To List, After separate requests from Mike Devour, Trem Williams, and 3 requests from me, Marshall finally sent a copy of his reply.
Why he did not simply post it to the list is beyond me. However, for the record, I am posting it to the list. Per Mike D.'s request, I will follow up on the off-topic list. In several days, after I stop laughing. Mike Monett >Mike Monett wrote: > >> Marshall Dudley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Mike Monett wrote: >> >> >> Marshall Dudley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > The changes in the gravity above the disks typically run from 3% >> > to 10% or so with the experiments that were run at Oak Ride Labs. >> >> Let's make a gravity wheel: >> >> http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/scwheel.gif > >That is an interesting concept, have not seen it before. But a quick >analysis shows that it cannot work. > >> >> >> I did a quick calculation in Mercury and put the results at the end. >> >> If we use a 10 inch diameter superconducting disk with liquid >> nitrogen cooling, and a 6 ft chord of a steel flywheel, your 10% >> reduction in gravity would provide a lifting force of 157.2 lb. > >OK. > >> >> >> If we offset this force 6 ft from the center of the flywheel, it >> would provide a torque of 943.23 ft/lb. >> >> If we limit the circumferential velocity to the maximum recommended >> value of 820 ft/sec for steel flywheels, this would produce 1167.29 >> RPM. >> >> With a torque of 943.23 ft/lb, this is 209.64 horsepower, or >> 156,390.9 Watts. >> > >OK, provided you did not lose the energy when the wheel travels from the >left side to the right side.. > >> >> We could get Edmund Scientific to supply the superconducting disks. >> A small generator to supply 10 Litres/day of liquid nitrogen would >> need only 2.5 kW, which is negligible compared to the 156kW >> produced: >> >> http://www.rigakumsc.com/cryo/nitrogen.html >> >> The flywheel would be 13.4 ft in diameter, 10 inches thick, and >> weigh 56,593.9 lb. >> >> If the steel cost was $1.63 per lb, the flywheel would cost >> $92,248.06, or about $0.589 per Watt. The complete installation >> would not add much to this value. This is a very attractive cost >> ratio, and it would immediately obsolete all current methods of >> generating power. >> >> The only problem is it is completely fictitious. The machine would >> be a perpetual motion machine, and is by definition impossible: > >But it is not impossible. If it were, the electons would crash into the >nucleuses, and the planets would crash into the stars. Extracting energy >from the ZPE is not impossible, but it can be difficult. Any time you have >an energy input from outside a close system, you can have perpetual motion, >and the ZPE can provide such an input. > >> >> >> "Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not >> uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce >> useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of >> physics. No genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, > >Not true, I have one that is published recently that breaks the second law >of thermodynaics and produces power continuously, and has for over a year >now. > >> and >> according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot >> exist. Specifically, perpetual motion machines would violate >> either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. > >Not true, the second law of thermodynamics has already been proven false, >and on top of that, it only applies to a closed system, when you are working >with the ZPE it is an open system, and thus not applicable. Or if you prefer >to include the ZPE in the closed system, then there is no creation of >destruction of energy, just a transfer from the ZPE part to the physical >part. An ordinary permanent magnet does this, continually produces energy >with no input power, by pulling it from the ZPE. > >> Perpetual >> motion machines are divided into two subcategories defined by >> which law of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for >> the device to be a true perpetual motion machine." >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion >> >> You remember Uncle Al? Here are some of his comments along with >> others on Podkletnov: >> >> Posted by Uncle Al on Jul 29, 2002 at 16:56 >> Re: 'You canny change the laws of physics. Captain' (Wozza) >> >> Podkletnov is a fraud. Even his own work doesn't work in the >> presence of competent outside observers. >> >> Uncle Al >> >> http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board/messages/6901.shtml >> >> Posted by Mike Kremer on Jul 29, 2002 at 23:53 >> Re: 'You canny change the laws of physics. Captain' (DA Morgan) >> >> We all debunked Podkletnov, January a year ago when even the Finnish >> scientists couldn't duplicate his work. >> >> http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board/messages/6916.shtml > >But you are throwing a concept out that was not being discussed, the machine >you propose cannot work. It is no different than if you put a mangnet under >it instead of the reduced gravity, it would appear that the magnet would >attract the steel on one