I think others have suggested the true but expensive to start idea of
having a circumferal train of weights orbit at compensating greater
than orbital velocity  low friction levitation within a stationary ring
around the earth in stationary housing Earth orbit. With interior
vacuum boost  this can be in the near space upper atmosphere. The
geostationary space elevator cables  would then deliver their cargo to
very high altitudes nevertheless much less than geosynchronous where
orbital transfer vehicles that don't operate in the lower atmosphere
work from levitation runways on the roof of the ring to transfer the
cargo to different space  destinations. The levitation runways would
efficiently recover the energy from landing orbital transfer vehicles
and apply it to orbital transfer vehicles taking off perhaps
syncronized on parallel runways. Any stationary overall structure has
to balance on the Earth's center. Polar rings connected to equtorial
rings are possible. A balanced group of rings over the Earth's
parallels or structure's parallels is possible.(With a corresponding
involvement of mechanical tension and loss of natural stability in the
coaxial parts)

A;loha, Charlie

"I think others have suggested the true but expensive to start idea of
having a circumferal train of weights orbit at compensating greater
than orbital velocity low friction levitation within a stationary ring
around the earth in stationary housing Earth orbit. With interior
vacuum boost this can be in the near space upper atmosphere. The
geostationary space elevator cables would then deliver their cargo to
very high altitudes nevertheless much less than geosynchronous where
orbital transfer vehicles that don't operate in the lower atmosphere
work from levitation runways on the roof of the ring to transfer the
cargo to different space destinations. The levitation runways would
efficiently recover the energy from landing orbital transfer vehicles
and apply it to orbital transfer vehicles taking off perhaps
syncronized on parallel runways. Any stationary overall structure has
to balance on the Earth's center. Polar rings connected to equtorial
rings are possible. A balanced group of rings over the Earth's
parallels or structure's parallels is possible.(With a corresponding
involvement of mechanical tension and loss of natural stability in the
coaxial parts)"

A;loha, Charlie

Thanks Charlie and Others.

Now that makes total sense. Deep, yes, comprehensive, yes.
Glad I asked the question, maybe I am not such a dummy after all?
Don't answer that alright.

Charlie is a likable guy, it seems that the man has good character,
the man has class, very admirable and I suspect he is equally
brilliant. A bit of a contrast from 3=1, if you will.

What is 3=1? well, it's open to speculation, perhaps I have, "Cracked
the secret.".

Ring Around The Equator.
I suppose one would be better off focusing on the ultimate alternative
energy, then perhaps, he or she who succeeds, could focus on building
the ultimate ring around the equator, perhaps with some assistance
from the likes of Charlie and others who are equally civilized.

DSTesla

I can picture cyro treating of metals adding hardless by changing the grain
structure.   What I can't yet believe in this article is the claim that a cyro
treated car would get double mileage.   If this were true, I'd think a car
manufacturer could quickly gain huge market share by doing so:

Subject: How one man gets better gas mileage

Freezing gas prices
http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?s=3390503


NewsChannel 4..

Freezing gas prices
May 25, 2005, 11:11 AM
	 Email to a Friend 	 Printer Friendly Version
David Hutchinson with his cryogenically enhanced hybrid Honda. (Photo:
KFOR-TV-DT)
David Hutchinson with his cryogenically enhanced hybrid Honda. (Photo:
KFOR-TV-DT)
	 Freezing gas prices
	 Related Website
	 David Hutchison's Website

ALI MEYER REPORTING

Americans guzzle 65 billion gallons of fuel a year and lately we have been
paying a pretty penny at the pump. NewsChannel 4 has done reports in the past on
how to get the most out of your gas. Now we introduce you to a new way to save
on those gasoline dollars.

There is a man who fills up his tank once every two months. One tank of gas,
literally, lasts him two months. He is freezing the price of gas by freezing
something else.

People complain about the price of gas and we are all spending dearly to stay on
the road these days. The money we spend on gas seems to burn up faster than the
fuel.

While there may be little rhyme or reason to why the prices are on a perpetual
roller-coaster, there is one man who has found a way to freeze them in their
tracks, literally.

David Hutchison is a Cryogenics expert. He built this Cryo-Process himself. He
runs a business out of his garage where he cryogenically tempers all kinds of
metals. He submerges them in a frozen tank of nitrogen vapor that is 300 degrees
below zero.

David says, ?During that time, at minus 300 degrees, the molecules slow down.
Then they reorganize themselves. That's when the actual chemical change
happens.?

Hutchison cryogenically tempers machine parts, tools, golf clubs and even
razors. He says it makes them last three to five times longer.

A few years ago he began an experiment on his hybrid Honda, freezing the engine
components. The results were a fuel-efficiency dream.

David Hutchison says, ?You should expect a ?Cryo'd? engine to last anywhere from
600,000 to 1 million miles without wearing out.?

A hybrid Honda typically gets really great gas mileage anyway, around 50 miles
to the gallon, but David Hutchison's cryogenically tempered engine has been
known to get close to 120 miles a gallon.

?It's just a very efficient vehicle.? Hutchison says,

Racers have picked up on David's trick of cryogenically freezing car parts. It
is now widely accepted among NASCAR and Indy-car racers.

Hutchison has no plans of taking his Honda to the track. His prize is in his
pocketbook.

David says, ?I thought about selling it, but gas prices keep going up. So, I
thought, I'm not going to sell it.?

Hutchison tells us cryogenically tempering car parts has more benefits than just
fuel efficiency. He freezes all of the brake rotors at a car dealership near his
home in Missouri. It makes them last three to five times longer.

Copyright 2005 KFOR-TV-DT. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


	 All content ? Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KFOR-TV . All Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:

> You can find a citation backing the above up, right? Care to share
it
> with the rest of us?


