Page 4 of 5

snippit

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:25 pm
by James Barrett
This just a little snippit from a message that Richard Hull sent out recently to all those interested. Maybe its where he thinks things stand at the moment.

"Sadly, for fusion, all past efforts have failed to produce net energy outside of that coming from within the human spirit.

Richard Hull"

outside that? Perhaps certainly. If things seem so bleak, then why does he continue? He has answered that himself. JDB

Re: lost me a bit

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:40 am
by Mikado14
Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:Give me a little more ground to stand on here Mikado, ya lost me?
with this post?

James Barrett wrote:
I
found here http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm
Mikado wrote:Any relation the Barrett mentioned in the above link?


Elizabeth


Hello Elizabeth,

If you go to the link and read it, it references a "Barrett" as writing in an article in 1968.

Mikado

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:56 am
by grassahhoppah
Mikado14 wrote:
I am not following, what is "it"?


"It" is the theories, ideas, and lessons presented in a physics book I have, that was buried away.



Mikado14 wrote: Two things here: First, I asked you to define "particulate" and you are talking "particles" of matter. As you say, in the mainstream, there is a difference in the use of those words. Second, if I may be so bold, what was your recent schooling?


I was interchanging words on accident. ?

I am a current student in the nuclear field. What I meant by "recent schooling" is to a class I just finished. They are accelerated classes so they finish before the end of the normal semester.


Mikado14 wrote:You need to define what you mean by a standing EM wave.


I am not all that great at explaining things. This should do much better at what I was referring to......

http://blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp


Mikado14 wrote:My young grassahhoppah, have you read any of the posts or what else Paul has written?

Mikado


Yes, some so far. But being a newbie I still have much more to read and much to get up to speed on. Lol, so while the rest of you are jumping and riding wheelies, I'm still learning just to stay upright on my bicycle. Even though I may see others riding with no hands, I'm still trying to grasp the concepts of what I have seen so far.

IT

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:24 am
by Trickfox
Actually Hop you are doing GREAT. Try and SEARCH the past posts if you want to find reference to any subject you think we may have brought up before. I use the search feature a lot but I must add that it is best to search by POST, so be sure and click on the "posts" button after you have entered the subject matter at the top.

Please don't worry about the terms "standing wave" (soliton), or "particle" because leptons are sometimes "either one" of the two, -depending upon when and how you choose to observe them. (see the windows media file below)

Hey Flow... it's Déja-vu again:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DS_sm2.wmv

I guess this is the ultimate either/or negation

Trickfox

doing wheelies

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:54 pm
by James Barrett
Grassahhoppah,

"Yes, some so far. But being a newbie I still have much more to read and much to get up to speed on. Lol, so while the rest of you are jumping and riding wheelies, I'm still learning just to stay upright on my bicycle. Even though I may see others riding with no hands, I'm still trying to grasp the concepts of what I have seen so far. "

I am in the same boat but I love watching how things unfold and I think all of those so called " no hands " experts will be the first to laugh and tell you what its like to take an unexpected trip off the trail and through the giggleweeds. Not always comfortable but this seems a really dedicated lot. They find the trail again fast. And like Trickfox said. I think that you are doing a good job.

Me? I have a firm grip on my handlebars. I think that this could be a really good whiteknuckle ride ! JDB

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:50 pm
by flowperson
Hop...You're doing great.Just hang onto your seat and don't worry about the steering thingy. It's all kinda like Mr. Toad's wild ride. You don't really know where you're going or really where you've been much of the time. Uncertainty rules ! But every once in a while there's a convergance and things make some sense.

ps... think aout the meaning of the planck length and what synchronicity really means, other than it being an excellent pop tune by Sting and the Police.

flow.... :wink:

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:56 pm
by Gewis
grassahhoppah wrote:
I am not all that great at explaining things. This should do much better at what I was referring to......

http://blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp


Grassahhoppah,

I'm reading over this, and it has several errors in the model.

The idea of the atom being modeled by a superposition of standing electron waves makes sense. The boundaries specify the resonance conditions in the "particle-in-a-box" done in sophomore level modern physics. But there is no explanation for how a standing EM wave has the property of charge, nor is there any method here for dealing with spin and angular momentum. Quantum Mechanics really is a special kind of wave mechanics, but there are issues in reducing the whole system to EM waves without accounting for conserved properties like charge and spin. Light can have a spin if it has mass, but that still doesn't account for charge.

Second, I don't see why it's difficult to imagine a lepton (electrons are a type of lepton) as a fundamental particle. All attempts to probe the internal structure of a quark have proved futile too. Again, this brings up the charge question. What provides the boundary conditions that allow the EM waves to be standing? A standing wave is just a reflection of a wave on itself at resonance (constructive interference). Point one would lead us to believe that the boundary conditions are just other standing waves, which further leads us to a huge paradox. Charge is necessary, even if the interactions between charge are mediated by EM waves, the charges themselves cannot be those waves.

Third, electromagnetic energy (light) has particle properties.

The fourth point is pretty well right. I know of a few theories that can predict particle masses from geometry, but it's not mainstream QM.

The fifth point completely deviates from science. If something can interact with the environment, it can be observed. If it can't interact with anything at all, then what's the point? I could postulate a particle about as big as my head that is massless and chargeless and you could never prove that it doesn't exist in nature. We'll call it the Gewton. What you see is real, though your brain may interperet data incorrectly. That's the kicker. It isn't that our observations are wrong, it's that we often don't understand what we're observing.

Points six, seven, and eight, though, I like. Even if some of these other issues are fatal, I think there are insights and pieces here to this resonance that point in the right direction. Resonance is key to a lot of things. But postulating a standing EM wave without any reason for the boundary conditions kills this pretty fast.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:40 am
by grassahhoppah
Your point of "what makes the boundary" is exactly one question that has been going through my mind as well. I have not came to that answer yet.

I don't know if it's possible, but what if there are particles and they also happen to reside or get trapped on the nodes of the standing waves?

I am still doing much studying into the matter of it all and have much to go. There are many pages before and after that page that discuss some of the issues you brought up. I think it's a very good read. You can go to the menu bar up top, drop down "food for thought", and start there.

What ever input you had for me, pro or con, of the idea's presented there, I'd love to hear. I'll take any educating and insight I can get.

I figured I'd try my best and do as much research as I could, and then bombard Xavier with what ever questions that I had left over. Such as the boundary.


On the flip side, I am also studying into the other side of the fence that teach about particles as an object, spin, and angular momentum. Well, this part I learn in school, but I am also studying into it outside of school.

I have this book on the way, here is a piece that talks a little on the subject of spin, gravity, etc .....

http://www.spacetelescopes.com/gravitation.html

As I learn, I'm always open to correct my thoughts towards the stronger evidence.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:24 am
by flowperson
Trickfox...I downloaded your wmv clip but my machine didn't have the right software to run it.

Someone mentioned the gravity Research Foundation of New Boston somewhere. I believe it stemmed from Kevin's posting of the formerly classified 1956 electrogravitics paper by the Brits. Here's some refs.

I found the placing of memorial stones in various college campuses across the US to be especially intriguing.
( wiki article)

flow.... :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Re ... Foundation

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/

http://www.new-boston.nh.us/town/info/babson2.htm

circles in the sand

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:12 am
by Elizabeth Helen Drake
Connections reach out of nowhere Flow

In one of your links there is this comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Re ... Foundation

"Rauscher indicated Thomas Edison had suggested the creation of the Gravity Research Foundation to Babson (Valone, 2001, p. 4). "

Rauscher has to be Elizabeth Rauscher, who has been mentioned here rather extensively and recently too.

Funny.

Then I Typed up Bahnson Gravity Research Group

And suddenly there is this strange comment .... that Agnew Bahnson was a TRUSTEE OF THE GRAVITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION.

NOW THATS DOWNRIGHT INTERESTING. ANYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigravity

WHEN DR. BROWN LEAVES FLORIDA HE GOES TO WORK WITH AGNEW BAHNSON .... A TRUSTEE OF THE GRAVITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION?

( as well as a very interesting article about Babson came up. Part of it though says this ..

"The Biefeld-Brown effect nevertheless lives on. A 1956 analysis by the Gravity Research Group and by a technical writer, under the pen name of Intel (1956), claimed the Biefeld-Brown effect was the primary theory tested by the aerospace firms in the 1950s

So "Intel" was a pen name? Not an organization? So, who then was " Intel"? We are all familiar with the article which claimed that there was an international movement ( naming many large companies ... Convair, Lear etc) and laying down the information that even Nick Cook picked up and used for part of his research into what was happening in 1956 .... then 1957-58 came along and all agreed that it was if a big dark curtain fell over the whole subject.

Paul is getting there in the next chapter. Going to be interesting and maybe will shed some light. Elizabeth

and this is the money quote

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:05 am
by James Barrett
And from that link Elizabeth this is the money quote.

"Other private sector efforts to master the understanding of gravitation was the creation of the Institute for Field Physics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in 1956 by Gravity Research Foundation trustee, Agnew H. Bahnson."

Wondering if Paul has that in his notes? You might wonder why it was that Agnew Bahnson is quoted as saying that they " went in search of Townsend Brown because he was the man they needed." You might wonder as I have why it was that Agnew Bahnson came to that conclusion? JDB

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:43 pm
by flowperson
The Institute for Field Physics at UNC was established at about the same time that the Research Triangle Park (RTP) was founded in the Raleigh-Durham area.

It along with the Cummings Research Park in Huntsville ,Ala. near to the NASA installations, and the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park in downtown Richmond, were the early prototypes for research parks that really began to take off near University research facilities in the 70's and 80's.

When significant things were discovered in the academic setting, it became recognized that the application of the basic principles were best further developed for commercial purposes in secure private facilities near to the University/ Govt. Lab environments which thrived in the academic setting.

I believe that the RTP is still the largest research park in the world with many fortune 500 research labs, Govt. Research Labs, and development start-ups populating the place.

Yeah, just the sort of environment that Bahnson would want to draw TTB into to further his visions.

flow.... :wink:

You must be using a MAC

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:11 am
by Trickfox
flowperson wrote:Trickfox...I downloaded your wmv clip but my machine didn't have the right software to run it.



Flow...
The .wmv file comes from a website called (What the bleep) it is a windows media file, so you have to use windows media to read it. If you have a MAC it won"t work.

If you never seen the three DVD series WHAT THE BLEEP then I am suggesting that you try and look for it. It was definately worth the price I purchased it for. It an excellent and modern explanation of the rabitt hole phenomena that everyone here is talking about (and more on quantum physics). There are several hours of interviews with a half dozen physicists and researchers who are trying to bring forth a shift in paradign in scientific analysis.

That clip (the one you can:t seem to read) is a few minutes of one of the annimation in the dvd series and explains in rather simple terms what the double slit experiment is all about.

I was watching the DVD again today (about a year after I first watched it) and now I see plainly what these interviews are all about. In sure makes a lot more sense now than a year ago.

Trickfox

Re: Would This Work?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:05 am
by grassahhoppah
Paul S. wrote:
Howzabout a grapefruit size fusion reactor that produces megawatts of electricity directly? You know, no steam/turbine heat conversion. Just the gizmo and the juice.

I know somebody who has a prototype in just garage. Just can't find the notes he needs to get it fired up... since they were never written down.

--PS


LOL, 3 days later it suddenly dawns on me, that the word you used was "fusion reactor" and not "fission reactor".

I'll go sit over in the corner with my dunce cap on for a little while.

Re: You must be using a MAC

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:38 pm
by flowperson
Trickfox wrote:
flowperson wrote:Trickfox...I downloaded your wmv clip but my machine didn't have the right software to run it.



Flow...
The .wmv file comes from a website called (What the bleep) it is a windows media file, so you have to use windows media to read it. If you have a MAC it won"t work.


Discriminatory...just plain discriminatory. Alas and alack, I will only own and operate a mac. Thanks anyhoo my friend.

flow.... :wink: