OK… there seemed to be a lot of valid opposition to the theory proposed to explain the affect they were seeing, but this news implies that the affect was reproducible. I’m still of the opinion that EHT (probably) presents the best unifying theory, so the question is (staying on topic for this thread) could EHT explain this affect that is being seen? Could there be an energy level (for hydrogen) lower than the typically observed “ground state”, and could hydrino’s exist (at all) and / or for any length of time?
My interest in hydrinos has to do with Fusion energy. {Rod Sterling voice…} “Imagine if you will…” what would happen with a deuterium fuel instead of hydrogen? With a lower energy level for the electron (orbits) in the molecule, they would have lower orbits. Lower orbits translates to the nuclei being closer to each other than for typical “ground state” deuterium. Would this not make for an interesting fuel to experiment with for Fusion energy?
FYI, C.J. de Matos (a frequent co-author with M. Tajmar) has a new paper out, "Gravitational Waves detection and sprectrosopy with a Double-sit Quantum Eraser" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3911) that suggests an alternative method employing quantum entanglement for detecting GWs... especially high frequency GWs. It says, "...the main characteristic of the detector is the possibility of tuning it to a specific GW wavelength..."
QUOTE (DEK46656+Oct 19 2008, 02:40 PM)
I recently came across a site called BlackLight Power. They claim to have a power generation process based on creating a reaction with Hydrogen.
.....
I don't have the background or skills to analyze their statements or determine the validity of what they claim. ....
So, does anyone have any insight ....
Hello DEK;
The CEO and inventor of this new energy technology at Blacklight Power is R. L. Mills.
It is based on the proposition that hydrogen can transit to a lower energy level than the ground state predicted by Standard quantum mechanics, namely n= 1 level.....under certain circumstances.
IOW, apparently Mills also has spectroscopic evidence to the effect that hydrogen can achive fractional quantum levels, i.e., n= 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...rather than being limited to n = 1,2, 3...(integral multiples) as required by QED.
If possible it would have far reaching consequences....
The transition to lower than n = 1 state is still electronic (chemical reaction), but is about 100 times more energetic due to the fact that higher levels can transit to a much lower energy state and thus release greater energy.
BTW, this is not a nuclear reaction...and No, DEK; being at a lower 'orbital' does not encourage a greater nuclear fusion probablility.
(Its not the electronic that prevents the nuclear fusion , but the nuclear repulsion).
Out of all the hair brained energy generation schemes I have seen in the recent years....this appears to be the most reasonable....and I think there is the possibility for it to be promising...for several reasons.....namely....
1. Mills has done quite a bit of Spectroscopy...and found evidence for the effect.Ex; http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Cont...m101608WebS.pdf
2. He has a 'working' proto-type.
3. He has independent and reputable scientific verification of the validity of his claims....on the experiments and proto-type.
4. He has $ 50 million from private investors....showing the confidence of many others.
5. He has pier reviewed publications in major journals showing that he is quite knowledgeable in quantum physics...Ex.; http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/36/13/316
6. He is not inventing all sorts of new physics and imaginary particles as is EHT.
7. His only sin seems to be amending QED to include fractional energy levels, and incurring the wrath of the usual Pharisees of Physics.
Actually, SOMETIMES it may be neccessary to step beyond the boundaries....and offend the establishment...IF you are standing on valid EMPIRICAL results.
And NO; it has nothing to do with Burkhard -Heim stuff.....with all its imaginary particles...etc.
{Compared to Mills hydrogen technology Burkhard-Heim (EHT) seems to be on LSD}.
Just my opinion ....but I'd give these guys a serious chance (wish they were on the public stock market - I'd buy), especially since success will reduce the energy costs down to below 2 Cents per Kilowatt-hr.!...and do it with a renewable source and with a non polluting by-product.
If successful, it will bust us off the grid...and make trillions.
JW
Of course, there are many Textbook QED reasons why it shouldn't happen. ....but I think Mills addressed those adequately enough to leave a open door for using a catalyst to achieve lower than n = 1 quantum level.
QUOTE (Fairy+Oct 23 2008, 09:58 AM)
lol ferrari, massive luxury yacht, prolly a private jet, call sluts, coke...
QUOTE (gdaigle+Oct 22 2008, 04:35 PM)
FYI, C.J. de Matos (a frequent co-author with M. Tajmar) has a new paper out, "Gravitational Waves detection and sprectrosopy with a Double-sit Quantum Eraser" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3911) that suggests an alternative method employing quantum entanglement for detecting GWs... especially high frequency GWs. It says, "...the main characteristic of the detector is the possibility of tuning it to a specific GW wavelength..."
Hi all,
This reminds me about Dröscher & Häuser proposal from they latest paper:
JPC2008: Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts
QUOTE (Dröscher & Häuser+)
A. Acceleration Measurement for Gravity-Like Field: Photon Red- and Blueshifts
In Tajmar’s experimental setup a circular acceleration field of magnitude a is generated by the nonuniform rotation of the (superconducting Nb ring).
Here we suggest a modified setup to facilitate the measurement of the acceleration field, based on the gravitational mass, m, of the photon, which is equal in value to its inertial mass hn=c^2. Therefore, its energy hv should be increased or decreased by maL when subjected to an acceleration of magnitude a over distance L.
In this novel experiment, in order to measuring the acceleration, a, accelerometers would be replaced by a circular fiber optics ring located in the plane of rotation, placed concentrically around the rotating ring.
Since the acceleration field is equivalent to a gravitational field, a photon, similar to the experiment of Pound and Rebca in 1960, emitted inside the fiber optics ring, which is moving in a direction against the acceleration vector gains potential and loses kinetic energy, and thus is redshifted or, if the photon is emitted in the direction of the acceleration vector, it loses potential and thus gains kinetic energy and should be blueshifted.
Since frequencies can be measured with much higher precision than mechanical acceleration, precision should be increased by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, this experimental set up would be much more robust against mechanical vibrations that plague accelerometer measurements. In particular, the accuracy should be sufficient to determine whether the strong asymmetry, between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, as observed in the measurements for the Bg field, would also be present in accelerometer measurements.
In Tajmar’s experimental setup a circular acceleration field of magnitude a is generated by the nonuniform rotation of the (superconducting Nb ring).
Here we suggest a modified setup to facilitate the measurement of the acceleration field, based on the gravitational mass, m, of the photon, which is equal in value to its inertial mass hn=c^2. Therefore, its energy hv should be increased or decreased by maL when subjected to an acceleration of magnitude a over distance L.
In this novel experiment, in order to measuring the acceleration, a, accelerometers would be replaced by a circular fiber optics ring located in the plane of rotation, placed concentrically around the rotating ring.
Since the acceleration field is equivalent to a gravitational field, a photon, similar to the experiment of Pound and Rebca in 1960, emitted inside the fiber optics ring, which is moving in a direction against the acceleration vector gains potential and loses kinetic energy, and thus is redshifted or, if the photon is emitted in the direction of the acceleration vector, it loses potential and thus gains kinetic energy and should be blueshifted.
Since frequencies can be measured with much higher precision than mechanical acceleration, precision should be increased by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, this experimental set up would be much more robust against mechanical vibrations that plague accelerometer measurements. In particular, the accuracy should be sufficient to determine whether the strong asymmetry, between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, as observed in the measurements for the Bg field, would also be present in accelerometer measurements.
<br>H&D setup look a way simpler then de Matos proposal.
/Joss
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Oct 22 2008, 11:03 PM)
...BTW, this is not a nuclear reaction...and No, DEK; being at a lower 'orbital' does not encourage a greater nuclear fusion probablility. (Its not the electronic that prevents the nuclear fusion , but the nuclear repulsion)...
...And NO; it has nothing to do with Burkhard -Heim stuff.....with all its imaginary particles...etc. {Compared to Mills hydrogen technology Burkhard-Heim (EHT) seems to be on LSD}...
Thanks for the analysis JW. Some of that I had gleaned from reviewing the sites / links provided earlier.
Regarding the fusion possibilities, my thought was that the di-hydrino gas might provide an environment similar to muon catalyzed fusion. Having read about it years ago, I periodically look for any recent efforts or advances that might benefit it.
My question about comparisons had more to do about EHT supplying a theory explaining the effect versus comparing the two theories. I would guess that GUT-CP would not withstand a full bottom up review by physicists; something that has to happen for any theory that is going to be unifying in nature (oops, pun alert).
However, if the affect is occurring, and “something” is changing in the ground state of the hydrogen to produce hydrinos, then an explanation is needed to understand it, measure it, and possibly improve on it. From what little I’ve read, they can reproduce the effect, so something is going on that breaks the rules (as QED understands it).
QUOTE (DEK46656+Oct 23 2008, 10:36 AM)
Thanks for the analysis JW. Some of that I had gleaned from reviewing the sites / links provided earlier.
Regarding the fusion possibilities, my thought was that the di-hydrino gas might provide an environment similar to muon catalyzed fusion. Having read about it years ago, I periodically look for any recent efforts or advances that might benefit it.
Regarding the fusion possibilities, my thought was that the di-hydrino gas might provide an environment similar to muon catalyzed fusion. Having read about it years ago, I periodically look for any recent efforts or advances that might benefit it.
OK, DEK; I see what you are saying, ....
In that case I suppose there may be the possibility of something similar to muon catalyzed fusion occurring....The electron shielding allowing a closer nuclear approach...possibly. Good idea.
But not being very well read on di-hydrino development, I could not speak authoritatively here.
Apparently, though, so far the Mills' development depends only on the electronic interaction. I'm not sure if he has investigated nuclear interaction.
JW
QUOTE (DEK46656+Oct 23 2008, 10:36 AM)
My question about comparisons had more to do about EHT supplying a theory explaining the effect versus comparing the two theories. ..
However, if the affect is occurring, and “something” is changing in the ground state of the hydrogen to produce hydrinos, then an explanation is needed to understand it, measure it, and possibly improve on it.
<br>DEK; I would think the fundamental idea had nothing at all to do with EHT. ...and it would be a stretch to try to link them. Mills' energy development is chemical and takes place at high temperatures....and I believe in the presence of microwave initiation.
As I understand it, basically, in the presence of a catalyst, say helium, at high temp. hydrogen transitions are measured to contain a much higher energy ...indicating a transition to lower than n = 1 level.
Apparently, most of these transitions are not radiative (electromagnetically) and thus the energy is transfered through vibrational (or translational motion)...IOW, heat is developed. The ensuing Specroscopic lines actually come from scattering I suppose.
(See here foe ex. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/36/13/316 )
The current proto-type, however, uses sodium hydride for the catalyst.
JW
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 23 2008, 10:21 AM)
Hi all,
This reminds me about Dröscher & Häuser proposal from they latest paper:
JPC2008: Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts
<br>
/Joss
This reminds me about Dröscher & Häuser proposal from they latest paper:
JPC2008: Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts
QUOTE (Dröscher & Häuser+)
A. Acceleration Measurement for Gravity-Like Field: Photon Red- and Blueshifts
In Tajmar’s experimental setup a circular acceleration field of magnitude a is generated by the nonuniform rotation of the (superconducting Nb ring).
Here we suggest a modified setup to facilitate the measurement of the acceleration field, based on the gravitational mass, m, of the photon, which is equal in value to its inertial mass hn=c^2. Therefore, its energy hv should be increased or decreased by maL when subjected to an acceleration of magnitude a over distance L.
In this novel experiment, in order to measuring the acceleration, a, accelerometers would be replaced by a circular fiber optics ring located in the plane of rotation, placed concentrically around the rotating ring.
Since the acceleration field is equivalent to a gravitational field, a photon, similar to the experiment of Pound and Rebca in 1960, emitted inside the fiber optics ring, which is moving in a direction against the acceleration vector gains potential and loses kinetic energy, and thus is redshifted or, if the photon is emitted in the direction of the acceleration vector, it loses potential and thus gains kinetic energy and should be blueshifted.
Since frequencies can be measured with much higher precision than mechanical acceleration, precision should be increased by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, this experimental set up would be much more robust against mechanical vibrations that plague accelerometer measurements. In particular, the accuracy should be sufficient to determine whether the strong asymmetry, between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, as observed in the measurements for the Bg field, would also be present in accelerometer measurements.
In Tajmar’s experimental setup a circular acceleration field of magnitude a is generated by the nonuniform rotation of the (superconducting Nb ring).
Here we suggest a modified setup to facilitate the measurement of the acceleration field, based on the gravitational mass, m, of the photon, which is equal in value to its inertial mass hn=c^2. Therefore, its energy hv should be increased or decreased by maL when subjected to an acceleration of magnitude a over distance L.
In this novel experiment, in order to measuring the acceleration, a, accelerometers would be replaced by a circular fiber optics ring located in the plane of rotation, placed concentrically around the rotating ring.
Since the acceleration field is equivalent to a gravitational field, a photon, similar to the experiment of Pound and Rebca in 1960, emitted inside the fiber optics ring, which is moving in a direction against the acceleration vector gains potential and loses kinetic energy, and thus is redshifted or, if the photon is emitted in the direction of the acceleration vector, it loses potential and thus gains kinetic energy and should be blueshifted.
Since frequencies can be measured with much higher precision than mechanical acceleration, precision should be increased by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, this experimental set up would be much more robust against mechanical vibrations that plague accelerometer measurements. In particular, the accuracy should be sufficient to determine whether the strong asymmetry, between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, as observed in the measurements for the Bg field, would also be present in accelerometer measurements.
<br>
/Joss
....Excuse me? Novel experiment?...Ha ha ha...I gotta laugh .
What the heck do you think a Sagnac interferometer is?...I understand you may not know, Joss....but Dröscher & Häuser's ignorance of this is unacceptable.
That Dröscher & Häuser post is a description of the Sagnac ('Interferometer') effect; IOW, the principle of a RING LASER GYRO....and it was ALREADY used on the notable experimental replication of Tajmar's rotating superconductor by the Canterbury Group...in mid 2007...where they replaced the accelerometers with fiber optic ring lasers....(See... http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajma...ragging2007.pdf )
Other physicists must really be laughing at these guys...The idea they suggest has been in use for years!
However, Joss; thanks for posting that ... it was written in 2008, and it is further confirmation of Dröscher & Häuser's complete ignorance of what is going on in physics.....and again they are proving themselves to be amateurs who are WAY behind the curve...apparently not even realizing that 'their' proposal ALREADY exists.
IOW, they are ignorantly proposing things that have ALREADY been proposed and that ALREADY exist ...and have been IN USE for years....Sheesh .
.....The only other rational is they are simply plagerizing the work of others.....and hoping their readers are sufficiently deficient in physics not to catch on.
Excuse me for being so frank....someone needs to be honest.
JW
P.S. Here's some older reports on using the 'Sagnac' effect as basis for detecting gravity and acceleration fields and gravity waves.... http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v24/i2/p338_1
The effect for the detection of gravitomagnetism (frame dragging)... see here...http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004GReGr..36.1207C
P.S.S. BTW; I briefly mentioned the sagnac effect as pertains to gravitomagnetic field detection when we discussed Canterbury replication by means of 'laser gyros' in my post on june 25th 2008...page 140 of this thread. I knew you weren't listening .
you may want to re-read it.
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Oct 24 2008, 02:42 AM)
That Dröscher & Häuser post is a description of the Sagnac ('Interferometer') effect; IOW, the principle of a RING LASER GYRO....and it was ALREADY used on the notable experimental replication of Tajmar's rotating superconductor by the Canterbury Group...in mid 2007...where they replaced the accelerometers with fiber optic ring lasers....(See... http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajma...ragging2007.pdf )
Hi JW,
you're correct saying that using a Sagnac interferometer in an experiment like Tajmars is no remarkable new idea and Canterbury Group has already done so. I guess that the proposed experiment of D&H is new regarding the arrangement of the accelerometers.
Take a look at the Canterbury Ring Laser Group's experimental setup. The ring laser gyro is located at a proximity of about 20cm away from the rotating superconductor and the laser is just "passing" the assumed force field. D&H's approach (first proposed experiment GME1) is to arrange a FOG concentrically around the spinning material to maximize the effect and hence increase the sensibility by some orders of magnitude. If I read it correctly even Tajmar didn't use concentrically arranged gyros in his latest setups.
QUOTE (elarne+Oct 24 2008, 07:30 AM)
Hi JW,
you're correct saying that using a Sagnac interferometer in an experiment like Tajmars is no remarkable new idea and Canterbury Group has already done so. I guess that the proposed experiment of D&H is new regarding the arrangement of the accelerometers.
Take a look at the Canterbury Ring Laser Group's experimental setup. The ring laser gyro is located at a proximity of about 20cm away from the rotating superconductor and the laser is just "passing" the assumed force field. D&H's approach (first proposed experiment GME1) is to arrange a FOG concentrically around the spinning material to maximize the effect and hence increase the sensibility by some orders of magnitude. If I read it correctly even Tajmar didn't use concentrically arranged gyros in his latest setups.
you're correct saying that using a Sagnac interferometer in an experiment like Tajmars is no remarkable new idea and Canterbury Group has already done so. I guess that the proposed experiment of D&H is new regarding the arrangement of the accelerometers.
Take a look at the Canterbury Ring Laser Group's experimental setup. The ring laser gyro is located at a proximity of about 20cm away from the rotating superconductor and the laser is just "passing" the assumed force field. D&H's approach (first proposed experiment GME1) is to arrange a FOG concentrically around the spinning material to maximize the effect and hence increase the sensibility by some orders of magnitude. If I read it correctly even Tajmar didn't use concentrically arranged gyros in his latest setups.
<br>Elarne...that is a TOTAL hogwash .....When someone invents a speedometer, does it matter which wheel its attached to?...DUH?...You willfully missed the point altogether.
.This is NOT about the PLACEMENT of the apparatus....or even about how it is built...Apparently you are making excuses for their total ignorance of the Sagnac effect....The placement of the ring (concentric or at the side) is totally irrelevant to the physics behind the effect ....and Dröscher & Häuser were totally ignorant that the EFFECT was previously WELL known for years...or even that such a device existed...AND THAT IT WAS ALREADY USED ON the 'Tajmar' experiment!!
Let's stop making excuses so as to accomodate their obvious ignorance ...it only makes you look less professional.... You ought to be EXPOSING these guys..
I am sorry if I offended your 'heros'...but are you interested in the truth?..Or only interested in encouraging others to blindly follow a couple of amateurs whose philosophy you agree with....??
Obviously, Dröscher & Häuser were TOTALLY unaware of the Cantebury experiment.......and clearly unaware that the physics which they call their 'novel' idea has been around for years..
Is it any wonder NO ONE (NO reputable journal) is willing to publish Dröscher & Häuser stuff?
Gads....when you post stuff showing clearly you have no conception of what Sagnac effect is....and call it your OWN Novel idea....DUH?
I say ...quit deceiving YOURSELF with excuses....it is only helping others to believe a deception . These guys are appearing more like charlatains...who gained a following from the simple minded who understand less physics than themselves.
