ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 270 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Chukanov's bona fides?
    Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 @ 00:46:03 GMT by vlad

    General This is typical for what happens with any new energy researcher who claims (s)he is professionally qualified and sincerely believes in what (s)he's doing. I see nothing wrong with WTH's approach. The bottom line: have a prototype that can pass the stringent tests required for such extraordinary claims and nothing else will matter!

    Message from the yahoo free_energy forum:

    Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:04:19 -0000
    From: "wthwthwthwth"
    Subject: Re: Chukanov's bona fides?

    On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Angelina Chukanov wrote:

    >>Hello, Mister wthwthwthwth, I'm curious to know more about you.
    I'm an electrical engineer. My interest in the areas of pseudoscience and pathological science began after I was hired to test a device promoted by Tom Bearden. The device failed miserably, and since then I've been fascinated by the delusional and/or fraudulent behavior that typically characterizes these sorts of inventions.


    >>You criticized me too much (very unfairly) from distance.
    What is unfair about my criticism? I have made two points in my previous messages:

    (1) Despite your claims of a Ph.D. and faculty appointments at three different universities (one of them a full professorship at a Bulgarian university), and despite describing yourself as a "world authority on ball lightning", there is not a single peer-reviewed paper written by you that is listed in the INSPEC, ProQuest, or Compendex databases. Anyone can go to a library and verify that this is true.

    (2) You are committing a fundamental scientific error in thinking that a comparison of the light generated by two entirely different physical processes (incandescent heating vs. high-voltage plasma excitation) can be used to estimate the power output of your plasma generator. Dr. Rhodes made the same point to you in his comments on Sterling Allan's web page. In his words: "You cannot compare power consumption of a light bulb from a filament with a glow discharge from
    (a) capacitor, or microwave."


    >>I'm not a charlatan, I spent so many years on this research which is finally successful. I would like you to come in my house and my lab for demonstrations and discussions.
    I don't think you're a charlatan or a deliberate fraud. I do believe that you are deluding yourself, like so many free energy researchers before you. You have put so much of your life into your creations that you won't face the fact that you can't make them work after 17 years. I have no intention of traveling to Utah to see you in person, because I would never invest a dime in your invention based on your responses to my questions so far. It would be a waste of my time and yours.


    >>I spent so much my money on this project, I sacrificed my career(my PhD is not "fake" as you told me), I sacrificed my health, my reputation(because all "free energy" researchers are considered by the official science as a crazy people), I sacrificed my family's comfort(no weekends, no vacations,...) and now, when I'm f ready to start business I lost my two jobs. At 59 years nobody wants to hire me even though on very low level job. Nobody cares about my diplomas, education and experience.
    I never said your Ph.D. was fake. What I said was that any responsible investor would make a point of thoroughly investigating your background and confirming your educational and professional history before giving you $1M for your research, particularly since there is no record of your work in any mainstream peer-reviewed conference or journal anywhere in the world.

    You claim to have written many papers and books. It would take a legitimate researcher (and in particular an ex-professor) very little effort to put together a vita and bibliography of his prior publications. So why don't you do it, instead of protesting how unfair people are being for asking about it?

    And as for your work history, I have to agree with Professor Element who wondered why someone with your claimed credentials can't get any sort of employment related to science or engineering. I do know that most U.S. companies that hire engineers and scientists make a point of verifying the information on applicants' resumes. What is it about your background that makes you unemployable in the areas you claim to be an expert in?


    >>I think many "free energy" researchers are like me.
    That is unfortunately true. Many free energy researchers spend their lives in a vain attempt to make their dreams come true. The problem is that the laws of physics don't care about people's dreams and desires.


    >>And because of that, it is extremely unfairly to humiliate those people - just for fun. I don't care too much about your "destructive" criticism from distance, I care more about all those free energy researchers who are unfairly criticized by people like you.
    I'm not trying to humiliate anyone, and I don't think I'm being unfair. You are the one who claims to be a world authority on ball lightning and quantum physics. You are the one who is looking for investment money.

    All I'm doing is legitimately pointing out inconsistencies in your background and claims. Instead of addressing them rationally, and providing specific evidence to prove your claims in this forum, you're either lashing out in anger or complaining how unfair life has been to you. As I've already said, anyone who is going to give you the money you need to build your commercial generator is going to be much more harsh and critical than I have been.

    >>This forum must serve as a space for exchange of ideas, advices, support, help. I'm sure you are a good person and we can become friends. I'm saying that not because I'm afraid of your criticism, but because all we must be friends.
    I have no desire to be your friend, but I have no desire to be your enemy, either. The scientific method isn't about being friends or enemies, it's about separating truth from fiction, and fact from fantasy.

    Criticism of unusual claims is part of the scientific process. Anyone who makes a claim that violates the accepted laws of physics had better be prepared for lots of comments and criticism from others. Until you are willing to defend your claims with solid analysis, mathematics, and measurements, you are only making yourself look even worse.

