The Non Linear Plasma Reactor

[MK14]

What I didn't like, is labeling OP "conspiracy theorist", because it is one of the labels used to mean "hey everyone, you need to ignore the output of this person; not because of the output, but because the person apparently belongs to this category".

The thing is (on practical grounds), there seem to have been a number of hardened, free-energy or somewhat similar, thread starting posters, who suddenly have appeared on this forum, over a number of years.  They are just completely 110% convinced that their ideas, are absolutely correct.

Sure, but just because they seem to form a group, does not mean they should be lumped into a group and summarily ignored based on "membership" in that group.

By all means, evaluate their output and make up your mind based on it –– I definitely do! ––, but do not use a surface similarity in their output to classify the person as someone to be ignored.

Talking them out of it, seems to be an uphill, and almost impossible task, at times.

Like I said, that seems to be because they're looking for support, and not critical examination of their ideas.

If they were critical of their own ideas, they'd be happy to receive reasoned counter-explanations with references.  Which, in my opinion, are one of the best part in a technical discussion.

Thanks.  That's an interesting perspective, on the situation.  Which makes a lot of sense, and explains a lot of the OP's responses (or lack of, as applicable), in this thread.  In a sense, they have already made their mind up on this idea, decided it is absolutely and definitely 100% right and will 100% work, then closed their mind to all possible counter-arguments.

I try and get/see a decent/safe number of initial responses from the OP, before declaring them a no/little hope free-energy/perpetual-motion, kind of person.  Finding their previous thread, on another forum.  Which seems to have people, who are well clued up about physics, science and other related matters.  Reading/glancing through that thread (linked to, in the very early stages of this thread, I think, by me), seemed to show someone who ignored good scientific advice, and instead.  Will just continually throw up a big wall of word-salad, relative/arguable semi-nonsense, type of replies.

What does specifically annoy me about the OP.  Is they seem to be intentionally hiding terms such as free-energy, perpetual-motion and such like.  Because they know full well, such claims will rapidly get their thread closed, and replies of "it can't be done".  Also, this complete nonsense, where you ask them a simple and straightforward question.  Which instead of peacefully answering it, they just throw out this massive pile of word-salad.  Which delays/hinders, attempts at trying to help the person.

Not trying to disagree with others in this thread.  But as regards my opinion.  I'm still not clear if the person is genuinely misguided or if there is some kind of scam or other nefarious reason, for all these threads (including other forum(s)).

The attempt to raise (I think) $15,000,000 by begging, is ridiculous, in my opinion.  It should NOT be allowed.  It's like a highly lazy and bordering on dishonest, kickstarter project.  Which YouTubes Thunderf00t, would have a massive field day with.  Taking the project apart, piece by piece.

[PlainName]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

The difficulty, as in this thread, is when an OP is not interested in honest, critical feedback, but is seeking support.

Yes, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there.

Although... the reverse also applies - if he did have the 'correct' interpretation, he might see us as not willing to be convinced and instead just rabbiting our existing misconceptions.

[RJSV]

dunkemhigh, thanks for your thoughts, it's never fair to 'blindly' use that 'conspiracy' lable.  However, if I was a judge, sitting in middle of a court, I'd note that others, repeatedly, asked relatively innocent questions, and in resulting vacuum/ silence by OP, began suggesting the stability and validity wasn't solid.
   I say 'stability' as the OP does instinctively revert to defense and outward directed aggression.  That leads to minor scurcuffles between eevblog members, a little tiresome diversion.  We need not argue, as OP does these aggressive over-reactions.  That, plus these issues get extended even further, as OP insists on straying off into more, (and new here), sub-topics, like taking on Einstein and about all the mis-applied science coming from EVERYONE, ANYONE ELSE.
  If I was presiding judge, I'd set some strict / clear guidance (to OP), what is needed to be supplied, in terms of response that can enable this process to 'conclude', by transition, to more normal exchanges.

[Simon]

He just wants your money, that's the answer.... He has nothing to loose and everything to gain.