Sure Gary.  There are lots of 'em, here's one:

http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html

Please note the part that says:

"The Singularity Within
     The problem with the type of focusing of light that defines the
presence of a black hole is that once it starts, the focusing
equation says that it ends in utter disaster. Once a bundle of null
geodesics becomes trapped by crossing to q<0, within a finite
distance along each geodesic, q> -Infinity, the geodesics will cross
at a point, and the transverse area of the bundle will go to zero.
When this happens, the necessary conditions for the existence and
uniqueness of these geodesics are violated, and it's no longer
possible to use the geodesic equations to predict what happens to the
geodesics after they cross.
     The spacetime will then exhibit one of the two possible behaviors:
1. The spacetime curvature in this region remains finite for all
observers, but notion of predictability for the spacetime breaks
down, and evolution of the spacetime can no longer be uniquely
predicted from a set of initial data.
2. The spacetime curvature in this region becomes infinite for all or
some observers, so that there simply is no possibility of extending
geodesics past the point where they cross, they simply end there. The
spacetime as a whole retains its predictability but the region
contains a spacetime singularity where the paths of observers simply
end their existence, and spacetime itself can no longer be defined.

Is there a Cosmic Censor?
     So gravity can focus light so powerfully that it can
spontaneously end the existence of observers, destroy the definition
of the spacetime itself, or spoil the unique time evolution in a
spacetime based on a sensible set of initial data? What is to protect
us then from the pathological possibilities of strong gravitation
fields?
     The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture proposes that in the context of
the theory of general relativity, in a spacetime where the total
energy density is positive, pathologies such as spacetime
singularities and breakdowns in causality and predictability are
always hidden behind the event horizons of black holes."

Here's another:

http://www.jp-petit.com/Extensions/questionable/Q1.htm

PLease note where it says:

  "If one keeps the [t, r, q, j ] description (a peculiar choice of
coordinates), many difficulties arise. For example, when r tends to
Rs the grr term tends to infinite."


> The ONLY thing you seem to think is that these thing can somehow
> swallow matter via gravity. They can't, the force is too weak.


The force approaches infinity at the singularity.  That's plenty
strong enough to wreak havoc.


> I re-ran the numbers with a bare proton touching the surface of a
> black hole that had the mass of a gold atom. Here you are:
>
> Proton mass: 1.67E-27 kg
> Gold atom mass: 3.29E-25 kg
>
> Proton radius: 6.00E-16 m
>
> G: 6.67E-11  N m^2/kg^2
>
> F = GxM1xM2/r^2 = 1.02E-31 Newtons. Really going to crush the quarks
> right out of there?
>
> Black holes are ONLY driven by gravity -- their mass is the only
thing
> that could "crush" matter into them. As you can see, a proton
actually
> sitting against one of these things is NOT exactly being "crushed."


Surface?  I thought you said the black hole would be swallowed by a
particle.  Therefore the particle contacts the singularity itself!

Any particle contacting only the event horizon surface would merely
be spun away due to angular momentum.  It the particles that get hit
dead on that are in jeopardy.


> Oh, and the analogy of "how much energy does it take to pull a
> particle out" is completely back-asswards. That is meaningless to
this
> analysis.


Hey, that was someone else's analogy, but I must admit that I liked
it.


> But still, Eric, I can't wait to see you picketing CERN to STOP THE
> MADNESS OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!


If I had the money, I'd leave today.

Here's a citation for you straight from Stephen Hawking:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/ps/penrose1.ps

Please note where he wrote:

"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a
mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it
corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions
should be in agreement with observation."

In other words, IF (big IF) his theory corresponds with reality then
it is true.  He doesn't say that he is right.  Do we really want to
risk it?  Why not wait until we can do it at a safer range?

Eric

Group,

Most of us are familiar with the GR equivalency theorem.  That being
that acceleration and gravity are essentially the same thing.

Many of us have wondered what would happen if we could turn gravity
on and off at will.  Might it be a means of creating free energy?

Well, the other day I was swinging on my porch swing and an
interesting concept occured to me.  Each swing was a form of
acceleration that momentarily increased my sense of gravity due
to "centrifugal force."

I then considered a swing that moved in a more extreme arc such that
the forces I experienced were multiplied.

It seems to me that a weight suspended on a spring/contraption above
the the surface of the seat, might bob up and down relative to the
seat whith each swing.

This reciprocating motion could quite easily be converted into
usuable energy relative to the seat.

Therefore, if we could control gravity we really would be able to
create free energy, or the method of control must require so much
energy to utilize that the conservation laws hold.

Personally, it looks to me like practical gravity control must always
remain... well, impractical.

However, can we "fool" nature by using the reciprocating mass on the
swing to drive the swing?  It shouldn't be possible, but since on the
upward strokes the mass essentially becomes independent of the swing
it looks like there might be something to it.

What do you think?

Eric

"Racers have picked up on David's trick of cryogenically freezing car
parts. It is now widely accepted among NASCAR and Indy-car racers."

Why aren't we seeing the NASCAR and Indy race cars getting double
there milage?

fred

>Asking a question that you supposedly have information about is an
attention getting cheap trick used by journalists to take up space
when they have nothing to say, or when they want to plant suspicion
by innuendo. If your local news station or paper uses this trick it
is only so that you will stay tuned or buy the paper.
No, these are not musings, they are the idiotic blather from someone
>who knows nothing of technology and less about the human condition.

Wayne? Oh Great One.

From time to time I will stoop to low levels simply in response to the
rudest of the rude. I know nothing of technology? Interesting, coming
from someone who does not know me, no, not the least bit.

Idiotic blather?
Suggesting that someone knows nothing of technology without having a
clue as to what the individual knows is clearly, idiotic blather.

Less about the human condition?
I think not, at the very least, it is obvious that your human
condition is not well Mr. Egomaniac, not well indeed.

At some point, do yourself a favor and fully acknowledge that,
comparatively speaking, you, Mr. Egomaniac, know next to nothing.

For now, I will not continue to discuss things with a child such as
yourself. If at some point you grow up, an unlikely scenario, maybe I
will make an exception.

Hate begetting hate, is a time consuming vicious cycle, one that I do
not care to continue, as such, end of discussion oh great one, end of
discussion.

My gosh, have I not done this before? Is this what they mean by
history repeating itself? This all seems so familiar, purely
coincidental I'm sure.


DSTesla

Thanks dstesla. Working on the nit in the proposed ring - the width on
first order picks up compressive forces – brings to issue that
perpendicular rings can support the width. If the centrifugal support
mass has to shift in speed than superconducting particles can be used.
A new nit is that incoming lunar material will add energy to this space
grid at the landing runways. The energy should be used, one use is
launch catapults.

Aloha, Charlie

dstesla wrote:

>
>
> Ring Around The Equator.
> I suppose one would be better off focusing on the ultimate alternative
> energy, then perhaps, he or she who succeeds, could focus on building
> the ultimate ring around the equator, perhaps with some assistance
> from the likes of Charlie and others who are equally civilized.
>
> DSTesla
>
------------------------------------------

Los Alamos has been talking about graphite nanotubes for over a year now
for the purpose of building a "space elevator."

the following was written 10 years ago about made up physics.  It was
written by a friend, Milton Rothman [deceased] who did real physics, but
was hounded by physics wannabes writing their own tomes of TOE's "Theory
Of Everything".  Milton was tired of random physics words pressed into
service for various crackpot theories:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9609/internet.html


   Reality Check


     On the Internet

Milton Rothman <http://www.csicop.org/sb/9609/internet.html#author>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some time ago, when I was new to computer networking, I subscribed to
Prodigy and spent many bemused hours corresponding with denizens of
their physics bulletin board (see Foibles and Falicies
<http://www.csicop.org/sb/9412/foibles.html> from the December 1994
Skeptical Briefs). While many of the correspondents were serious
students interested in discussing real science, a large number of them
had notions of science derived from watching Star Trek and other science
fiction films. Their idea of a good time was inventing theories about
traveling faster than light by the use of tachyons. The idea that
physics textbooks were more reliable than the more interesting fantasies
of the future was a ludicrous thought worthy of nothing but derision.

At that time I thought that these were merely adolescents playing around
with their imaginative notions of science. In time, as they went to
school and learned real science they would grow out of it. So I thought.
However, my hopes were shattered when I graduated to America Online and
discovered the Internet. There I found the same fantasies, masked by
more sophisticated homepage techniques, created by adults, some with
Ph.D.'s.

A very elaborate homepage is called the Internet Science Education
Project (ISEP), a California non-profit 501(3c) corporation. (For those
who are not familiar with the Internet, a homepage is a page that
appears on the screen, created by some interested person, and accessed
by a specific address -- one of those lengthy strings starting with
"http://". From the homepage you can jump to other pages, from which you
can jump to other pages. This is what we do when searching or surfing
the web.) On the ISEP homepage we are greeted by a picture of a
ravishing beauty who claims to be Lt. Alexandrova from Space Force
Academy at the San Francisco Presidio in the year 2196. She is
communicating with us by advanced quantum waves from the future. (In
physics an advanced wave is a solution of a wave equation that lies in
the future light-cone of space-time. At present there is no physical
interpretation to this wave.)

Clearly somebody is having fun. The person in charge is Jack Sarfatti,
Ph.D., "President of the Corporation." Dr. Sarfatti uses the Science
Education Project to publicize his advanced ideas, which he calls
post-modern physics. At the bottom of the homepage we find a logo for
the Space Force Academy which we click to reach the next level (the next
page). Here we find a large number of choices: Muse Magazine, PSI Wars,
Quantum Mind & Microtubules, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Animation, UFOs:
Fact or Fancy?, Quantum Teleportation, to name a few.

Examining some of the pages, and accumulating a large pile of printouts,
we are able to distinguish the pattern of post-modern physics. It is an
interlocking set of theories centered on the non-locality of quanta --
that is, on the observation that within a single quantum (wave packet) a
particle such as an electron or photon can appear to be in two places at
the same time. It is also deeply concerned with quantum gravity and its
possible uses.

The post-modern enthusiasts claim that recent work in "anomalous
cognition," teleportation, and the relation between quantum gravity and
consciousness presages a revolution in physics analogous to the
quantum-relativity revolution that took place at the end of the
nineteenth century. It certainly would if true.

Reading the theories found on these Internet pages we find certain
technical terms used repeatedly: quantum gravity, Bohm pilot waves,
microtubules, qualia, etc. A typical sentence: "The qualia [i.e.,
subjective mental experiences] are excitations in the macroscopic
coherent quantum Bohm mental `pilot wave' attached to the material
vibrations of `Frohlich collective modes' of electric dipoles in the
microtubules inside living cells." Or, look at this one: "The Mind of
God hangs suspended in the Hilbert raum of Wheeler's superspace guiding
the evolution in time of the three-dimensional space geometry of our
Universe -- at least in Bohm's pilot wave theory of quantum gravity
that, according to Penrose and Nanopoulos, form the substratum of our
consciousness."

Here we see a concatenation of perfectly legitimate physical concepts
(and physicists) to form a string of words that convey very little
meaning to my impoverished brain. Quantum gravity is a theory that
combines quantum mechanics (the theory of small objects) with general
relativity (the theory of gravity and the curvature of space). Many of
the greatest physicists have worked on this, with a variety of results.
Pilot waves were proposed by David Bohm to explain certain mysterious
phenomena stemming from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. (Bohm was a
great quantum theorist in the old days -- I read his quantum mechanics
textbook from cover to cover back in 1952.)

