 |  |
| Boat Design Forums | Boat Design Directory | Boat Design Gallery | Boat Design Book Store | Thanks to Our Site Sponsors |
| ||||
| |||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#151
12-08-2005, 06:27 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| I agree with you on most of your arguments, but this low preasure high volume is in my opinion the whole problem: Who wants a hydrogen tank 16 times as big as a gastank to do the same thing? Even biger if you don't compress hydrogen. This while there are alternatives that take less effort to generate, and take less volume with the same energy density.
__________________  |
|
#152
12-08-2005, 07:46 AM
| |||
| |||
| My solutions are a bit further out? Quote:
Tesla is a good example....radiant genius. Tesla was unquestionably a prolific genius in several aspects. Born 9/10 July 1856, by 1884 he aquired a detailed knowlege of some 12 languages...while attending various European universities. His mental ability was also quite quite exceptional in another way, because his mind could conjure up visual images to represent words spoken to him. His photographic memory coupled with his menatl animation facility gave him incredible advantages in problem solving. Between 1882 & 1888 he patented many devices which employed the use of rotating magnetic fields and which produced a method of transmitting electricity with alternating currents. To those who do not recognise what this means...All the wordls modern electrical generation and transmitting equipment is designed around the original ideas and patents of this man dr Nicola Tesla. Tesla invented a unique process for generating extremely high voltages between 1889 and 1892 . The device still bears his name - Tesla coil. During these same years he also patented several types of isochronous oscillators. Then between 1891 &1893 he patented the Tesla wireless (radio telegraph) system and developed cool process electron tubes. Between 1896 & 1898 he published a still valid theory of radioactivity and radiated energy. During those same years he developed high-potential vacuum tubes (the forerunner of all the flourescent tubes used in the world today!). in 1899 he presented a radio controlled, electrically powered submarine to the US Navy!...(They failed to see any practical use for it and dismissed the idea!)  However - one of his most incredible achievements was also accomplished in 1899; and it was not rejected by the Morgans, Rockerfellers & Westinghouses of the world. In 1899 he published photographs & papers (to a limited audience) detailing his discovery of terrestrial resonance and the law of propagation of cinduction currents thru the globe. His paper also gave details of his high-potential, wireless electrical broadcasting station which broadcasted useable power - not radio communications - by transmitting energy in the form of 'standing waves' or stationery waves in the Earths crust and upper ionosphere!! Sorry to say it Sander - you owe me 5 bucks - i sent the energy to your place Yesterday - I assume you were switched on enough to have got it OK?  Make the cheque payable to C - Ash will ya!   There are non so blind as those who refuse to see! You want me to detail - why the speed of light isn't constant? Or what about a treatise on Time & Space. You might be surprised - just what you learn.... Cheers! |
|
#153
12-08-2005, 07:49 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Sander, ok, your not a sci-fi fan but Jonathans virtual electron tank actually allready exist in the tokamak. it heats and compres hydrogen ( and higher elements fused from it ) at the same time. did cost more than a fiver, stands still now while we cant buy 5 bucks of the stuff. its a shame. trouty, you beat me in TIME replying. btw, Bohr had problems convinsing Albert his model looked very much like his |
|
#154
12-08-2005, 07:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| Ok Time & Space Soak it up Ladies & Gentlemen...there will be a 10 question test at the end! Time & Space! One of the hottest debates in Physics is over the true nature of space. Is it, a "luminiferous ether" or is it some abstract ten dimensional Reimannan construction like Dr Albert Einstein proposed in his Theory of General Relativity? If it does, indeed, require a super dimensional construction to explain the physical laws of the universe, one must wonder why this construction could not be replaced by one using real and observable dimensions like width length and depth… If, on the other hand, space is a 'luminiferous ether' or some tenuous fluid, then one wonders why the functions of the physical laws of the universe cannot be observed; and, hence, translated into a mathematical construct of reality…of three real dimensions with time expressed as a ratio of relative distances and vectors. Strange as it may seem, space has already been properly described right here on Earth as far back as 1954! Space is a 'fine structure'…a 'tenuous medium, fluid or field'. All gravitational, electromagnetic, and electrostatic phenomena occur as results of various interactions of energy - 'waves' in this 'fluid space'. In pages 172 - 174, 176, 178 & 180 of Scientific American in 1954, a brilliant discussion giving 3 dimensional explanations of many nuclear phenomena (based largely on previous discussions written by Dennis Crockwell) was conducted by Albert G Ingalls. Crockwells explanations offer the only real solution to the apparent paradox which certain nuclear events present to the researcher: A particle sometimes behaves like a wave. The discussion stated: Quote:
Quote:
"I submit a line from the great James Clerk Maxwell's preface to his theory of electromagnetic radiation: Quote:
If one blows a weak 'smoke ring', it moves slowly away in a rapidly widening ring. If, however, one blows a strong 'smoke ring' it moves away rapidly - maintaining a very small diameter. If a person nearby were struck by the latter smoke ring, the impulse or particle effect would be more obvious than the tangential expansion pressure on the ring. On the other hand, if that same person were struck by the first smoke ring of less translational energy, it would not be felt as a direct impact so much as an expanding 'crawl' over the individuals person. Although it would prove a bit difficult in practice, one could, theoretically, shoot two smoke rings at each other so that their encounter would produce either mutual annihilation or mutual enhancement dependant upon the rotation vector applied to each ring as it left the issuing orifice. The annihilation would produce a visual effect like a 'barred-spiral galaxy', while the enhancement would produce a visual effect like the 'sombrero galaxy'. The reader who is keenly interested in the mechanics of gravity and electromagnetism must pursue the preceding lines of thought to properly understand the 'missing link' which unites the physical laws of the microcosm, with those of the macrocosm. If one views space as an infinite existence - a continuum - comprised of endless levels of sub-nuclear particle-fields forming atoms, forming planetary systems which form galaxies that in turn form galactic cells and, etc, ad infinitum, then one can easily visualize that the 'ether' of mans particular level of existence is a 'fluid' comprised of ultra small 'particle-fields' which in turn are made up of relatively equally small 'particle fields'. Time, as such, in a continuum of such magnitude is equally relative! 'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality. The ONLY absolute is energy. The distribution of energy within the various levels of the hierarchy of existence creates the phenomena called "time". As the distribution of energy is not uniform, Time itself is not uniform in the universe. When a person says it took him 5 seconds to walk across a room, he is really saying a clock pendulum moved or changed it’s energy-distribution level 5 times as compared to his own single change of energy-distribution made by his walk across the room. Time is a ratio of changes in energy density. Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does. If a persons body were to be 'pumped' with resonant energy, it would make him age several days in only a few relative minutes to someone watching him. If, however, the person were to be 'drained' of resonant energy it would lower his energy-density causing him to age only a few minutes in several relative days of the observers time. How incredible it would be….. Suppose a group of scientists had to solve a very time dependant problem in a hurry. If they were to take their pencils and paper with them into a 'field' which harmonically 'pumped' their energy densities to a higher level, 'Time' would extend for them. They would have several relative days to solve their problem, while only a few relative minutes had passed to the world outside their 'field'….fascinating…isn't it? If for example, the American base at Pine Gap, could be used to pump 'resonant' low frequency energy into certain circles of the country the effects could be mind-boggling. Why, in just a few days of time relative to the rest of the world certain parts of Australia could pass several years of time relevant to it’s occupants. Has the reader ever had those days that seem to 'fly by'? On the other hand, if that same facility could be used to drain energy from those same circles of influence - the days would seem to 'drag by' to those so influenced… If an electric 'air' or 'space' craft based on the same principle of resonance, were to be suddenly accelerated into a new vector at speeds which would normally break it's molecular lattice apart, a relative or apparent 35 G's acceleration could easily be amortized over a relative time-dilation of 1:35 inside the field of the craft…giving the craft and it's crew the relative acceleration of only 1 G. If the reader has been able to grasp the preceding dissertation, on time and space, he now knows - why 'UFOs' have such incredible performance characteristics. They are only relatively incredible… Relative Cheers! |
|
#155
12-08-2005, 11:16 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
You can store hydrogen as ammonia adsorbed into salt. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0907102549.htm There are also ways to create hydrogen on demand from water by using resonant cavities and and small amounts of electricity at the proper frequencies. Trouty will no doubt be familiar with the work of Stanley Myers and Dr Andre Puharich http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=1191 http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm#4394230 Here's some of Stanley Meyers patents involving the hydrogen fuel technology
|
|
#156
12-09-2005, 06:32 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| I'm putting effort in this matter while it's not my core bussiness. That means I see the importance of it. I don't speak poeple to the mouth so I'm learning. I can take everything for granted but I don't. You don't speak to deafman's ears though. It just seems to me we are limited in time, funds and public opinion. It's fair to confince people by your knowledge this is the right way to go. Do you agree with me it's not the only way to go? I'd say don't bet on one horse.
__________________ |
|
#157
12-09-2005, 08:46 AM
| |||
| |||
| Don't bet only one horse! Sander rave is of course correct.. The purpose of my posts are to prove just this... No one technology will win out..it won't be tidal, wind, solar or hydrogen or even an electric wheel - it may WELL be a combination of all of the above. I still contend...that the energy trapped / compressed within the time domain may be ONE of those forms of energy we end up utilising and that theres enough of it to definitely replace our dependence on oil. Now a while back in this thread - I posted that Einstein was wrong about relativity....and no one picked me up on it. I expected such 'educated professionals as we have participating here to swallow my bait hook line and sinker - and come to Alberts defence... But - sadly no one has. I suspect it's because no one wants to encourage me... But you should know bye now - I need no such encouragement.  So - now I'll prove to you - that the speed of light is not a constant - and that Einstein was wrong about his special theory of relativity. You can challenge it if you like, but in fairness to me - I think you owe it to us - (as I am about to do) to show your mathematical workings to back up any repudiation of what follows!! Good luck! |
|
#158
12-09-2005, 08:49 AM
| |||
| |||
| Einsteins Relativity Error Einstein's Relativity Error (No - not his infamous never loan munney to relatives theory!) The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.' In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Mitchelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light. Their experiment (The Mitchelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed. The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology. Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however). The discipline details Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2. The following discussion should illustrate this point.  Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space. It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another. This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c) And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b): Assuming: c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer S = distance GA = GB T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG) T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG) T = .5 t T2 V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer. Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to: (Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1 Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2 By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12 Hence: (Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5 Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains: (Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5 rearranging: (Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5 Substituting: t = .5t2 Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5 Or: (Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5 by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains: (Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s which reduces to: (Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees: (Eq 6.) ve = 0 Hence: (Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1 Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each suvvessive try of the linear M - M taest has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord…. Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether. Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows: Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1). Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,… Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that: (Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2 So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension (Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1 or,… (Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2 then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which reduces to: (Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type: (Eq. 12) (1- b) -a Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series: (Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc where b2 is less than 1 So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2 One obtains: (Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc… For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14): (Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2 so (Eq. 11) becomes: (Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2 (Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2 remembering energy (E) is represented by: (Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c) One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving… (Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v) Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives: (Eq. 20) M = E/ c2 Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M): (Eq. 21) E = m c2 (Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c) Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists. Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong! When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yeilds the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this authors opinion! The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel. |
|
#159