...they were touting that there's was a 'novel' idea; going on extensively to expain their rational for the effect, making it clear that THEY were the originators.......... CLEARLY ignorant of the fact that the entire theoretical underspinnings are ALREADY in USE.
Let stop asking people to be Blind to the obvious about these guys...
Anyone who knows the physics here and what was posted by them can CLEARLY see what I am talking about ....so please don't discount the blantant error ...and ignorance on their part by making excuses that clearly don't hold water.
JW
BTW; as I posted to Joss, please read my previous post here http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=2085
for a brief discussion of the basic physics of the optic fiber ring laser detection of the frame dragging field in the Canterbury set up. (back in june 25, 08).
Just Wonderful,
sorry but your posts (at least the last ones) don't make the impression that you're completely objective either. If every second sentence is about Hauser and Dröscher being ignorant unprofessional guys, then your point is not getting stronger, but weaker, IMHO.
So if all this is so obvious, why don't you simply take a look at Heims/Dröschers work and tell us what it's all about ?
After all if Heims work is not complete nonsense (what I thought we asume at least in this thread) and Dröscher has been working on extending the theory together with Heim, I doubt that he (or for that matter Hauser as well) are simply stupid guys.
So if you claim peoples mistakes, do so in a language which is not insulting.
MB
sorry but your posts (at least the last ones) don't make the impression that you're completely objective either. If every second sentence is about Hauser and Dröscher being ignorant unprofessional guys, then your point is not getting stronger, but weaker, IMHO.
So if all this is so obvious, why don't you simply take a look at Heims/Dröschers work and tell us what it's all about ?
After all if Heims work is not complete nonsense (what I thought we asume at least in this thread) and Dröscher has been working on extending the theory together with Heim, I doubt that he (or for that matter Hauser as well) are simply stupid guys.
So if you claim peoples mistakes, do so in a language which is not insulting.
MB
QUOTE (MichaelB+Oct 24 2008, 09:05 PM)
Just Wonderful,
sorry but your posts (at least the last ones) don't make the impression that you're completely objective either. If every second sentence is about Hauser and Dröscher being ignorant unprofessional guys, then your point is not getting stronger, but weaker, IMHO.
So if all this is so obvious, why don't you simply take a look at Heims/Dröschers work and tell us what it's all about ?
After all if Heims work is not complete nonsense (what I thought we asume at least in this thread) and Dröscher has been working on extending the theory together with Heim, I doubt that he (or for that matter Hauser as well) are simply stupid guys.
So if you claim peoples mistakes, do so in a language which is not insulting.
MB
sorry but your posts (at least the last ones) don't make the impression that you're completely objective either. If every second sentence is about Hauser and Dröscher being ignorant unprofessional guys, then your point is not getting stronger, but weaker, IMHO.
So if all this is so obvious, why don't you simply take a look at Heims/Dröschers work and tell us what it's all about ?
After all if Heims work is not complete nonsense (what I thought we asume at least in this thread) and Dröscher has been working on extending the theory together with Heim, I doubt that he (or for that matter Hauser as well) are simply stupid guys.
So if you claim peoples mistakes, do so in a language which is not insulting.
MB
Concur
Even if he's correct, the tone and content of JW's post did nothing but make him look like an a*s.
Duane
Hi Duane - I replied to your post earlier today, but it looks as though it was sucked up by the black hole of forum management. I wanted to thank you for introducing me to this forum and let you know that I have spent the last month or so catching up on the complete forum thread, from page one. I have several observations that I will post later. I see no good reason to post them now if they are just going to go down a black hole.
This post addresses Burkhard Heim's Mass Formula which was the hot topic on this thread in 2006. Several computer programs for evaluating the mass formula, calculating the mass of protons, electrons and at least 20 other particles, were developed and are posted on Sourceforge. Upon close inspection of the current computer programs to calculate the particle mass, I find one error in the input data. It seems to be in all of the programs. The input value of the electron constant is in error. The correct value, as given by 2006 CODATA is 8.854187817 E-12. The value used in the computer programs is only 6 significant digits. The electron constant is a defined value, giving no room for approximation or truncation, and anyway, when the defined value is used, the answers are better. Note that this seems to be a common mode error derived from the same original source. Probably the original 1982 computer programs or the mass formula papers.
More later, now my dinner is ready
More later, now my dinner is ready
Continuing - I worked with the particles, proton, neutron, electron and mu, because those were all I could identify in the CODATA database. After inserting the correct value of the electron constant into the code, calculated theoretical mass vs. empirical mass values still differed by large numbers of standard deviations of the empirically measured particle mass. However, Values of the gravitational constant G were identified which resulted in the exactly correct mass value being calculated. The thing that is helpful is that the values are close to the empirical value of G as given in the 2006 CODATA database. In fact, I derived values of G as follows:
G proton = G CODATA + 1.422 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G neutron = G CODATA + 10.463 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G electron = G CODATA + 1.360 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G mu = G CODATA + 1.256 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
To me, this data says first, that there is probably an error in the formula or computer code calculating the Heim Mass value of the theoretical mass of the neutron.
It says, second, any of the values could be the correct value of G (Except for the G neutron value). But of course we are allowed only one value for the gravitational constant. It is not a matter of saying, "Which one is it?" I speculate that computational truncation and round-off are introducing small errors that have not yet been dealt with completely. Once any two values of G converge, we will be very close to confirming the Heim Mass formula.
G proton = G CODATA + 1.422 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G neutron = G CODATA + 10.463 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G electron = G CODATA + 1.360 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
G mu = G CODATA + 1.256 Standard Deviations of G CODATA.
To me, this data says first, that there is probably an error in the formula or computer code calculating the Heim Mass value of the theoretical mass of the neutron.
It says, second, any of the values could be the correct value of G (Except for the G neutron value). But of course we are allowed only one value for the gravitational constant. It is not a matter of saying, "Which one is it?" I speculate that computational truncation and round-off are introducing small errors that have not yet been dealt with completely. Once any two values of G converge, we will be very close to confirming the Heim Mass formula.
Actually, once any two values of G converge, we will have proven the basis of Heim Theory. The rest is debugging code.
QUOTE (Aero+Oct 26 2008, 02:12 PM)
Actually, once any two values of G converge, we will have proven the basis of Heim Theory. The rest is debugging code.
I'm glad the topic of computing mass values is being looked at once again. I worked for several years on this subject. The neutron mass has always been a problem. The difficulty with correcting it will be to understand how Heim derived the mass equations, as well as the lifetime calculations. Until this is understood, we won't know how to correct the equations or how to go on to further applications of the theory.jreed
QUOTE (Jossarian+Aug 18 2008, 10:19 AM)
<br>Just about the time I was going to acknowledge Joss's link about the intergalactic voids, more news came in from far, far away,... and, then, still MORE news came in from a Gamma-Ray Burst symposium in Huntsville last week.
First, the news from way out there; the most distant Gamma Ray Burst yet detected (GRB 080913) happened a whopping 12.8 billion (10^9) years ago. The curious point is that, despite the distance involved (same number of light-years), it was STILL recognizable as a gamma ray burst, meaning that its redshift of 6.7 didn't drop it far enough in energy to be mistaken for an X-ray burst. Recall that, according to Heim's theory, cosmological distance drains energy/frequency from incoming radiation due to quintessence, a.k.a., "dark energy," and shifts it to ever lower levels as it traverses space-time to our planet. This means, in essence, that the diameter of the "observable universe" depends on the energy level at which one is examining it. At gamma-ray energies, the Heim universe is orders of magnitude larger than our "current" cosmos.
While "established" predictions put the age of our universe at ~13.7 x 10^9 years (+/- ~1/7), Auerbach & Ludwiger (Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures, Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992) give the time of matter forming as between 15 x 10^9 (billion) and 40 billion years ago. The chaotic formation of matter (as Heim himself called it) occurred after an estimated 10^100 years of (apparently) uneventful expansion of our proto-universe, according to Heim Theory, and formation of matter happened throughout it.
The Heim universe is currently proposed as being ~6 x 10^109 light-years in diameter—a LOT bigger than 2.7 x 10^10 light-years, the 'recognized' value. By the reckoning of Heim Theory, there are way more stars, galaxies and matter beyond what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. Heim mentioned in his Ottobrunn talk that there is no "fence" at the 'edge of our universe' (meaning the CMB as we see it from here on Earth), just more galaxies and voids. Since the incoming electromagnetic radiation of a gamma ray burst is so immensely energetic (~5 orders of magnitude greater than visible light), its 'event horizon' (the distance/time where enough energy has been drained by quintessence to make it undetectable) MUST be vastly farther away than the CMB. This means the "gamma-ray universe" goes well beyond what is presently thought to be "edge" of our little piece of Eden.
So,... if Heim Theory wants to validate its cosmic genesis, let's look for bursts of X-rays that have the characteristics of gamma ray bursts; bursts from massive stars that formed 15 billion, or more, years ago and come from 'beyond the CMB.' Of course, that's easier said than done. Science has only recently acquired the ability monitor the energy bands that announce the mammoth, catastrophic events of hypernovae and merging black holes, which are thought to be some of the sources of the GRBs. If the diameter of the gamma ray universe is only twice the diameter of the presently-acknowledged size of our universe, there is an eight-fold increase in volume. With one GRB per day in "our" universe, there should be 2^3 more GRBs occurring. Is our present equipment up to the task of "seeing" them?
That brings up the GRB Symposium just concluded in Huntsville. Several press releases were made:
A Brief Mystery: What are Short Gamma-ray Bursts?
The Oddball Hosts of Gamma-ray Bursts
The Case of the Missing Gamma-ray Bursts
This last one shows that the search is on. IF Heim Theory is correct about the nature of our universe (or even close!), there are gamma-ray bursts coming in from all directions but at lower energy levels. Already, some workers think that more searching is called for. Soon now, it will be Showtime!
I, personally, am rooting for Extended Heim Theory but let's see how this "universe" thing shakes out. It should be interesting,... very, very interesting! ;-)
QUOTE (jreed+Oct 26 2008, 01:17 PM)
The difficulty with correcting it will be to understand how Heim derived the mass equations, as well as the lifetime calculations. Until this is understood, we won't know how to correct the equations or how to go on to further applications of the theory.
So, does anyone know of a physicist that specializes in Relativity, Einstein’s approach, and is fluent in German? I would guess that someone like that would be best equipped to reverse engineer Heim’s work.
Aero
great job on analyzing the mass formula program’s.
Makuabob
thanks for the background and proposal. I always found Heim cosmology intriguing. I don’t believe I ever saw anyone propose a means of testing it, other than finding holes
in BB and showing how it could answer them.QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 26 2008, 11:25 PM)
The Heim universe is currently proposed as being ~6 x 10^109 light-years in diameter—a LOT bigger than 2.7 x 10^10 light-years, the 'recognized' value. By the reckoning of Heim Theory, there are way more stars, galaxies and matter beyond what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. Heim mentioned in his Ottobrunn talk that there is no "fence" at the 'edge of our universe' (meaning the CMB as we see it from here on Earth), just more galaxies and voids. Since the incoming electromagnetic radiation of a gamma ray burst is so immensely energetic (~5 orders of magnitude greater than visible light), its 'event horizon' (the distance/time where enough energy has been drained by quintessence to make it undetectable) MUST be vastly farther away than the CMB. This means the "gamma-ray universe" goes well beyond what is presently thought to be "edge" of our little piece of Eden.
Not sure if I correctly understood what you are proposing.
The "event horizon" as defined by classical framework based at Hubble principle of expanding universe is the boundary of visible universe because light from objects beyond it hasn't had time to reach our location, even if it were emitted at the time the universe began.
Heim Theory framework concludes that "event horizon" is due to repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world (Quintessence) which is causing red-shifting of light to zero.
Just wonder if Hubble principle of expanding universe can be used as explanation of heavily red-shifted GRB. They can simply make the Universe a bit bigger and older and still fit it in the "classical framework", without need of "Heim Theory" revolution.
I think researchers shall try to somehow distinguish red-shift due to Doppler effect from gravitational red-shift. This is a main goal.
I find this part of "Heim Theory" which claims that "Hubble expanding Universe principle" is false as one of more exciting statements:
Heim: Cosmic Red Shift
Please notice that even Hubble himself wasn't so sure that "expanding universe" explanation is a correct one:
Hubble personal view
The observations of Edwin Hubble in 1929 suggested that distant galaxies were all apparently moving away from us, so that many scientists came to accept that the universe was expanding. These scientists however did not include Hubble himself. While the metric expansion of space reading of Hubble's 1929 observations is viewed today by most scientists as the correct reading of the data, Hubble wrote six years later:
QUOTE (E. Hubble+)
"… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"
– E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936
and
QUOTE (E.Hubble+)
"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."
– E. Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 97, 506, 1937
Even Einstein himself apparently has been fooled by "expanding universe" idea:
Einstein's cosmological constant
Maybe this is a reason why he didn't succeed with his general relativity theory: due to misconception.
Today we should be much more convinced that "expanding universe" is one of biggest mistakes which Physics has ever made. That's why we hear this constant mumbling about "dark energy" and "dark mass":
Lambda-CDM
For me a simple application of Ockham's razor gives a winner: it's Heim Theory.
/Joss
QUOTE (Jossarian+Oct 27 2008, 09:30 AM)
Not sure if I correctly understood what you are proposing.
The "event horizon" as defined by classical framework based at Hubble principle of expanding universe is the boundary of visible universe because light from objects beyond it hasn't had time to reach our location, even if it were emitted at the time the universe began.
Heim Theory framework concludes that "event horizon" is due to repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world (Quintessence) which is causing red-shifting of light to zero.
Just wonder if Hubble principle of expanding universe can be used as explanation of heavily red-shifted GRB. They can simply make the Universe a bit bigger and older and still fit it in the "classical framework", without need of "Heim Theory" revolution.
...
/Joss
<br>The "event horizon" I refer to is Heim's definition: the point beyond which an electromagnetic wave has insufficient energy to survive the expansive 'pressure' of Quintessence (a.k.a., "dark energy"). We appear to be on the same page on this.
Assuming that Heim's formation of matter occurred,... oh,... let's say 18 billion years ago. At least by 17 billion years ago, stars had formed and light was wending its way out toward the depths of the Heim universe. The VISIBLE light from stars 17 billion light-years CANNOT reach Earth because Quintessence will drain its energy and redshift it to nothingness, not because it has not had "time" enough to reach Earth.
However,... any gamma-ray bursts that just happen to have been emitted 17 billion years ago from a hypernova aligned just exactly to 'shine' on our planet should be observable if we factor in the redshift incurred by Quintessence.
Your quotes from Hubble certainly raised my estimation of his objectiveness! He plainly had the time and capability to reflect on his—and others'—observations.
I have noted the increased use of the phrase "observable universe" in articles of cosmological scope. The undercurrent seems to be that the status quo is not comprehensive.
Likewise, I agree that Heim Theory (EHT) has a more comprehensible cosmogeny than what is considered "established" today.
I expect some breakthrough observations, I'm just not sure how long it will be before the "light" breaks through.
\\//_ (Vulcan salute)
I was made aware today through a report that the damage to the LHC was rather extensive. The damage began in the collider's underground tunnel and opened up a serious breach in the helium cooling system. This report mentions "that the cylindrical magnet systems were jolted by up to 20 inches (50 centimeters). Some of the magnets were ripped from their moorings. CERN has said that, at most, 29 of the magnets will have to be repaired, but it may be difficult to assess the full scope of what has to be done until the entire 17-mile-round (27-kilometer-round) ring system is checked out."
You know, back in June (and discussed in this forum), M. Tajmar suggested that his observed gravito-magnetic anomalous signals might originate from the rotating helium in his relatively small apparatus. One wonders what forces might be generated by a 27-kilometer-round ring system.
I wonder if the helium coolant in the LHC rotates in a manner similar to Tajmar's apparatus? Wouldn't it be something if the LHC was jolted out of kilter by a surge of GM force? The engineers would hardly have been able to account in the design for a force not recognized by most of the physicists in the world.
It would be an expensive but dramatic method for proving Tajmar correct. Gosh, first he wrecks the data from Gravity Probe B, and now if true... the LHC. The guy is a menace!
You know, back in June (and discussed in this forum), M. Tajmar suggested that his observed gravito-magnetic anomalous signals might originate from the rotating helium in his relatively small apparatus. One wonders what forces might be generated by a 27-kilometer-round ring system.
I wonder if the helium coolant in the LHC rotates in a manner similar to Tajmar's apparatus? Wouldn't it be something if the LHC was jolted out of kilter by a surge of GM force? The engineers would hardly have been able to account in the design for a force not recognized by most of the physicists in the world.
It would be an expensive but dramatic method for proving Tajmar correct. Gosh, first he wrecks the data from Gravity Probe B, and now if true... the LHC. The guy is a menace!
It seems that as long as we're talking about Heim Gravity manipulation which of course includes field propulsion, and the next step, warp drive by stepping into a parallel universe, I might as well ask an "Off the Wall" but related question.
Has anyone else read the science fiction Paratime series written by H. Beam Piper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratime_series
It occurs to me that once we've built up speed and transition to a parallel universe on our fast trip to Mars, if we look in the rear view mirror we would probably see a planet much more hospitable than Mars. That is, if the natives were friendly. It certainly would be a much shorter trip simply to turn around and go back!
All we need to do is understand Heim theory well enough to stay in the parallel universe while we land, then figure out how to transition to a parallel universe without leaving earth. (Maybe use something that flies and looks kind of like a Frisbee or one saucer inverted on top of another, only much larger.
) Or maybe we could just follow H. Beam Piper's model to the letter and use a subway car as the transition vehicle.
Has anyone else read the science fiction Paratime series written by H. Beam Piper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratime_series
It occurs to me that once we've built up speed and transition to a parallel universe on our fast trip to Mars, if we look in the rear view mirror we would probably see a planet much more hospitable than Mars. That is, if the natives were friendly. It certainly would be a much shorter trip simply to turn around and go back!
All we need to do is understand Heim theory well enough to stay in the parallel universe while we land, then figure out how to transition to a parallel universe without leaving earth. (Maybe use something that flies and looks kind of like a Frisbee or one saucer inverted on top of another, only much larger.
) Or maybe we could just follow H. Beam Piper's model to the letter and use a subway car as the transition vehicle.
Glad to have the PhysForum back up and operating again.
From the article, "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations":
Physicists, using lattice UCD calculations, have now confirmed that matter, the apparently substantial stuff, is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Stephan Dürr of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, and his team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second to calculate the mass of the B_c meson (charmed. Their results were within 2% of the value measured by experiments.
Comment - Even though www.heim-theory.com has listings of mass calculated by Heim for several mesons, the charmed B is not one of them. Is there a more extensive list?
"Now we know that lattice QCD works, we want to make accurate calculations of particle properties, not just mass.", says Christine Davies of the University of Glasgow, UK.
Comment - Are they referring to properties such as spin, parity, isospin, strangeness, baryon number and mean life... as Heim Theory has already given us?
Link to article here.
Physicists, using lattice UCD calculations, have now confirmed that matter, the apparently substantial stuff, is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Stephan Dürr of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, and his team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second to calculate the mass of the B_c meson (charmed
. Their results were within 2% of the value measured by experiments.Comment - Even though www.heim-theory.com has listings of mass calculated by Heim for several mesons, the charmed B is not one of them. Is there a more extensive list?
"Now we know that lattice QCD works, we want to make accurate calculations of particle properties, not just mass.", says Christine Davies of the University of Glasgow, UK.
Comment - Are they referring to properties such as spin, parity, isospin, strangeness, baryon number and mean life... as Heim Theory has already given us?
Link to article here.
QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 20 2008, 02:50 PM)
Glad to have the PhysForum back up and operating again.
Ditto...
I was worried that this forum / thread would not be back on line. I don't suppose anyone has a way to backup this thread, and / or propose an alternative forum in case this one goes away or dies?
Yes, a mirror site might be good. Good to be back for now!
As for the lattice QCD - impressive, but look at the amount of computing time - that is the case for all their particle calculations- proton etc. And still only to within 2%. We saw Heim get to within 0.001% or nearer and the calculations are instant. I'm sure Heim's method will prevail eventually.
As for the lattice QCD - impressive, but look at the amount of computing time - that is the case for all their particle calculations- proton etc. And still only to within 2%. We saw Heim get to within 0.001% or nearer and the calculations are instant. I'm sure Heim's method will prevail eventually.
Phew! Long, dry spell! Starting to have withdrawal from "H"!
I need to further compose the info, but I've come upon what seems to me as a reasonable explanation of how the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a relic of matter forming in the Heim universe.
The CMBR is there,... can't get around that! I saw a report from 2000 (I'll post the link once I've revisited the page) with convincing data for the CMBR to have been warmer in past (meaning data from a cloud of hydrogen and carbon far, far away—and back in time), and by 'warmer' the article meant 9ºK vice 2.7ºK.
I need to further compose the info, but I've come upon what seems to me as a reasonable explanation of how the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a relic of matter forming in the Heim universe.
The CMBR is there,... can't get around that! I saw a report from 2000 (I'll post the link once I've revisited the page) with convincing data for the CMBR to have been warmer in past (meaning data from a cloud of hydrogen and carbon far, far away—and back in time), and by 'warmer' the article meant 9ºK vice 2.7ºK.
QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 20 2008, 06:50 PM)
Glad to have the PhysForum back up and operating again.
Ditto! Any way to bulk download the content of various threads? The accumulated content and insight thereof should not be lost.
We should also assemble a list of members, email contact info, to potentially reconstitute this thread somewhere else if/when Physorg commits digital seppuku again.
I'll assemble the addresses if no one objects.
If you're willing, please send a "contact me here" email to djolds21_at_hotmail_dot_com.
Duane
QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 20 2008, 07:24 PM)
From the article, "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations":
Physicists, using lattice UCD calculations, have now confirmed that matter, the apparently substantial stuff, is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Link to article here.
Physicists, using lattice UCD calculations, have now confirmed that matter, the apparently substantial stuff, is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Link to article here.
After reading this part of the article I've found something well known in it:
QUOTE (New Scientist Article+)
Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?
Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.
Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.
<br>Now compare this with that short excerpt from Heim:
| QUOTE | ||||||||||
| Because of equivalence of mass and energy Heim says there must also exist a field mass of the field energy of each field. However in case of gravitational field this results in a secondary (very weak) additional gravitative source because a field mass possesses its own gravitational field. <br>There must also exists a field mass of the field energy of each field. Can it be possible that mass is nothing more than summarized mass of the other fields? I mean here ALL other fields including gravity itself. It would give a very true meaning to E=mc^2 equation. What do you think? Can this principle be applied to other fields as well? Can the most powerful fields which are existing on very small distances (like strong nuclear force) can be a source of other weaker fields which are surrounding them? /Joss PS. Good to have this discussion list back. Seems that I've developed some kind of Heim discussion list deprivation syndrome.
Joss-
In reading Heim Theory, I have seen and considered Dr. Heim's thoughts as you posted them. I find them difficult to accept fully. I can accept the hypothesis that the gravitational field has mass creating its own gravitational fields which of course are additive. I envision the gravitational field to be a distributed field, hence its energy mass equivalent is distributed. Therefore I have a hard time with the idea that the field masses create additional fields. My thought is that there must be a carrier mechanism for gravity, Higgs boson or gravitophotons or something else. For an analogy, consider a ray of light. It is made up of photons, but a light ray has never been observed to create additional photons. Whatever the carrier of gravity is, like the photon in light, this carrier is to small to create a duplicate of itself so that means if the carrier mechanism creates a new field, it must be something other than gravity as we know it, hence it does not belong as part of the law of gravity. The result of this hypothesis is that the gravity field of the central mass and the added gravity of the field masses is all there is. I have been wrong in the past, maybe wrong here, and certainly will be wrong in the future. QUOTE (Aero+Nov 24 2008, 10:35 PM) My thought is that there must be a carrier mechanism for gravity, Higgs boson or gravitophotons or something else. For an analogy, consider a ray of light. It is made up of photons, but a light ray has never been observed to create additional photons. Whatever the carrier of gravity is, like the photon in light, this carrier is to small to create a duplicate of itself so that means if the carrier mechanism creates a new field, it must be something other than gravity as we know it, hence it does not belong as part of the law of gravity. In Heim-theory there is no carrier mechanism (if I'm right what you were after) - it's all geometry. Everything is just the deformation of a 6-dimensional lattice. And because not all 6 dimensions are visible in our 3 dimensional space things can have quite different appearance and properties. E.g. photons don't live in the 3 space dimensions, just in the imaginary dimensions (4=time and 5,6). Gravitons just in 5 and 6 which is one of the reasons (at least that's what Heim told in the audio recordings) gravity is so different from the "normal" matter and their according fields - e.g. can be transformed away by choosen the right frame of reference etc. I'm no physicist, so don't take every word literally. But I'm quite sure it's along these lines. Michael P.S. Just for correctness reasons, Heim never got a doctors degree. QUOTE (MichaelB+Nov 24 2008, 05:00 PM) ... just the deformation of a 6-dimensional lattice. And because not all 6 dimensions are visible in our 3 dimensional space things can have quite different appearance and properties... A couple of points / observations:
My guess is that I am overlooking something from the publications, or that I just don't understand quantum physics (at all). However, it never (should) hurt to ask. QUOTE (MichaelB+Nov 24 2008, 09:00 PM) In Heim-theory there is no carrier mechanism (if I'm right what you were after) - it's all geometry. Everything is just the deformation of a 6-dimensional lattice. And because not all 6 dimensions are visible in our 3 dimensional space things can have quite different appearance and properties. E.g. photons don't live in the 3 space dimensions, just in the imaginary dimensions (4=time and 5,6). Gravitons just in 5 and 6 which is one of the reasons (at least that's what Heim told in the audio recordings) gravity is so different from the "normal" matter and their according fields - e.g. can be transformed away by choosen the right frame of reference etc. I'm no physicist, so don't take every word literally. But I'm quite sure it's along these lines. Michael P.S. Just for correctness reasons, Heim never got a doctors degree. Not quite. Heim Theory posits 6 fundamental forces, and the two additional forces are also gravitational. "Gravity" is the sum of "normal" attractive gravity (G', messenger particle - graviton), the gravitophoton force (gp, messenger particle - the neutral gravitophoton), and repulsive gravity/dark energy (q, messenger particle - the quintessence particle). The gravitational constant is the sum of G' + gp + q. gp and q are small enough to have not been noticed, thus the mistake that G = G'. Depending on the variation of Heim Theory you hold to, Heim has either 6 or 8 scientifically significant dimensions, with a maximum possible of 12. Three are the dimensions of physical existence, one is time, and the remainder are "steering" dimensions. Heim used 2 steering dimensions, whereas Droscher & Hauser claim 4 steering dimensions are necessary to explain all physical effects. The "steering" dimensions perform the "high level mathematics" that control the changes in the latice structure of space from one planck time to the next. To say that different particles "live" in higher order dimensions is wrong. The higher order dimensions are "mathematical controls" only. The messenger particles are described by metrics composed of various dimensions (hermetry forms), but exist and are observable in 3D physical reality. Mechanisms that can convert the hermetry form metric of