An example of an incomprehensible observation that relates to pilot
waves is an experiment I did myself in 1976. (It's a rather simple
experiment that can be done in any optics laboratory.) In this
experiment, a beam of light is passed through a half-silvered mirror
inclined at 45° to the beam. Cut down the intensity of the light so that
just one photon wavepacket passes through the mirror at one time.
Quantum theory tells us that half of each wavepacket is reflected while
the other half is transmitted. We know that this happens because if you
bring the packets together in an interferometer, you do get interference
fringes, showing that both transmitted and reflected waves go around the
interferometer. But if you detect the photons with two photodetectors (A
and B), you find that if the reflected wave is detected in one location
by phototube A, the transmitted wave is not detected at the same time by
phototube B, and vice versa. How does one detector (A) know not to
trigger when the other (distant) detector (B) does trigger, even though
both are being hit by exactly the same wave? This is very hard to
explain by classical quantum concepts. To make sense out of this
paradox, Bohm proposed that inside each quantum was a "pilot wave" that
hid within one of the split wavepackets and determined which detector
was going to trigger. For many years physicists believed that pilot wave
(hidden variable) theories were untenable, but later came to believe
they were not so untenable. As a result, the use of pilot waves is a
possible way of explaining the observations associated with the above
experiment, just one of the many experiments that have a bearing on the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

Quantum gravity theories are legitimate theories; the only problem is
that so far no one has figured out how to test any of these theories.
But there is always hope. The mischief arises when you take a theory
that has no visible consequences and apply it as an explanation of a
phenomenon such as consciousness. The post-modern physicists do this by
stringing together a bunch of legitimate terms like beads on a string,
piling conjecture on top of conjecture. It's great entertainment, but is
it science?

My fundamental objection to the use of quantum-gravity pilot waves to
explain consciousness is this: the authors of these theories provide no
mechanism to explain how the sub-sub-microscopic entities control what
happens in the brain. What happens to pilot waves when a person dies? Do
they disappear, or are they effective only when interacting with a brain
that has a certain type of organization? And what were they doing during
all the billions of years before human brains came on the scene? Are we
to assume that the pilot waves cause consciousness only when they meet a
brain with a certain kind of organization? Perhaps it is the
organization that causes consciousness, and quantum-gravity pilot waves
are simply a bit of poetry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another web page we find the breathless news of a new breakthrough in
space propulsion. Listen carefully: " . . . the quantum potential Q
found in Bohm's hidden variable version of quantum mechanics is able to
transform ordinary protons into virtual `faster-than-light' tachyons.
This would permit the construction of a new type of rocket engine that
would enable low-cost highly fuel-efficient practical interstellar
flight for large manned spacecraft." Using tachyons as the propellant, a
large spaceship could be pushed to velocities approaching the speed of
light, using a relatively small amount of energy.

My question is: how much energy does it take to generate a stream of
tachyons? To provide a reasonable amount of thrust, the tachyon beam
must have a certain amount of momentum. The relativistic relation
between momentum and energy is surely the same for tachyons as it is for
other particles. And the mass-energy of the spaceship approaches
infinity as the ship approaches the speed of light. So from where do we
get this high energy efficiency? (Besides, nobody has seen a tachyon yet.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTERTHOUGHT: It occurs to me that Scarfatti's Internet Science
Education Project with all its scientific double talk makes perfect
sense if we consider it to be parody. It is an education project in the
sense that it forces the reader to examine what he knows and decide
whether the writing makes sense or not. If the writing is intended to
poke fun at the new-age, post-modern physics, it succeeds admirably. If
it is really supposed to be serious, well, then . . . . Personally, I
hate it when I can't tell whether a writer is serious or not. It goes
back to the time fifty years ago when I wrestled with John W. Campbell,
editor of Astounding Science Fiction, who presented a new loony idea in
each issue of his magazine. I hated to think that such a talented,
intelligent person might be a bit less than totally sane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To save our sanity, true skepticism may be found on the Internet. Set
your web searcher to look for "skepticism," and you will find a large
number of items, most of which I have not yet looked at. One useful item
is an annotated bibliography of books on skepticism, with one-paragraph
reviews <http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/>. It is very expert and
knowledgeable. There is also a list of skeptical journals. [Webmaster's
note: the SKEPTIC annotated bibliography is now hosted on the CSICOP
website.]

CSICOP has its own homepage ( http://www.csicop.org
<http://www.csicop.org/>), and past issues of Skeptical Briefs
<http://www.csicop.org/sb/> and Skeptical Inquirer
<http://www.csicop.org/si/> can be found therein. Congratulations to
CSICOP for joining in the fun. (And now I can e-mail this article to
Barry Karr. In about a thousand years I will have saved enough postage
to pay for my computer.)


     About the author

*Milton Rothman* is a physicist from Philadelphia, PA.


     Related Information

     * Followup article: Pseudoscience on the Internet
       <http://www.csicop.org/sb/9612/internet.html>

     * Search CSICOP: Milton Rothman
       <http://www.csicop.org/q/csicop/milton+rothman>, Reality Check
       <http://www.csicop.org/q/csicop/%7Et+reality+check>

I vaguely remember a 70's Pop Sci article on of a proposed wind energy
machine using a hollow conical tower.  Vanes at the open wide base
started slow rotation  when ground level wind blew into them which
became rapid rotation at the exit at the top. The tornado leaving at
the top was tipped over by upper level wind to become a wind suction
cone of air increasing the wind capture cross section of the system.
Some of the spin energy would be removed by a turbine to export power.
Adding a solar heat capturing hat brim will add cheap solar energy.
Having a heat capture pool of sea water will add moisture and
desalinization. Hollow conical towers are scalable to great size.
Having the vanes impart clockwise spin in the northern hemisphere will
make anti tornadoes that subtract spin from natural ones. Would these
be set loose by suddenly closing the tower exit?

