>From time to time, evidence pops up regarding the "easier way" to solve the Global Energy Crisis and peak oil. "Easier" ... being in reference to LENR and the possibility that LENR may not be robust enough over an extended time frame to save us from catastrophe.
That easier route would be through magnetic and gravitational interaction (as opposed to nuclear thermodynamics) and particularly through the Dirac negative energy predictions. It is fairly clear to all but a few die-hard inventors that electromagnetics alone, or gravitation alone, can provide no net energy gain. However, the two are connected in theory through "electrogravity," which is on solid footing. This does not guarantee a "crack in the door" of CoE, but at least it provides a theoretical footing for locating where the two interact in ways which fall outside of normal expectation. In a prior post - the work of Jerry Bayles has been mentioned. He has long promoted a version of "electrogravity" as the best route for net gain, but AFAIK does not have a working device, only a few tantalizing clues ... one of which is called "wobbulation". Here is a video where Bayles attempts to explain where gain will be seen via electrogravity via an out-of-phase wobble. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnSAfL7z7go Note the distinction between "free energy" and "overunity". To take this to the next step, magnet rotation can be simulated in a stationary circuit and nanoparticles can possess the wobble feature at such a large relative excursion (while appearing stationary) that the device could appear to have a "solid state wobble". That would makes things interesting in the context of nano-magnetics. There is also cogging torque, closely related - which has been considered an undesirable component for electrical motors but in which there is an arguable "free energy component". A number of devices have been claimed to benefit from cogging (google Raoul Hatem). Note that most ferrite magnets are "pressed" from powder resulting in porosity of up to 10%. The porosity is not necessarily "nano" but further processing can make it nano. In some ways, nano-porosity may be more valuable and easier to come by than nanoparticulate. Dr. Kirk McDonald from Princeton has written a number of papers on "momentum" associated with magnetic fields. This is a variant of a famous problem by Shockley that introduced the concept of "hidden mechanical momentum." If true, hidden momentum offers the proverbial "crack in the wall" of CoE ... but McDonald would like to quash that notion. I'm not sure he succeeded. http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~kirkmcd/examples/abraham.pdf http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf In the end, McDonald says that the putative energy is "elastic potential energy" same as is found in a stretched spring - and should not be called hidden mechanical momentum, despite what the others say - so the $64 question is can elastic potential energy, or anything similar, be used to produce anomalous gain in electrogravity, even in 4-space? Of course, Kirk goes on record in the negative: "Can we identify a "hidden" mechanical energy which is time component of a hidden 4-energy/momentum vector whose spatial components are hidden mechanical momentum 3-vector? The answer is NO..." END of McDonald quote. But from there on, we must note that it is "impossible to prove a negative" and little consideration is given to evidence of local time distortion, or other ways that 4-space can be harnessed, which would be expected in the case on a bona fide energy anomaly. So let us state emphatically that McDonald has not disproved what he may wish to imagine that he has. NASA has documented a distortion of time around earth, consistent with SR - but the version which would present more dramatic local time distortion, leading to local gain (or loss) - in a earthly device - awaits the persistent and creative inventor ... doubters notwithstanding. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