the photon to the metric of the gravitophoton would create an observable physical transformation, and provide direct physical evidence for the existence of the higher order steering dimensions. IIRC it is the metric of the gravitophoton that is described as being "degenerate," and thus particularly easy to alter. Duane QUOTE (DEK46656+Nov 25 2008, 03:24 AM) [*]I seem to recall that Heim did imply that where E = MC^2 (etc) Mass "creating" gravity would create secondary mass impact. In other words, the "gravity field" inferred a secondary mass component. This could be the area that is the "error" relating to the mass formulas, that something was missed, overlooked, or otherwise not accounted for in relation to the secondary "mass" component. IIRC, mass and energy are not simply "equivalent" in Heim, but are identical. Different perceptions of the same latice deformations (what Heim called "condensations"). I would guess there's a quantum "uncertainty" effect at work distinguishing the two. Assuming my memory is functioning correctly. Also, I recall a theory that claimed that inertia was caused by the interaction of "real" and ZPF/"virtual" particles. The virtual particles of the zero point field causing a "drag" force on real particles, that drag being inertia. In the latices of various Loop Quantum Gravity variations, I would think there would be zilch distinction between real and virtual particles. And mass is inherently linked to inertia. In some ways both inertia and mass are "fictional" effects, their existence assumed because of other observed physical effects. Duane QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 21 2008, 08:24 AM) From the article, "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations": Hi Guys.Physicists, using lattice UCD calculations, have now confirmed that matter, the apparently substantial stuff, is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Stephan Dürr of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, and his team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second to calculate the mass of the B_c meson (charmed . Their results were within 2% of the value measured by experiments.Comment - Even though www.heim-theory.com has listings of mass calculated by Heim for several mesons, the charmed B is not one of them. Is there a more extensive list? "Now we know that lattice QCD works, we want to make accurate calculations of particle properties, not just mass.", says Christine Davies of the University of Glasgow, UK. Comment - Are they referring to properties such as spin, parity, isospin, strangeness, baryon number and mean life... as Heim Theory has already given us? Link to article here. Seems to be a very different following in this thread. I was going to start a new one until I read the quoted post. So I'll put it here and look for comment instead. We Know that energy is a slippery beast . Made harder to pin down Because in it's smallest guise, it doesn't sit still long enough to ask the hard question. I am not a person who believes in magic and EXPECT to be able to reason out problems. If not immediately, then eventually. I have been coming to this forum for a few years now and have seen the same sticking points repeated over and over. One of these is using what I consider MACRO behaviors in a MICRO universe. By that I mean that every behavior that involves multiples is a macro behavior. Only the base energy value can be considered to be true in every case. Multiples by their very nature involve variance. Whether in be because the position is different(which it will be in EVERY case) or because when we see them they have just one less base value constant that makes it a variance from being exactly the same. So when I am trying to explain what takes place in the physical world that we perceive, I am very aware that I need to start from the base energy. At present we can measure energy down to a electron/photon quanta. and we can measure this the same way every time we see it. The measure we can use is it's speed . Because it is always the same in every relative view, it is correct. But what makes it correct. The fact that it IS moving is a clue to the why. The medium DOES affect the result and even where we have an apparent near void, the measure stacks up. This means the medium needs the attention , rather than what we can perceive. Like many other I think that "space has more to offer than being seen as empty. However, since the measurement of the medium(space ) appears to be BELOW our ability to detect it, yet it supports the medium that is our smallest CORRECT energy, then space has a role of collusion with the energy we can detect within it. Here's how I see it . a quanta of energy that we can measure = 10 Space without our ability to detect energy in it = 9 When we see light "apparently" moving across space, The "Whole" value of each photon is not being transferred but just the single value which changes "imperceivable energy" to "perceivable energy". Where mass is concerned this is an important real transfer, since we cannot perceive the mass of the universe which science suggest should be there, This may explain where the rest is hidden. Just below the perceivable value that we can measure. Cheers Iseason QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 25 2008, 05:54 AM) To say that different particles "live" in higher order dimensions is wrong. The higher order dimensions are "mathematical controls" only. The messenger particles are described by metrics composed of various dimensions (hermetry forms), but exist and are observable in 3D physical reality. Mechanisms that can convert the hermetry form metric of the photon to the metric of the gravitophoton would create an observable physical transformation, and provide direct physical evidence for the existence of the higher order steering dimensions. IIRC it is the metric of the gravitophoton that is described as being "degenerate," and thus particularly easy to alter. Hi Duane, I tried to give an impression how I understand the things Heim describes in his smaller books or the writings of von Ludwiger and others. But because this is at maximum just a superficial high level understanding, I'm trying to be quite cautious with anything I say. So from my point view there doesn't have to be a disagreement with the description Hauser & Dröscher nowadays try to give in EHT and the general ideas one can get from the older publications of Heim. So Heim (or von Ludwiger) in the audio-recordings are definitely telling that the lower 6 (if we take the whole 12) dimensions (3-1-2) have to be interpreted physically. They are NO mathematical trick to have 2 more degrees (or 4 with 8 dims) of freedom. In fact in the recordings von Ludwiger says that in order to get anything out at all, there have to be 6 dimensions which are being deformed, else there wouldn't be all the "Hermetry-Forms" (put here the correct word) which give rise to the structures which eventually make up particles. Now Dröscher extended HT to EHT by including the next 2 dimensions which make it possible to derive Quantum theory and the like (if I remember correctly). But in all what I read it was always stated that the upper 6 dimensions can't be interpreted physically anymore - and especially the upper 4 dimensions, they don't know much about. Something else what appeared to me quite natural or beautiful was that the distortions of the 6 dimensional lattice can have, but don't have to, projections in the lower 4(3) dimensions. This is also where Heim gave one of these nice examples why there is (assumed the theory is correct) the quark-confinement. Because Protons, Neutrons are 6 dimensional structures (or structure fluxes (flows) - whatever is a correct english word)) where only part is "visible" in 3 dimensions and the inner zones of that structures which appear on scattering experiments don't have to behave like pure 3-D particles. So in this sense I wanted to express that Photons "live" in dimensions 4,5,6. At least for instance in the small booklet "Das neue Weltbild des Physikers Burkhard Heim" page 97 (in the appendix) there is some drawing that says that Photons are structures of Hermetry-form b (dims. 4,5,6) and Gravitons of Hermetry-form a (just dims. 5,6). E.g. the caption to the sketches says: "Physically possible structures as metric deformations of the space-lattice, resp. of Metron-condensations, in the sub-spaces of R6- ..." I think there are just a lot of ways to describe the processes. So if the new calculations in lattice QCD yield acceptable results, there has to be some way that both things are equivalent in the long run. Maybe the former use Java and Heim used Lisp - something along these lines. :-) But I don't mind getting corrected. Michael QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 20 2008, 07:24 PM) Stephan Dürr of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, and his team used more than a year of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops - or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second to calculate the mass of the B_c meson (charmed That's something that bothers me. There are many particles that have been discovered since Heim worked on his theory. When I try to calculate the mass of some of these, the Heim equations don't work, or at least they haven't worked for me. What the Heim Theory group does is look through the large lists of particle resonances, pick one out that closely matches the mass of the new particle and call it a match. I would like to see one of the new particle's masses calculated by using Heim's original formulas with new quantum numbers that match those of the particle instead of going to the resonance lists. Certainly not all these new particles can be just resonances of Heim's original set.. Their results were within 2% of the value measured by experiments.Comment - Even though www.heim-theory.com has listings of mass calculated by Heim for several mesons, the charmed B is not one of them. Is there a more extensive list? " jreed
I read an article recently on some deep space observations made in 2000 CE where the excitation states of hydrogen molecules and carbon atoms in a gas cloud (redshift ~2.3) gave very strong evidence that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was, in fact, at a higher temperature (~9ºK) at that time in our universe's age, as represented by that redshift. I find it a convincing argument that, at that time, this part of the universe was experiencing excitation from the CMBR that was more than 6ºK above what we receive today. "Big Bang" proponents take this information as further proof that theirs is a correct interpretation of the facts.
