Tuesday, February 28, 2012

You could hear a pin drop: 'Free Energy'?


"Interacting copper and Hydrogen"

Are you an investor? Well, this is serious stuff, and you ought to pay attention. If it's for real - and I give it a 30% chance that it is - you will not have long to act. Once the main media get hold of it, you won't be at the forefront of the wave.
I bring to your attention the murmurings in the shadowy world of 'cold fusion', or whatever it is the Defkalion company is up to. There is presently in an eerie lull in what is usually a lively output of information. Everybody 'in the know' are waiting. As yesterdays article in Wired Magazine article says about Dekalion:

"...What we do know is that according to the test protocol, one live and one inert Hyperion will be tested side by side for 48 hours, with the inert machine acting as a control. Then the active component will be removed from the live and placed in the inert one, and the test will be run again, so the complete test will take a minimum of four days.

Defkalion has confirmed that the tests will start on 24 February. According to Sterling Allan of Peswiki, who visited Defkalion a couple of weeks ago, the first round of tests will be carried out by a Greek government organisation...."

You could hear a pin drop. Not a peep from Defkalion on the web in days, which is highly unusual. It is now the 28th, and according to this article, the tests representatives with the Greek government may be concluded today - unless they took a break during the weekend. Depending on the caginess of the Greek authorities, and if a report is forthcoming to the media, we ought to know if something substantial is going on.
If the report provides a positive outcome, I seriously would consider adjusting your portfolio accordingly. Here are some off-the-cuff speculations:

  • Immediately drop any alternative energy interests that deal with source energy. Hot fusion, Solar, tide, wind energy could become liabilities overnight. They are expensive and will not be able to compete.
  • Drop oil stocks and put your dosh aside. Should news of a viable alternative energy source to come to light, many individuals will panic and sell off their oil stocks. When you think it has reached rock-bottom, buy all the oil stocks you can get your hands on. It will only take a while before it occurs to the dimmer bulbs that unlimited energy means a greater scope for plastics. Plastics are made from oil.
  • Carefully watch how power companies respond. Investors may have a knee-jerk response. However, 'free' energy will not happen overnight, and these companies may well successfully adapt.
  • Invest in energy-hungry pollution scrubbers. If energy prices drop, these become viable and very desirable.
  • Mostly good news. Almost any viable manufacturing industries ought to thrive. Prices of manufacturing should gradually drop as energy prices decrease.
  • The downsides that come to mind are market instability due to the implications an uncertainty caused by such a paradigm-shifting event.
    Ecologically, it will all seem to be good news, as pollution from 'old world' energy output decreases. However eventually - as energy devices become more and more powerful - the Earth's heat sink won't be able to cope with it, and temperatures will start to rise again. The solution will probably be to park industries in space - easier to do, because inexpensive energy will make leaving the Earth's gravity easier. But that, as it says in the "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" - will be somebody else's problem.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Sakharov's Induced Gravity, 1966


Having spent thirty plus years contemplating gravitational induction, it was perhaps only a matter of time before I was to come across Sakharov's "Induced Gravity", which he wrote in 1966.
I doff my cap to his realization that gravity may have a means of being induced.
Reading his paper makes me feel a little like a bull in a china shop, in that it is only with great difficulty that I can grasp the abstract, let alone the equations. This is not Sakharov's shortcoming, but mine.
The clear delineation between Sakharov's approach to the subject of gravitational induction and my own contemplations, is that Sakharov presents the issue in pure theory, whereas my work is at the material end, offering a means by which gravitational induction can be brought about physically, through high energy plasma configurations, a means to directly observe the phenomenon.
Sakharov paper mentions Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations once in the footnotes, but no applicable imposition exists throughout the actual paper, whereas Absolute Vacuums are the cornerstone of my work. Sakharov sees a vacuum in the conventional sense as 'a space with nothing in it', whereas my definition of a vacuum is 'a volume with no space in it'. The difference is significant.
Sakharov never mentions high energy plasmas in his paper, the means with which I believe Absolute Vacuums may come about.
Furthermore, in my thesis of gravitational induction it is not necessary to delve any deeper than the atomic level, rather than the more complex behavior of subatomic matter. Although higher atomic elements surely play a part which I am hitherto unable to discern, most of my reasoning is based
on the fact that the Sun - and the Universe - is for the most part hydrogen; one proton, one electron. The Absolute Vacuum, or non-space part of my hypothesis suggests that the plasmas capacity to create magnetic repulsion of like particles is capable of 'sweeping' space away, creating the conditions for non-space.
Finally, perhaps because of my less eloquent and more pedantic approach to what after all is a fantastic notion that requires extraordinary proofs, I offer a prediction of an as-yet unobserved natural phenomenon on the nature of solar neutrinos and a repeatable laboratory experiment.
Sakharov who is a respected theorist and physicist, expresses his ideas in mathematical formulae, whereas my background can be traced to the mud of visual natural history, in the case of gravitational induction I am inspired by Hans Christian ├śrsted. Both approaches are an attempt to tease out secrets from the natural world; I believe mine to be a little more of a 'show me' nature.
Ultimately, I suppose the difference of our approach to gravitational induction is that his concept may be proved or disproved by strokes on a blackboard, whereas my conjectures will stand or fall by observational evidence.

I am glad to find there are others - and in this case a great scientist - who holds the belief that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Absolute Vacuums or Non-Space made easy...

I can't count the times I have winced when someone has exclaimed, "Oh! So you're telling me the Sun is hollow?"
For this reason, I have created this little vignette. It is a simple thought model that offers a rudimentary outline of Absolute Vacuums, or Non-Space. The explanation does not go so far as to explain how these are maintained against the implosion of space. For that, you can read
"Can Gravity be Induced?" which I wrote in 1979.






...If you got this far and have not fallen asleep, here is my ten minute video that goes into a little more detail: