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, 96 guest(s) and 1 member(s) that are online.

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

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

EVO Dark Energy Charge-Cluster Cold Fusion Bomb Size and Puthoff's Wrong Model
Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 @ 13:28:18 EDT by vlad

Science Dr. Jack Sarfatti writes: On Aug 28, 2004, at 4:48 PM, Ken Shoulders wrote:

> Jack
>
> Does this formula fit your data?
>
> h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm
>
> N = 1012 gives charge cluster radius ~ 10^-5 cm. Is this in the ball
> park? For a more exact formula see below. This is only very crude.
>
> The upper limit I work with is 2 x 10^-5 cm. This is a very
> repeatable and easily measured value as seen by bore holes. The lower
> measured limit is 1 x 10^-6 cm as shown by bore hole measurements

OK so that is the right ball park good.

> but it is very likely that this value actually extends downward to 2
> electrons otherwise the accretion method of PE formation would not
> work.

I don't see how to do it with only 2 electrons unless some kind of "Dirac string" of exotic vacuum connecting the two electrons - seems too Rube Goldberg. Basically my picture is of a self-assembled spherical shell or maybe a kind of Buckyball of N close-packed electrons each of effective surface area ~ (h/mc)^2. This forms a closed cavity - with some leakage perhaps, but the leakage rate decreases as N increases. Obviously there will be a cavity boundary condition Casimir effect but I am pretty sure it is usually negligible in comparison with my strong gravity effect from Einstein's general relativity. I do not have time yet to show why Puthoff's Type II model is wrong on several counts, but will do so in next few weeks in detail. Hal's statement that the virtual photon zero point pressure is positive is completely wrong as every top physicist in the field will tell you like Mike Turner for example. Indeed Milonni in "The Quantum Vacuum" shows that the virtual photon ZPF energy density is POSITIVE, therefore, pp. 25-26 of John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" shows that the virtual photon ZPF pressure is NEGATIVE, i.e. w = -1. Hal & Co obviously have no understanding of this theorem from Einstein's general relativity. It is demanded by the equivalence principle, and general coordinate transformationm covariance (GCT) and radiation field commutation relations (Heisenberg uncertainty). No wonder Hal does not understand that as he rejects Einstein's theory. This is why the people I spoke to at GR 17 reject Hal's PV theory and his ZPF ideas (Cliff Will, Matt Visser, Bill Unruh and Professor X who does not want to be identified here).

Hal's Type II model is Rube Goldberg. He takes a short-wavelength cutoff at h/mc which is adhoc. You need the long wave cutoff inside the self-assembled N-electron shell ~ r ~ N^1/2(h/mc). This is not a rigorous refutation of Hal's Type II approach. I will provide that in coming weeks. Too busy right now.

I am sticking to Type I Casimir which works perfectly when the Einstein correction is added. In Type I for a closed boundary Casimir force is REPULSIVE not ATTRACTIVE, which I assume below. BTW including ROTATION of the N-Poly-Electron EVO, the total conservative potential energy per unit electron test mass (dimensions of velocity^2) is

V(Total) = V(Repulsive Electric Self Energy) + V(Casimir) + V(Rotation)
+ V(Einstein's Gravity)

Let(@i) be dimensionless coefficients, i = 1,2,3

V(Repulsive Electric Self Energy) = (@1)N^2(e^2/mr)

V(Casimir)= (@2)N(h/mcr)^2(hc/mr)

V(Rotation)= (@3)(NJ)^2/2m^2r^2

J = L + S = Orbital + Spin = Total angular momentum per electron

V(Einstein's Gravity)= c^2/zpfr^2

Note this is a 3D harmonic oscillator potential with natural internal symmetry group SU(3).

The model is that of a uniform exotic vacuum core field /zpf > 0, i.e. this is an anti-gravity "dark energy" universally repulsive field that explains WHY the COLD FUSION excess energy production when the EVO stability is disrupted! Hal has nothing like this in his Rube Goldberg adhoc "Type II" model that has no real physical justification. Hal has an incomplete, therefore wrong, qualitative physical picture in his stream of consciousness.

The multiple critical points for dynamical equilibrium are the roots of the polynomial

dV(Total)/dr = 0

The METASTABILITY condition that the critical points be genuine MINIMA as in elementary differential calculus is

d^2V(Total)/dr^2 > 0

When the control parameters make this second derivative pass through zero to negative values, the bottled up dark energy of the exotic vacuum core is released causing OVER-UNITY net energy production!

*We need to add non-conservative velocity-dependent forces as well if there is an external EM Fuv field.