Aloha, Charlie

Milage, of course, is speed-dependent.  What speeds were these?

A black hole ate my planet

http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

----------

This article is 5 years old, and I question the lower limit mentioned
for the mass of a black hole (10 micrograms).  But it's interesting
reading for those concerned about scientists accidentally triggering
the end of the world.

All of the sources I've seen so far predict that 1) a nano-scale black
hole would decay (due to Hawking radiation) in an extremely tiny
fraction of a second, and 2) they are too small to swallow anything
anyway.  I understand the reasoning behind Hawking radiation, but I
still do not understand the rational for saying that nano-BHs "are too
small to swallow anything".  For example, if an electron collides with
a nano-BH at thousands of miles per hour due to the random thermal
motion of the atom carrying the electron, why would the electron not
intersect the center of the nano-BH?  Such a collision in itself would
not require compression of the electron, so it should be possible.
Now once the electron has intersected the center of the nano-BH (where
gravity is immensely strong), what happens to the electron?  Does it
just move along normally with the nano-BH attached to it like a wart?
  Or does the trapped "edge" of the electron escape? (in apparent
violation of the common statement that nothing can escape a black hole
once it crosses the event horizon).  Or does the trapped "edge" of the
electron ultimately drag the rest of the electron down the gravity
well?

I suspect that the vast majority of people confidently telling us not
to worry are just repeating what they heard via authoritative academic
sources.  This topic is way too complex for 99.999% of the population,
so such parroting is understandable.  Therefore I don't hold out much
hope that anyone here understands the details well enough to add to
what the experts have already stated.  I wrote to Dr. Hawking -- let's
see if he answers.

Leo C.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Eric Krieg <erickrieg@v...>
wrote:
> the following was written 10 years ago about made up physics.  It
was
> written by a friend, Milton Rothman [deceased] who did real
physics, but
> was hounded by physics wannabes writing their own tomes of
TOE's "Theory
> Of Everything".  Milton was tired of random physics words pressed
into
> service for various crackpot theories:
>
> http://www.csicop.org/sb/9609/internet.html
>
>
>   Reality Check


Thanks Eric,
The way to tell Tom Bearden's technical writing from Dave Barry's
technical writing is that Dave Barry's is more entertaining.
I guess I'm a skeptic to the core. My advice, don't belive anything
that can't be proven wrong.
Wayne

In a message dated 10/1/2005 5:05:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
free_energy@yahoogroups.com writes:

(Notice
that I'm removing the Norman Christian corruption  "gh" from these
words


Oh yes! Spelling as used in both America and England is a mess of strange
combinations. (G.B. Shaw once showed how "fish" could be spelled "ghoti" by the
spelling rules in English.) But then, so are the languages themselves. (Why
no  "h" in there?). Maybe we should switch to only using Esperanto instead of
English or American. Then all switch to a logical key board etc. See P.J.
Farmer's Riverworld series for information on using Esperanto as the universal
language.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/1/2005 5:05:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
free_energy@yahoogroups.com writes:

You can  fly if you truly believe you can fly!!!!!




But, landing safely takes more skills and equipment.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/1/2005 5:05:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
free_energy@yahoogroups.com writes:

Many  "good Christian" folk ran
the incinerators at  Auschwitz.


Shows the benefits of organized religions.  I am an agnostic, Thank  God.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/1/2005 5:05:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
free_energy@yahoogroups.com writes:

it'll  soon be cheaper to burn Bacardi 151


But vodka for a cheaper fuel.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/1/2005 5:05:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
free_energy@yahoogroups.com writes:

I think  a 100 meter high by
200 meter diameter steel container would cost a  lot
less than US$500 million.


I don't know, and not about to start any research or calculations, but I
think from what I have learned about gas flow that the ratio of diameter to
height has to be in favor of high narrow flues to take advantage of the thermal
flow.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

catboat15@... wrote:

>
>
> Oh yes! Spelling as used in both America and England is a mess of
> strange
> combinations. (G.B. Shaw once showed how "fish" could be spelled
> "ghoti" by the
> spelling rules in English.) But then, so are the languages themselves.
> (Why
> no  "h" in there?). Maybe we should switch to only using Esperanto
> instead of
> English or American. Then all switch to a logical key board etc. See
> P.J.
> Farmer's Riverworld series for information on using Esperanto as the
> universal
> language.
>
---------------------------------------------------

--- .-. -.-- --- ..- -.-. --- .-- .-.. -.. -.. --- .. - .... .. ... .--
.--.-- .-.-.-

Leo,

I wrote to Dr. Hawking too, about three weeks ago.  So far I have not
received a reply.

Other "experts" I have written to have just referred me to
referencess that state it's safe due to Hawking radiation and/or
state it's safe because "it'd take billions of years for a mini black
hole to absorb the Earth" (I've found they generally don't consider
the Earth's gravity field and internal pressure in these
calculations!).

The prevailing consensus is that it's safe (of course), and
personally I believe it most probably IS safe.

However, there is a nagging suspicion in my mind that tells me it
isn't safe, and I have long since learned to pay attention to such
naggings.

Am I overly worried?  Perhaps, but if the experiment is put off as a
result of my concerns, the damage is quite minimal, but if "they" are
wrong, the damage is complete.  Personally, I think the wise course
of action is to expect the worst and plan accordingly (i.e. do it off-
world).

When they do it off world and the body they use to do it on gets
absorbed, won't that make people glad we waited?

If it is proven to be safe, then we still have a great platform for
doing all kinds of other experiments that wouldn't be safe (like
creating and studying strange matter and developing antimatter
production techniques).

It's win-win all the way around, if we wait.