Heim Theory has little to say outright as to HOW matter formed in the Heim universe. Auerbach and von Ludwiger suggest (in Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures JSE,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992) that matter formed "more uniformly in scattered 'fire-cracker' like bursts, perhaps of galactic proportions." In the translation of Heim's Ottobrunn talk, he comments that matter formed chaotically. The age of the Heim universe at which matter is thought to have formed is ~10^98 years . (Heim’s theory results in a present age of the universe of ~5.45 x 10^107 years, and a diameter D of ~6.37 x 10^109 light years.) Assuming that Heim Theory CAN explain the proportions of matter in the early universe (hydrogen to helium ratio,... etc.), I have something of an idea as to how Heim's universe MIGHT have initially formed matter and produced what is now called the CMBR. The "Inflationary Period" of the "Hot Big Bang" scenario is a problem that does not go away; something magically is supposed to have happened, and nobody knows just how! Is that magic, or what?! Heim dispensed with the need for an inflationary period with his understanding that the universe expanded BEFORE matter formed. The scenario being suggested here is: The multi-dimensional Heim universe expanded for ~10^98 years. The metronic 'fabric' of space-time also expanded greatly and became unstable, meaning charged with potential energy. The volume of this Heim space-time is beyond immense. The fabric became 'torn,' in any number of isolated points, by random fluctuations. Each 'tear,' or initial buckling point, is a Flash-Point for matter formation and the event 'ignites' further formation by its release of the potential energy in the matrix which itself upsets more of the space-time fabric. A 'front' of matter formation and energy release races outward in all directions leaving matter and photons in the volume of space-time where it has passed. Thus, speaking of our 4-dimensional universe, a spherical 'wall' of matter and photon formation races outward. (How fast? I don't begin to know, but really, really fast, is my guess.) The photons released, as formation occurs, radiate in all directions; some of it into the as-yet-undisturbed space-time matrix that it is expanding toward, perhaps abetting continued matter formation,... and some of the photons radiate back in the direction of matter already formed. That 'backward' radiation is subjected to the effect of Heim's quintessence (a.k.a., 'dark energy'), and the farther away the 'shell' of matter formation has receded, the 'colder' the 'backward' radiation appears when it reaches,...Oh!, Let's say,... the place where our planet is now. Thus, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be photons from the expanding shell of matter formation in the Heim universe,... not the "Surface of Last Scattering" espoused by the Big Bang folk! So, it appears to me that Heim Theory can account for a CMBR and I submit this proposed scenario for consideration by any who may be looking at Heim Theory on the cosmic scale. If it is worth your, or some other's, time to peruse, please share any comments here in the Heim Theory thread. QUOTE (MichaelB+Nov 25 2008, 06:29 PM) Now Dröscher extended HT to EHT by including the next 2 dimensions which make it possible to derive Quantum theory and the like (if I remember correctly). But in all what I read it was always stated that the upper 6 dimensions can't be interpreted physically anymore - and especially the upper 4 dimensions, they don't know much about. Hi Michael,Something else what appeared to me quite natural or beautiful was that the distortions of the 6 dimensional lattice can have, but don't have to, projections in the lower 4(3) dimensions. This is also where Heim gave one of these nice examples why there is (assumed the theory is correct) the quark-confinement. Because Protons, Neutrons are 6 dimensional structures (or structure fluxes (flows) - whatever is a correct english word)) where only part is "visible" in 3 dimensions and the inner zones of that structures which appear on scattering experiments don't have to behave like pure 3-D particles. So in this sense I wanted to express that Photons "live" in dimensions 4,5,6. At least for instance in the small booklet "Das neue Weltbild des Physikers Burkhard Heim" page 97 (in the appendix) there is some drawing that says that Photons are structures of Hermetry-form b (dims. 4,5,6) and Gravitons of Hermetry-form a (just dims. 5,6). E.g. the caption to the sketches says: "Physically possible structures as metric deformations of the space-lattice, resp. of Metron-condensations, in the sub-spaces of R6- ..." From e.g. the hermetry form table for the messenger particles given by Droscher & Hauser in their AIAA 2005 - 4321 paper, you see that photons actually live in H5 ( T1, S2, I2), i.e. all 5 imaginary dimensions of the 8 in H8 (see attached PDF) User posted image: User posted image QUOTE (jreed+Nov 26 2008, 11:47 PM) That's something that bothers me. There are many particles that have been discovered since Heim worked on his theory. When I try to calculate the mass of some of these, the Heim equations don't work, or at least they haven't worked for me. What the Heim Theory group does is look through the large lists of particle resonances, pick one out that closely matches the mass of the new particle and call it a match. I would like to see one of the new particle's masses calculated by using Heim's original formulas with new quantum numbers that match those of the particle instead of going to the resonance lists. Certainly not all these new particles can be just resonances of Heim's original set. Yes, John: that is a bit of a problem. Without understanding the derivation of the mass formula thoroughly, it would be difficult to predict which quantum numbers to use, or if the particle should be viewed as a resonance. jreed At the moment the focus is more on the gravito-magnetic end of things. D & H have now submitted 2 papers to a peer reviewed journal noted for its rigour in the review process. Let's hope they get through soon as that will answer the critics who complained of lack of papers in the mainstream science media. Hugh QUOTE (hdeasy+Nov 27 2008, 02:37 PM) Yes, John: that is a bit of a problem. Without understanding the derivation of the mass formula thoroughly, it would be difficult to predict which quantum numbers to use, or if the particle should be viewed as a resonance. Details? I know their July paper cited 2 arxiv submissions that have never shown up.At the moment the focus is more on the gravito-magnetic end of things. D & H have now submitted 2 papers to a peer reviewed journal noted for its rigour in the review process. Let's hope they get through soon as that will answer the critics who complained of lack of papers in the mainstream science media. Hugh PS - Hugh, please drop me a private email for the membership list. Duane QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 28 2008, 03:07 PM) Details? I know their July paper cited 2 arxiv submissions that have never shown up. Hi Duane,PS - Hugh, please drop me a private email for the membership list. Duane Yes, they have indeed submitted something to Arxiv as well. It's referred to in their journal submission. I can't give out details yet as the paper was only for my private use. I'll e-mail you on the list thing... Hugh
Hi,
I have a "far out" question. I know that Tajmar et. al. have demonstrated a gravitational effect that is tangential to the spinning ring/helium and that Droscher and Hauser have proposed an experiment expected to demonstrate an axial effect. Has anyone considered the possibility of generating a radial effect, directed inward? It seems that such a field might open an "inter dimensional door" between Heim universes, that is, to a Heim universe with a different "n" than our own. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? QUOTE (Aero+Dec 8 2008, 03:40 AM) Hi, I have a "far out" question. I know that Tajmar et. al. have demonstrated a gravitational effect that is tangential to the spinning ring/helium and that Droscher and Hauser have proposed an experiment expected to demonstrate an axial effect. Has anyone considered the possibility of generating a radial effect, directed inward? It seems that such a field might open an "inter dimensional door" between Heim universes, that is, to a Heim universe with a different "n" than our own. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? <br>The standard "hyperdrive" explanation (enter a parallel space/"hyperspace") before 2006 was as follows - positive/repulsive gravitophotons interact with the gravitons of the mechanism's self-gravitational field. This decreases the mechanism's inertial mass. Reduced inertial mass requires either the speed of light or gravitational constant of the universe to change. Neither of those requirements is possible, but the effect is real. Paradox. The paradox is resolved by "kicking" the mechanism into a "parallel space." Reduce the mechanism's inertial mass to 1/10,000th its "real" value, and you're kicked into space n=10,000. Are you suggesting a "gate?" All descriptions thus far indicate that an appropriately designed Heim mechanism would effect itself, not a separate volume.
Well, yes, perhaps a "Star Gate." But the limited analysis I am capable of strongly hints that the inward radial gravitational effect would simply cancel itself out ... So I guess there is probably nothing there unless canceled gravity fields are of interest.
QUOTE (djolds1+Dec 8 2008, 10:28 AM) The standard "hyperdrive" explanation (enter a parallel space/"hyperspace") before 2006 was as follows - positive/repulsive gravitophotons interact with the gravitons of the mechanism's self-gravitational field. This decreases the mechanism's inertial mass. Reduced inertial mass requires either the speed of light or gravitational constant of the universe to change. Neither of those requirements is possible, but the effect is real. Paradox. The paradox is resolved by "kicking" the mechanism into a "parallel space." Reduce the mechanism's inertial mass to 1/10,000th its "real" value, and you're kicked into space n=10,000. I notice that Droecher and Hauser do not talk about this much (in order to present the more legitimate aspects of the theory). I still think they need to perform the experiment (Fermion coupling) that they have been proposing for nearly 2 years. I don't understand why they do not do this. Perhaps it is expensive, in the hundreds of thousands or million dollar range, to perform and they simply lack the financial resources to do it. My guess is that the superconductor material needed as well as some of apparatus is expensive. Does anyone here have a guess as to how much it would cost to perform this experiment? If Fermion coupling does not work, then they are back to Boson coupling, which requires the huge magnetic fields. Needless to say, the cost of apparatus to generate these will be far greater. Can anyone "in the know" comment on this? QUOTE (kurt9+Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM) You say "before 2006". Is this "hyperdrive" explanation still valid? I notice that Droecher and Hauser do not talk about this much (in order to present the more legitimate aspects of the theory). Only sensible to drop reference to more far out possibilities if you concept stands the real possibility of near-term validation. No reason I know of that the "hyperdrive" process explanation shouldn't still be valid. One complication may be the decay pathway of the neutral gravitophoton. Originally it was thought that there was only one decay path, into positive (repulsive) and negative (attractive) gravitophotons. More recently Droscher & Hauser have identified a second decay path, into a graviton and quintessence particle. gp -> gp- + gp+ gp -> g + q gp- & gp+ coupling and non-coupling were central to the "spacedrive" and "hyperdrive" processes. Generation of gravitons via the metric effect & not simply from the mechanism's natural self-gravitational field would appear to complicate the situation, as would additional "repulsive" messenger particles (q, not just gp+) effecting inertial mass reduction. No idea of the consequences, tho D&H do not appear to be concerned wrt the "spacedrive" process. QUOTE (kurt9+Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM) I still think they need to perform the experiment (Fermion coupling) that they have been proposing for nearly 2 years. I don't understand why they do not do this. Perhaps it is expensive, in the hundreds of thousands or million dollar range, to perform and they simply lack the financial resources to do it. My guess is that the superconductor material needed as well as some of apparatus is expensive. There seems to be some unstated collaboration between Tajmar & D/H. D&H are obviously piggybacking their hypotheses & subsequent conclusions on Tajmar's work. But Tajmar may be mildly tweaking his experimental setups to help with possible observation of Heim phenomena. Tajmar's most recently described mechanism and conclusion (artificial gravity force originating in the helium coolant) was somewhat reminiscent of the described "fermionic" experiment. This possible collaboration remains speculation on my part however. QUOTE (kurt9+Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM) Does anyone here have a guess as to how much it would cost to perform this experiment? No idea. QUOTE (kurt9+Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM) If Fermion coupling does not work, then they are back to Boson coupling, which requires the huge magnetic fields. Needless to say, the cost of apparatus to generate these will be far greater. Pedantic/ON You've got it reversed. Fermionic coupling requires the huge magnetic fields, Bosonic coupling has the lower technical requirements. Pedantic/OFF QUOTE (kurt9+Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM) Can anyone "in the know" comment on this? The higher-level paper(s?) mentioned by Hugh may shine some light on more rigorous experimental validation. One hopes. Duane QUOTE (Aero+Dec 8 2008, 03:44 PM) Well, yes, perhaps a "Star Gate." But the limited analysis I am capable of strongly hints that the inward radial gravitational effect would simply cancel itself out ... So I guess there is probably nothing there unless canceled gravity fields are of interest. If you want to look at speculative possibilities, I'd focus on SFnal concepts "within" the bounds set by the "hyperdrive.""Gravity plating" "Acceleration compensators" etc.
Tajmar is indeed talking to Droscher a lot - they are both Austrian physicists and also EHT was the only theory to PREDICT his effect a priori. Also note that in Tajmar's papers, he refers to 2 or 3 proposed theories for the effect, i.e. Heim's and an arbitrary, rather ugly add onn to the standard mmodel, assuming dark energy as the mechanism. But DE is much too weak and in EHT it's many orders of magnitude weaker than the gravitophoton force. So EHT is still the best candidate for the Tajmar effect.