12-09-2005, 08:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| Ether Existence Verified! Ether Existence Verified. (Ether their is, or therir isn't! )In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The PhysicalFoundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).  Analogy Of Dilemma The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun. The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error. If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity). Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively). Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf. Solar Tea Cup In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion. "Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw"; 1) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or, 2) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit. However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option. 3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth. In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether! C Not Constant Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether, Relativists Discard Evidence By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet. Einstein Admits Error. In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's. However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died. One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is: Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor guv = the metric tensor R = the selected Ricci scalar components K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop. When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it wil be recognised quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137). The true "Unified Field Theory" - will no longer be called a "Theory" - it will become the Unified Field Law". What I've been trying (very hard) to get you all to realize - of course - is that…. Just as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity E = Mc2 And T. Beardens Special Theory of Time E = Delta Tc2 are crucial to realizing a Unified Field Theory or (LAW), my own discovery, - troutys Special Theory of Time & Mass M = Delta T…. Is likewise - a part of the key of understanding our universe and the energy forms in it! Meanwhile - back at the ranch…you all keep messing with electric wheels… Really fella's….don't you think you might just be 'missing the boat' (deliberate pun intended) here just a tiny bit? I've taken you through…Electrodynamic propulson, Relativity, Time, Space & Mass… Still - not one of you - can acknowledge - that just maybe, that crazy trouty dude - might actually be onto something? Course - It could just be the pills I take… he he he! From one Time Lord…to the rest of you earthlings - it's frankly time to stop 'n smell the roses fella's before it's too late! Cheers…you poor, sad, oil addicted, oligarchy slaves… |
|
#160
12-09-2005, 09:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Plasmoidal Induction Electro- Dynamic Propulsion (PIEDP) Now I KNOW my Time / energy proposal scares the heck out of you...so - if your finding it all - just a wee too difficult to keep up with - feel free to play with the following much simpler concept!  Plasmoidal Induction Electro- Dynamic Propulsion (PIEDP) The translation of an inertial mass from one position to another is a process usually accomplished by one of the following:- 1) Pulling the Mass from point A to point B 2) Pushing the Mass from point A to point B 3) A combination of Pushing and Pulling the mass from point A to point B Rockets automobiles and other brute force motion devices employ process 2 above. Ramjets Turbines Helicopters and other push pull motion devices utilise process 3 above. As Yet, the pure attraction only motion systems (1) find very limited use. These usually employ magnetic, electrostatic or gravitational acceleration as a motion source. Electro dynamic propulsion (EDP) falls into category 3. It can be accomplished by optimizing the ramjet process over the entire leading surface of the mass to be moved (boat hull in our case) if there is a medium through which to move (in our case saltwater…oh yeah - did I mention this thing will be a dead duck in a freshwater lake?) In the traditional Ramjet, air is sucked into the front of the craft; and with added fuel is ignited inside the craft and expelled out the back of the craft. The major problem in this system, is the same as with push only propulsion systems, namely that all the leading surfaces of the rest of the craft encounter direct inertial resistance from the water that is not passing thru the craft but around it! The philosophical concept of making little ramjet breathing openings all over the leading surface of the vessel is approaching higher efficiencies to a point; however, as the ramjet needs a confining space to combust the fuel and air all those little breathing openings would require dead or closed space between them to for the confining chamber. The optimum lead surface efficiency in a category (3) system is one where the entire leading surface is the ramjet opening! Such a shape is difficult to imagine; think about it a straight tube would almost give a frictionless move along the length axis; but where would the MEG and Crew be placed? What about the guidance surfaces? If the front end of the tube is opened out enough, to shield the rest of the vessel from frictional exposure, then the inside of the tube itself will offer massive frictional resistance to the incoming water! Inertial resistance cannot be removed when one mass passes through another; however, the distribution of the resistance can be so designed as to use the water itself as as a frictional dissipator. Thus the optimum may be approached and attained by incorporating the fluid medium into the defined field of the vessel. The most obvious question now is how does one construct such a vessel? To answer that query, let us build just such a vessel one stage at a time! 1) The vessel will be designed to move in fluid mediums (i.e. it will be a hydrodynamic vessel) 2) The vessel and it's field definition will first be visualized as a regular sphere within a sphere. The main Vessel is A; the incorporated field is B and the ambient medium (ocean) is C 3) The vessel and it's field will now be visualized as ,moving from port to starboard on the page within the ambient medium (ocean) (c) If no compression of the incorporated field (b) is assumed, then the passage of the (a) + (b) field through (c) will produce frictional losses on the interface of (b) to (c) (i.e. heat will be generated as well as other bye product radiation's depending on relative velocity). Eventually the heat or radiated energy of such an exchange would be passed onto the vessel (a). To minimize such an exchange, a method of dissipating the unwanted heat must be added. Even if (b) is assumed as being compressible, then at certain velocities the distance between (a) and (b) in the direction of motion would be would be so small as to negate the effect of the shielding that (b) was designed to give. 4) Therefore, let us assume that (b) is a sacrificial shield One that is being replaced as a function of motion. In this manner, the heat or radiated energy of the field (b)'s encounter with (c) is left behind the vessel (a)…and is dissipated into the old vector of (c). 