I think we will find the Earth is connected to the Sun by "wires" or strings of quantum vacuum energy in the solar wind and that our atmosphere is a "capacitor" discharging that energy to the Earth's core, which is a "battery", during storms and such. All of this is part of our decaying quantum gravity field and is a virtually limitless supply of energy, which already powers the Earth.
We need to tap into that circuit. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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 > > >