side but not the other. Fact is that when the >wheel moves from the area over the magnet to the area not over the magnet it >has to go uphill energy wise when it leaves the field, and thus loses >exactly the same amount of energy it gains on the downside. Thus it is a 0 >sum game, just like the machine you show is. That is if you are in the >reduced gravity field, when you try to move out sideways, you have a force >pushing you back into the field which will take as much energy to overcome >as you gained in the field itself. > >> >> >> Subject: Re: New Scientist article: Anti-gravity research on the rise >> From: Uncle Al <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:44:56 +0000 (UTC) >> >> [...] >> >> 1) Podkletnov et al. cannot reproduce their claims in the presence >> of a hostile (i.e., professional) audience. Cf: N-rays. A large >> volume of claimed observations has accumulated, none of it produced >> before neutral referees. >> >> 2) Nobody can reproduce Podkletnov's garage-scale experiment, even >> with $million budgets. You can bet the mortgage that both NASA and >> the DoD made/are making very sincere efforts. >> >> 3) The originally referenced "shieldings" are commensurate with the >> greater density of cold air (proximity to liquid nitrogen) and >> bouyancy, diamagnetic repulsion, and even Lenz' law inductance. A >> thermally and electromagnetically dirty environment is hostile to >> precise and accurate measurements. Try doing a weight or mass >> measurement at the mouth of an energized MRI magnet - and that is a >> static field. A tiny bit of (concealed) graphite or bismuth will >> give you wild numbers in the presence of magnetic field divergence. >> You can move a piece of either by repulsion with a pointy rare-earth >> magnet. >> >> 4) Podkletnov's claim of "beaming" the effect is unsatisfactory at >> face value. Take a vacuum cleaner hose. Can you "beam" lowered >> pressure? Try "beaming" cold, a Faraday cage, a Mu-metal or Co-netic >> alloy magnetic shield. Routing photons with a field is a non-trivial >> task - especially in rarefied media. Gravitons, if there are >> gravitons, will not be as easy to grab. If gravitation is the shape >> of spacetime, the disparity is greater: how does the beam know when >> to stop or how much to deposit its effect? If it scales with a test >> mass property, why don't we see a table of scaled effect? Does it >> shoot in both directions? What does "both" mean in context? >> >> 5) Stipulated, that Podkletnov can vary the gravitational potential >> energy of a mass by 0.3% at will. We immediately design a First >> law-violating electrical generator - a spring-loaded massive >> vertical piston mechanically coupled to the usual hardware. This is >> not supportive commentary. >> >> [...] >> >> Podkletnov cannot be reproduced. Whatever he observed, there exists >> no reason to believe what he claimed exists as such. >> >> All he has to do is invite some guys and their equipment to his lab >> and do his thing. For something that would overturn physics to its >> core, you'd think his welcome mat would be the size of a football >> field rather than a postage stamp. >> >> Uncle Al >> >> http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2002-08/msg0043391.html >> >> 2. PASCAL'S WAGER: THE PODKLETNOV GRAVITY SHIELD STRIKES OUT. >> >> In 1992, Russian physicist Eugene Podkletnov claimed that objects >> above a spinning superconducting disk show a 2 percent loss in >> weight. Why this should be so wasn't too clear, but it would be >> great for launching spacecraft, and you could build a perpetual >> motion machine. There are two possibilities: either this obscure >> Russian was mistaken, or the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. >> >> NASA put its money on Podkletnov (WN 15 Aug 97). Four years and $1M >> later, NASA thought maybe they saw a weight change of 2 parts per >> million, but couldn't be sure. "Maybe you need a bigger disk," >> Podkletnov suggested. That led to another $1M and another four >> years. Finally, at a conference on propulsion this year, NASA said >> that tests on the new shield were "inconclusive." That's NASA-talk >> for "it didn't work," but if NASA just said, "it didn't work," they >> would have to explain why they spent all that money an idea that >> violates the First Law. In fairness, however, we must point out that >> NASA also supported Ketterle's beautiful work on BE condensates. >> >> http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn101201.html >> >> So, Marshall, Podkletnov is just like thousands of other scam >> artists trying to fleece money from willing victims. And there are >> millions of people who lack the education or common sense to see >> through claims like these, and will lose everything they invest. >> >> And that scientist at Oak Ridge was just pulling your leg to see how >> much you would believe. > >No, he is the one that brought it up. I had never heard of it before. He >often discusses things with me on their research. They had duplicated the >cold fusion long before everyone else was doing it successfully. > >Marshall > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