    WTH


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about General
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about General:
    Z machine melts diamond to puddle


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 4
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Chukanov's bona fides?" | Login/Create an Account | 7 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Chukanov's bona fides? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, July 12, 2003 @ 01:23:05 GMT
    Vlad,

    In your eagerness and tunnel vision to publish OU
    articles you might take heed in what she states:

    Criticism of unusual claims is part of the scientific process. Anyone who makes a claim that violates the accepted laws of physics had better be prepared for lots of comments and criticism from others. Until you are willing to defend your claims with solid analysis, mathematics, and measurements, you are only making yourself look even worse.



    Re: Chukanov's bona fides? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Sunday, July 13, 2003 @ 19:51:20 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    There is a lot of theory on why Chukanov's device could or couldn't work. See below such a new theoretical argument from David Thompson. But, as the inventor himself wrote (to Stirling):

    "My important (last) patent on QE was published on May 22, 2003. In addition, my PCT (world patent) is accepted. So, my work is protected. No conditions. Any demonstration or test are welcome in my lab, no confidentiality agreement is needed. I have working QE generators, I have something real (not just an idea or design) which need to be realized in commercial prototype (200-300 KW)."

    ...he is welcoming Eric Krieg or Earth Tech, etc. to visit him with whatever equipment they want and thoroughly test "Angelina":-). I would expect respectful labs to flock to his door but why do you think nobody bothers (except Sterling with his "visual intuitive" who's probably already an investor, after snapping a picture of Laura:-)?

    Message:
    Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:33:37 -0500
    From: "David Thomson"
    Subject: RE: Transformer Ohm's Law Paradox

    Hi Gary,

    > > The only perpetual motion machines are the subatomic particles.
    > > I have the mathematics to show that the vacuum drives the spin of
    > > all subatomic particles.
    >
    > What spin? The whole concept of "spin" as applied to objects at that
    > scale has no meaning. The atomic property of "spin" is likely NOT
    > related to something rotating on an axis.

    I agree, there is no axis to a subatomic particle. A subatomic particle is
    two dimensional. This can clearly be seen by looking at the constant that
    describes the physical characteristics of the particle. In the case of the
    electron, the constant that describes the electron is Planck's constant.

    h = m.e * w.C * c

    where m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is the Compton wavelength, and c
    is the speed of light. This can be visualized by taking a pencil to be a
    one dimensional line with mass, and moving it sideways quickly. Your eyes
    will see a silhouette while the pencil is moving. The mass of the pencil is
    always just in a single line of flux, but moving with spin (tracing a
    circular path.) The electromagnetic charge of the electron, however, is
    distributed over the entire scanned area.

    But the shape of the subatomic particle is not a straight line of flux
    tracing out a cylinder. The line of flux develops an electromagnetic charge
    by moving through the Aether...

    h * Cd = e.emax^2

    where Cd is the conductance of the Aether
    http://www.tshankha.com/coulombs_constant.htm and e.emax^2 is the
    electromagnetic charge of the electron in dimensions of Coulomb squared.
    This line of electromagnetic charge has a north and south pole, which wrap
    around and attract each other, thus producing a circle. The circle then
    scans a circular path, thus producing a toroid. The shape of subatomic
    particles is toroidal in nature.

    But because we know that particles have half spin, which requires the
    particle turns 720 degrees to return to a state that repeats itself, this
    toroidal nature must be split. That is, half of the toroid turns in one
    direction while the other half turns in the opposite direction. This can be
    graphically seen here...
    http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm (I don't have the programming skills or
    graphics tools to make the green and red ribbons look like toroids, so
    you'll have to envision that.)

    The concept of spin applied to subatomic particles, therefore, does have
    meaning. Spin does relate to a rotating motion, although there is no axis
    as the rotation is driven by the Aether, not by the particle, itself.

    > > By building a quantum macro device,
    > > such as Dr. Chukanov did,
    >
    > He "built" a blob of plasma, pumped by microwave energy and sent an
    > electrical current through the ions. Nothing new here, you can do the
    > same thing with any blob of plasma. A flame would be a good place to
    > start, but he didn't do anything at a quantum scale.
    >
    > His bright blob is a weak version of a high pressure sodium lamp. A
    > decent electrical supply house can sell you one for less than $20.
    > More recent variants use microwaves to excite the plasma. Sound
    > familiar? Chukanov is on to nothing new.

    You are completely wrong. Dr. Chukanov has found a way to align the
    electromagnetic subatomic particles much like similar sized magnets can be
    stacked on top of each other to produce a large replica of the smaller
    magnets. I believe Tesla did the same thing in his carbon button lamp. In
    fact, the same process occurs in nearly all vacuum tubes under the right
    conditions.

    When the subatomic particles are aligned in this peculiar way, the normally
    toroidal angular momentum of the subatomic particles stretch out to form
    flat ribbons of angular momentum. Due to the symmetry of the stacking
    process, the angular momentum produces a spherical Quantum Macro Object,
    just as Dr. Chukanov observes.