5) From assumption (3) motion was assumed from Port to Starboard. From assumption 4 the field (b) was assumed to be sacrificial. Let us now probe the mechanisms to produce these two assumptions. The craft (a) is now fitted with a point (d) from which is emitted a dense, high voltage, direct electric current supplied indefinitely bye our over unity coupled MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) devices, which makes it's circuit through the field (b)…(actually forming the limits of (b). In conventional terms, the point (d) is negative with respect to the point (e). The hull of the vessel (a) is non conductive, so that the electric moment travels from (d) to (e) via the ambient medium (c) which the ocean being an electrolyte it can!), which bye virtue of the passing electric moment is captured as (b). Two factors will now produce motion to starboard. The first is that the thrust from the accelerated fluid particles from (d) to (e) will produce a resultant to starboard; and the second is that due to the Bernoulli Effect, the fluid pressure at right angles to the fluid flow from (d) to (e) is reduced; in other words a partial pressure reduction is formed to the starboard of ine x-y at right angles to the curved path of (de). Also, as a function of the fluid flow toward (e) from (d) , there is a partial pressure increase at (e). This is caused from collision of all fluid particles from vectors in (dxe) with all the particles from vectors in (dye). In 5 above, - We can see another side effect of this method of acceleration, at time (t=n), the vessel and it's field have pulsed a vector. At time (t=n+1) the vessel has moved to starboard of it's position at time (t=n), and the region (f) is rapidly normalizing to a stagnant zone due to the vectors colliding to generate heat and a little turbulence. In essence the vessel has displaced an amount of fluid from in front of itself and has moved into the space left bye the displaced fluid and has then replaced the same fluid into it’s original after the craft itself, has pulsed into the next zone. This phenomenon can be observed by watching a pneumatic tube in the older office buildings that used to use them for shooting inter - office correspondence back and forth. They are sucked and pushed at the same time. A vessel operating on such a principle would leave little if any turbulence; it would not be hampered by high temperatures due to friction (there would be none between it and (c) the ocean); and it would not produce high density shock waves as it passed through the wave velocity thresh hold of the medium (electrolyte) i.e. ocean….the latter effect is caused because there are no forward vector components in the motion transfer to the starboard of line x-y which eliminates the return inertial wave front that is normally encountered in the brute force "push only" methods of propulsion. 6. If the vessel is to travel in any other direction than to starboard then a method of navigational control has to be included in the mechanism. I'm still working on the rest - is there anyone who doesn’t follow me at least this far? Plasmoidal Induction Electro- Dynamic Propulsion (PIEDP) Cheers! |
|
#161
12-09-2005, 10:43 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Sander and Trouty are both right. Many technologies will be part of the solution. The ones that work the best and that people continue to purchase will be the ultimate winners. As I have said before, I am waiting for the belt pack anti-gravity device. A small device with a 3 dimensional joy stick that will clip to the belt and allow movement in three dimensions by gravitic manipulation. Of course it would also enclose you in a small force field bubble to keep the rain off. Trouty, I'll give you $20k for one. |
|
#162
12-09-2005, 10:57 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Trouty, How many days does your week have?! Besides my full-time job, girlfriend, boats, cooking, friends, setting up a business and sports (there should be household somewhere inbetween too) I hardly have time to check my own and other's data to draw conclusions. You want me to set up a test caste to check up on good old Einstein? Sorry, don't feel offended, just don't have the minutes left to do so ;-)
__________________ |
|
#164
12-09-2005, 09:05 PM
| |||
| |||
| Sander raises a great point - antigravitics! And of course that will be my next treatise...but it will hafta wait I'm sorry. Like the rest of you - I too have a life - which tomorrow includes shifting house to the new canal side abode!. Once I crank ol bessy my ever faithfull computer who remembers all this stuff for me back up again - I'll get back to you on the anti gravitics.. Sander - you'll be pleased to know - that the belt operated anti gravitics device you seek - will soon be available...of course- like all good things - wait theres more (free steak knives with that!) Yet it will have a temporal space / time continuum warping & cloaking device.You will really go places - with this sucker, and no one will see you (if you ignore the ruddy great Cherenkov radiation wake you'll be carving thru the fluid space ether! Cheers! |
|
#165
12-10-2005, 05:03 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Hi Trouty Good luck moving! Although I dreamd of the matter when I was a kid and almost forgot about it, Jonathan was first to apply. So I just have to wait my turn. I heard delivery isn't on steady basis. Maybe it helps when you don't add the steak knive. Border control sometimes give you a difficult time importing weapons... I see the look in their eyes: what are you going to do? Hunting steaks with that?! Sorry guy, flying around in that device with a steak knive is asking for trouble. So instead of calling you to explain they just stash it somewhere it can't be found anymore.
__________________ |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| MV Phoenix - Electric Lobsterboat | lockhughes | Propulsion | 21 | 06-07-2005 03:25 PM |
Linear Mode