[bd139]

Well that is until you tell him to fuck off 

[Simon]

well patience is not an untapped and limitless resource, it was rather over taxed and exhausted, I mean at first he was funny, then he was just not getting it that we would never buy it and persisted in making matters worse. If he wants to create an internet repository of arguments against his crazy ideas he is doing quite well but 25 pages was plenty to make the point.

[AVGresponding]

How do you figure that? Writing software requires brain activity (without getting into just how much or how little) which uses energy, typing it in/dictating it to an interface requires energy. Storing it requires both mass and energy, as does executing it.

E=mc² expresses the equivalence of mass and energy, so even if there was no mass, the energy part of writing software has a mass equivalent. So it does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Some people might argue that it is an example of the second law at work, turning useful energy into random noise...

You're quite right.  You have looked at the problem/situation (of a programmer), in a different way, to the way I was looking at it.  I was referring to the actual software itself, the final product.   Which has no mass as such associated with it.

But (quite right) you are pointing out, that in order to create, maintain and test/debug that software, probably (ignoring new AI systems), was done by human programmers, who expended energy, through living and breathing, and arguably other energy uses, while developing the software.
Such as fuel to get to/from the place the software was created (work or similar), heating/cooling energy, and other expenditures of energy, such as the computer systems, lighting, and perhaps other things.

Well, arguably, the information can't exist independently of the matter/energy it will be encoded upon, which grants it mass by default. This pretty much is encapsulated in the first law, one way or another.

If you try to remove the means by which the information exists, I'd say it pretty much follows the second law into entropic decay and meaninglessness. Meaninglessness... try saying that three times fast if you've had a sherry or two!

[MK14]

Well, arguably, the information can't exist independently of the matter/energy it will be encoded upon, which grants it mass by default. This pretty much is encapsulated in the first law, one way or another.

If you try to remove the means by which the information exists, I'd say it pretty much follows the second law into entropic decay and meaninglessness. Meaninglessness... try saying that three times fast if you've had a sherry or two!

That is also, a good point.

The software encoding mechanism, could be extremely small, such as ever decreasing flash memory (physical), IC die area used for a particular software system storage.  Which, compared to the amount of value (money), the software could sell for, could be in a big profit for the software, in some cases.

So in the future, the weight of software, given a hypothetical/theoretical computer system which writes the software, using almost zero energy, and a storage system so small, it also has hardly any mass.  So, the figures for the energy (and hence mass), needed to both write and store energy, could be extremely small in the future.

But as you said, they both (software creation and software storage), need some kind of energy and/or mass in which to work.  So it is potentially an ever decreasing figure, in the foreseeable future, but (arguably) never zero.

[AndyBeez]

Well, arguably, the information can't exist independently of the matter/energy it will be encoded upon, which grants it mass by default. This pretty much is encapsulated in the first law, one way or another.
If you try to remove the means by which the information exists, I'd say it pretty much follows the second law into entropic decay and meaninglessness. Meaninglessness... try saying that three times fast if you've had a sherry or two!

Maybe you've entered the debate zone that tries to answer the eternal sci-con question; does a Star Trek transporter move physical matter or just the information about the physical matter. Ergo, is Captain James T. Kirk physically destroyed every time Scotty beams him up to the Enterprise?

Furthermore, did storing information about matter on a DVD explain how Arnold J. Rimmer was able to exist as a hologram of his former self on Red Dwarf? Just how does entropy drain from stored information anway?

[RJSV]

AndyBeez: (your recent post)
   Speculation about TRANSPORTER, in Star Trek; We never did that.  The spoof movie 'Galaxy Quest' did do a comedic take, on malformed results from a botched transport cycle, but I'm not gonna spoil what happens.
   WE did, circa. 1974, speculate over a 'baking joint', wondering is there, AN END to knowledge ?
That's some pretty baked shit, I'd like to be a fly on the wall (then), as WE slurred our speach:
  (The 2 Ricks went on to Engineering, one ME and myself, EE, while 'Bill' became a Mortgage Broker.)
"Now pashhme that J, bro..." probably summed up the whole University culture then...not like now

[Cyberdragon]

 

[AVGresponding]

Well, arguably, the information can't exist independently of the matter/energy it will be encoded upon, which grants it mass by default. This pretty much is encapsulated in the first law, one way or another.
If you try to remove the means by which the information exists, I'd say it pretty much follows the second law into entropic decay and meaninglessness. Meaninglessness... try saying that three times fast if you've had a sherry or two!