Eric


--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@y...>
wrote:
> A black hole ate my planet
>
> http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm
>
> ----------
>
> This article is 5 years old, and I question the lower limit
mentioned
> for the mass of a black hole (10 micrograms).  But it's interesting
> reading for those concerned about scientists accidentally triggering
> the end of the world.
>
> All of the sources I've seen so far predict that 1) a nano-scale
black
> hole would decay (due to Hawking radiation) in an extremely tiny
> fraction of a second, and 2) they are too small to swallow anything
> anyway.  I understand the reasoning behind Hawking radiation, but I
> still do not understand the rational for saying that nano-BHs "are
too
> small to swallow anything".  For example, if an electron collides
with
> a nano-BH at thousands of miles per hour due to the random thermal
> motion of the atom carrying the electron, why would the electron not
> intersect the center of the nano-BH?  Such a collision in itself
would
> not require compression of the electron, so it should be possible.
> Now once the electron has intersected the center of the nano-BH
(where
> gravity is immensely strong), what happens to the electron?  Does it
> just move along normally with the nano-BH attached to it like a
wart?
>  Or does the trapped "edge" of the electron escape? (in apparent
> violation of the common statement that nothing can escape a black
hole
> once it crosses the event horizon).  Or does the trapped "edge" of
the
> electron ultimately drag the rest of the electron down the gravity
> well?
>
> I suspect that the vast majority of people confidently telling us
not
> to worry are just repeating what they heard via authoritative
academic
> sources.  This topic is way too complex for 99.999% of the
population,
> so such parroting is understandable.  Therefore I don't hold out
much
> hope that anyone here understands the details well enough to add to
> what the experts have already stated.  I wrote to Dr. Hawking --
let's
> see if he answers.
>
> Leo C.

For an electron, nothing /real/ crosses the event horizon.  That's why
it doesn't fall in.  It must be fed with a particle beam, as I said.

On 1 Oct 2005, at 12.11, catboat15@... wrote:
> Oh yes! Spelling as used in both America and England is a mess of
> strange
Quote whom you're quoting or shut up.
> combinations. (G.B. Shaw once showed how "fish" could be spelled
> "ghoti" by the
> spelling rules in English.) But then, so are the languages themselves.
> (Why
No, it's the spelling rules in English, Latin French, and Norman.
> no  "h" in there?). Maybe we should switch to only using Esperanto
> instead of
There is.
> English or American. Then all switch to a logical key board etc. See
> P.J.
> Farmer's Riverworld series for information on using Esperanto as the
> universal
> language.

Screw Esperanto and its lowest common denominator.  Use New English:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/
c021c08189540fc7.  The translations are a little sketchy (scetJicin),
but kallisti (callEstA) translates to sheenesther (SEnesFr).  I'll
later make a language with all possible 18 vowels and 24 consonants to
greatly shorten all speech, being how lazy I am.  I already invented a
new number sustem to support it.

-Aut
Hail Chaos!
"chaos" <-> "gas"
(Oh, I also discovered a state of matter between gas and plasma, and
several elsewhere.)

Something Old Is New Again, Alternative Transportation.

Wish we had such high tech trains, affordable, high speed
transportation, healthy for the environment by comparison.

You have to love the Japanese Shinkansin trains. Imagine
185 miles an hour, New York to Chicago in 5 hours, true, we have jets
which are faster but what if the price of a train ticket were half the
price of a plane ticket?

I think a good train might be far less stressful, better to keep your
feet on the ground.

Trains, the future means of transportation?
J.P. Morgan rides again on the ghost train?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

DSTesla

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
>
> > You can find a citation backing the above up, right? Care to share
> it
> > with the rest of us?
>
>
> Sure Gary.  There are lots of 'em, here's one:
>
> http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html
>
> Please note the part that says:
>
> "The Singularity Within
>     The problem with the type of focusing of light that defines the
> presence of a black hole is that once it starts, the focusing
> equation says that it ends in utter disaster. Once a bundle of null
> geodesics becomes trapped by crossing to q<0, within a finite
> distance along each geodesic, q> -Infinity, the geodesics will cross
> at a point, and the transverse area of the bundle will go to zero.
> When this happens, the necessary conditions for the existence and
> uniqueness of these geodesics are violated, and it's no longer
> possible to use the geodesic equations to predict what happens to the
> geodesics after they cross.
>     The spacetime will then exhibit one of the two possible behaviors:
> 1. The spacetime curvature in this region remains finite for all
> observers, but notion of predictability for the spacetime breaks
> down, and evolution of the spacetime can no longer be uniquely
> predicted from a set of initial data.
> 2. The spacetime curvature in this region becomes infinite for all or
> some observers, so that there simply is no possibility of extending
> geodesics past the point where they cross, they simply end there. The
> spacetime as a whole retains its predictability but the region
> contains a spacetime singularity where the paths of observers simply
> end their existence, and spacetime itself can no longer be defined.
>
> Is there a Cosmic Censor?
>     So gravity can focus light so powerfully that it can
> spontaneously end the existence of observers, destroy the definition
> of the spacetime itself, or spoil the unique time evolution in a
> spacetime based on a sensible set of initial data? What is to protect
> us then from the pathological possibilities of strong gravitation
> fields?
>     The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture proposes that in the context of
> the theory of general relativity, in a spacetime where the total
> energy density is positive, pathologies such as spacetime
> singularities and breakdowns in causality and predictability are
> always hidden behind the event horizons of black holes."
>

Right. Black holes swallow light and it can't get back out. Yawn...

> Here's another:
>
> http://www.jp-petit.com/Extensions/questionable/Q1.htm
>
> PLease note where it says:
>
>  "If one keeps the [t, r, q, j ] description (a peculiar choice of
> coordinates), many difficulties arise. For example, when r tends to
> Rs the grr term tends to infinite."
>

And then he goes on to show that changing one's coordinate references
makes the problem go away.

Eric, you have nothing here, nothing at all.