If done too fast with a large enough EVO this would be a powerful bomb - more powerful than thermonuclear. Indeed something like this may happen on the astrophysical scale with gamma ray bursters?

Done in a controlled way gives the flying saucer weightless warp drive, i.e. George Trimble's "G-Engine" creating Paul Hill's "acceleration field". See Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" and Paul Hill's "Unconventional Flying Objects."

>
> The structures at the small end of the size range are likely very
> complicated arrays as most of them appear that way when caught in
> flight on high resolution witness plates. I really have to get to a
> trapping type of measurement technique so they can be localized in
> space for more detailed analysis.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ken
>
Debate between Hal Puthoff and Jack Sarfatti

In a message dated 8/27/2004 8:44:19 PM Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Jack: Also, what Hal does not understand is that this pressure is NEGATIVE if the ZPF energy density is positive. Hal does not understand w = -1 from general relativity + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Hal: "No.In this circumstance you are wrong. The pressure is positive. If you read Milonni et al's paper:

Milonni, P.W., Cook, R.J., and Goggin, M.E. (1988) "Radiation pressure from the vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1621-1623, you will see that the form of my radiation pressure calculation for the problem at hand (modeling of the charge cluster phenomenon at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 ) is correct and of the type that leads to agreement between theory and experiment. The Casimir plate collapse due to reduced ZPF radiation pressure between the plate boundaries as compared with that outside is precisely applied in my case, where the reduction inside the boundary is the extreme case of reduced interior pressure defined by Casimir in his Type II model."

Jack: Milonni ignores GR completely in his book.

Hal: "Your (incorrect) commentary with regard to my calculation is a misapplication to the boundary-condition Casimir-type effects under consideration here. Based on your misapplication of the w = -1 principle to the Milonni, Puthoff et al. type of Casimir pressure imbalance problem, you might very well end up predicting parallel Casimir plate repulsion instead of attraction!"

Jack: No, in fact just the opposite. You have ignored completely the macro-quantum vacuum coherence effect. Milonni's model is correct when /zpf = 0! That is, Milonni's model assumes apriori a NON-EXOTIC VACUUM at the requisite scale. For OPEN PLATES this is plausible. It appears that the EXOTIC VACUA i.e. /zpf =/=0 only form inside a closed cavity with small leakage, i.e. "weak links" to the NON-EXOTIC VACUUM outside the closed cavity without boundary edge effects like in the flat finite plates example.

w = -1 is an absolute principle. It can never be ignored. But it's effective size depends on the intensity of vacuum coherence at the scale of the device. Basically Hal I have an additional control parameter missing from your model.

There are more things in Super Cosmos Hal than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

This problem is not only weirder than you have imagined Hal, it is weirder than you, presently, have allowed yourself to imagine! ;-)

Hal: "So what we're dealing with here is something that Jack, not Hal, doesn't understand. I've done my best to spell it out in detail. If it's still not clear, I recommend you reread Milonni et al.'s paper, Casimir's paper that is in my references of my arxiv posting, then reread mine. Please pass this on to whomever you posted your initial statement to, as it is most relevant.

Collegially,

Hal"

Jack: I am doing so. I will get back on details of your paper especially the Type II approach and the references. You have yet to understand that you have missed entirely the new /zpf control parameter from

1. w = -1 of mainstream theory i.e. GCT that your PV is not compatible with says Ibison.

2. Vacuum coherence as a local field out of which Einstein's gravity with exotic vacua ALL EMERGE in the smooth c-number MACRO-QUANTUM limit. There is no such thing as "classical space-time" that is a fundamental mis-conception. What we have is SMOOTH c-number curved space-time from the Bose-Einstein condensation of virtual electron-positron pairs in the globally flat unstable pre-inflationary "False Vacuum".

Note: Please see attached poll: "Is this post too technical for our readers?" on the right of your screen, when you open this post. PLEASE VOTE, so we can make the right decision. Thank you.

 
Article's Poll
Is this post too technical for our readers?

Yes
No
Yes but I don't mind reading it


[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 35
Comments: 0

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 Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"EVO Dark Energy Charge-Cluster Cold Fusion Bomb Size and Puthoff's Wrong Model" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: EVO Dark Energy Charge-Cluster Cold Fusion Bomb Size and Puthoff's Wrong Model (Score: 1)
by mojo on Sunday, August 29, 2004 @ 13:44:46 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
1) The arguement has left out the potential effects of quantum wave function overlap and vacuum polarization.

2) The negative field pressure results from the Zpf density inside the charge clusters being greater than that ouside the charge clusters.

mojo



 

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.