Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
The outward pressure generates the gravitational field of matter, matter's inertial mass and the properties of Spec Relativity. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html#Pg8 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
In regard to the contents of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf 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 showed, 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. The gap between stator and rotor have to be very small. It might of 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 surface could be planar, or cylindrical, or conical, etc., with the *rotor* (armature) shaped to mate surfaces. It is easier to build oscillating arm (pendulum) MicroEletroMechanical system (MEMS) 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 pendulum could be activated by changing the distance between the stator and armature in one direction, the y direction, in order to initiate free energy motion in the other. An x axis moving armature (drone plate) sandwiched between two physically connected activator (drive) plates that move together in the y axis, one growing closer to the armature as the other recedes, each activator plate with groove shapes oriented to cause forces on the armature (drone plate) in a direction opposed to the other activator plate, would cause the armature to oscillate in the x direction, with net energy gained from each oscillation. Since the y axis force times distance curves integrate to the same energy value of zero, no net energy is required to drive the activator plate pendulums, other than heating due to friction and torsion. The physical linkage of opposed driver plates reduces the electrical energy required to drive them. Electrical energy can be extracted from the induced x axis 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, i.e. by driving an electrostatic AC generator. Similarly, some of the generated energy could be fed back to capacitively drive the motion of the activator plates. There is a potentially practical means to derive macro levels of energy from an array of MEMS devices similar to those described above. This practical means is to use capacitive linkages to drive the y axis oscillations of all the paired driver plate pendulums so as to synchronously drive all the pendulum oscillations in a large array. This synchronous action of all the pendulums then will cause a macro level vibration in the array which can be used to obtain macro levels of free kinetic energy. Such energy might be converted to electrical energy by driving piezoelectric crystals connected to a very large array. Electrical energy so obtained can then be fed back to the oscillator driving the driver plate pendulums. Alternatively, the synchronously oscillating drone places could drive capacitive generators to produce a synchronous current output. Elements of the array could be joined in series and parallel to obtain useful power levels. The power output of such a MEMS array would be radio frequency. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 05.09.2011 23:56, schrieb Horace Heffner: 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. Yes but highly non-linear means very difficult to calculate, bvut doesnt necessarily mean the it is a nonconservative force. Casimir force is heavily researched nowadays, because it is the strongest force at nanometer distances and therefore a big problem for nanomachines. This doesnt look like a nonconservative force. The other point is, that there are experiments to measure the force, but these dont give 100% proof, so it is unproven. There are theories that deny vacuum energy and derive the casimir force from other atomic forces. It was never measured between parallel plates, because this is technically too difficult. For the experimental proof they used a gold plate and a gold sphere and they needed 1/2 year until they had removed all dust and could measure it. So it is only indirectly proven, because the results from this measurement had to be extrapolated. Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I am unable to go deep into all this (Or I might be able, but dont see why it would be rewarding for me), so which of all this theories should I believe? I dont know ;-) Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: 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. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Peter, You are in good company - Professor Moddel also though the idea was intriguing but that it would take a mathematician years to prove or disprove it based on QED. As for your suggestion of diffusing a radioactive gas into Rayney nickel there are already many documented cases of both accelerated and delayed half lives of radioactive gases. The accelerated half lives are more pronounced and much more common while the delayed half lives are much less pronounced and are described by the Reifenschweiler effect. The more pronounced effect is on acceleration of radioactive decay while the Reifenschweiler effect is instead a DELAY of radioactive and is a much smaller effect. Regards Fran From the website of Ludwik Kowalskihttp://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/311alberts.html%20; Reifenschweiler effect. Ludwik Kowalski; 11/xx/2006 Department of Mathematical Sciences Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043 About two months ago Albert Alberts, from Netherlands, mentioned some observations made by Otto Reifenschweiler. This was on the restricted Internet list for CMNS researchers. Asked for a clarification, Alberts wrote: The 'Reifenschweiler effect' is the observation that the beta-decay of tritium half-life 12.5 years is delayed reversibly by about 25-30% when the isotope is absorbed in 15 nm titanium-clusters in a temperature window in between 160-275 C. Remarkably at 360 C the original radioactivity reappears. The effect is absent in bulk metal. Discovered around 1960/1962 at Philips Research Eindhoven, The Netherlands Reifenschweiler extensively discussed his observation with o.a Casimir (the director of research at the time), Kistemaker (ultracentrifuge expert), and although no satisfactory explanation was found, R. was allowed to publish it. At the time a unique example as to how an electronic environment might affect nuclear phenomena. From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: 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. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Peter, I have exchanged numerous emails with Thomas over the years and he has commented on my relativistic blogs in support of his interpretation. We amicably agree to disagree on certain issues but he has found me far less polarized than supporters of the classic interpretation where longer wavelength/larger virtual particles are posited to be displaced by the confined space between the plates. In fact I happen to agree with his concept of upshifted VUV but in a MUCH more inclusive way - where he concentrates on a specific spectrum the relativistic interpretation upshifts the entire radiation spectrum by virtue of changing the quantum time unit... time dilation. I don't recall if his equations supported the 1/distance^4 we observe in Casimir effect but if so then it might be an equivalent way of saying the same thing AND I am not the first to suggest these seemingly opposing methods would lead to the same results. If vacuum wavelengths should turn out to be simply working models it does not subtract from their usefulness, More so to the creation of a static environment where the Casimir plates are braced apart and the stiction force remains permanently unrequited instead of allowing the plates to move and the pressure negated. Because both theories result in an upshift in em frequencies with respect to a permanent cavity they are in agreement regardless if the achievement is thru COE or time dilation. These forces would be of little use if the plates were perfect - like a nanotube you would only observe catalytic action at openings and defects where energy density changes but nature provides a tapestry of geometries when you leach a softer metal from a harder metal to form a skeletal cat or allow loose nano powders to randomly pack together to form a bulk material- it is these changes in energy density you need to exploit with a 3rd body such as gas atoms to create asymmetries. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert: Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I didn't have to read far to find a major error. Perhaps it is just the kind of clerical error I make often, but I would think it would be self evident to anyone reading the article. The author writes: One of the early Casimir experiments [3] using the sphere and flat plate geometry measured the Casimir force in the 0.6 –6 mm range. The sphere was a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and the flat plate was a 2.5 cm diameter optical flat, the optical surfaces Cu coated with a top Au coating. A noticeable change in the Casimir force was not found until the gap between the sphere and flat plate reached the 0.6 mm lower limit. More recently, the Casimir force was determined [4] with an atomic force microscope using an Au coated sphere about 200 mm in diameter and a flat plate. The Casimir force Fc was measured from 0.1 to 0.9 mm and corrected for plasmon frequency, roughness of the surface, and finite temperature. Even the thought of measuring the Casimir force at these scales is ridiculous! Using: Fc = pi^2 * h * c * R / (720 z^3) with the given numbers R = 4 cm and z = 0.6 mm I get Fc = 5.0426x10^-19 N Fc = 5 x 10^-17 grams force The thought of measuring 10^-17 grams force at these size scales is ridiculous! The use of cm and mm dimensions is throughout the paper. It may be a systematic typographical error, but it does not look like it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis: 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. Interesting thought. Could this be tested when we diffuse a radioactive gas into Raney Nickel and measure the radioactive decay rate?. Another possibility to measure the time dilation could be by measuring the frequency of magnetic nuclear spin resonance. Best, Peter The following experiment showed no large change in dissociation energy of H2 molecules within a one micron thick (0.001 mm) Casimir cavity: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/src/srcreport.htm This dissociation energy is dependent on the H2 molecular vibrational frequency, which should change for all molecules in the cavity if time dilation occurs for matter within a small cavity. It does not appear this happens. This experiment demonstrates some of the difficulties of experimenting in this genre. It is notable that NMR has been done extensively on metals with absorbed hydrogen. No time dilation effect has been noted in the literature I have read on this. I would expect radioactive decay rates to be a function of nuclear transit rates of electrons. This rate could be increased or decreased, depending on the chemical environment, electron status, of the lattice environment into which hydrogen is absorbed. Transiting electrons bring large amounts of kinetic energy into a nucleus. This can obviously be disruptive to an already unstable nucleus. There was a study that showed an accelerated decay rate for a radioactive element with orbitals compressed by trapping the element within C-60 cages. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Electron-nucleus interaction probabilities are increased by the increase in the near nucleus electron density. This premise may sound far fetched, but the chemical-nuclear relationship is no longer easily dismissed because it has been firmly established with regard to electron capture. 18 A nearly one percent difference in half life occurs simply due to the difference between electron wave functions for 7Be atoms inside C60 instead of Be metal. Further, the half life for 7Be atoms inside C60 was found to decrease upon cooling, and this was correlated to electron density at the Be nucleus.19 18 Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 19 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron- Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 21:18, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Yes, this are multiple observers describing their more or less accurate view of an elephant. I have decided to believe in the elephant ;-) Peter.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 05.09.2011 23:56, schrieb Horace Heffner: 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. Yes but highly non-linear means very difficult to calculate, bvut doesnt necessarily mean the it is a nonconservative force. Of course. The ordinary plate separation is a 1/r^4 force, but it is symmetric; it takes the same amount of energy to separate plates separated by r as gained from moving to r separation. However, the force at plate edges, as I proved, is highly dependent on edge geometry, and is not conservative there. Casimir force is heavily researched nowadays, because it is the strongest force at nanometer distances and therefore a big problem for nanomachines. This doesnt look like a nonconservative force. The other point is, that there are experiments to measure the force, but these dont give 100% proof, so it is unproven. There are theories that deny vacuum energy and derive the casimir force from other atomic forces. It was never measured between parallel plates, because this is technically too difficult. For the experimental proof they used a gold plate and a gold sphere and they needed 1/2 year until they had removed all dust and could measure it. So it is only indirectly proven, because the results from this measurement had to be extrapolated. Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof. Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from electrostatics: http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero. I am unable to go deep into all this (Or I might be able, but dont see why it would be rewarding for me), so which of all this theories should I believe? I dont know ;-) Best, Peter If you want to look for zero point field rewards, the place to do so is in the nucleus. MEMS sizes produce energies trivial in comparison. See: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 21:18, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: BTW, this theory http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir Force. So, what should I believe and why? ;-) Trust no one. 8^) Yes, this are multiple observers describing their more or less accurate view of an elephant. I have decided to believe in the elephant ;-) Peter. The elephant exists, but is it in the room without everyone realizing it? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
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.
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/
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/