>
> > The ONLY thing you seem to think is that these thing can somehow
> > swallow matter via gravity. They can't, the force is too weak.
>
>
> The force approaches infinity at the singularity.  That's plenty
> strong enough to wreak havoc.
>

Please find some more citations, please, that state this.

>
> > I re-ran the numbers with a bare proton touching the surface of a
> > black hole that had the mass of a gold atom. Here you are:
> >
> > Proton mass: 1.67E-27 kg
> > Gold atom mass: 3.29E-25 kg
> >
> > Proton radius: 6.00E-16 m
> >
> > G: 6.67E-11  N m^2/kg^2
> >
> > F = GxM1xM2/r^2 = 1.02E-31 Newtons. Really going to crush the quarks
> > right out of there?
> >
> > Black holes are ONLY driven by gravity -- their mass is the only
> thing
> > that could "crush" matter into them. As you can see, a proton
> actually
> > sitting against one of these things is NOT exactly being "crushed."
>
>
> Surface?  I thought you said the black hole would be swallowed by a
> particle.  Therefore the particle contacts the singularity itself!
>

Particles at this scale don't have actual surfaces, but statistically
average sizes and circumferences. The calculation above shows just how
weak the force is when a proton "touches" a nano-scale BH.

But given their exceedingly small size, unless the BH was charged it
would be more likely to pass right through the proton.

> Any particle contacting only the event horizon surface would merely
> be spun away due to angular momentum.  It the particles that get hit
> dead on that are in jeopardy.
>

No, not at all. The BHs under discussion are far too small to
jeopordize anything.

>
> > Oh, and the analogy of "how much energy does it take to pull a
> > particle out" is completely back-asswards. That is meaningless to
> this
> > analysis.
>
>
> Hey, that was someone else's analogy, but I must admit that I liked
> it.
>
>
> > But still, Eric, I can't wait to see you picketing CERN to STOP THE
> > MADNESS OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
>
>
> If I had the money, I'd leave today.
>

I hope to see you on the news. Maybe you could enlist some of the anti
global economy protesters to help out. That would add some credibility
to your stand.

> Here's a citation for you straight from Stephen Hawking:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/ps/penrose1.ps
>
> Please note where he wrote:
>
> "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a
> mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it
> corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions
> should be in agreement with observation."
>
> In other words, IF (big IF) his theory corresponds with reality then
> it is true.  He doesn't say that he is right.  Do we really want to
> risk it?  Why not wait until we can do it at a safer range?
>
> Eric


Which would be what, five hundred or so years? Not worth the wait, I
say go for it -- we've got too much to learn about physics and cosmology.

I figured out a way to make these measurements with ordinary test
gear, no need to build electrometers.
The data supports Charlie's assertion that schottkies of sufficiently
small size should be able to rectify johnson noise.  Threshold
voltages don't seem to get in the way too much.  My own opinion is
that schottkies with large junctions might do better.

Pair a schottky with a large inductor tuned to self-resonate at 5 Hz
or less, and maybe something could be produced (a milliwatt of free
energy for a $10,000 investment).  The coil will force Johnson energy
through the diode regardless of its threshold.  Making the coil is
now the big problem for me.  I have come full-circle, again.

Comments welcome.
Tom Schum


Threshold of rectification in solid-state diodes.
October 1, 2005         Tom Schum

Conclusion:
Large-area schottky rectifiers have a very low threshold
of rectification, providing DC output with as little as
15mVpp sinewave input.  Small-area schottky diodes are
not as capable, and standard silicon rectifiers are even
less capable.

TEST DATA
Sinewave input is listed in mVpp, and test results are
the corresponding reading of the digital voltmeter in
millivolts DC for the various DUTs listed.

INPUT 10K 1N5818 5082-2080 1N4002
10mVpp 0mVDC 0 0  0
15 0 0.3 0.1  0
20 0 0.7 0.3  0
40 0.2 2.9 1.1  0
80 0.4 11.4 4.2  0
100 0.6 17.4 6.4  0.1
200 1.4 53.8 25.8  0.7
400 3.7 137 90.5  7.7
500 4.8 186 126  19.5
600 6 232 170  40.5
800 6.2 316 257  101
1000 8.6 427 351  177

Note that two pcs 1N5818 were tested and agreed closely.
During testing the high capacitance of the 1N5818 passed
much higher AC component thru to the output than did the
5082-2080, which has very low capacitance.  Ripple with
the 5082-2080 was very low.  DC readings on the voltmeter
were accompanied by vertical shifts in the oscilloscope
output waveform, and the input waveform remained pure AC.
Figures for the 10K DUT show the digital meter rejects AC
fairly well, and cannot skew the results more than 18%.
Still, it is possible the meter misreads DC in the
presence of high ripple.  If so, results for the
5082-2080 remain accurate, since very little ripple was
observed while testing this device.

DUT SPECs
10K:  Carbon film resistor, 10K 1/8W 5%
1N5818:   Schottky, 1 amp 30PIV
5082-2080:  Schottky, 8PIV
1N4002:  Silicon PN junction, 1 amp 100PIV

Test Setup:
A 10KHz audio sinewave oscillator was connected to the
anode of the diode under test (DUT).  The DUT cathode
was connected to a 4700pF ceramic capacitor to ground.
Sinewave oscillator common was also connected to ground.
A digital DC voltmeter was connected between ground and
the DUT cathode.  Voltmeter impedance was 10 megohms.
An oscilloscope x1 DC input was connected in parallel
with the digital voltmeter.  Oscilloscope impedance was
1.0 megohms.  Total DC load resistance was 909K ohms.
The second input of the oscilloscope was connected
to the sinewave oscillator output to monitor the input
signal level.  To verify the test theory, the DUT
was replaced with a 10K ohm resistor and baseline tests
were done as if the 10K resistor were a diode.