Maybe you've entered the debate zone that tries to answer the eternal sci-con question; does a Star Trek transporter move physical matter or just the information about the physical matter. Ergo, is Captain James T. Kirk physically destroyed every time Scotty beams him up to the Enterprise?

Furthermore, did storing information about matter on a DVD explain how Arnold J. Rimmer was able to exist as a hologram of his former self on Red Dwarf? Just how does entropy drain from stored information anway?

It's not a real debate; the question for me was definitively answered in the TNG episode where Reg Barclay remains conscious during transport and grabs an "alien" which turns out to be a Starfleet crewperson trapped in the matter stream.
The idea that you would be destroyed and a replica created every time you used one just wouldn't fly; I wouldn't use it, and I can't imagine too many other people would either.

That would have to be one helluva DVD, the amount of information you'd have to store would be stupendous. Would you need to measure the state of every subatomic particle in the body, or just the nervous system and brain? Either way, instantaneously storing that quantity of information is so far beyond current capability as to be pure fantasy; it would make the CERN data link look trivial.

Entropy drains information by the equilibration of the parts of the system (whether it's a book or an iPad) to the point where it's not possible to differentiate between any two parts of it. Since information relies on differentiation, all (useful) information is lost.

[Simon]

I suppose you sequence the DNA and then the state of mind and put it all back together at the other end.

[bd139]

Beam that hernia away Scotty 

[Simon]

fix the hernia over the air in the DNA

[bd139]

Exactly!

Will go halves on that $15 million when we sell that to an investor yeah? 

[RJSV]

   You're ALL missing the point...(TIC), I was saying:
   Us 3 guys, worked our way down, into Caverns, north of Santa Cruz.  Way, way down, and, lights out, started debating a philosophical question:
   Is there a stopping point, with all knowledge, or is knowledge 'infinite' ?

And, yeah; we were way more interested in the smokes, there 50 or 60 feet underground, (Star Trek maybe too 'clean cut').  The transporter thing maybe comes from obtaining 'infinite' knowledge, first.  I did hear that a good slippery Star Trek uniform helps, with the transport.
   That's from a noted YOGA Consultant (myself).  Ahem.

[MK14]

Just in case, someone from in the future, decides, maybe this idea has a tiny bit of merit, and free energy and/or perpetual motion machines, might be possible.  Then please consider watching, this approximately 5 minute long video about it:

[Nonlinearplasma]

Anyway. How about we try the Simple Simon approach to understanding gravity? We may even use an apple.

This first image shows how the inverse square law creates a potential difference on a compressible fluid such as water. It show how although A&B are equal and opposite, they are both positive values of potential energy from compression. It also shows that the potential energy loss is created by the head height or differential in distance away from Theta. With any hydro system this energy is turned into kinetic energy by creating an area of lower potential (air) and installing a turbine to exact the energy between the pressure differentials. This is well know as gravitational energy.



The bottom paragraph is to understand the potential difference between the top and bottom of a wave. The maximum potential energy peak is the lowest point of the wave, this is where compression is at its highest. This is important for understanding tidal effects caused by the solar winds interaction with our magnetosphere. The potential differences created in the upper atmosphere are enormous, because it is an area of low potential energy (density) the abilty for a wave to create potential difference creates massive increases in velocity. This can be seen as altitude increases to the jet stream and further where we find wind speed increases considerable. As could be seen in the previous NASA illustration of the Hadley and Ferrell cells.

It should be remembered that gravity has been confirmed as a wave, waves can only propagate by changing a quantity. Mass is a fixed quantity that can not change. Density is mass with in a fixed volume, volume happens to be a key component of the inverse square LAW. Lets stict to laws please, fusion was a theory, just like relativity was a theory.