    Unlike the sodium, mercury, sulfur, or other lamps, the Quantum Macro Object
    is in a state of primary angular momentum. This means the two dimensional
    surface observed in Dr. Chukanov's experiment is gliding directly over a
    Quantum Macro Space (Aether). In the equation above, h * Cd = e.emax^2, h
    is the primary angular momentum of the two dimensional particle, Cd is the
    Aether space the primary angular momentum is gliding over, and together they
    produce the electromagnetic charge e.emax^2 that holds the whole structure
    together.

    In other words, Dr. Chukanov has produced physical evidence of the existence
    of the Aether. The lamps you reference do not produce this property.

    > > it is possible to directly tap the
    > > vacuum by placing a load against the perpetually spinning quantum
    > > macro object.
    >
    > No, you can't. There are no "quantum macro" devices, as quantum
    > scales are necessarily small. And that notion of spin, as I
    > mentioned, is meaningless at those small scales (at least as applied
    > to vacuum energy). Vacuum energy is caused by the instability of
    > virtual photons, that's all. They wink in and out of existence, but
    > only at those small scales. Chukanov is only hoping he built a macro
    > MONEY GENERATING machine.

    Yes, it can be done. Do you want experimental proof? Dr. Chukanov has
    produced the experimental proof. He has made his invention and the results
    publicly available so that you can duplicate his work. There are no secret
    passwords or hidden elements. Everything is publicly available.

    As I mentioned before, quantum particles can be stacked like normal magnets
    under the right conditions. This is exactly what Dr. Chukanov's invention
    does. It stacks the electrons and protons (and neutrons) into a type of
    giant atom. The spin of the giant atom is also a giant version of the spin
    at the subatomic level.

    > > This is the only way I can mathematically show for
    > > a possibility of free energy. And there are enough rumors of
    > > others building devices that work on by this process, that I
    > > believe it has been done.
    >
    > Then you must be a bit more credulous than most of us. Where are
    > these machines? Why don't the power companies just use them? Why
    > don't the auto companies? Oh, yeah, "the conspiracy." Right.

    I don't know if conspiracy is the right word or not. There is good reason
    to be burning fossil fuels. That's a whole story in itself. I have also
    been working on a climate theory (www.terracycles.com). I fully agree that
    we should be burning fossil fuels, even if we succeed at producing free
    energy. All that carbon material belongs on the surface of the planet, not
    sequestered under the rocks. The number of carbon based living species is
    only 1/1000th of what it was 100 million years ago, before the great comet
    extinction.

    > > For example, Tesla's rumored 12 tube power supply for the Pierce
    > > Arrow would have used this technology.
    > >
    > > Dave
    >
    > It would have, if Tesla was right about his "scalar waves" or
    > longitudinal waves. But he was wrong. He was a pioneer in high power
    > radio and he didn't know about near field RF effects. That's all that
    > he found. Tesla never transmitted more than crystal radio levels of
    > energy (nor has anyone else). There's only so much energy in an RF
    > field, and RF fields are the only way to transmit energy with
    > magnetics or electrics.

    Tesla was NOT wrong. Tesla was right, at least as far as understanding that
    electrons have a mechanical nature. Tesla was wrong in stating that the
    electromagnetic component of the electron was useless for radio
    transmissions, but he was right in stating that the mechanical component of
    the electron can be used far more efficiently.

    Tesla did not transmit large quantities of power only because he wasn't
    allowed to develop the system. His Wardencliffe tower was built as a
    flagship project for world power, not as the fully functioning system.
    Tesla admitted that his Wardencliffe tower would initially only supply
    modest amounts of power, but his intent was first to develop the
    communications aspect. Using the Wardencliffe tower, Tesla planned to send
    communications all over the planet and also use it as a type of radar with
    ground penetrating capabilities.

    He was doing this by creating a high frequency oscillation in his tower.
    The top capacitance was so designed that the high frequency energy would
    charge and discharge completely and be fully in resonance. Then he would
    slightly detune the resonance to cause a beat that matched the frequency of
    the Earth, between 6 and 8 Hz according to him. This beat would create an
    oscillation in the Earth's electrostatic field, a mechanical oscillation.
    This is where the longitudinal waves came in. And it is through
    manipulating this beat that Tesla was going to send communications, and
    ultimately power.

    Tesla specifically designed his equipment to take advantage of the
    mechanical oscillation, and not the electromagnetic oscillation. In fact,
    Tesla designed his equipment to minimize any electromagnetic radiation as
    the electromagnetic radiation was wasteful and could not be contained in a
    system. The mechanical radiation (longitudinal waves) COULD be kept
    contained on the surface of the Earth, and therefore the losses were at the
    absolute minimum.

    I have been researching Tesla's works in depth for several years. It was
    because of Tesla's work that I realized modern physics must have made
    mistakes and why I sought to identify and correct those mistakes. My
    research has been highly successful in this regard. And as a result, I now
    have a fully functional system of physics that explains how Tesla's devices
    worked and even explain things such as the Hutchison Effect and Dr.
    Chukanov's inventions (as well as everything else on and off the planet.)
    And unlike the philosophical and complex theories of others, all of my
    theory is based on solid scientific data and simple mathematics.

    Dave



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.