On radial force: note that the force is a cross product between Mag field and disk motion... I think - so might be able to get it... I'll check later...
Tajmar is indeed talking to Droscher a lot - they are both Austrian physicists and also EHT was the only theory to PREDICT his effect a priori. Also note that in Tajmar's papers, he refers to 2 or 3 proposed theories for the effect, i.e. Heim's and an arbitrary, rather ugly add onn to the standard mmodel, assuming dark energy as the mechanism. But DE is much too weak and in EHT it's many orders of magnitude weaker than the gravitophoton force. So EHT is still the best candidate for the Tajmar effect.
On radial force: note that the force is a cross product between Mag field and disk motion... I think - so might be able to get it... I'll check later... QUOTE (hdeasy+Dec 9 2008, 01:32 PM) Tajmar is indeed talking to Droscher a lot - they are both Austrian physicists and also EHT was the only theory to PREDICT his effect a priori. Also note that in Tajmar's papers, he refers to 2 or 3 proposed theories for the effect, i.e. Heim's and an arbitrary, rather ugly add onn to the standard mmodel, assuming dark energy as the mechanism. But DE is much too weak and in EHT it's many orders of magnitude weaker than the gravitophoton force. So EHT is still the best candidate for the Tajmar effect. On radial force: note that the force is a cross product between Mag field and disk motion... I think - so might be able to get it... I'll check later... It seems to me that the described early fermionic propulsion device & Tajmar's most recently described experimental setup have similarities. The descriptions of the fermionic test stand and "all up" devices are the most detailed available wrt the technical details about device function. Fermionic EHT: * Immobile EMF induction coil * Rotating torus, described as being loaded with low-Z hydrogen. The Z of the element or isotope used was cited as important in early EHT papers. Higher Z materials require higher Tesla fields to create a Heim-Lorentz Force. * Rotating Low-Z material & magnetic field interact to create a metric altering effect. Virtual particles are ripped from the vacuum in close proximity to the low-Z atoms, and converted into real gravitophotons. * Gravitophotons couple to the material of the rotating torus, imparting a force. * Thus the artificial gravitational field by necessity originates in close proximity to the low-Z "filler" material in the torus. Tajmar: * Rotating superconductive torus in flask. * Superconductive torus surrounded by a mass of (IIRC rotating) helium for cooling. Helium is of course low-Z, only one step "up" from hydrogen. * Tajmar's artificial gravitational field is described as originating from within the low-Z coolant. In both cases, an emf/magnetic field source is in close proximity to a rotating low-Z mass. The Tajmar example seems to offer an intriguing possibility for the EHT test stand experiment and all-up 1 Meganewton propulsion unit. My understanding is that both scales of EHT mechanisms envision using a solid structural torus or disk loaded with hydrogen, in either liquid or gas form. Rotational velocity of the torus/discus is a contributing factor to the intensity of the force generated. Use of an all-gaseous torus/flow without a retaining structural element may allow significantly higher rotational velocities, and thus higher force intensities. That force may need to be somehow coupled to a structural element, as described for the fermionic process; OTOH, the most recent EHT papers describe the Heim mechanism as "falling" into its own artificial geodesic. If the currently understood Bosonic propulsion effect is a "passive" fall into an artificial gravity well, would physical coupling the discus/mechanism to the structural elements of a notional vehicle even be necessary? Duane
You remind me of a thought that occurred while reading the Droscher et. al . paper section on propulsion and rotating hydrogen. Metal hydrides are capable of storing an amazing volume of hydrogen. For example, palladium can absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen. They were looked at as a hydrogen fuel storage medium but discarded IIRC because they are dangerous at suitably high storage levels. But maybe a rotating metal hydride disk at super cold temperatures could overcome the explosion hazard. or maybe the hazard was due to the heat applied to recover the hydrogen from storage. In any case, people are still working on it (Google) so maybe its not such a serious problem.
Just looking for a way to rotate a higher number of hydrogen atoms in the fixed volume of the disk. QUOTE (Aero+Dec 11 2008, 02:02 AM) You remind me of a thought that occurred while reading the Droscher et. al . paper section on propulsion and rotating hydrogen. Metal hydrides are capable of storing an amazing volume of hydrogen. For example, palladium can absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen. They were looked at as a hydrogen fuel storage medium but discarded IIRC because they are dangerous at suitably high storage levels. But maybe a rotating metal hydride disk at super cold temperatures could overcome the explosion hazard. or maybe the hazard was due to the heat applied to recover the hydrogen from storage. In any case, people are still working on it (Google) so maybe its not such a serious problem. Just looking for a way to rotate a higher number of hydrogen atoms in the fixed volume of the disk. Sure. But what are the structural limits of any solid discus? Eventually a solid item is going to disintegrate from the centrifugal forces created by high speed rotation, just like a flywheel pushed too far. However, if you keep the necessary material gaseous, it may be possible to extend the range of operation. Duane QUOTE (Aero+Dec 11 2008, 02:02 AM) You remind me of a thought that occurred while reading the Droscher et. al . paper section on propulsion and rotating hydrogen. Metal hydrides are capable of storing an amazing volume of hydrogen. For example, palladium can absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen. They were looked at as a hydrogen fuel storage medium but discarded IIRC because they are dangerous at suitably high storage levels. But maybe a rotating metal hydride disk at super cold temperatures could overcome the explosion hazard. or maybe the hazard was due to the heat applied to recover the hydrogen from storage. In any case, people are still working on it (Google) so maybe its not such a serious problem. Just looking for a way to rotate a higher number of hydrogen atoms in the fixed volume of the disk. How to put large volume of Hydrogen into palladium has been already perfected by Cold Fusion scientists: Lenr-Canr Library Yes, this can be risky. There were nasty explosions happening during some hot electrolysis experiments. Regards, /Joss
Leave the hydrogen gaseous. How would this work? Would you put the gas in a torus and pump it around the circle at high speed? I can see that concept but the gas density would be rather low compared to the hydrogen density in a metal hydride. I guess the trade-off is speed of rotation of gas at low density compared to speed of destruction of metal hydride at high density.
Of course we could do things to either configuration to improve its performance. As for pumping the hydrogen gas at high speeds, what of the heating effect of fluid friction on the cryogenic system? Note that the metal hydride would need to be contained to avoid out-gassing of hydrogen into the helium bath. But I get ahead of myself. The first question is, does hydrogen in the form of metal hydride behave as a low Z material as is required by the experiment, or does the hydrogen undergo a fundamental change of character that negates its use for this purpose? Joss - Thanks for the link. But I don't really understand the terminology that well. I see achieved loading ratios above 0.9, but what is the corresponding volume ratio of hydrogen? Am I correct in thinking that a volume ratio of 900 under standard conditions is equivalent to hydrogen gas under 900 atmospheres of pressure?
Maybe we should drill on Jupiter for metallic hydrogen? But we would need a pretty large Heim drive to get that back to Earth I guess.
QUOTE (Aero+Dec 11 2008, 04:48 PM) Leave the hydrogen gaseous. How would this work? Would you put the gas in a torus and pump it around the circle at high speed? I can see that concept but the gas density would be rather low compared to the hydrogen density in a metal hydride. I guess the trade-off is speed of rotation of gas at low density compared to speed of destruction of metal hydride at high density. Of course we could do things to either configuration to improve its performance. As for pumping the hydrogen gas at high speeds, what of the heating effect of fluid friction on the cryogenic system? Note that the metal hydride would need to be contained to avoid out-gassing of hydrogen into the helium bath. But I get ahead of myself. The first question is, does hydrogen in the form of metal hydride behave as a low Z material as is required by the experiment, or does the hydrogen undergo a fundamental change of character that negates its use for this purpose? Aerodynamic pumping is the general idea. There's been plenty of research on high speed gaseous and plasma vortices over the years. The housing would be whatever shape proved most appropriate for the mechanism - torus, disk, hollow cylinder or sphere, etc. Pumped to near vacuum I'd assume, and perhaps using various corrugations, vanes etc inside the gas-flow part of the housing to enhance rotational velocity and/or keep the mass flow in the desired geometrical shape (torus, disk, etc). Scamjets & PDWEs have done a lot of work with such internal flow control tricks. Dunno about heating effects and possible transition to a plasma. IIRC the early papers implied a solid structure and specified rotational velocities of several thousand radians per second. I don't know if hydrogen in a complex molecular form would matter. As long as the material remained the desired atomic type I think it would be sufficient. The early papers implied loading only the desired interacting material into a void within the solid rotating structure. Duane QUOTE (djolds1+Dec 11 2008, 06:45 PM) Aerodynamic pumping is the general idea. There's been plenty of research on high speed gaseous and plasma vortices over the years. The housing would be whatever shape proved most appropriate for the mechanism - torus, disk, hollow cylinder or sphere, etc. Pumped to near vacuum I'd assume, and perhaps using various corrugations, vanes etc inside the gas-flow part of the housing to enhance rotational velocity and/or keep the mass flow in the desired geometrical shape (torus, disk, etc). Scamjets & PDWEs have done a lot of work with such internal flow control tricks. ... Why do not follow general idea how the electric engine works? Please notice that gaseous torus is like one coil of wire inside of electric engine. Maybe there should be higher number of such "coils" to enhance the effect of magnetic field passing thru it. Something in form of helical pipe. Regarding palladium loading ratio. Number 0.9 means that for every atom of palladium there is about 0.9 of atom of hydrogen trapped inside metal lattice. Explosions might have been triggered by high temperature during "plasma glow discharge" which included deuterium instead of hydrogen:
|
) article can be found in Wikipedia.