Now lets get into the math of the inverse square LAW. The major point i have been trying to get across to you is the absence of the negative value to any central axis. However this hasnt worked so we are instead going to use the negative value, ignoring the fact the inverse square law is a volume calculation and negative measurements of distances are impossible. Oh well, i did try to tell you about being a mathimatical flat earther. So as shown in order to match reality the inverse square law for a 360° point source helical wave must become the square law as volume decreases. Even when using a negative value times by itself, 2 negatives becomes a positive when multipled thus making the arguemnet null and void anyway. Luckily all this has been measured by others and shown by me in previous images.

Incase it hasnt clicked yet, the theta axis is why all the field lines drawn on a flat peice of paper converge on the central axis. Its also called a Z-Pinch, if you want to understand magnetism then you have to include more than 1 perspective. Do not assume the arrows mean direction of propragation of the "field". They repersent the flight direction of a magnetic helical wave that generates a potential difference when rotated.

Next you will tell me the Earth doesnt rotate, and doesnt have a dipole with a quadrupole inside either end.

Hmm, Nice little helical potential difference generating magnetic wave. Powered by oh wait, fusion doesnt happen inside planets. Must be all that stored up perpetual motion you make fun of me with but arent switched on enough to see thats exactly what the current model is. "The Earth spins because its always spun, no were not saying its perpetual, it has just went on for a very long time, one day it will stop" - trust science.



This simple Newtonian explaination shows that the apples potential energy is stored in its density. It only wants to reduce the potential difference between itself and the water in the bucket. Once it starts to fall the resistance between the apple and the water is a 1000 times less that the 1/10th less potential energy the apple has in comparison to the water and 1000 times higher than the surrounding air. The lower of resistance between 2 potentially different densitys has been mistaken as a store of gained potential energy, which violates the inverse square law that gravity itself follows.

Magnetism is also wrongly attributed to a store of energy. In order to say the uniform rotation of atmoic structure is a store of energy is to say that every atom should be constantly losing energy and everything stops. But that is not reality. Because if it was, 2 magnets rotating against each other would cool down until they reached absolute zero, but they dont. Infact they can be pulled apart and still generate a stationary dipole field.

P.s i signed and dated the drawings. Good luck to the bot that can do that.

[Nonlinearplasma]

Although... the reverse also applies - if he did have the 'correct' interpretation, he might see us as not willing to be convinced and instead just rabbiting our existing misconceptions.

A major sign of intelligence is empathy. It comes from the ability to place yourself in others shoes. Thank you.

Lets see if you can apply that to this annoyingly complex scenario. You and I are standing facing each other, while walking sideways around a table juggling 2 balls. We are rotating our balls 1 rotation around their own axis for every turn around the central axis both balls are rotating between us, this takes 360° around the table to complete any 1 full revolution. This is us walking out the flight path of a equal and opposite double helical rotational motion. Also found in the hydrogen atom. This is where it gets slightly complicated, we are going to attach 8 ballons in the forward and rear facing poloidal directions. 2 red and 2 blue balloons in either dipole are formed by 2 rotating objects in motion around a common axis. Now to further add to the complexity each ballon is also rotating at the same speed as the balls rotate and in the same direction. This means we both view the north/south dipole as rotating clockwise or anticlockwise, this happens because all balloon surfaces are rotating in the same direction to any persperctive. Therefore making a quadrupole look like a dipole when only looking for a change in force perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Unfortunately there is further complexity to fully understand magnetism. You must realise that any opposite observer will always view the quadrupole colour as opposite to you. Im colour blind 2 you, where you see red i must see blue. When you finally get this you will understand why they say the north pole is really the south pole. There are 2 ways to look at it. From above or from below.

Now these magical balloons have one more thing to do, all 8 must be tied together along the z axis inbetween our rotating balls.

