e6 meter radius of the earth or the square of the distance from a mass such as an asteroid, comet, bullet, or the sun. IOW, all inertial mass (air atoms/molecules or spacecraft) can be made to interact with the "strange field" that Podkletnov discovered while spinning a superconducting disk. If I recall correctly things got quiet afterPodkletnov announced strong interaction with a "target" at a few miles distance. Note the silence of the antigravity buffs/researchers on vortex since Podkletnov- Dr. Li announced their experimental and theoretical findings. :-) Fred
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
thomas malloy wrote: Bruce posted; Don't call me bruce! Call me wes! Podkletnov's device could be made into a reactionless drive if we can get reliable mass production of his disks and steady high voltage power supply. I'm in corrispondance with Dr Podklenov This is very interesting. Have you observed this unidirectional force? No but much of science is based on trust. The effect has not been indepedantly replicated but the same is true for much of the atom smashing work in places like CERN. Do you have an explanation for the mechanism? Yes but I need to work with a physicist that can do the math. I was quite fascinated with the reactionless drive. a Both from a practical and theoretical standpoint. No drive can be truly reactionless! We are really talking of drives that interact electrostatically with waves or photons. These become invisible or insubstantial reaction mass. There are very few practical examples. The magnetic drive that interact with the earths magnetic fields is a fuel less drive. A solar sail is also a fuel less drive. My theory: I believe that the electrons in a Bose condensate can absorb ZPE randomly but can't emit them randomly. It must emit them all in one direction at a given time. With a sphere or other shape the result is random but in Podkletnov’s device the Bose is flat and backed up with a resisting layer. This lazes the ZPE into a beam. It is unidirectional because the Bose Ion can recoil in only one direction. The beam effects sub atomic matter through the radiation reaction effect or the stochastic electrodynamics equivalent. I need someone who can write the equations. Does anyone have DR Puthoffs email address? I only have an out of date address for him. Either that or he thinks I'm a complete nut: which is about right.
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:55:10 -0600: Hi, [snip] Bruce posted; Podkletnov's device could be made into a reactionless drive if we can get reliable mass production of his disks and steady high voltage power supply. [snip] This is an ideal application for an isotope power supply. Because they produce particles at high energies, it is essentially only necessary to catch those particles, and a voltage equal to the energy of the particles (in eV) develops automatically. E.g. a 5 MeV beta particle results in a 5 MV power supply with no moving parts. For alpha particles, the voltage is halved. Consider also that the fuel mass is minimal, because of the high energy density. (Anywhere from 10 to 100 times better than chemical fuel). There are difficulties however. Alphas have very short range in solids, so the fuel layer would need to be very thin (1-2 microns). Beta's fare somewhat better in this regard. Furthermore, half of the particles will end up in their support electrode rather than at the collection electrode, resulting in loss of energy to heat. This heat has to be disposed of somehow (some can be converted into useful energy indirectly). Nevertheless, despite the inefficiencies, this is still way ahead of chemical propellant. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Podkletnov's Disks
Bruce posted; Podkletnov's device could be made into a reactionless drive if we can get reliable mass production of his disks and steady high voltage power supply. I'm in corrispondance with Dr Podklenov This is very interesting. Have you observed this unidirectional force? Do you have an explanation for the mechanism? I was quite fascinated with the reactionless drive. a Both from a practical and theoretical standpoint. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