> you'd think they would have reported it.  Racers get
> low mileage.  I think the guy made outlandish claims
> to draw attention to his business.  may be that cyro
> treating may not even do that much for most kinhds
> of metals.
>

The link below is a place is a place near me. They
shows a modest 3% increase in horsepower on a 5hp go
cart motor. This is well within the margin of error
for such a test.

http://www.percryo.com/test_data%20eng.htm

The real reason that cryogenics are used on motors is
as a form of tempering. For example, brake rotors
treated this way are won't warp. Coil springs shrink a
little during the process, then stay that way for the
life of the car. Similar with valve springs, once
treated, they are already broken in. Parts like push
rods and valves are less likely to break if treated.
None of this effects mileage in any meaningfull way.
(3%?).

It would cost $2,000 dollars to pull and engine, treat
it and put it back.

If you want a cheap fix and your car has a mass air
filter, you can take a clue from nascar. Build
yourself a restrictor plate. a $2.00 part will
increase your mileage 20%.

fred




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

I saw the table got trashed as it became a post.
The tabs became single spaces.
I tried to fix it below by using spaces instead of tabs.
Maybe I'll get lucky this time.

If it is still unreadable, try hitting "reply" on the original post,
post 19119.  I tried that and the table became readable.  I guess
in "reply" mode the text editor pays attention to the tabs.

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@y...>
wrote:
> I figured out a way to make these measurements with ordinary test
> gear, no need to build electrometers.
> The data supports Charlie's assertion that schottkies of
sufficiently
> small size should be able to rectify johnson noise.  Threshold
> voltages don't seem to get in the way too much.  My own opinion is
> that schottkies with large junctions might do better.
>
> Pair a schottky with a large inductor tuned to self-resonate at 5
Hz
> or less, and maybe something could be produced (a milliwatt of free
> energy for a $10,000 investment).  The coil will force Johnson
energy
> through the diode regardless of its threshold.  Making the coil is
> now the big problem for me.  I have come full-circle, again.
>
> Comments welcome.
> Tom Schum
>
>
> Threshold of rectification in solid-state diodes.
> October 1, 2005         Tom Schum
>
> Conclusion:
> Large-area schottky rectifiers have a very low threshold
> of rectification, providing DC output with as little as
> 15mVpp sinewave input.  Small-area schottky diodes are
> not as capable, and standard silicon rectifiers are even
> less capable.
>
> TEST DATA
> Sinewave input is listed in mVpp, and test results are
> the corresponding reading of the digital voltmeter in
> millivolts DC for the various DUTs listed.
>
INPUT   10K     1N5818  5082-2080       1N4002
10mVpp  0mVDC   0       0               0
15      0       0.3     0.1             0
20      0       0.7     0.3             0
40      0.2     2.9     1.1             0
80      0.4     11.4    4.2             0
100     0.6     17.4    6.4             0.1
200     1.4     53.8    25.8            0.7
400     3.7     137     90.5            7.7
500     4.8     186     126             19.5
600     6       232     170             40.5
800     6.2     316     257             101
1000    8.6     427     351             177

>
> Note that two pcs 1N5818 were tested and agreed closely.
> During testing the high capacitance of the 1N5818 passed
> much higher AC component thru to the output than did the
> 5082-2080, which has very low capacitance.  Ripple with
> the 5082-2080 was very low.  DC readings on the voltmeter
> were accompanied by vertical shifts in the oscilloscope
> output waveform, and the input waveform remained pure AC.
> Figures for the 10K DUT show the digital meter rejects AC
> fairly well, and cannot skew the results more than 18%.
> Still, it is possible the meter misreads DC in the
> presence of high ripple.  If so, results for the
> 5082-2080 remain accurate, since very little ripple was
> observed while testing this device.
>
> DUT SPECs
> 10K:  Carbon film resistor, 10K 1/8W 5%
> 1N5818:   Schottky, 1 amp 30PIV
> 5082-2080:  Schottky, 8PIV
> 1N4002:  Silicon PN junction, 1 amp 100PIV
>
> Test Setup:
> A 10KHz audio sinewave oscillator was connected to the
> anode of the diode under test (DUT).  The DUT cathode
> was connected to a 4700pF ceramic capacitor to ground.
> Sinewave oscillator common was also connected to ground.
> A digital DC voltmeter was connected between ground and
> the DUT cathode.  Voltmeter impedance was 10 megohms.
> An oscilloscope x1 DC input was connected in parallel
> with the digital voltmeter.  Oscilloscope impedance was
> 1.0 megohms.  Total DC load resistance was 909K ohms.
> The second input of the oscilloscope was connected
> to the sinewave oscillator output to monitor the input
> signal level.  To verify the test theory, the DUT
> was replaced with a 10K ohm resistor and baseline tests
> were done as if the 10K resistor were a diode.

Hello,

Greetings;

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the cph_theory
group.

   Description : Articles of CPH Theory

You can access the file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cph_theory/files/CPH-Articles.htm


Sincerely
Hossein Javadi

CPH  Stands of:

Creation Particle Higgs




The Limitations in Universe

String Theory or CPH Theory

The Speed of Gravity in CPH Theory

Repulsive Gravitational Force and Limitation of Speed

A Mathematical Mode for Effective Nuclear Charge

Redshift is Common effect

Dark Energy PDF

Photon and Gravity PDF

Space time or Space force? PDF

Relativity and CPH PDF

CPH and Space cuevature PDF

Sub Quantum Chromodynamic PDF

Sub Quantum Chromo dynamics  SQCD

Color charge-Color magnet

CPH Theory PDF

Mathematical Model Of CPH PDF




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia@s...> wrote:
> For an electron, nothing /real/ crosses the event horizon.

Aut,

The accuracy of your statement depends on what you mean by "real".  I
don't say this facetiously -- defining "real" at the quantum level is
not a trivial task.

Leo C.