Now we are going to walk the 8 balloons and 2 balls while rotating them all and notice the change in force associated relevant to the spin direction of motion. We are going to notice the 2 red ballons combine to form a peak for you while i see 2 blue ballons and fell the opposite force. Then them ballons are going to switch and you see 2 blue in a line to me and i see 2 red. This is what produces the change measured by Maxwell.

The problem is... 1 pair of equal and opposite reactions have created 4 opposites, a negative and positive in 2 seperate plains that mathimatically arent the same but actually are every 90° of rotation.

Back to the experiment. Now im going to take my own set of 8 balls and 2 balls, and we are going to geo synchronise their rotation around the toroid. It just so happens the only way to do this is inside a spherical cage on motor bikes. Juggling. Or look at the 3 hydrogen atoms i posted earlier. As noted earlier the quadrupoles align in opposite to the one beside it. The fast they spin along the z axis, the more compressed our forward facing ballons get. This increase energy density in the forward dipoles. Dipoles create electrostatic force. Quadrupole create coulomb's force because of this compression of the forward lobe compared to the rear lobe. Electrostatic force isnt effected because each dipole is compressed the same.

All helical waves, including those of electricity, magnetisms, light and gravity can be described as 3 dimensional helical compression waves travelling though a compressible medium. This can be shown where large speakers create loops and nodes that can levitate a table tennis ball. The potential difference creates a trap similar to that produces by the paul trap.

[Nominal Animal]

I'm in a mood for this game right now, so I'll have a go this once.

This simple Newtonian explaination shows that the apples potential energy is stored in its density.

Nope.  A kilogram of lead has the exact same gravitational potential energy as a kilogram of feathers.  This has been experimentally proven.

Density is just a measure of the distribution of mass. For any object, its density is its mass divided by its volume, and has dimensions [mass]/[length]³.

It only wants to reduce the potential difference between itself and the water in the bucket.

Nope.  The potential energy of an apple in air, and the same apple in the same location but inside a bucket of water, is the same.  So is the density of the apple, too.  While this does require somewhat costly equipment (due to immersion in water instead of air!), it is not difficult to prove experimentally.

In order to say the uniform rotation of atmoic structure is a store of energy is to say that every atom should be constantly losing energy and everything stops.

No, the two are completely separate concepts.

Anything rotating is a store of energy.  In rotating systems, angular momentum is conserved, including in large weather systems like tropical cyclones.

Atoms do not rotate by themselves, electrons do not rotate around atomic nuclei.  Electrons do not form an atmosphere around atoms.  The terms "electron orbital" and "electron cloud" refers to the basic shape of the electron wave function, and have nothing to do with atmospheric phenomena.

It should be remembered that gravity has been confirmed as a wave, waves can only propagate by changing a quantity.

No.  Gravity is not a wave.

Gravitational waves refer to a phenomena where the spacetime itself contracts and expands like a wave on the surface of a pond.  This happens, when very heavy, very small objects accelerate or decelerate.  The ones we have thus far detected are from colliding neutron stars or similar or heavier stellar objects.

What it means, is that spacetime itself is something that can carry a wave, just like the surface of the water –– or more aptly, like sound waves in a medium like air.  It is not a static fixed coordinate system like Newtonian mechanics would imply: it is something much more malleable.  Albeit it takes a lot of energy to cause such effects.

Simply put, it is called "gravitational wave" because the cause is related to accelerating steep gravity wells; it is spacetime itself that carries the wave.

volume happens to be a key component of the inverse square LAW

No, it isn't.  Volume would actually correspond to a cubic or inverse cubic law, because we have three spatial dimensions.

That is, we measure volume using units of [length]³, not [length]².

a magnetic helical wave that generates a potential difference when rotated

No, that's just word salad you hoped was complex and wonderful enough to cover the lack of understanding.  I did something similar as a child, when I wanted to impress others.  Then I found out the universe was vaster and more complex than I could ever understand, and stopped doing that, because it occurred to me that actual observations and scientific experiments are more interesting than any fiction.  The fact that I do not understand everything is a given, and the starting point; any understanding gained is a win, and we find out most effectively if we apply the scientific method and cooperate – that includes no more fibbing and hiding behind jargon.

Magnetic fields have both strength and direction.  The direction, magnetic flux, has no start or end, and only form continuous loops.  (That is what ∇·B=0, Gauss's law for magnetism, means.)  In vacuum, the strength H is related to the flux via H = B/µ₀, where µ₀ is vacuum permeability.  Outside of vacuum, it depends on the magnetization and permeability.  Because of this, the flux cannot "cross" itself: the field strength would increase dramatically there, and something would need to cause it –– in pure vacuum, it cannot happen.

How would you describe the magnetic flux B in a "magnetic helical wave"?  Preferably mathematically, so that it can be reproduced and properly examined in all four dimensions –– remember, it's supposed to be a wave, not a static magnetic field.

I'll give you a hand.  "Magnetic helical waves" do not exist, because it would require infinitely twisted magnetic field, or magnetic monopoles.  Neither has ever been discovered in probably millions of practical experiments.  If you try to save that idea by using two oppositely twisted magnetical helical waves, you end up with intersecting field lines, which in turn means unphysically high field strengths.  If you invent a structure of helices that avoids intersections, you still have the problem of exactly what is causing the magnetic field; and that in the near-vacuum of space, there just isn't anything that could cause such.

Finally, "a helix that when rotated, generates a potential difference" is a non-starter.  By definition, an uniform helix has axial-rotational symmetry, such that both rotating it and moving it forwards or backwards by a suitable amount, the exact same shape repeats.  Thus, rotation is no different from propagation when helices are involved.  Besides, "when rotated", how?  By hand?  No, seriously.

It is most useful to concentrate on finding out how things happen.  This is the core of physics: modeling practical reality, so that phenomena can be described and results predicted to an useful degree.  Thinking up hugely complex mechanisms of why things happen, then covering the how part with mushy descriptions, can be fun, but is not useful physics.  It's just like in software: there are millions of people who have the best idea since sliced bread, and just need a typist-programmer to type it for them for a couple of hundred of dollars, to become millionaires!  But the darn programmers are so uppity and full of them that they refuse, probably just to keep their own salaries up.  No, the truth is that the idea is worth nearly nothing, because the implementation requires a lot of hard work.  Similarly, the soft mushy adjective-y descriptions as in post #843 describe an idea with no reliable, reproducible details on how.

We don't use math to describe the details because we are so uppity; we use it because it is the best language we have for such descriptions.  If you don't want to use math for these descriptions, you should ask yourself why.

[Nonlinearplasma]

That was poor, especially not recognising the propagating 3 dimensional wave expanding at an identical rate as surface expansion of a sphere relative to the distances from the center point. Its literally in every graphical display. Oh boy....

[RJSV]

Non-Linda-Narian:
  Ahh GOTCHA, and in first paragraph:
   "...consider water,  a COMPRESSIBLE fluid, ..."
NOooo.  Just saw that one busted, last night, watching Myth busters 2013 rerun; Test Dummy got massicured sitting between two giant water bags.
Comeon, let's debate this.
   "...the opto-resonant, are we to believe, the dual hyperhelical, leaving aside that water, orange juice, whatever is 'INDECOMPRESS-IABLE, then how do you answer the spin riddle ? Because you can't...gotcha

[RJSV]

Oh well, anyway, at least (OP) has remembered to do their 'proper paragraph breaks, as instructed, so we got that, going on.
   I'd be carefull, myself, when bringing a young BOT here, to graze on smartedness..  Could pick up on some bad, nasty (human) habits...like DISAPPEARING for one week.  Oh wait, that already, uh
   Can we go back to discussing 'stupid', please?

[Nominal Animal]

not recognising the propagating 3 dimensional wave expanding at an identical rate as surface expansion of a sphere relative to the distances from the center point.

That has nothing to do with volume, and everything to do with surface area.  It is surface area that grows as the square of distance: \$A(r) = 4 \pi r^2\$.  You have shown nothing that relates volume (which, for a sphere, would be \$\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3\$) to any inverse square law.

I may be poor, but I'm not too bad at physics, really.